Where do we stand? [Archive] - JTRForums.com - THE place to be for All Things Ripper

Caroline Morris

05-26-2010, 02:26 PM

Have advancements in testing brought us closer to the truth, or are we still unsure of the provenance of this Journal?

Hi Mike,

Scientific testing to ascertain how long the diary has been around is of course quite separate from efforts to establish where it was and who knew about it before it reached Mike's hands, and where it came from.

The best the various testers have come up with so far in answer to the 'how long' question is that pen met paper 'prior to 1970'. And that was way back in 1993! So any advancements in testing that could improve on this and tell us how much earlier than 1970 (or even turn it upside down and put the coffin lid on it with a post 1970 verdict) would surely be welcomed. Until that happy day, the 'how long' remains a scientific unknown.

There are answers to the 'where' it has been and 'who knew' (for example, Mike obviously knows how it got into his hands, but has so far failed to give an account that is supported by hard documentary evidence). But they leave us completely in the dark about who could have been involved in creating the diary, when they were doing it and what the purpose was.

All I can say at present is that I have found no fatal conflict between the documentation I have seen concerning the 'where' and 'who knew' and science's 'prior to 1970' verdict. Conversely, I can see no way of marrying up the existing documentary evidence with the post-1987 Barrett hoax conspiracy theory, which appears to have been based largely on personal expectations, prejudice, faith - even the unsupported word of proven liars - but not on the science.

Now why in the name of sanity would a modern forger, never mind a nest of them, come up with the suspicious-as-all-hell, unsupportable, unlikely, unimaginative and frankly unhelpful tale that Maybrick's diary had come from a recently deceased drinking pal down the road in Anfield, when there is real, tangible evidence for the bloody thing having been in Maybrick's house in Aigburth?

That's the one question that should give everyone pause.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

05-26-2010, 02:38 PM

Hi Nemo,

One outfit thought they had found a too-modern preservative in the ink, but there are all sorts of problems with this, not least being the fact that neither they nor anyone else, including Leeds University, have been able to repeat the test and get the same result. And in any event, the preservative itself has been around since the 1850s, and nobody has yet been able to pinpoint when it was first tried out in ink. In addition, nobody has yet found a modern ink containing this preservative, which corresponds with the diary ink in other respects, such as its known ingredients, properties, behaviour and appearance.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

05-26-2010, 02:42 PM

Nemo

05-26-2010, 02:43 PM

Hi Nemo,

One outfit thought they had found a too-modern preservative in the ink, but there are all sorts of problems with this, not least being the fact that neither they nor anyone else, including Leeds University, have been able to repeat the test and get the same result. And in any event, the preservative itself has been around since the 1850s, and nobody has yet been able to pinpoint when it was first tried out in ink.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks very much for that info Caz - I'll check it out

SirRobertAnderson

05-26-2010, 04:53 PM

Hi Nemo,

One outfit thought they had found a too-modern preservative in the ink, but there are all sorts of problems with this, not least being the fact that neither they nor anyone else, including Leeds University, have been able to repeat the test and get the same result.

I will add that the samples for this test did not come directly from the Diary, but from the Melvin Harris camp and had been stored in gelatin capsules.

No lab in their right mind uses gelatin capsules. Period.

(I am not claiming duplicity so we are clear on this point. I am, however, flagging sloppiness and stupidity.)

Mike Covell

05-27-2010, 05:37 AM

Have you accessed this site Mike - it's pretty extensive and mentions the finding of a modern dye chemical in the diary ink, dating it after 1972 I think

http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/

However, that does not seem to be accepted, so that's why I asked if it had been found as it would obviously end the debate about authenticity forthwith

Yes, I have Chris Jones book too, and my review appears on the site.

Mike Covell

05-27-2010, 05:39 AM

Thanks for all the answers folks.

Caroline Morris

05-27-2010, 06:02 AM

Thanks very much for that info Caz - I'll check it out

Hi Nemo,

Please do, but be careful which sources you use! :whip:

And don't forget the last bit of that post, which I added as an afterthought and possibly got crossed with your response:

In addition, nobody has yet found a modern ink containing this preservative, which corresponds with the diary ink in other respects, such as its known ingredients, properties, behaviour and appearance.

Some have suggested, possibly in light of this, that the ink was a mixture made up by the forger. their reasoning. But I would suggest that any 'image' either word produces is in the eye of the beholder.]

The problem remains, however, that the only modern ink that was once identified as a possibility (either on its own or in a mixture), and contained the preservative in question, also had other ingredients that don't show up in the diary ink. And the chemist who made it - Alec Voller - categorically rejected the possibility when he saw the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

Mike Covell

05-27-2010, 07:03 AM

There is a free patent online for establishing the age of inks.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5600443.html

Caroline Morris

05-27-2010, 07:14 AM

Hi Caroline

I think the expression "a modern forger" produces an image of an accomplished forger with sense and purpose

However, an individual could choose to forge this single document and he would be no different a person after the decision than before

He would still be a normal "Joe" whose initial claim regarding the article would be that he got it from a man in a pub

I don't see anything untoward with that

I agree with you, Nemo, that the image of an accomplished forger with sense and purpose doesn't fit with that of a normal "Joe" claiming he got it from a man in a pub.

What is untoward is your second image, of Mike Barrett being the individual who chose to forge this document, which has resisted all attempts over nearly 20 years to expose it as his doing. He claimed his late drinking pal gave it to him, not in the pub incidentally, but down the road a few paces, at the man's home when he was housebound. Avoids the problem of nobody else seeing it change hands. Hmm.

He has also claimed at various times to be the world's greatest forger and the man who solved the Jack the Ripper mystery. In master forger or genuine article mode, a Battlecrease provenance could only have been a distinct advantage, yet this ideal option is just about the only one he has always vehemently rejected, despite it being supported by documentary evidence.

I popped in really to mention the watch

A lot seems to be made of "slivers" of aged and corroded brass being inside the engraving cuts implying age to the marks

However, when the metal is engraved it will produce slivers from the already aged brass which will naturally find their way into the engravings / scratchesNot quite sure what you mean here, Nemo. Where is this already aged brass coming from, in a gold watch? The usual argument is that a very old and corroded brass tool must have been used to scratch the letters, depositing the very old and corroded brass slivers which were found embedded at the base of the scratches. (The other argument, that the letters were scratched when the brass tool was 'at least several decades' younger, is naturally a lot less popular, even if it's the one supported by the two independent experts who examined the watch.)

That's not to mention any existing brass slivers within the watch from previous cleaning, polishing, engraving, manufacture etc

A forger would make the engravings / scratches and polish them out a bit which I would think would introduce microscopic aged metal into the scratches - remember that it took extremely high magnification to identify the particles utilising an electron microscope of all thingsFirstly, I'm wondering how any/all such aged slivers would have made their way right into the base of the newly made scratches, and only there. I don't recall any being observed elsewhere under the extremely high magnification, so how would this have been achieved?

