Diary Forgery

[admin tim]

Although the topic of the Maybrick Diary has pretty well been beaten to death on the Casebook, there is still lots to say that hasn't been said. While others argue endlessly about Diamine, Chloroacetamide, and such, they seem to have largely ignored the mechanics of forgery. Just how would the diary have been forged, and who could have done it? Not just anyone could have executed a forgery that, while unconvincing to many, has still defied all attempts thus far since 1993 at discrediting it.

These questions were central to an old article that I wrote several years ago and which never saw publication. If there is sufficient interest, I will dig it out and break it up into bite-sized pieces here for discussion. So, my question to you is, do we start such a discussion here or do we let that sleeping dog lie?

Your voice counts, so please be heard!

[Sergeant Thick]

I think it would make for an interesting discussion to try to ascertain how, why and when the diary was written.

It is more than likely that the diary was written after 1987, so the the forger (or forgers) are probably still alive. They must have used very sophisticated forgery techniques to confuse the 'experts' for so long, and many of us would like to know exactly how they did it. Will the culprit(s) ever be named? I think it is doubtful, but after 14 years it would be nice to draw the diary saga to a close and prove beyond doubt that it is a fake.

[Chris G.]

I think it would make for an interesting discussion to try to ascertain how, why and when the diary was written.

It is more than likely that the diary was written after 1987, so the the forger (or forgers) are probably still alive. They must have used very sophisticated forgery techniques to confuse the 'experts' for so long, and many of us would like to know exactly how they did it. Will the culprit(s) ever be named? I think it is doubtful, but after 14 years it would be nice to draw the diary saga to a close and prove beyond doubt that it is a fake.

More likely to learn the name(s) of the hoaxer(s) than to find out who was Jack, I believe. . .

Chris

[Mr.Invisible]

Is there an option to 'praise' the forgers for fooling, and supposedly continuing to fool the investigators.

Just a thought

[How Brown]

Tim:

Drag them out,buddy....it would be good to see those old notes.

To me, someone with an expertise in the area of hoax/forgery exposing would be top on my list of possible candidates.

In addition,someone,not necessarily out or for financial gain,could have put this Diary together simply to be the one,one day,to provided a knock out blow to the Diary and become known for that deed,should it come.....Of course,that person may have died in the last few years....or sitting around enjoying him or theirselves.

A disdain for fellow Ripperologists perhaps? A practical joke that went too far ? Who knows...

Who would know how to put together a document such as this....and make it so it was not completely "perfect" or airtight....in order to generate discussion and interest in it?

[Maria Birchwood]

How and Tim:

I imagine it started a bit like the other worse written book in Ripperology, the fact mixed in with the fiction and they thought they would get away with it maybe as a joke, maybe like the UFO crop circles in Wiltshire but then...reputations had to be maintained and defended at all costs...specially when the lawsuits started.... and ended badly for the bad guys. The trick is who is dumb enough to be left holding the diary.... a bit like the musical chairs...who ever is left when the music stops....and dumb enough to have been left holding the baby...... :)

-Maria

PS. Trick question...who is the custodian of THAT baby... ?

[Maria Birchwood]

Well...let´s see then, The provenance. Is Very Shacky.
Before the so call meeting at the pub being the first mention of the diary, nothing in the previous century had surfaced before, so it doesn´t have a reliable sequence of known people in a chain who previously owned it, therefore, it doesn´t corroborate a credible provenance.

That´s for starters... no provenance.

-Maria

[Magpie]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that the whos, hows and whys might better be found in the other side of the Diary equation--i.e. the intent or purpose might have more to do with Maybrick than with Jack. Or perhaps some of the answers exist at the point where the two crimes brush against each other?

[Night Stalker]

Magpie, raises a very valid and unique idea. The diary/forgery could of been written more with the intent, to focus on Maybrick himself and the events leading to his death. Florence Maybrick is a legend in her own right, and it is interesting how both crimes rub shoulders.

NS -

[admin tim]

...have you gents seen this poll?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=49


See if the two choices near the bottom (next to last and the one before that) fill your bill. ;)

[Peter Wood]

Stop, look and listen. I'll try to make this as easy for you to understand as possible. There was no forgery. There was no conspiracy. The diary is genuine. Maybrick wrote it. He was Jack the Ripper. And any attempt to argue otherwise is pointless.

Well...let´s see then, The provenance. Is Very Shacky.
Before the so call meeting at the pub being the first mention of the diary, nothing in the previous century had surfaced before, so it doesn´t have a reliable sequence of known people in a chain who previously owned it, therefore, it doesn´t corroborate a credible provenance.

That´s for starters... no provenance.

Oh dear ... so the diary is a fake because it hadn't surfaced for a century? Pleeeeease! Would you be more convinced of the diary's credibility if it had been found by Paul Begg at a car boot sale? Or by Martin Fido in a bookstore? Or by How Brown in a cheeseburger? The fact is that when Maybrick hid his diary only days before he died, he had no idea how and when it would come to the public's attention. You can't say the diary is a fake just because it fell into Michael Barret's hands and not Paul Begg's.

Looks like I got here just in time How. Let's get the show on the road.

Peter

[How Brown]

Who put the "man" in Manchester? Thats right ! P.W. !!!!!!!

Welcome back, you sonofagun !!!!

I am taking care of that issue with the inaccessible Forum with Caz. Hopefully she can swing that today....unless Tim sees it first.

Thanks for coming back homes !

How

[Paul Butler]

Oh goodie. Diaryworld's been a bit quiet of late. So what's new?

Paul

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. Butler:

The tiger has been unleashed, so to speak. Hopefully he'll reappear on this thread today.

[Paul Butler]

Hi How. My breath is suitably baited.....and please don't bother with the Mr. Butler bit. It will give me delusions of grandeur.

Regards.

Paul

[Peter Wood]

Yo How

The site has changed almost beyond recognition since I last frequented it, but alas the 'competition' is just as lamentable. I don't see why I should post on a thread that labels the diary a forgery when, clearly, every piece of objective research that has been done on it indicates it to be genuine. Anyone who wants to bring their argument to the party is welome to, but let's give the debate a proper airing - not some little side bar where people bait their own breath ... how distasteful.

Oh goodie. Diaryworld's been a bit quiet of late. So what's new?

Well Paul, certainly NOT the diary because, if you've done your research (and at this stage I have no reason to suspect that you haven't) then you'll know that the ink is old, the paper is old and the composition of the diary (i.e. when pen was put to paper) is old too. Don't believe me? Read those two excellent bibles on the subject by Shirley Harrison and Paul H Feldman (RIP) and you'll find Rod McNeill's test results and Alec Voller's opinions on the diary ink. And please, if you want to debate this, let's not have the same old nonsense about diamine and the chloroacetastuff. Try to find something new.

Adios mon amigo.

Peter

P.S. Paul, nice avatar, do I take it we have a Dr Who afficionado amongst us?

[How Brown]

Woodrow:

By all means...please set up a pro-Maybrick thread or Forum whenever you wish....and you can run the show in that venue. There's no attempt to NOT promote Maybrick as a suspect....only an effort to discuss the diary without the usual diversions on this thread and I think its gone pretty well,moderated by Caz and with some pretty civil discussion.

