Steps involved in making a modern diary forgery

[Tab]

Hi all,

This is my first post so forgive me if this has been hashed out before. I did look back but couldn't find any similar discussion.

I've seen the diary referred to as a "cheap hoax" by forgery/hoax proponents, and was wondering how easy it would actually be, starting from the assumption that the diary is a modern hoax, to create such a diary?

My thoughts are that it would be much easier to create such a document today than it would have been in the late eighties/early nineties, but I think it would still require quite a bit of effort.

1) Finding and researching a plausible suspect that no-one has heard of as yet and building a story and motive around that person and his/her life.
2) Finding an unused/mostly unused scrapbook, journal, photo album, notebook... from the late 19th century (or thereabouts).
3) Finding some ink that is consistent with ink used in the late 19th century, and doesn't contain any modern ingredient or contaminant.
4) Disguising your modern handwriting style (Not really sure about this one).
5) Not screwing up a really tiny detail somewhere when writing the whole thing that instantly gives the game away.

I would be really interested in any thoughts about each of these points. How easy or difficult each one might be, or if I have anything wrong?

Also has anyone ever attempted to replicate creating a diary like this from scratch? Just to see if it is actually possible?

Thanks
Tab

[MayBea]

Hello, Tab,
Welcome to the boards and thank you for this topic. It's certainly time we looked at the Modern Hoax theory which is held by 2/3rds of those who voted in the recent survey.

Here is the cooking recipe for iron gall ink from Il Manuale del Falsario, "The Faker's Handbook", by Eric Hebborn, according to the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...y-1317330.html

Leave 125g of finely powdered gall to soak for three days in two litres of rain water. Dissolve 50g of gum arabic and 50g of iron sulphate in a litre of rain water. Mix the two solutions together and leave the mixture to stand for a few days, stirring occasionally. Bring ink to the boil. Strain through fine muslin and bottle.

The above recipe does not provide for ion migration once the ink is put to paper. That, I believe, would require cooking the whole Diary once the writing is done. So lots of cooking. Lots of heat.

[Purkis]

1) Finding and researching a plausible suspect that no-one has heard of as yet and building a story and motive around that person and his/her life.

At a push I can just about believe a modern hoaxer may have come up with Maybrick as a subject. However a number of details in the Diary would just not have been available to a modern hoaxer.
I suspect it was written by someone within Maybrick's immediate circle.

[GUT]

At a push I can just about believe a modern hoaxer may have come up with Maybrick as a subject. However a number of details in the Diary would just not have been available to a modern hoaxer.
I suspect it was written by someone within Maybrick's immediate circle.

G'day Purkis.

I'm not sure how that makes sense, if we can confirm a detail in the diary then that material would also have been available to a modern hoaxer. If we can't confirm it then it could be pure invention.

[Purkis]

Hi Gut,

The details have been confirmed, but it took a team of researchers years, and thousands of pounds, and involved trips to the USA. So while the material was strictly speaking 'available', I find it hard to believe that a hoaxer would have gone to such lengths for what were seemingly innocuous references.

[Damaso Marte]

5) Not screwing up a really tiny detail somewhere when writing the whole thing that instantly gives the game away.

I can't speak for the details of Maybrick's life - I know nothing about Maybrick. But as far as the Ripper content, the author of the diary clearly stuck to the standard story of the Ripper killings as it was told in the 1980's and 1990's in popular books and documentaries. He chooses to fixate on the placement of rings near Chapman's body, he chooses to fixate on the supposed interruption of the Stride killing (hotly disputed today on Casebook, accepted as truth in most popular books), and most anachronistically of all he fixates on Abberline, as if the Ripper and Abberline were in a two man Holmes/Moriarty game, when in fact there were a bevy of police officials investigating the crime, Abberline was not the most senior or the most prominent in the press, and seeing Abberline as "the detective in charge of the Ripper case" is a product of modern pop culture.

The only limb the diary goes out on is claiming that the killer returned to the scene of the Chapman murder to make further mutilations to the body.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Gut,

The details have been confirmed, but it took a team of researchers years, and thousands of pounds, and involved trips to the USA. So while the material was strictly speaking 'available', I find it hard to believe that a hoaxer would have gone to such lengths for what were seemingly innocuous references.

Not if you're producing something that will itself sell for thousands of pounds.

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

The details have been confirmed, but it took a team of researchers years, and thousands of pounds, and involved trips to the USA. So while the material was strictly speaking 'available', I find it hard to believe that a hoaxer would have gone to such lengths for what were seemingly innocuous references.

Confirmed, largely by amateurs so why not researched br professionals?

[Purkis]

Not if you're producing something that will itself sell for thousands of pounds.

This argument depends on Mike Barrett having produced the Diary, which he was clearly incapable of doing.

[MayBea]

I believe artists used to be 500 years ahead of science and are still maybe 50 years ahead. Look at how the St. James Ossuary hoaxer duplicated a aged patina on his Jesus inscription.

That only required hot water and ground chalk and it a while for the hoax to be exposed.

But that doesn't mean you can easily count the Diary with the bone box. More people want to find a Jesus relic than want to find the Ripper Diary so automatic acceptance is much less for the Diary.

The popular opinion can therefore be wrong. It doesn't help when there are competing hoax theories.

Anyone want to nominate Chef Ramsey as the hoaxer?

[007]

I believe artists used to be 500 years ahead of science and are still maybe 50 years ahead. Look at how the St. James Ossuary hoaxer duplicated a aged patina on his Jesus inscription.

That only required hot water and ground chalk and it a while for the hoax to be exposed.

But that doesn't mean you can easily count the Diary with the bone box. More people want to find a Jesus relic than want to find the Ripper Diary so automatic acceptance is much less for the Diary.

The popular opinion can therefore be wrong. It doesn't help when there are competing hoax theories.

Anyone want to nominate Chef Ramsey as the hoaxer?

Using the St. James Ossuary as an example of a hoax may not be correct. The latest scholarship (2014) suggests authenticity.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=43671

edit: Added year of latest paper

[MayBea]

You're right, 007. The new science says it's genuine. The owner was acquitted of all forgery charges.

I might not have wasted 16 dollars to see it, after all.

It's funny, 007, but I found somewhere the patina referred to as a James Bond patina.

[007]

Very interesting! I've never heard of James Bond Patina. Considering that the ossuary was damaged in transport, I guess you could say the patina was shaken, not stirred!

[Damaso Marte]

He may not have been convicted, but he was caught with a workshop of half-finished religious artifacts and it is odd that one man should discover so many amazing things that have been lost for 2,000+ years

[GUT]

I believe artists used to be 500 years ahead of science and are still maybe 50 years ahead. Look at how the St. James Ossuary hoaxer duplicated a aged patina on his Jesus inscription.

That only required hot water and ground chalk and it a while for the hoax to be exposed.

But that doesn't mean you can easily count the Diary with the bone box. More people want to find a Jesus relic than want to find the Ripper Diary so automatic acceptance is much less for the Diary.

The popular opinion can therefore be wrong. It doesn't help when there are competing hoax theories.

Anyone want to nominate Chef Ramsey as the hoaxer?

Gordon Ramsey is hoaxer, he fools people into thinking he can cook.