Secondly, it was determined that all the Maybrick/Ripper scratches were the earliest visible marks to be made on that inside surface, ie before the formal looking engravings/repair marks etc. So I have to wonder how much cleaning and polishing this plain inner surface would have received previously (certainly no engraving or incidental scratching) and therefore where this microscopic aged brass would have come from to be introduced during the hoaxing.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

05-27-2010, 07:42 AM

Thanks again Caz

You would have thought that Maybrick would use a standard manufactured, shop-bought ink which could be identified by comparison to other Victorian documents or ink recipes

He is unlikely to have utilised a home-made lamp-black type ink

Mike - thanks for the link
I think that that idea that relies on evaporation and oxidation levels has too many variables to be of use on an aged sample

It might distinguish between writing done last week and writing done today, but it will not age a Victorian document. There would be nothing to compare evaporation and oxidation to. In an old document it could have been through a number of processes and environments that would affect these rates

Even if it was proven that the ink used was actually Victorian, then a case would be made for a modern hoaxer to have obtained such ink

Has the diary ever been swabbed for DNA?

I don't know about you but my hand always touches the page when I am writing with a pen

Touch DNA analysis might identify DNA from a possible writer of the document due to the location and amount of DNA present

If it was Maybrick,you may expect him to be a bit of a "sweaty" person for various reasons and there would be a good chance that he left DNA on the page

There are a few smudges present which, although possibly done by a sleeve, could well have been done by an uncovered hand

IMO, I think the story of the finding of the diary, and the words of the diary itself are the best pointer to whether it is authentic or not and that is a matter of opinion really

Caroline Morris

05-27-2010, 08:02 AM

There is a free patent online for establishing the age of inks.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5600443.html

Thanks Mike!

Where is Mr Poster when we need him?

I don't pretend to understand any of this, but at first glance it looks like a method to determine the time lapse, if any, between separate entries on a document or series of documents. For example, if you have several signatures that are all supposed to have been written on the same date, they can tell you if one was added at a later time. I don't know how much later it would have to be to stand out from the others. Conversely, if the signatures are meant to be years apart in date, they can tell if they were all written at the same time.

If they could determine that the time gap between the first and last diary entries was too short or too long, we'd be in business.

But then, very few of us are in need of a test to tell us that this wasn't Maybrick's own hand, writing down his thoughts between early 1888 and May 1889. At best it was someone copying from an original. And what if the right time gap were observed? That would only give us a hoaxer who covered his tracks by spreading the entries over a year!

Can you tell how much thinking I've done over the years about such things? :sick:

Love,

Caz
X

Mike Covell

05-27-2010, 08:05 AM

Great idea Caz.

Caroline Morris

05-27-2010, 08:22 AM

You would have thought that Maybrick would use a standard manufactured, shop-bought ink which could be identified by comparison to other Victorian documents or ink recipes

He is unlikely to have utilised a home-made lamp-black type ink

Hi Nemo,

Our posts crossed again.

Just curious and not doubting you, but where did you get the home-made lamp-black idea from? Leeds University concluded that the diary ink was indeed comparable to that on genuine Victorian documents and typical iron gall recipes of the time. Dr Eastaugh also concluded it was consistent and his work was endorsed by Robert Kuranz in Rendell's team in the US.

No DNA testing has been carried out to my knowledge but this may be because so many people, known and unknown, had already handled it. Mike could have run his fingers along every line, for example, and it wouldn't tell us a thing. Same goes for anyone else suspected of penning it, if Mike could have shown it to them before handing it over for the first tests.

If it was Maybrick,you may expect him to be a bit of a "sweaty" person for various reasons and there would be a good chance that he left DNA on the page

Lovely thought (or perhaps not), but I can't see anyone racing to exhume him again to compare samples!

Love,

Caz
X

Mike Covell

05-27-2010, 08:25 AM

Lovely thought (or perhaps not), but I can't see anyone racing to exhume him again to compare samples!

Gimme a torch, spade and an alibi and I'm on it. :painkiller:

Nemo

05-27-2010, 03:43 PM

Hi Caz

Thanks for your patience

I'll go and check my "sources"

Could I just clarify that as far as you know, the diary is a Victorian book, albeit a scrapbook or album, which was written with ink consistent with a Victorian ink, which shows signs of oxidation and extreme age, with nothing found so far in the text that is inconsistent with it being written in the Victorian age and indeed, nothing inconsistent with it being written by Maybrick himself?

Caroline Morris

05-27-2010, 07:46 PM

Could I just clarify that as far as you know, the diary is a Victorian book, albeit a scrapbook or album, which was written with ink consistent with a Victorian ink, which shows signs of oxidation and extreme age, with nothing found so far in the text that is inconsistent with it being written in the Victorian age and indeed, nothing inconsistent with it being written by Maybrick himself?

Hi Nemo,

Well these are not really things I can say, hand on heart, that I know.

And it's not my opinion that counts. I'm no expert in any of the relevant fields, although I have a reasonable working knowledge of what has been said by the people most qualified to comment.

You need to check the primary sources here, ie the named specialists who have examined the diary and given verdicts that have not since been discredited. Forget anyone already in the ripper field when the diary emerged (for anything other than the ripper content, that is), or people with an obvious axe to grind; and be cautious about any individuals or teams hired to give a specific verdict. Be especially wary of subjective or unqualified opinions in any direction. You'll still end up juggling with conflicting conclusions and knitting fog, but that's par for the course in Diary World!

We do have a bookbinder who confirmed it to be a typical Victorian guard book, with nothing "iffy" about it physically. We have at least five independent ink/document specialists who conducted tests or visual examinations and found nothing inconsistent with a Victorian ink applied to the paper in Victorian times.

Nothing fatally inconsistent with the Victorian age has been identified in the text by qualified linguists, although a few words and phrases remain hotly disputed in some quarters (but see above re unqualified/subjective opinions!).

We have absolutely nobody saying the writing is consistent with any of the known Maybrick examples.

Whoever penned this document either didn't know or didn't care what Maybrick's writing looked like.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

05-27-2010, 08:20 PM

Hi Caz

That's good advice to me and anyone else thinking of approaching the diary subject

I'm a bit of a scientist myself so I'd be interested in the bones of the test procedures and results

When I referred to inconsistency with Maybrick writing it, I meant dates and locations etc rather than the handwriting

I did think it a bit strange that a forger / hoaxer would be so lucky to have so few examples of Maybrick's handwriting extant

All I can think is that the writer, if indeed it was a hoaxer, had an avid interest in the Florence Maybrick case

That also goes for an "old" hoaxer in that he was very lucky that over the years, no evidence would arise to dispute the writing

I think the world of Ripperology is showing up the scientists a bit - that they can't come up with a relevant test to definitively distinguish a modern document from a century old one is embarrassing

Is the ink oxidised to a bronze colour to any extent? This takes many years as you probably know - though I don't know what difference it would make if the ink were enclosed within a book, effectively protected from the atmosphere

Caroline Morris

05-30-2010, 01:43 PM

I think the world of Ripperology is showing up the scientists a bit - that they can't come up with a relevant test to definitively distinguish a modern document from a century old one is embarrassing

Is the ink oxidised to a bronze colour to any extent? This takes many years as you probably know - though I don't know what difference it would make if the ink were enclosed within a book, effectively protected from the atmosphere

Hi Nemo,

I guess it would only be really embarrassing for the scientists if the bloody thing had been created by someone like Mike Barrett not long before they began testing it, and none of them succeeded in exposing it for exactly what it was.