But if you feel that there is a bias on how the Forums holds the Maybrick saga in esteem, you are mistaken mon ami. You and anyone else may run roughshod over the non-believers on a thread devoted entirely to the proposition that Maybrick WAS the Ripper and you have our word on it.

Heinze

[admin tim]

Hey, this ain't no anti-diary thread that says the thing was forged. It clearly asks, in my first post, how it may have been forged if indeed it is a fake. To whit:

While others argue endlessly about Diamine, Chloroacetamide, and such, they seem to have largely ignored the mechanics of forgery. Just how would the diary have been forged, and who could have done it? Not just anyone could have executed a forgery that, while unconvincing to many, has still defied all attempts thus far since 1993 at discrediting it.

The mechanics here interest me a good deal more, just as JTR's mechanics also interest me. Those who are interested should read about Mark Hoffman at http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/mormon_forgeries/index.html

[admin tim]

Now, to answer Dr. Wood's questions as to why anyone would forge the Maybrick diary, I refer you to

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/diary/index_1.html

This is an entry on crimelibrary.com titled "Diary of a Serial Killer" and is a fictitious diary by "Frank" (Dr. Francis Sweeney, undoubtedly), revealed therein to be the Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run, aka The Cleveland Torso Killer. This was written as an intellectual exercise, and incorporates the known facts of the case, entwined with fictional speculation and characterization. A fine effort it is too. Some interesting parallels:

The minute the last patient left, I pulled out my emergency bottle and poured myself a stiff one. All I could think about was revenge. What can I do to Mullens to fix that bastard permanently? A dozen crazy ideas came into my head, but I don't think any of them would really work.

I suppose I'll have to do something soon, before Mullens ruins my practice. I'd like to take that little bastard and strangle him with his own intestines.

This must be the moment whores have nightmares about. Those quiet, lonely men who appear so easy to manipulate but turn suddenly into violent, angry animals. I'm sure she fancied herself an expert on men. She had me pegged as the shy, polite type she could use over and over again, and discard at her whim. Now she knew she had made a terrible mistake in judgement.

How sweet is that moment of ultimate power. His soft white throat stretched out before my knife. The single deep, determined cut and his life becomes mine. One long deep incision and an ocean of ecstasy sweeps over me. I am transfigured.


Could such a parallel exercise explain the diary as we see it today? Your opinion counts.

[Paul Butler]

Yo How

The site has changed almost beyond recognition since I last frequented it, but alas the 'competition' is just as lamentable. I don't see why I should post on a thread that labels the diary a forgery when, clearly, every piece of objective research that has been done on it indicates it to be genuine. Anyone who wants to bring their argument to the party is welome to, but let's give the debate a proper airing - not some little side bar where people bait their own breath ... how distasteful.



Well Paul, certainly NOT the diary because, if you've done your research (and at this stage I have no reason to suspect that you haven't) then you'll know that the ink is old, the paper is old and the composition of the diary (i.e. when pen was put to paper) is old too. Don't believe me? Read those two excellent bibles on the subject by Shirley Harrison and Paul H Feldman (RIP) and you'll find Rod McNeill's test results and Alec Voller's opinions on the diary ink. And please, if you want to debate this, let's not have the same old nonsense about diamine and the chloroacetastuff. Try to find something new.

Adios mon amigo.

Peter

P.S. Paul, nice avatar, do I take it we have a Dr Who afficionado amongst us?


Hi Peter.

Yes I've done my research, and have been following the diary debate, (if that's what you call it!), since the early days.

Is the diary old? Well if by old we mean pre 1988, then the answer has got to be yes.

Did the Barrets or someone known to the Barretts fake it? Not a chance.

Is it written in Diamine, and is there chloroacetamide present in the ink? Nope.

Was it written by James? Probably not.

was James Jack? Probably not.

That's where I stand at the moment in a nutshell.

What about the watch? The evidence that the Maybrick scratches are old is very compelling, and to me more intriguing than the diary.

You'll find the diary discussion to be a little more sane on the forum than it has been elsewhere, so if you fancy a bit of Maybrick discussion, then bring it on! Whether he was jack or no, he's got to be the most colourful of all the characters on the suspect list bar none.

Yes. I'm a lifelong Who fan, but definitely not a scarf wearing saddo that enters "guess the Sarah Jane scream" competitions at conventions. (Even if I was I wouldn't admit it.)

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Peter.

. . . Yes. I'm a lifelong Who fan, but definitely not a scarf wearing saddo that enters "guess the Sarah Jane scream" competitions at conventions. (Even if I was I wouldn't admit it.)

regards.

Paul

Hi Peter and Paul

Nice to see you back here, Peter. Paul, I know about your avatar and associated it with Doctor Who, although your last para above had me thinking of Peter Townshend's group. . . "Hope I die before I get old!!!" :clap:

Chris

[Peter Wood]

Could such a parallel exercise explain the diary as we see it today? Your opinion counts. No, it couldn't.

Christopher T G! How the hell are you? I still have the excellent programme and cd you sent me from your JTR musical.

Well now Paul, here's the deal. Even the most ardent critic of the diary has, at one time or another, had to admit that it is either a modern forgery (post 1988) or it has to be genuine, because there is evidence within the diary that was not in the public domain until after 1988. I have to take my hat off to you for recognising that Barrett didn't forge the diary, which to my mind takes the whole debate about Crashaw out of the equation. I have always maintained that if the diary is a forgery then Anne Barrett is lying and you only have to break Anne to win the argument. Nobody has managed to do that. Anne (and her father Billy) gave the diary a provenance. Michael didn't write it. The diary has to be genuine.

Anyway peeps, I'm off to take a look at the thread my good old friend HowBrow has made for me.

Peter

[Paul Butler]

Well Peter.

I'm going to be a bit boring and say that I agree completely about much of what you say!

There's not a word in the diary that couldn't have been written at any time between 1888 and the present day. Even the tin matchbox which you indirectly refer to, would almost certainly have been mentioned in the now lost Police files, so using that as some sort of proof of a post 1987 date is, to my mind, rather feeble.

Anne Barrett's revelations were obtained by Feldman under a good deal of duress, and in my view could easily have been well intentioned lies to get him off the Barrett family's backs. She dug herself in too deep and I doubt she will ever change her story now unless she is forced to.

I take it you know that Keith Skinner now says he has evidence to show that the diary actually did come from Battlecrease after all? If that is the case, then Anne may well be under some pressure to come clean, unless somehow her Dad really did get it back in the 40s after it had been found in the house.

I would really love it if the diary turned out to be the real deal. Maybrick would make a fantastic JTR. He's far and away the most colourful of all the named suspects in the case.

Sadly though, James didn't write it. It's not in anything like the surviving examples of his handwriting, much as I'd like it to be so.

Hi Chris.

I once went to a Doctor Who convention as one was being held locally. I've never been to anything more embarrassing in my life. It really was a bit sad!

My avatar is William Hartnell as the original Doctor back in 1963. The first ever episode being broadcast the day Kennedy was assassinated. I have to admit to remembering that episode, but only just!!!

Regards to all.

Paul

[How Brown]

Peter:

I was going to ask you whether or not you were still in touch with Shirley.

If so, and you were willing, by all means ask her to check out a few of the threads here...or even, slurp, participate.

Sorry to divert. Back to the thread....

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Modern hoax theorists generally believe that whoever composed the diary text copied the empty matchbox detail directly from the list on page 69 of Martin Fido's book. One of the problems I have with this as a hoaxer's ripper source is that they only had to read on to page 93 to discover exactly where Mary's breasts were found (one under her head, t'other by her right foot). So there would have been absolutely no need to have 'Sir Jim' scouring the latest newspaper reports and recording that he'd put both breasts on the table, then remembering several pages further on that he had thought of leaving them by the whore's feet.

I find it very hard to accept that this afterthought was a purely coincidental, throwaway line for the sake of a rhyme, by a hoaxer not in possession of the true facts. And yet, if their inspiration did come from the breasty dumpling facts on page 93, there is no similarity whatsoever between this and the way the tin match box empty was supposedly lifted straight from page 69 and dumped unceremoniously into the diary. I wouldn't have a problem with 'Sir Jim' including additional details he could have got from his newspapers, even in the form of a list. Trouble is, nobody has come across the damned matchbox in any of 'em.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho people

SamF brought up a fairly reasonable point that I, at least, had neither heard before nor thought of and that was that Florrie and and her beau did not actually rent a room together until Nov 1888. This being based on a book about Florrie which I do not have.

If true, his point that this fling of Florries could hardly have been the impetus for the C5 (as it happened too late).

Does anyone know if the diary specifically (I do not have the text too hand) uses their having stayed together as an "excuse" for the C5?

Or what?

But it was an interesting point from SamF.

p

[Paul Butler]

Hi ho Mr P.

There is a diary entry supposedly from very early in 1889 as follows:

"The bitch, the whore is not sastisfied with one whoremaster, she now has eyes on another."

"Another" is clearly Brierly, so Sir Jim is clearly aware of at least one of Florries previous affairs.

In the Christie papers in Wyoming there is a letter from Florence Auspaugh who stayed with the Maybricks as a child:

"....that her amorous feelings for both Edwin Maybrick and Williams was waning, but was very much increasing for him,(Brierly)"

When Michael searched the house at the time of Maybrick's death, he and two policemen found, (aside from huge quantities of arsenic!), 13 love letters from Edwin, seven from Brierly, and five from a man called Williams.

Whoever wrote the diary most certainly got his facts right in referring to two "Whoremasters".

She had been carrying on with other men long before Brierly.

Regards.

Paul

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho Paul B.

I appreciate that....but when did her whoring start or at what earliest point did james know?

If it wasnt til after Nov 1888 its a bit hard to use it as a reason for the C5?

I appreciate James may have known about affiars or that brierley may have been on the scene earlier........but SamF's contention seemed to imply, I could be wrong, that the diary used her stay with Brierley as a reason?

p

[Paul Butler]

Hi ho Mr P.

There's no specific reference to Alfred and Florrie's dirty weekend at Flatman's in the diary, so I don't know where that idea comes from. That wasn't til 1889 in any case.

Sir Jim is angered at seeing Florrie and her "whoremaster" in Whitechapel, Liverpool in around March 1888, but we aren't told who that was.

Brierly, when confronted with the question about his affair with Florrie after the sh** had hit the fan big time, would obviously be trying to play the whole thing down as much as possible, so I don't see how reliable evidence as to the date of the start of their affair could ever be established. There is some evidence though, that they first met in 1887.

What is quite clear however, is that one affair seems to have dissolved into another, and that she was carrying on with one whoremaster or another long before late 1888 when her relationship with Brierly seems to have stepped up a gear.

I honestly can't see the diary making any faux pas here.

Regards.

Paul B.

[Caroline Morris]

Agreed on every count, Paul.

'Sir Jim' is quite specific in early 1888 about his certainty that Florie has arranged to meet up with a male companion in Whitechapel, in the city of Liverpool. It's only the arrangement he is certain about, not the deed, and he never implies that he has any hard evidence of just how intimate Florie got with any of her male admirers.

Apart from that one reference, it's mainly generalities about her whoring ways and his suspicions. And Alfred Brierley gave a hoaxer their Whitechapel Liverpool opportunity on a plate by admitting to a reporter that he had met Florie once or twice in the city during 1888 (ie before the November, when a closer relationship between them first started to be noticed). If Alfred met her there on occasion, so could any other man she knew.

I don't know why any man of the world would not get this one. We know Florie ended up in bed with a man who wasn't her husband in March 1889. We know that Jim felt deeply humiliated at the Grand National and whacked her afterwards for making a public fool of him. So his instincts would not have been too far off, if he had believed her capable of adultery, and suspected her of it, long before she made plans to go all the way with Alfred.

But men all over the world have suspected their wives of being unfaithful - even been certain of it - on the flimsiest of evidence, since time began, and many have killed because of it. Othello was not a far-fetched piece of imaginative writing. Just a word or a glance can send a possessive or deeply insecure husband into a frenzy of doubt and accusation, never mind if he sees a letter arriving for his wife which she fails to explain.

There is also the fact that James was a womaniser who had bowled his maiden over in no time on that sea voyage. He would have known only too well how many men would be taking one look at his young wife and fancying a bit of what he had succeeded in getting. In his mind, men were as randy and determined as he was, and if Florie fell so quickly for him, why would she not fall as quickly for any handsome young man who paid her as much attention?

Add to all this the fact that Florie insisted on separate bedrooms when she found out about Jim's mistress and their offspring, and you have a recipe for accusation, suspicion and counter-accusation.

But what you most certainly can't do is try to put any sort of time limit on Jim's earliest possible suspicions or Florie's earliest possible roving eye. For all we know another man could have winked at her on the occasion of their first meeting, she could have smiled back, and Jim could have convinced himself that they were arranging to meet up in the b******'s cabin later for a quick one.

I've heard of stranger things happening. Hell, I've lived stranger things. :eek: And it's the least amusing thing in the whole world when the man you love when sober has pumped himself full of alcohol - the perfect fuel for suspicious minds.

God knows what a diet of arsenic and strychnine might do to a man who overhears his wife arranging to meet a man in town. We know that much could have applied to James on at least two occasions in 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[How Brown]

Intriguing post Caz...and yours too,Paul.

The age discrepancy between Sir Jim and his wife sure wouldn't "help" matters if he was suspicious.

Nothing like drugs to make a fellow paranoid either.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi How,

A match made in hell I reckon.

And I am talking from extensive personal (and past - touch wood) experience*.

Love,

Caz
X

*Experience of what love and alcohol can do to a gentle man born, I meant. Not the other kind. :) :bolt:

[Stephen Leece]

Apologies for dumping a long and disjointed post on you. Here is my understanding of the diary situation now. I have broken it up into three parts partly because these musings were originally written in response to three questions sent to me a few months ago. I would appreciate any corrections or comments.