If it's genuinely a considerably older document, maybe we could excuse them a bit for not being able to narrow it down further than 'prior to 1970' or 'not inconsistent with' the right date.

I don't know how protection from, or exposure to the atmosphere affects the rate or amount of bronzing, and it's difficult for scientists to make comparisons with other documents when they simply don't know what conditions this one has been kept in or for how long. Another problem is that genuine Victorian inks don't all bronze to the same extent, some hardly bronzing at all - ever. There are plenty of genuine documents from the era where the ink is identical in colour to that of the diary.

There is no evidence that the faint bronzing observed in 1995 - again by Alec Voller - at various points in the diary wasn't there in 1992 when it first emerged, or has since increased. And for what it's worth the owner maintains that he has seen no changes at all from 1992 to this day. Despite the faintness of the bronzing, observed by taking the pages to the window and natural daylight, Voller was confident that the writing was 90+ years old.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

05-31-2010, 07:00 AM

Many thanks again Caz

I can't really argue with the experts so I'll work on the premise that the diary is in fact an old document, though I'd like to check whether a modern forger can simulate bronzing by the use of alkalis etc

Very interesting

Best Regards

Nemo

ShawnaK

05-31-2010, 01:54 PM

I'll work on the premise that the diary is in fact an old document, though I'd like to check whether a modern forger can simulate bronzing by the use of alkalis etc
Doesn't a pre-1987 date for the diary prove 99.9% that it was written by the Ripper based on the knowledge of Eddowes effects, specifically the empty match box?

.1% is for the possibility that someone had the inside information before it was published in 1987, and for someone who quoted Josh Billings' humorist poetry and got lucky.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pkM1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=josh+billings+match+box+empty&hl=en&ei=segDTJ3WJ8SqlAewrriYDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nemo

05-31-2010, 03:42 PM

Nice thought about the Josh Billings poetry Shawnak - though I think "Tin Match Box Empty" relates to the police report

The police report and the personal letter naming "Sir James" have always been out there so they were available for someone to know about

There can only be a few options

If it was written after 1987 then the diary has been artificially and "expertly" aged

Without checking every book that tells how to age reproduction antiques, and looking into the Hitler diaries maybe, I can't comment how expert such a person would have to be

Beyond that, there seems nothing in the diary text that could not be derived from the literature after 1987

If the diary was written before 1987, but in modern times, then, let's face it, a "Ripperologist" type of researcher person has written it with prior knowledge of the police report

Otherwise it may be genuine or a more contemporary forgery probably in support of Florence

Nemo

05-31-2010, 04:13 PM

Hmmmm...

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html

This article from Melvin Harris would seem to indicate that there is no bronzing and that the forger didn't even bother trying to artificially age it

The detection of the elements present in the modern ink which was indicated by Barret is very telling

There also seems to have been an attempt to forge a document by Abraham Lincoln which, when the paper and ink were considered alone, was expertly examined and given a date in the 1860's

A fluorescence on the paper, however, indicated that the ink had been artificially bronzed with the use of chemicals

In the same article it states that it is impossible to date ink beyond it's drying time of approximately three years

The test for new ink is to examine the rate at which it can be removed from the page

That process is mentioned in Melvin's piece and I can see little reason to argue against the fact that the ink was considered to be quite "fresh" by a number of experts in document examination

Stephen Thomas

05-31-2010, 05:33 PM

Nemo

05-31-2010, 05:42 PM

Succinctly put...

Thanks Stephen

Check your email by the way...

SirRobertAnderson

05-31-2010, 07:48 PM

Hmmmm...

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html

This article from Melvin Harris would seem to indicate that there is no bronzing and that the forger didn't even bother trying to artificially age it

The detection of the elements present in the modern ink which was indicated by Barret is very telling

Check out my Live at Leeds thread on the Casebook or here. The "test" ran by Harris did not use ink samples taken directly from the Diary, which should raise a red flag by itself. These samples were also stored in gelatin capsules, which no respectable scientist would have done. It is a very permeable substance. Contamination is not a theoretical concern. Ask anyone that works in a lab.

Harris' arguments are dodgy at best.

Seriously: read the Leeds test results carefully.

As Stewart Evans has said, it's a cheap fake.

He's wrong. It may not be the work of the Ripper, nor of Maybrick. But it has defied debunking by "experts" since it appeared it public.

ShawnaK

05-31-2010, 09:56 PM

The police report and the personal letter naming "Sir James" have always been out there so they were available for someone to know about
The files were 'sealed' but Stephen Knight was the first author allowed to see them (Fido) in the early 70s and then they were opened for the centenary.
The problem is that the Bond report about the 'absent' heart was missing from the files and returned in 1987 (Andy Aliffe http://www.casebook.org/authors/interviews/int-aa.html).

If the Diary is pre-circa 1980, you'd have to find someone with access to the file and the missing file. The list of Eddowes effects and the Bond report which were separate until 1987. How long, I don't know. I believe Andy suspects a descendant of Walter Dew as a possibile possessor of the missing file.
Then again, you can always say "No heart" could mean something else. I always thought it was a reference to Princess Ida. "Heartless, I am." A shot at modern women?

Nemo

06-01-2010, 04:57 AM

Thanks SRA & Shawnak

The availability of that documentation points toward a date after 1987 for the creation of the diary

We just have to square it up with the science that puts it before that date

I'll read the Leeds thread and get back to you...

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 06:48 AM

Hmmmm...

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html

This article from Melvin Harris would seem to indicate that there is no bronzing...

You may as well stop right there, Nemo. I did suggest you take great care over which sources to trust. Harris had a ripper fake debunking axe to grind the size of Croydon. Firstly he never examined the diary for himself (because he never asked to do so) so his conclusions all depended on the source(s) who gave him the conclusions he wanted, or nearest to them!

Secondly, if the ink had been determined to be Diamine back in 1994 (as a result of another of Mike Barrett's false claims - he didn't name the ink, he just pointed out an art shop to a journalist and lied about buying it there, and the only possibility was found to be Diamine - until the man who made it, Alec Voller, categorically ruled it out!) why the hell did Harris discredit himself years later, with a blatant lie on an internet message board, concerning yet another of Mike's tall tales? How desperate did he have to be to do that, Nemo?