1.The initial tests dated the diary to 1921 (+/- 12 years). The Sunday Times (headed by Rupert Murdoch foolishly paid a small fortune for the Hitler Diaries rights in 1983) announced that the Maybrick Diary must therefore be a hoax, because of the discrepancy bettwen the 1888-89 date and 1921.
Unfortunately the Sunday Times and Rupert Murdoch had a vested interest in debunking the diaries- they have had their fingers burnt before in 1983.
What the general public are not aware of is how scientists operate and their reports should read. The Sunday Times and many British and US media outlets interpreted this 1921 date as a sign of a hoax- the diary was then reported to have been proved as a hoax.
That is not the view to adopt. Rather the view should be, it has not been validated as genuine. There is a subtle difference. What was also not widely reported was Turgoose's qualification- long term weather conditions may have skewed the results. In other words Turgoose was saying current data dates this document to around 1921 but it could be older.
Now the only Ripper writers to take the diary seriously are Colin Wilson (based on the 1921 date and internal evidence within the diary) and Paul Feldman (based on the same and his subsequent researches). I'll leave Shirley Harrison to one side because she was commissioned to do the initial background checks and 'authentification' before this controversy arose. The diary has subsequently been endorsed by Professor David Canter (Criminal Psychology at Liverpool Uni) and I believe Michael Burleigh (Prof. Modern History at Cardiff Uni). The only people who have a problem with the alleged Maybrick diary are those that favour other suspects. Their behaviour towards it is unacademic at best. Martin Fido (Professor of Literature i.e. no historian, no scientist) says it should not even be considered in the field of Ripperology. Stewart Evans (ex-Policeman), only a matter of weeks ago, said privately he would answer any questions about the Ripper, so long as they did "not begin with 'd' and end with 'y.'" That is intellectual bankruptcy in my opinion. They should be able to defend their suspects against any attack including this diary.
The diary certainly has a dubious provenance. But just as it has not 'passed' a test that gives an 1888-89 date, neither has it failed it. If the date determined by science came up with 1987 or after, odds on it's a hoax. Paul Begg (in JtR: the Facts) hints its an old forgery. But cannot say where a forger could get such a wealth of information relating both to the Ripper and the Maybrick household from.
In short, it has not been proved a forgery, just as it has not been proved genuine adequately.

2.There's no point in conducting new tests on it. They simply damage the document even more, and it will still come up with the 1921 date with the "'long-term weather conditions' may have skewed the result" caveat. Unless a test can be devised that conclusively proves or disproves the diary 'Ripperologists' will ignore it- but like I said before, no scientist can prove or disprove it, all they can do is date it. A fact that is lost on most self-appointed experts. That Sunday Times article screaming 'Hoax' in October 1993 has a lot to answer for.

3.The diary is old, the ink is old. But the handwriting doesn't look like anything, be it the Dear Boss letter, the alleged will and other surviving samples of James' handwriting. The handwriting of the surviving Maybrick business letters also bears no resemblance to the will. So the anti-diarists must now ask themselves 'Who is right then- us or us?' You can't use the will and business letters against the diary because they don't even match each other. The anti-diarists present it as two-pronged attack. In reality that's a false argument. If you use the business letters against the diary, you must concede the will is questionble. If you use the will against the diary you must concede the business letters are questionable.

Is this a fair assessment of the diary situation?

Regards,

Stephen

[Stephen Leece]

Sorry I confused Turgoose for Rendell.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Posters

Its a crying shame we do not know the significance level which the 12 years represents................

At any rate....1921 is a long way from 1970.

As to Turgooses-Rendells-The Guy Who Did The Test and their qualifications/caveats...does that not work both ways and the diary could be newer than suggested?

The only people who have a problem with the alleged Maybrick diary are those that favour other suspects.

Im not sure about that. There are some people who post occassionally who do not seem to tout any one suspect and are not at all positive as to the diary.

There's no point in conducting new tests on it.

Hang on a sec'.....you just wrote above that:

That is intellectual bankruptcy in my opinion.

Well in my book.....not gaining information at small sacrifice to the physical integrity of the document is intellectual bankruptcy and akin to GreyHunter not discussing any word beginning with d and ending with Y.

Im sorry.....but it is. If people are so sure the thing is old....then whats to fear?

Unless a test can be devised that conclusively proves or disproves the diary 'Ripperologists' will ignore it

perhaps. But thats not how it works. Breast cancer doesnt come with one diagnostic. People have one, its positive, they deny it to themselves. They have more and more and perhaps keep denying but eventually the evidence is such that they cannot or if they do...they are retarded.

No one test is conclusive and never will be. Its the convergence that matters. Even if 1 out of 10 is contradictory (all tests are "wrong" 5% of the time just going by the laws of the universe and not minding anything else).

Therefore...its important to proceed with the accepted scientific method and pursue convergence. Not doing that and then criticising "science" for not proving one thing or the other is ridiculous. Although both camps indulge in it now and then.

At any rate...what is unacceptable is that the pool has been soured so much and I know (from converstaion before anyone starts insistently bleating about "hav eyou seen it" that one university/lab has turned down the thing based on what it perceives to be the controversy around it, generated in the main by the loudest mouths in both camps).

but like I said before, no scientist can prove or disprove it, all they can do is date it. A fact that is lost on most self-appointed experts.

That..I could argue...is incorrect on many levels. What they cannot do is date it.

Is this a fair assessment of the diary situation?

Not wanting to be picky.....but I think you have some mistakes in it. NOthing that isnt to be found elsewhere...but mistakes nonetheless.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

I was reading the first post of Howards on this thread and will comment if I can.

Of all the periods from which a forger could choose to pick, the Victorian is probably the easiest. A few reasons why:

1. There are still genuine materials available (papyrus for example is hard come by) for cheap

2. It is outside one major dating technique (carbon) in range

3. There is plenty of documentation on Victorian inks etc.

4. No problems (or shouldnt be) with language, style, etc.

5. telling the difference between 20 and 100 years from a dating perspective is a lot harder than telling the difference between 20 and 500.

6. Iron gall ink is essentially the same now as it was then except for a component or two in some cases apparently.

Where I do think he made life difficult for himself:

1. Why write a book when a page would do and leaves less for testing?

2. Why go to all his trouble and then lop out the pages at the start instead of waiting til a better blank book came up?

3. Why include mountains of detail any bit of which could be disproved? There is no way the forger considered himself the world expert on Maybrick and as everyone knows, any source book he picks could be inaccurate.

and so on.

BUt the mechanics of actually physically forging a Victorian diary are hardly that difficult.

What is difficult is of course he was forging his diary twenty years ago and therefore had to be sure he could pass the tests and technology of the late 80's.

he could never plan or theorise as to what would be available in the end of 2010 for example and it is therein that he is most likely to be caught out?

Because whats available now is nowhere near what was available then.

And its often free. As is water. Unless you shout abuse at the people offering the glass. Then you will find its either not offered at all or costs a damn site more.

p

[Paul Butler]

Morning Chaps, and welcome Stephen.

I think the Hitler diaries factor in all of this should never be underestimated. It does seem to have had a direct influence on the way the Rendell report came out, and let’s face it, it was a much safer bet at that time for Rendell to declare it a fake than to stick his neck out and say otherwise.

He changed his mind quite inexplicably from one minute to the next, and seems to have been unduly influenced by being told that 1921 was clearly an impossible date. (I still can’t understand why 1921 is so impossible, but that’s another thing entirely).

Rendell’s view that it was a fake seems to be based more on the handwriting not resembling the will, which it doesn’t, not looking Victorian, which it does, and a strange and rather spurious statement that Maybrick wouldn’t have written it in a scrapbook, which is a ridiculous thing to say. It’s a guard book anyway, not a scrapbook.

Rendell’s team gave us a date range of 1921 plus or minus a dozen years, later revised to be as late as maybe 1970 due to storage conditions, and which by extension I suppose you could also go back to 1889 for the same reason.

What I’m getting at is that I don’t think science had very much at all to do with the verdict of Rendell and his team. His own scientist, McNeil actually said it was his strong opinion that the diary was not modern based on his own testing, and yet Rendell chose to ignore it based on what seems more like a gut feeling.

What we need in the cold light of day in 2008 now that some of the initial dust has settled is unbiased and independent testing, and there I agree with you Mr.P. It was looking quite promising in that department when you and Robert Smith were posting here a while ago. What Happened?

Regards to all.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

If you use the business letters against the diary, you must concede the will is questionble. If you use the will against the diary you must concede the business letters are questionable.



Hi Stephen,

A good and thoughtful summary, if I may say so, and I think Mr Poster has also done a great job 'tweaking' the bits that needed it.

Your point about the handwriting highlights for me one of the fundamental problems I have with many of the arguments routinely dragged out to condemn the diary's creator as a dimwit: the logic is flawed but few 'anti-diarists' will ever speak up and say so, or admit it when challenged. Why do they need to hold onto every flawed argument, when they only need one good one, supported by a single piece of irrefutable evidence, to kill the thing stone dead?

Either a modern hoaxer would have done bags of research or they would have left things to luck. If someone did all the research they could have done, in the late 1980s (managing not to leave a trace of their real identity in the process, for subsequent researchers to find, at Kew for instance), and found the will differed from the business letters, they evidently decided it might be safe, or safer, not to imitate either. They took a risk, but a calculated risk.

But if they didn't even bother looking for anything written by the real James, Shirley could have found dozens of handwritten documents, all identical and unmistakable in style, and the diary would not have been publishable. But at least the hoaxer's time and trouble would have been considerably less.

I'm seriously thinking of picking out the diary myths and rubbish arguments as they come along in future and stamping each one ***DIARY MYTH/RUBBISH ARGUMENT ALERT*** and then having a contest to see who can say why it's a myth, or spot why an argument is rubbish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho

which by extension I suppose you could also go back to 1889 for the same reason.

Im not sure it can..........


I have to think about that. The only way I could see that is an environment where it was hot and very dry or something and even then I am not sure.

Thats going to keep me up tonight......

p

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

We were posting at the same time there. :wave:

What really bugged me about Rendell was when he wrote to Shirley at a much later date and shrugged everything off with some comment along the lines of: "Well the chap who forged it confessed, didn't he?" as if that wrapped the whole thing up in brown paper and string as far as he was concerned!

Never mind what the implications of Mike Barrett creating the thing after 1987 had on every one of his team's scientific findings. Incredibly, a known liar only had to say he did it and all the experts you could get to line up and examine the diary can go screw themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Of all the periods from which a forger could choose to pick, the Victorian is probably the easiest...



Hi Mr P,

The Victorian period is a given, of course, if your aim is to write Jack's diary.

Your six points for this period being easier for a forger all depend very much on who the forger is and how much they think they know about the period, and how much they think they will need to find out, before investing too much time or money on materials and the composition itself. The easier the job they think they are giving themselves, the more careful they have to be about assuming anything.

For example, would either of the Barretts consider themselves capable of writing in the language or style of an average Victorian businessman, and including nothing that could not have been written by anyone back in the late 1880s?

If they found out about plain iron gall ink being the safest type to use, and impossible to date (by the time they could reasonably expect their work to be examined by experts), would they have popped into a city art shop and bought instead an off-the-shelf modern ink, not expecting it to be identified beyond doubt in the first lab to test it?

And so on.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

hi ho



Im not sure it can..........


I have to think about that. The only way I could see that is an environment where it was hot and very dry or something and even then I am not sure.

Thats going to keep me up tonight......

p

Hi ho Mr P.

I don't want to be the cause of insomnia I really don't, but just for the sake of the argument for a moment......

Let's assume the diary is the real deal. James wrote it, and in early 1889 he stuck it inside a handy Huntley and Palmer's biscuit tin and left it under the floorboards at Battlecrease. There it sat in its own little sealed microclimate throughout the worst years of Liverpool's industrial pollution until it was discovered in the second half of the twentieth century.

Such a scenario would easily account for the diary's "fresh" appearance, but would it also be likely to give a false date in any scientific analysis? By false, I obviously mean could it give us the impression that it was newer than it really was?

Regards.

Paul

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho Caroline M

That is a fair point. Plus of course its all very easy getting twenty recipes for ink for example today....but without the magical internet back then it must have involved some serious mooching in the library.

And even then.....I just do not see our Michael getting it together enough to spend that much time doing anything.

An experienced art historian/forger/manuscript hobbyist/antiquarian might however?

I do not care what anyone says.......the writing of a diary as opposed to a one page confession or whatever hints at some kind of either confidence or a fools belief in their own abilities.

There is of course no reason to assume they said to themsleves lets pick Maybrick as a possible candidate.....they may have been studying maybrick and then decided to make something of him.


Just out of interest...in the years preceding the diary, were any books on Maybrick published....local history publications?.....projects/extended essays/theses produced in some local university that may have dealt with maybrick either as a main topic or tangentially?

I could well see a student or someone who had done some Maybrick research as part of a thesis or whatever deciding to put the information to good use and turn him into Jack.T.Ripper.

of the two starnds of knowledge, which does the author display more knowledge of:

Ripper stuff or Maybrick stuff?


Which would have been easier to obtain?

Does he make more mistakes in one or other aspect or do the two aspects display knowledge that would have taken disporportionate numbers of reference books (ie. 10 Maybrick books vs. 1 Ripper or vice versa)

Is the author a Maybrick buff making him out to be the Ripper?

Or a Ripper buff picking Maybrick as a patsy?

Just musing...........

p

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul,

We were posting at the same time there. :wave:

What really bugged me about Rendell was when he wrote to Shirley at a much later date and shrugged everything off with some comment along the lines of: "Well the chap who forged it confessed, didn't he?" as if that wrapped the whole thing up in brown paper and string as far as he was concerned!

Never mind what the implications of Mike Barrett creating the thing after 1987 had on every one of his team's scientific findings. Incredibly, a known liar only had to say he did it and all the experts you could get to line up and examine the diary can go screw themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

Morning Caz. We were.