Sometimes you really do have to look beneath the surface for answers before swallowing what certain extremely biased sources were saying way back when.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-01-2010, 07:09 AM

Thanks for that Caz

I am digesting the Leeds thread at the moment

I can understand Mr Harris being selective if the experts disagree

My question would have to be the reputation of the testers

For example, would you say Dr Baxendale's test were faulty, or his reports incorrect?

Are you saying that all the tests done by the "experts" who state that the ink was relatively new etc are incorrect for whatever reason?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic but discarding a learned opinion like that could be seen as being selective of the evidence the other way

I can't really comment until I've seen the reports

Do these early reports for / against the ink being old exist somewhere I could read them for myself?

Regards

Nemo

Paul Butler

06-01-2010, 07:14 AM

Hi Nemo.

Earlier this year, Caz kindly arranged with Keith Skinner for me to hear the recording of Voller’s examination of the diary. Alec Voller is a world authority on the science of ink, and as one time chief chemist at Diamine seems eminently qualified to give a valid opinion as to the date the diary ink went on the paper. I’d go as far as saying that he is probably the most qualified person to date to give his opinions as to the age of the diary.

He did observe bronzing of the ink on some pages, but his view that the diary was written around 1905 or earlier stems from the way the individual lines in the diary have faded. He observes that the fading is typical of the way ink fades in documents of this era, and that the fading is uneven and its unevenness does not correspond with when the pen was dipped into the ink. Some places where the ink is quite heavy from a freshly dipped pen have faded noticeably, whereas other areas where the ink was running out have not faded at all.

He says that the reasons for this are not fully understood, but that it is impossible for this sort of uneven fading to be faked.

There are no bombshells in Voller’s observations, and hearing his comments don’t add materially to what has been published in various places, but his certainty as to the age of the diary and the fact that the ink is "definitely not Diamine" come over very strongly.

Regards.

Paul

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 07:15 AM

Hi Nemo,

THE DIARY INK

The first tests on the ink of the forged Diary were made by Dr David Baxendale. His visual examination showed no signs of age-bronzing of the ink, and with a century-old iron-based ink some should have been evident. Indeed bronzing of iron-gall inks can take place at a very fast rate; among my collection of such samples are pieces less than eight years old that are bronzed in part, or in full.

Melvin Harris (from the link you provided)

I'm disappointed that no alarm bells rang with you right from this early observation by Harris. I'd only just told you that the writing did show faint signs of bronzing in 1995, but only when looked for by Voller in natural daylight; only in certain places in the text; and 15 years later there appears to have been no further bronzing.

Baxendale was quickly discredited because he claimed that the ink contained nigrosine and that this was not available in Victorian times. He was quite wrong - nigrosine was patented in 1867 and was widely used in ink in the LVP. Also, we don't know how hard he looked for signs of bronzing or how many of the 63 pages he examined.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 07:31 AM

Hi Nemo

It's a relatively modern forgery by some Scouse chancers.

As Stewart Evans has said, it's a cheap fake.

The 'tin matchbox empty' phrase (not publically known before 1984) proves this.

All in all a waste of time considering it, I'd say.

Hi Stephen,

So presumably you don't believe that I've seen documentary evidence that the diary was in Battlecrease House before any of the named Scouse chancer suspects knew of its existence? Or maybe you think Keith and I must have completely misunderstood that evidence?

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-01-2010, 07:47 AM

Thanks Paul / Caz

I can only guess, but I would have thought most of the ink would be bronzed in such an old document, so Baxendale was possibly commenting on that aspect without studying every letter for "slight" bronzing

I haven't seen anyone deny that Nigrosene was present, so I assume his test was correct. It seems to be his statement that this indicates a modern ink that is incorrect - which might reflect on his expertise in testing and identifying old ink

Barretts' claims regarding buying the ink in an art shop appears to have muddied the waters somewhat in that disproving his claims seems to add authenticity to the diary

Let's face it, it would be a poor forger who would utilise a modern, easily identifiable ink

In reading further about forgeries relating to Abraham Lincoln, it is clear that sophisticated forgers have ink, paper and even glue that would pass all tests and appear to be over a century old

As I stated earlier, one document taken in isolation and tested in regard to the ink and paper alone gave a date of manufacture in the 1860's

It is only when other chemical aspects are taken into consideration that the document was proven to be a modern forgery. This chemical was used to artificially age the ink and added fluorescence to the paper

I'd like to identify some of the chemicals that may be used to artificially age ink and am looking into that. I would imagine any such chemical would alter the chemical analysis - obviously the fluorescent chemical would not be utilised

If an iron gall ink and original Victorian paper were used, then I can't locate any test that would prove when the diary was written once it was more than 2 or 3 years old

I've seen ion-migration tests and the like mentioned but these seem to be only useful in comparing two samples of handwriting which are believed to have been written at different times

A new test may be devised, but until then, the best area of study is the text itself I think

I perceive myself some anomalies in when the pen was dipped but I'll re-read the diary with "uneven fading" in mind

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 07:48 AM

Then again, you can always say "No heart" could mean something else. I always thought it was a reference to Princess Ida. "Heartless, I am." A shot at modern women?

Interesting, ShawnaK - yet another potential G&S reference in the diary. Any faker, from any generation, would almost certainly have made a mistake if they didn't include one or more G&S references in a text like this one.

Regarding what was known and who by, I don't think the "Sir James" reference was in the public domain before Keith Skinner found it while doing Maybrick research in America. But then again, our diarist wrote "Sir Jim", which was silly of them if they knew about "Sir James" from the same source, and not quite remarkable enough if they didn't.

It's also worth remembering that Macnaghten was not above keeping ripper souvenirs and giving his friends inside information about the case. So who knows how many people could have known about the empty tin matchbox that was mysteriously absent from all the press reports that listed Kate's personal effects, or about the heart that was mysteriously absent from Mary's body?

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-01-2010, 08:13 AM

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 08:52 AM

I can only guess, but I would have thought most of the ink would be bronzed in such an old document, so Baxendale was possibly commenting on that aspect without studying every letter for "slight" bronzing

Hi Nemo,

I posted this on Sunday:

Another problem is that genuine Victorian inks don't all bronze to the same extent, some hardly bronzing at all - ever. There are plenty of genuine documents from the era where the ink is identical in colour to that of the diary.

The amount of bronzing presumably varies according to the iron content of the ink used. Baxendale couldn't find any iron in the diary ink, while Eastaugh and Leeds had no trouble finding it. So it could be that not enough iron was used to cause extensive bronzing.

I haven't seen anyone deny that Nigrosene was present, so I assume his test was correct. It seems to be his statement that this indicates a modern ink that is incorrect - which might reflect on his expertise in testing and identifying old inkI'm not sure whether Baxendale determined its presence visually or by chemical analysis. Voller came to the same conclusion visually, but I don't think any of the chemical analyses have confirmed Baxendale's findings.