Yes, the surprise of logging in this morning and finding a couple of intelligent and thoughtful posts on a diary thread set us both off I think.

You're spot on about Rendell. His comments after Barrett's bogus confession say it all. His credibility evaporated at that point as far as I'm concerened.

I get the distinct impression that he was pleased to get out of the controversy which was beginning to make him look like an indecisive fool. A controversy that he had himself been instrumental in creating.

He has a lot to answer for I think.

Regards.

Paul

[Stephen Leece]

Re. Mr. P's thoughts on how a modern forger could be inspired to compose the document.
To my knowledge the only serious work on the Maybrick case prior to the discovery of the Diary was Trevor Christie's work. There was however, the Murder Casebook partwork series published in the UK between 1989 and 1992 issue 41 covered the Maybrick case, and was basically a watered down version of Christie's book (complete with Christie's errors), issue 107 dealt with the Charles Bravo case (notable for being a virtual parallel of the Maybrick case and featuring Sir. William Gull in a starring role which is interesting and to my mind arguably could bolster credibility for the diary as well as diminish it) and there was a Summer special on jolly Jack in 1991. I believe Paul Begg was responsible for writing that issue.
Trying to merge the Maybrick case and the Ripper case seamlessly seems like too much hard work for a modern forger (to say nothing of the inherent potential scientific problems) for no gain.
Konrad kujau, who was responsible for the Hitler Diaries, made money from them, and after his release from prison continued a healthy living as a producer of copies of old master's works.
Mark Hoffmann made huge sums of money from his Mormon forgeries before he erm 'blew' it all away- and his motive was to discredit Mormonism- he happened to make a lot of money off the back of it. I'm just not seeing anyone benefit from this diary by financial means, career, reputation etc.

Regards

Stephen
(oh thanks for tweaks by the way Mr. P)

[robingoodfellow]

To my knowledge the only serious work on the Maybrick case prior to the discovery of the Diary was Trevor Christie's work.

There was however, the Murder Casebook partwork series published in the UK between 1989 and 1992 issue 41 covered the Maybrick case, and was basically a watered down version of Christie's book (complete with Christie's errors), issue 107 dealt with the Charles Bravo case (notable for being a virtual parallel of the Maybrick case and featuring Sir. William Gull in a starring role which is interesting and to my mind arguably could bolster credibility for the diary as well as diminish it) and there was a Summer special on jolly Jack in 1991.

I'm just not seeing anyone benefit from this diary by financial means, career, reputation etc.

Regards

Stephen
(oh thanks for tweaks by the way Mr. P)

You mean there was some research on Maybrick prior to the diary emerging? Thats really interesting actually and sounds like another book I'll have to get hold of it its still available somewhere.

Robin, Bath

[Paul Butler]

Hi Robin. Good to see you here. The diary threads are buzzing today!

Try:

"Etched in Arsenic" by Christie, and "This friendless lady" by Morland.

Christie can be got cheap on Amazon, and Morland crops up on ebay occasionally.

Regards.

Paul

[Paul Butler]

..........and while I'm at it, (also hoping to spare our super moderator's blushes), "Ripper diary" by Morris, Skinner and Linder is pretty much essential reading too.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

Agreed on every count, Paul.

'Sir Jim' is quite specific in early 1888 about his certainty that Florie has arranged to meet up with a male companion in Whitechapel, in the city of Liverpool. It's only the arrangement he is certain about, not the deed, and he never implies that he has any hard evidence of just how intimate Florie got with any of her male admirers.

Apart from that one reference, it's mainly generalities about her whoring ways and his suspicions. And Alfred Brierley gave a hoaxer their Whitechapel Liverpool opportunity on a plate by admitting to a reporter that he had met Florie once or twice in the city during 1888 (ie before the November, when a closer relationship between them first started to be noticed). If Alfred met her there on occasion, so could any other man she knew.

I don't know why any man of the world would not get this one. We know Florie ended up in bed with a man who wasn't her husband in March 1889. We know that Jim felt deeply humiliated at the Grand National and whacked her afterwards for making a public fool of him. So his instincts would not have been too far off, if he had believed her capable of adultery, and suspected her of it, long before she made plans to go all the way with Alfred.

But men all over the world have suspected their wives of being unfaithful - even been certain of it - on the flimsiest of evidence, since time began, and many have killed because of it. Othello was not a far-fetched piece of imaginative writing. Just a word or a glance can send a possessive or deeply insecure husband into a frenzy of doubt and accusation, never mind if he sees a letter arriving for his wife which she fails to explain.

There is also the fact that James was a womaniser who had bowled his maiden over in no time on that sea voyage. He would have known only too well how many men would be taking one look at his young wife and fancying a bit of what he had succeeded in getting. In his mind, men were as randy and determined as he was, and if Florie fell so quickly for him, why would she not fall as quickly for any handsome young man who paid her as much attention?

Add to all this the fact that Florie insisted on separate bedrooms when she found out about Jim's mistress and their offspring, and you have a recipe for accusation, suspicion and counter-accusation.

But what you most certainly can't do is try to put any sort of time limit on Jim's earliest possible suspicions or Florie's earliest possible roving eye. For all we know another man could have winked at her on the occasion of their first meeting, she could have smiled back, and Jim could have convinced himself that they were arranging to meet up in the b******'s cabin later for a quick one.

I've heard of stranger things happening. Hell, I've lived stranger things. :eek: And it's the least amusing thing in the whole world when the man you love when sober has pumped himself full of alcohol - the perfect fuel for suspicious minds.

God knows what a diet of arsenic and strychnine might do to a man who overhears his wife arranging to meet a man in town. We know that much could have applied to James on at least two occasions in 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, see all the stuff about psychopathy I've just posted on here, especially the criteria for psychopathy set by Cleckley (1941) and Hare (1948). Then lets look at Maybrick's childhood:

1. Maybrick's parents have a child who dies
2. Maybrick's brother becomes famous
3. Isn't Maybrick described as being usually gentle but with a ferocious temper? Both are characteristic of psychopaths
4. Substance abuse

Taking point 1. no-one can tell me that two parents who lose a child will just suddenly forget about it and move on. They will mourn the child and perhaps forever long for that child to somehow return in some way. This can easily be picked up by successive children and be interpreted as 'they don't really want me', and the point here is that some have pointed out that such feelings in a child, with reference to Bowlby's 'Attachment' theory, can produce the first signs of 'child psychopathy' as early as the age of nine months.

If you then add in Maybrick's possible resentment towards his brother, possible or probably jealousy and anger towards Florrie's infidelity, and an addiction to arsenic, what do you get?

Even without the diary, it is clear to see that Maybrick's personality could potentially have turned him into someone who was easily VERY CAPABLE of being a psychopathic killer given the right circumstances.

I think this aspect of the issue, to my mind, has been ignored by the anti-diarists who have just reflected on the diary itself, rather than looking at Maybrick and his potential for developing psychopathy.

But there again of course, I may be wrong, these points may have been raised before.

[robingoodfellow]

..........and while I'm at it, (also hoping to spare our super moderator's blushes), "Ripper diary" by Morris, Skinner and Linder is pretty much essential reading too.

Paul

Great Paul, cheers for that. I've scribbled those titles down.

Robin

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Robin,

I posted a response to you on another thread before reading the latest posts on this one. Gosh, this is going to keep me busy. :)

The dead infant question is hard to address because we just don't know enough about the childhood of the brothers Maybrick.

Infant mortality affected all classes, and most surviving children in medium to large families must have learned sooner or later of one or more who didn't make it. I think a factor that could have made things significantly worse for a sensitive child would be the Victorian reluctance to talk openly of such tragedies, or to express their emotions freely, especially in front of the children. It wasn't 'done' to dwell on morbid subjects, or to tell children any more than an absolute minimum about the ways of the world and the facts of life and death, and then it tended to be wrapped up with religion and morals and stripped bare of references to human instincts and nature.

If Mr and Mrs Maybrick never brought up the first baby James in conversation, for instance, and our Jim somehow learned of his existence via some other route, at a still tender age, he could have had nightmares about being sent the same way as the other James, and been too frightened to let anyone know about his fears. Imagine if he had found one of those awful little funeral cards with black borders, telling him what his mother and father had neglected to mention - that there had been another little James before him, who had "fallen asleep forever" after being "taken by God"? It's not exactly "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam", is it?? :eek:

Love,

Caz
X

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Robin,

I posted a response to you on another thread before reading the latest posts on this one. Gosh, this is going to keep me busy. :)

The dead infant question is hard to address because we just don't know enough about the childhood of the brothers Maybrick.

Infant mortality affected all classes, and most surviving children in medium to large families must have learned sooner or later of one or more who didn't make it. I think a factor that could have made things significantly worse for a sensitive child would be the Victorian reluctance to talk openly of such tragedies, or to express their emotions freely, especially in front of the children. It wasn't 'done' to dwell on morbid subjects, or to tell children any more than an absolute minimum about the ways of the world and the facts of life and death, and then it tended to be wrapped up with religion and morals and stripped bare of references to human instincts and nature.

If Mr and Mrs Maybrick never brought up the first baby James in conversation, for instance, and our Jim somehow learned of his existence via some other route, at a still tender age, he could have had nightmares about being sent the same way as the other James, and been too frightened to let anyone know about his fears. Imagine if he had found one of those awful little funeral cards with black borders, telling him what his mother and father had neglected to mention - that there had been another little James before him, who had "fallen asleep forever" after being "taken by God"? It's not exactly "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam", is it?? :eek:

Love,

Caz
X

Ha, ha, exactly. I've just posted a response to your message Caz concerning the fact that a successful association between Maybrick's behaviour and background and the psychopathy criteria established by Cleckley and Hare and others, would only establish him as a psychopath, NOT necessarily as a serial killer, since only a small proportion of psychopaths turn to crime, and still less to murder. It would however, create a climate favourable to that opinion.

Unfortunately, the childhood-based criteria appear to be the major factors since they are primarily causal factors, so given what you've said about the lack of knowledge concerning Maybrick's childhood, it only really favours this analysis rather than firmly confirming it, and thus keeps the psychopathic possibility within the realm of speculation. Sadly.

And still doesn't negate the need to subject the diary to the kind of rigorous testing that apparently the owners are reluctant to indulge in. Much to everyone's irritation.

[Paul Butler]

Ha, ha, exactly. I've just posted a response to your message Caz concerning the fact that a successful association between Maybrick's behaviour and background and the psychopathy criteria established by Cleckley and Hare and others, would only establish him as a psychopath, NOT necessarily as a serial killer, since only a small proportion of psychopaths turn to crime, and still less to murder. It would however, create a climate favourable to that opinion.

Unfortunately, the childhood-based criteria appear to be the major factors since they are primarily causal factors, so given what you've said about the lack of knowledge concerning Maybrick's childhood, it only really favours this analysis rather than firmly confirming it, and thus keeps the psychopathic possibility within the realm of speculation. Sadly.

And still doesn't negate the need to subject the diary to the kind of rigorous testing that apparently the owners are reluctant to indulge in. Much to everyone's irritation.


Hi Robin.

The murky world of diary testing.......! It's probably best not to take all you read elsewhere on that sore point without a big pinch of salt. I think the problem lies more with finding someone who will touch the bloody thing with a bargepole rather than Robert Smith's reluctance to have it tested.

Robert's last post here made it clear that the diary was available for proper, unbiased and non destructive testing at any time.

It would be nice if that "anytime" was some time soon though.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Robin.

The murky world of diary testing.......! It's probably best not to take all you read elsewhere on that sore point without a big pinch of salt. I think the problem lies more with finding someone who will touch the bloody thing with a bargepole rather than Robert Smith's reluctance to have it tested.

Robert's last post here made it clear that the diary was available for proper, unbiased and non destructive testing at any time.

It would be nice if that "anytime" was some time soon though.

Paul

Yeah, I've long suspected that would be the case. When John Omlor talks about diary testing, he doesn't seem to mention the possibility of vested interests, and to me, if I owned the diary, I would be extremly careful who I allowed to test it for me on the basis that there are always hidden agendas, and there are always tests that are not conducted properly for one reason or another which therefore invites the intrusion of complicating variables that pollute the chances of obtaining a truly authentic result. On that basis I think the words 'proper, unbiased and non-destructive' are highly significant.

To me, it has been too much the case that a certain apparent reluctance to have the diary tested has been inferred as indicating a hidden agenda, when really that may very well not be the case. But of course, we are talking about many people who just decided that the diary was a fake the moment they saw it, which is hardly conducive to objective research is it?

[Paul Butler]

Absolutely Robin.

Speaking entirely for myself, I've never found the diary owner, Robert Smith, to be anything but fair in his approach to the idea of new tests.

If the diary was mine, I cannot conceive of a situation where I would allow a rabid anti-diary type anywhere near it, any more than I'd allow a self confessed believer near it either. Either way, the outcome would not be acceptable to one side or the other.

Sadly, even if a wholly unbiased third party can be found, there will remain a few who will never accept whatever the result may be. That however, would be their problem.

Presently, one of the disputed ripper letters in the National Archive is being forensically tested. We don't know much more at present other than that initial tests haven't shown it to contain any modern ingredients, at least nothing that would prove it to be modern!

If anything, we should see this testing as an encouraging sign, and if any worthwhile results can be achieved, then I really don't see why the same tests couldn't or wouldn't eventually get done to the diary.

I still think that the biggest difficulty might be in finding a lab prepared to go near it with an uncontaminated, preservative free bargepole. Who in their right mind would willingly submit to public ridicule on the internet if they came up with the "wrong" results?

Regards.

Paul

[SirRobertAnderson]

there are always hidden agendas, and there are always tests that are not conducted properly for one reason or another which therefore invites the intrusion of complicating variables that pollute the chances of obtaining a truly authentic result.

Hey Robin ! Thanks for joining in the discussion.

As I've said before, the samples AFI tested were not taken directly from the Diary. Why anyone even gives tests like that a shred of credibility is beyond me.