As I think I said already, no scientist has been able to date the writing anywhere near as late as 1987. The Rendell team in 1993 eventually settled on 'prior to 1970' and they were hired to prove it a modern fake!

Baxendale [1992] and AFI [1994] are the only ones thus far to conclude that the ink contained ingredients (a dyestuff and preservative respectively) not used as far back as 1888, or otherwise showed signs of more recent application. Their opinions/findings are not supported by: Eastaugh [1992]; Kuranz [1993]; Leeds [1994]; Voller [1995]; or Platt [2004?].

If you think I'm being selective with my 'experts' be my guest and choose your own. I did advise you to do that in the first place. :)

Barretts' claims regarding buying the ink in an art shop appears to have muddied the waters somewhat in that disproving his claims seems to add authenticity to the diaryI don't see why it should. I have never understood the need to panic when another of Mike's claims bites the dust. He could be taken right out of the equation - all his claims in tatters - and it wouldn't make the diary look any more like the genuine work of James Maybrick or the Whitechapel Murderer.

Let's face it, it would be a poor forger who would utilise a modern, easily identifiable inkIndeed, and an even poorer forger who would identify it himself, in a bid to be known as the world's greatest, and then be proved wrong. ;)

If an iron gall ink and original Victorian paper were used, then I can't locate any test that would prove when the diary was written once it was more than 2 or 3 years old
Which more or less confirms what Dr Eastaugh said back in 1992. He evidently thought the writing was at least that old when he analysed the ink.

I perceive myself some anomalies in when the pen was dipped but I'll re-read the diary with "uneven fading" in mindAs I said, difficult for anyone to do from a facsimile. But I would be interested to see what you would judge to be 'anomalies', and what they could tell us about when the entries were written, compared with when they should have been written.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-01-2010, 09:53 AM

http://books.google.com/books?id=wYmvvEeuAi0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=lincoln+myths+hoaxes&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is the link to the Lincoln Hoax book I've been referring to

It's all worth a read but pg 121 is particularly relevant

Regards

Nemo

Hi Nemo,

I just had a quick look at page 121 but I don't see how it relates to the diary ink or paper.

No such problems have been identified with either.

Assuming Leeds correctly identified the diary ink as iron gall, the iron content is presumably too low to have caused the kind of extensive and obvious bronzing associated with age, actual or artificially accelerated.

The writing in the diary was not brown in colour when it was first examined in 1992; had not gone brown in colour by 1995, when Voller observed some faint bronzing; and is not brown in colour today - as you might have expected had it been artificially aged in the manner described to make it bronzed before its time.

The argument has to be that the writing wasn't artificially aged in that way, if the colour didn't look old enough in 1992. The trouble is, nothing has changed and it's now 2010!

In short, the diary, in common with genuine Victorian documents, had done all its bronzing by 1992. And while many bronze a lot, others hardly bronze at all, just like the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

SirRobertAnderson

06-01-2010, 01:02 PM

Baxendale [1992] and AFI [1994] are the only ones thus far to conclude that the ink contained ingredients (a dyestuff and preservative respectively) not used as far back as 1888, or otherwise showed signs of more recent application.

Toss AFI right in the waste basket.

It isn't even clear to me that the samples they used - besides the gelatin capsule issue which is a killer right there - were originally taken with the proper tools. Whenever and where ever those samples were taken it appears that the samples were pushed out with a paper clip ! You've gotta be kidding me.

Just bad science all around.

Nemo

06-01-2010, 04:11 PM

Thanks very much for the info again Caz - you certainly know your stuff

As you say, there are a lot of variables involved in the bronzing process

The only good test I can think of is one that involves testing whether the paper has aged a lot (100yrs+) before the ink was applied

The anomalies I refer to are where I perceive that the next line of writing would be done on a different day to that preceding it, yet there seems to be a continuation of the ink from 1 dip etc

I'll go back and re-read it and see if anything crops up

I'm more than prepared to consider it in a favourable light as being a genuine 19th C document and deal with everything that implies

However, I'm still not convinced that science has anything to add yet in the sense that if I wrote with iron gall ink on Victorian paper tomorrow, maybe held on to it for a few years, then no-one could tell exactly when that writing took place and indeed, it might be taken for a genuine 19th C document

SirRobertAnderson

06-01-2010, 04:54 PM

Scott Nelson

06-01-2010, 05:51 PM

Toss AFI right in the waste basket

Yes. They were a small company of one or two persons operating what amounted to a desktop GC -- a simplified model with a manual syringe injection port into the column. I operated a similar unit in the late 1990's and there were continuous problems all the time - mostly with false positives due to column contamination and interference patterns on the chromatagraphs. The early testing controversies could have been avoided if the ink samples were taken just to Leeds or a similar univ. analytical laboratory and analyzed using GC/MS. But this method was rather costly then, so I guess those in charge of the situation did the best they could based on the knowledge and budget they had.

Nemo

06-01-2010, 06:02 PM

Can I ask, how can it be stated that the diary is pre-1970?

On what criteria was that based?

Paul Butler

06-01-2010, 07:59 PM

However, I'm still not convinced that science has anything to add yet in the sense that if I wrote with iron gall ink on Victorian paper tomorrow, maybe held on to it for a few years, then no-one could tell exactly when that writing took place and indeed, it might be taken for a genuine 19th C document

Hi Nemo.

You could well be right there.

What you wouldn't have however, is the irregular fading that occurs within the pages of the diary, the likes of which Voller tells us you can only get on a genuinely 90 odd year old document, and which he insists is impossible to fake.

What I find interesting is that the scientists that have examined the diary and watch have actually told us much more from their straightforward observations of the items themselves, than they have ever managed from their expensive tests. The blob of glue on the diary pages that overlays the ink, the Maybrick scratches on the watch being there before the repair marks were made etc. etc.

Its all food for thought isn't it?

Regards.

Paul

Nemo

06-02-2010, 06:49 AM

Hi Paul

That's interesting

I'll try and find a bit more information about the "fading"

It seems a bit strange that the ink would fade in this manner and I'm not sure how impossible it would be to fake it - if indeed it was worthwhile to fake such a process

Would it was a by-product of another process such as blotting the ink with some other substance?

I was wondering about any glue present - I'll look into that also

Thanks for the input everybody

Best Regards

Nemo

Caroline Morris

06-03-2010, 07:21 AM

Toss AFI right in the waste basket.

It isn't even clear to me that the samples they used - besides the gelatin capsule issue which is a killer right there - were originally taken with the proper tools. Whenever and where ever those samples were taken it appears that the samples were pushed out with a paper clip ! You've gotta be kidding me.

Just bad science all around.

Hi Sir Robert,

The paper clip fiasco was later, when AFI took paper-only samples directly from the diary in the presence of Shirley Harrison, to test for the preservative they thought they had found in the ink. The reasoning went that if they had found any in the genuinely old paper (they didn't in the event), it could have migrated to the ink, providing an innocent explanation for it being there.

The problem had been that their diary ink samples came from some ink-on-paper dots left over from the 1993 Rendell testing in the US, transported back to the UK in those gelatin capsules, which surprised Leeds Uni, who told Shirley that gelatin 'has an astonishing ability to absorb and interact with anything it contacts'.

As you know, Mr Poster was horrified by AFI's methods, pointing out that the 'blank' was not blank, rendering their one-off result invalid at best. Baxendale failed to spot the iron in the ink and got his dyestuff dates badly wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-03-2010, 07:38 AM

The anomalies I refer to are where I perceive that the next line of writing would be done on a different day to that preceding it, yet there seems to be a continuation of the ink from 1 dip etc

I'll go back and re-read it and see if anything crops up

Hi Nemo,

If you could point us to an example or two that would be great.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-03-2010, 07:59 AM

Can I ask, how can it be stated that the diary is pre-1970?

On what criteria was that based?

That was Rod McNeill's "strong opinion" in October 1993, after his ion migration test - giving a rough ink-met-paper date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years (but subject to the amount of exposure to light) - was criticised for being unrepeatable and potentially unreliable. He was working on Kenneth Rendell's team in the US.

Rendell's research ink chemist, Bob Kuranz, found nothing that was inconsistent with the Victorian period.

Rendell and co were commissioned to find evidence of modern fakery, but in the end science took a back seat to Mike Barrett, when its 'prior to 1970' effectively became 'whenever this known liar says he did it'.

You couldn't make it up. Mike makes it up and the scientists gobble it up.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-03-2010, 08:20 AM

I'll try and find a bit more information about the "fading"

It seems a bit strange that the ink would fade in this manner and I'm not sure how impossible it would be to fake it - if indeed it was worthwhile to fake such a process

Would it was a by-product of another process such as blotting the ink with some other substance?

I was wondering about any glue present - I'll look into that also

It's all there from page 369 of Shirley's Blake edition. But here are a couple of short snippets:

Voller: "Assuming this staining is glue... there you see a dot of ink which is beneath the glue so it's been there a very very long time. The glue does not have the feel of modern synthetic glue...

...The fading that's occurred is quite characteristic of permanent manuscript inks of some considerable age. They don't fade evenly; you get two consecutive lines of writing, one of which remains quite legible and one fades badly...

...you can see the irregular fading... with a modern ink you would get a regular fade-out along that line...

...the Diary fading is irregular and such an effect cannot be achieved artificially...

...any exposure to U.V. radiation that was harsh enough to simulate a century's worth of natural fading would also have a savage bleaching effect on the paper."

He also mentions that he has seen "a considerable number of documents like that where there has been very little bronzing...".

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-03-2010, 11:42 AM

Hi Nemo,

If you could point us to an example or two that would be great.

Love,

Caz
X

No problem Caz - But I'll just give a couple if you don't mind as I don't expect you to be impressed - lol

On the first page, you can get an impression of the ink gradually running out before the writer dips the pen

"Foolish Bitch" seems to run on from the preceding passage and then the pen is dipped before "I know" is written

The word "PosteHouse" appears to be out of kilter with the rest of the sentence it is included within both by the ink and its location in relation to the other words - ie I suggest that the word Postehouse was added later, a space having been left to accommodate it

On the following page, after leaving the first few passages to dry, and observing the fading of the ink and how prominent the "dips" are, the writer chooses to change tack and dip the pen in the ink before the ink runs out on the page - resulting in a long run of dark writing

There seems to have been a dip into the ink prior to writing "Battlecrease" (with that overly elaborate letter "B") yet the ink runs out within a few words ie As with Postehouse, Battlecrease was written in later in a space left in the sentence

Howzat! :nerd:

Nemo

06-03-2010, 11:46 AM

That was Rod McNeill's "strong opinion" in October 1993, after his ion migration test - giving a rough ink-met-paper date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years (but subject to the amount of exposure to light) - was criticised for being unrepeatable and potentially unreliable. He was working on Kenneth Rendell's team in the US.

Thanks for that Caz - though it doesn't seem to fit with other scientist's opinions about the difficulty in obtaining such information with the tests available

The Lincoln myth book mentions the usefulness (or not) of ion migration tests in providing a date for when ink met paper

SirRobertAnderson

06-03-2010, 01:19 PM

Hi Sir Robert,

The paper clip fiasco was later, when AFI took paper-only samples directly from the diary in the presence of Shirley Harrison, to test for the preservative they thought they had found in the ink.

Thanks for the clarification, Caz.

The problem had been that their diary ink samples came from some ink-on-paper dots left over from the 1993 Rendell testing in the US, transported back to the UK in those gelatin capsules, which surprised Leeds Uni, who told Shirley that gelatin 'has an astonishing ability to absorb and interact with anything it contacts'.

The guy that runs the lab at my company was the former Dean of Research at the Harvard Medical School. He's one of the two scientists I asked to review the existing lab work on the Diary. (Dr. Mank whom you met at the London Conference was the other.)

Both said that if you store in gelatin, you might as well throw the samples out. And Lord knows that taking paper samples using a paper clip is reprehensible.

I guess it all depends on how charitable one wants to be about all this, because it is not as if Harris and his zombie army didn't trumpet the AFI results to the world. To this day, the Ripper community thinks that there was one test that found nothing dodgy, and one that did.

Caroline Morris

06-04-2010, 12:08 PM

To this day, the Ripper community thinks that there was one test that found nothing dodgy, and one that did.

Could have been worse, Sir Robert. At one point there were attempts made on almost a daily basis to deceive the Ripper community into believing that no tests had ever been done because the diary owner refused to allow any.

The irony is that Melvin Harris could not have commissioned AFI back in 1994 to test the diary ink for chloroacetamide, if he hadn't been able to supply them with samples left over from a previous comprehensive testing package, undertaken in the US in 1993 to prove modern fakery, after the initial testing in 1992 had failed to put any nails in coffins. Oddly, this flat contradiction of the "no testing allowed" mantra didn't seem to occur to anyone in the zombie army.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-04-2010, 01:45 PM

Hi Nemo,

Thanks for your examples - I did only ask for one or two so that's great.

I can see what you mean about 'Poste House' and 'Battlecrease' looking like they could have been inserted later by a forger who - oddly to my mind - would have been committing pen to paper before he even had his locations sorted out.

But assuming he did this, and was conscious of the need for some invisible mending when the time came, how hard could it have been to make a natural job of both insertions, considering the space he left for himself in each case? And if he was careful to change tack by the second page due to his prominent "dips" on the first, how do you explain the oversight with his later 'Battlecrease' insertion?