Can you imagine the wails from the tin foil brigade :tinfoil3::tinfoil3: if Robert Smith had insisted he supply the samples for Leeds to test ??????????

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Not that this will mean much in certain quarters, but I have not a shadow of doubt that the diary owner, Robert Smith, would love to know if his instincts about it not being modern are correct. Anyone in his position would. It has been implied elsewhere that he is only 'reluctant' to subject the diary to further testing because he knows the diary is modern and the next test could prove it. This is not only rubbish (he doesn't 'know' anything of the sort); it's also completely illogical and unsupported by the evidence, because he could simply have rejected the testing arranged a couple of years ago by Jenni Pegg and offered by Dr Platt. Before anything about this was broadcast, it was formally agreed that the results would be published whatever they might indicate about the document's age. That shows a personal desire to learn more about it plus the confidence to allow anything he might learn to be revealed to everyone.

This was no attempt to appease a tiny minority of very vocal posters to an internet message board. Contrary to what they might think, they are not that important, and have no influence over what happens. In any case, all the evidence from their own mouths was that there could be no appeasing them, short of agreeing that Mike Barrett is the only diary expert anyone has ever really needed to tell them when the thing was written.

The irony is that if Robert had been as bad as some have painted him, he would have ducked Dr Platt's offer and been no worse off in the long run, since the mantra about him being a test dodger has never changed.

Predictably, Robert's acceptance of Dr Platt's offer, and his decision to publish the results regardless, did not appease - or please - those who had been demanding tests on a regular basis. They just acted like it never happened so they could carry on trying to mislead as many people as possible with the lie that the diary owner doesn't want the diary tested.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

If the diary was mine, I cannot conceive of a situation where I would allow a rabid anti-diary type anywhere near it, any more than I'd allow a self confessed believer near it either. Either way, the outcome would not be acceptable to one side or the other.



This is a post from the Casebook. A lot of folks forget that the "organizer" of the so called "Florida tests" called for it to be burned. The little bonfire avatar is particularly disturbing.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=14001#post14001



John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:45 am: David,

Well, I'll come forward and second your suggestion.



Throw the cheap hoax in.


--John

[robingoodfellow]

This is a post from the Casebook. A lot of folks forget that the "organizer" of the so called "Florida tests" called for it to be burned. The little bonfire avatar is particularly disturbing.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=14001#post14001



John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:45 am: David,

Well, I'll come forward and second your suggestion.



Throw the cheap hoax in.


--John

Why am I not surprised. So much for objectivity.

[Queen Mean]

Robin,

It should be noted by people rushing to condemn Omlor, (those people who have of course never made a jesting statement in their lives), it should be noted that it is best not to make hasty judgements.

There was an offer made to the owner of the diary that at the time the tests were proposed, if there WAS ANY CONCERN over OMLOR handling the diary or even coming in contact with it, I would VOLUNTEER to take possession of the diary, take it to the lab and keep it in MY POSSESSION at all times and never even let Omlor come near the thing if that was preferred. I made this offer on the boards, and in writing to the people who needed to make the decision at the time of the testing.

So in short, for people who keep brining up Omlor's in jest post, there was an option on the table that meant that Omlor would never even lay eyes on the actual diary. And while others may have issue with his reputation or his character, completely without merit or cause, there has never been a post by me suggesting that the Diary be destroyed.

[SirRobertAnderson]

in jest post,



Ally, I truly believe it was the most sincere post he ever made on the subject.

And we'll have to leave it at that. Or I should say, I'll leave it at that. :flame:

[robingoodfellow]

Robin,

It should be noted by people rushing to condemn Omlor, (those people who have of course never made a jesting statement in their lives), it should be noted that it is best not to make hasty judgements.

There was an offer made to the owner of the diary that at the time the tests were proposed, if there WAS ANY CONCERN over OMLOR handling the diary or even coming in contact with it, I would VOLUNTEER to take possession of the diary, take it to the lab and keep it in MY POSSESSION at all times and never even let Omlor come near the thing if that was preferred. I made this offer on the boards, and in writing to the people who needed to make the decision at the time of the testing.

So in short, for people who keep brining up Omlor's in jest post, there was an option on the table that meant that Omlor would never even lay eyes on the actual diary. And while others may have issue with his reputation or his character, completely without merit or cause, there has never been a post by me suggesting that the Diary be destroyed.

Well, I'm not really rushing to condemn him, in fact I've said this before anyway, so I'd rather just leave this topic and move on.

[Mac The Knife]

In another post a mention of when 'ink went to paper' can be identified.
Peter Bower told me recently that there was no such test to indicate when ink met paper. Or did I mis-hear?

[Phil Kellingley]

In another post a mention of when 'ink went to paper' can be identified.
Peter Bower told me recently that there was no such test to indicate when ink met paper. Or did I mis-hear?

In the case of the Mormon forgeries / murders (Google "the mormon forgery murders" for details) the forensics were able to show the approximate date of the creation of a document by the amount of absorption of ink into the paper. So, if the Maybrick diary were ever subjected to such a test (and I have no idea whether or not it has) then presumably a reasonably definitive date could be given.

I'd guess at about 1985.:madgrin:

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Phil,

Well at least you are honest and calling a guess a guess. :)

But 1985 would be too early for Mike's Sphere book or Fido's ripper books to have played any part, and at least fifteen years too late for the latest date science has yet been able to stamp on it.

In 1993, the Rendell team in the US, who were commissioned to prove the diary a modern fake ('modern' usually set by diary theorists and ripper historians at the late 1980s) only managed to come up with a rather unsatisfactory 'prior to 1970' conclusion after their various tests on the ink's behaviour and properties.

Then they went and spoiled it all by being very unscientific and saying something to the effect that Mike Barrett had now confessed to writing it himself, so there you go - QED. Trouble is, they didn't even attempt to marry up any of his confession statements with their own best date of 'prior to 1970'. If they had, they would have realised that nothing Mike has ever claimed suggests that he was in on a forgery dating back to the 1960s or earlier. Not one to miss an opportunity to make his claims compatible with what some expert or theorist was saying, this one somehow got away. Maybe he didn't know what 'prior' meant. :lol:

I watched a short documentary on the Hitler Diaries last night and chuckled at how the Sunday Times got well and truly shafted (by putting too much trust in a certain Hitler historian who realised his mistake when it was too late), thereafter going into "Won't get fooled again" mode.

What really annoyed me was the fact that the documentary makers failed to give a coherent account towards the end about the scientific findings and what the convicted forger had admitted. One minute they said the ink was shown to be less than a year old, the next that the forger, arrested just three weeks later, admitted creating the diaries five years previously. For anyone not paying close enough attention this obviously doesn't add up. A simple explanation at that point was needed to the effect that the volumes were created over several years, but the couple of pages tested were taken from the much more recently written entries. Wouldn't change a thing in this case, of course, but I do hate loose ends like that flapping about in the breeze.

It reminded me of the whole 'created prior to 1970 - by Mike Barrett in the late 1980s' nonsense. I need conclusions that at least make logical sense - especially when they claim to be scientific. Without that it's just another guess.

Love,

Caz
X