As for identifying where each dipping occurs, I've looked at the facsimile and I'm damned if I can tell the difference between this and Voller's irregular fading, which has left the writing looking bold and freshly charged with ink, or badly faded, or all degrees in between, at completely random points on the pages.

You really need to read all Voller's related observations (too many for me to transcribe here) to see whether you could possibly be mistaking this for the pen being dipped and running out of ink at certain points, and then being dipped more frequently to give 'a long run of dark writing' to disguise the dipping points. The penman could not have observed the fading as we can see it now, if this is Voller's irregular fading that only happens gradually over many years. And this would also explain the differing lengths of light and dark writing.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-04-2010, 02:16 PM

Thanks for that Caz - though it doesn't seem to fit with other scientist's opinions about the difficulty in obtaining such information with the tests available

The Lincoln myth book mentions the usefulness (or not) of ion migration tests in providing a date for when ink met paper

Well quite. That's why I said McNeill's test was criticised by other scientists. The result (1921 + or -) was unrepeatable and couldn't be relied upon.

I don't know how he felt able to reach his modified verdict of 'prior to 1970', but he's the only scientist so far to stick his neck out and give us even a vague 'latest date' estimate. Certainly none of them has given us an 'earliest date' we can take to the bank. And while all the 'not inconsistent with the period' verdicts in the world won't make this thing real, they haven't made it a day later than 1970 either, and that may never happen if the faker chose a suitable ink and waited a few years before allowing anyone near it.

But once again, it defies science - and all common sense - to imagine that the penman did his work and gave it to Mike Barrett of all people, to "do something with", when the ink was barely dry.

Love,

Caz
X

SirRobertAnderson

06-04-2010, 05:17 PM

Could have been worse, Sir Robert. At one point there were attempts made on almost a daily basis to deceive the Ripper community into believing that no tests had ever been done because the diary owner refused to allow any.

Daily ? I remember it as hourly ! And a bald faced lie every time it was posted.

I think that had more to do with mental health issues that the Diary itself. It could have been Hutch, or Stride, or several other flash points that posters with mental illness seem to gravitate towards. It just happened to be our gin joint that he wandered into. Fortunately with respect to the Diary we have the paper trail and reports from the various labs and those with a mind to see where the truth lies can find it for themselves.

Mr. Poster

06-04-2010, 06:18 PM

Hi ho

Hi Nemo
Has a modern chemical been found in the ink or not? Opinions seem to differ

Opinions may differ but scientific fact doesnt and, as has been pointed out by more eminent men than me, the fact remains that the tests that were used to attempt to show the presence of teh suspected compound were manifestly inappropriiate and could never show the presence of it.

Hi Caz

Leeds University concluded that the diary ink was indeed comparable to that on genuine Victorian documents and typical iron gall recipes of the time.

WE must not forget though that iron gall recipes of today are not much different to those then.

I don't pretend to understand any of this, but at first glance it looks like a method to determine the time lapse, if any, between separate entries on a document or series of documents.

That patent refers to ballpoint inks and the like. Not iron gall inks which produce colour not through pigment but through reaction with paper.

Hi Nemo

A fluorescence on the paper, however, indicated that the ink had been artificially bronzed with the use of chemicals

Thats a crock of sh!te. From harris one must presume. The Protector of Truth or whatever. Flourescence could have come from anything. LIke a trace of wahing powder from a jumper sleeve draged lightly over the page. Or whatever.

Are you saying that all the tests done by the "experts" who state that the ink was relatively new etc are incorrect for whatever reason?

The interpretation of one of them was. Gas chromatography cannot identify a compound. Ever.

Gas chromatography with a mass spectrometer can. However the people who decided the chloracetamide was present didnt have one.

NOt to mention that the blank they used, also, by their own definition, contained chloroacetamide. Odd that. And fully demonstrated by yours truly years ago, with pictures, and bibliography. And secure in the knowledge that I was not the only chemist who had professed to be a little stunned by the conclusions drawn on the basis of an eminently unsuitable technique.

Although it probably was suitable when judged in respect to a criteria such as Melvin Harris's budget.

I wrote a lot about this years ago on another site. Interestingly enough, last time I checked....not one person had managed to refute my assertions despite my invitation to whisk th etext to any analytical chemist they wanted to see did they disagree with me.

I should have tidied it up into a dissertation but quite frankly....the ignorance displayed at the time bordered on some kind of religious beleif and it was altogether off putting.

p

Nemo

06-05-2010, 07:02 AM

Hi Mr P

Just thought I'd point out that the fluorescence appeared on the Abraham Lincoln document - not the diary

Thanks Caz

I could easily speculate on why there are apparent "anomalies" in the writing, whether it was due to the dipping of the pen or irregular fading.

However, IMO, the overall impression is that it is not consistent with someone writing fluently with an ink pen

On a minor point, wouldn't Maybrick own a fountain pen by 1888/1889?

Best Regards

Nemo

Mr. Poster

06-05-2010, 08:36 AM

Hi Nemo

However, IMO, the overall impression is that it is not consistent with someone writing fluently with an ink pen

It shouldnt be. It should be consistent with some poor sod out of his tits and nursing a bit of a mental problem to boot.

Im not sure this chap and someone writing fluently with anything above a sharp stick are comparable.

Now if someone could obtain the personal musings of a similarily odd chappie/chapette......then we would be able to compare.

p

Paul Butler

06-05-2010, 08:42 AM

Hi ho Mr P.

Now every time this comes up, I end up more confused than I was to start with...!

My understanding is that the type of permanent ink used in the diary is a black iron based permanent ink. The dye, ususlly nigrosene at this date, is there so that the ink is immediately visible to the writer. The iron is there to react with the paper and leave a permanent impression once the pigment has eventually faded away. This, I understand is the reason for very old documents to appear as if they were written in brown ink rather than blue or black.

The diary ink, as I understand it, is still quite black in colour, indicating that the pigment used has not faded to any great extent.

Something I hadn't understood until hearing Voller's comments was that the alleged preservative used in the ink was to keep it fresh once it was on the page. (I had always assumed that it was intended to keep it useable longer in the bottle.)

Assuming I am right, there must be two things going on as the ink ages. The black pigment gradually fades exposing the permanent image below,and the permanent impression left by the iron oxide beneath the pigment also presumably fades eventually, but to a lesser degree.

I'm guessing that the fading Voller sees is the fading of the black dye and not the permanent image burned into the paper below?

Does that make sense, and if so I'm now wondering whether the bronzing he observed is due to the aging of the black pigment or the "burnt in" image below?

regards.

Paul

Mr. Poster

06-05-2010, 05:31 PM

hi ho PB

Now every time this comes up, I end up more confused than I was to start with...!

Join the club

My understanding is that the type of permanent ink used in the diary is a black iron based permanent ink. The dye, ususlly nigrosene at this date, is there so that the ink is immediately visible to the writer. The iron is there to react with the paper and leave a permanent impression once the pigment has eventually faded away. This, I understand is the reason for very old documents to appear as if they were written in brown ink rather than blue or black.

True enough. One must wonder though,as I do, if the temporary colouring agent - nigrosine in this case apparently - is still visible 130 years later with no sign of fading.....why bother with the iron gall at all? Seeing as nigrosine seems to form a fairly permanent ink on its own.

The diary ink, as I understand it, is still quite black in colour, indicating that the pigment used has not faded to any great extent.

That seems to be the case as I understand it.

Something I hadn't understood until hearing Voller's comments was that the alleged preservative used in the ink was to keep it fresh once it was on the page. (I had always assumed that it was intended to keep it useable longer in the bottle.)

The alleged preservatives used were either chloroacetamide or phenol ? According to Voller (and I have not heard the tapes). The former of these is used to keep all manner of things fresh - in bottles. The latter is noxious stuff and I dont understand why it would keep something fresh on the page. What fresh in this context means at all is beyond me.

Phenol does prevent fungi and the like so maybe "fresh" means mold and fungus free?

Assuming I am right, there must be two things going on as the ink ages. The black pigment gradually fades exposing the permanent image below,and the permanent impression left by the iron oxide beneath the pigment also presumably fades eventually, but to a lesser degree.

THe first of these sounds right but after over a century still hasnt faded! Thats pretty gradual!

The iron oxide doesnt fade.....it forms a colour by "burning" the page slightly. Indeed for normal iron gall ink....one expects the burn to get worse. Which is why preservers of old inks usulaly try to neutralise the page first...to stop further burning. Really old documents often have brown holes in them from the continued action of the iron gall ink.

I'm guessing that the fading Voller sees is the fading of the black dye and not the permanent image burned into the paper below?

I genuinely dont know what hes talking about half the time in the books. I find him very confusing.

Does that make sense, and if so I'm now wondering whether the bronzing he observed is due to the aging of the black pigment or the "burnt in" image below?

Id theorise it could actually be either....a browning due to the iron gall or a metallic sheen due to some organic substance such as an aniline dye.

If yoou google bronzing and inks....you will notice it still is a problem in inkjet inks, photo printing inks etc etc.

Heres something on bronzzing I got from a website regarding modern inks:

Epson calls bronzing on glossy paper, "surface reflectivity difference" - and that's really what it is. In areas where there is a large build-up of ink (shadows, dark colors), the ink lies on the surface and becomes reflective as opposed to ink in more lightly printed areas.

I find it really disturbing. It's sort of like the holograph on a credit card or the color shifting ink on new US money. As you change angles to the print, the color shifts slightly looking metallic - hence the common term "bronzing."

Pigment inks have this problem specifically because they contain solids (pigments) that do not penetrate the ink receiver in glossy paper. Dye based inks penetrate the surface easily as they have no solid materials.

Matte papers have no glossy surface barrier so the pigment inks can easily penetrate into the paper and you do not have bronzing. The gamut using Epson Ultrachrome ink with matte black ink is about the widest on the market due to a higher d-max in black.

Ifyou notice...its apparent on changing the viewing angle.....which is what Voller did?

So it appears that its due to a pigment?

Which is a pain in the ass as Victorian pigments were crude mixtures of a load of compounds which one would imaginewould have shown up in the Leeds analysis.....and yet didnt.

Now you see why you are not alone in being confused.

p

Caroline Morris

06-07-2010, 06:46 AM

Morning All,

I think it's important to keep remembering that there is nothing unusual about the appearance of the writing - colour, fading, bronzing etc - when compared with genuine Victorian handwritten documents.

I have a Victorian family recipe/remedy scrapbook in front of me as I type. It's dated inside - in blue ink - 1848, and the entries are handwritten over 100 pages, by two or more individuals, using what looks like a variety of different inks and nibs.

I have it all here: there are entries that go randomly from blue to black to dark brown and back to blue again; others, over several consecutive pages, that are uniformly greyish brown and evenly faded throughout; others that are blue and evenly bold throughout; others that are very dark brown, and some black, that look like they were written yesterday; some very clear examples of irregular fading; one entry, over half a page, that is almost entirely a faded blue but has half a sentence in the middle that has gone brown for no obvious reason; and another entry, over 47 lines, where the first two and a half lines are blue, the next fifteen or so are a mixture of bold and faded brown, the next six and a half lines are blue again, and the rest are brown - same handwriting, same nib, and the colour changes occur within the same sentence.

Now one thing that has just struck me is that it might be unusual to see 63 pages of a Victorian diary, supposedly written over an entire year, using the same ink and the same or similar nib. It would be rather difficult for a hoaxer working much later to get himself a good variety of authentic looking inks and nibs for the purpose, which could explain why the author apparently stuck to the one ink type.

But then anyone running a business and watching the finances would have had reason to settle on particular writing materials and do deals by buying in bulk.

Love,

Caz
X

SirRobertAnderson

06-07-2010, 02:34 PM

The diary ink, as I understand it, is still quite black in colour, indicating that the pigment used has not faded to any great extent.

Of course, the great irony here is that I am completely colorblind....but I won't let that stop me from giving my two cents worth !

The Diary ink is not uniform in intensity (my words as I can't relate to colors but only shading), varying quite a bit from page to page and even from entry to entry. (Ditto handwriting I will add.)

It gives every appearance of being something legitimately old, and I would not describe the ink as appearing bold and fresh.

Nemo

06-08-2010, 05:18 AM

I've ordered Feldman's "Final Chapter" so I'll let you know if that reveals anything
to me

I was more commenting on the inconsistency of the person who wrote the diary in dipping the pen

It implies someone who is not used to writing with pen and ink for any extended period of time

Science is limited, it's plain that the diary stands or falls on the text

If an accomplished Ripperologist or researcher spent time producing the text, then it would be naturally difficult to spot a mistake

However, there are a number of mistakes - not least of which is placing Kelly's breasts on the table

I'll create a thread in the diary section to discuss the text after I've read "The Final Chapter"

Regards

Nemo

Paul Butler

06-08-2010, 09:21 AM

Hi Nemo.

After reading Feldman I expect you'll probably be more confused than you were to start with! Not a bad book though. Have you read Caz's book, which is the best all round overview of the story so far. Nothing much has changed since it was published.

If you look closely at the diary text you'll see that Sir Jim didn't actually make a boob, (excuse the pun), concerning the Kelly body parts.

Regards.

Paul

Caroline Morris

06-08-2010, 11:22 AM

Thanks Paul! :)

I was more commenting on the inconsistency of the person who wrote the diary in dipping the pen

It implies someone who is not used to writing with pen and ink for any extended period of time

Aaaargh! It's like I'm invisible.

Nemo - how have you managed to ascertain that you are not mistaking Voller's irregular fading for this supposedly inconsistent dipping??

Others who have examined the diary 'in the flesh' have commented on the skill and experience a modern hoaxer would have needed with an old style dip pen in order to produce such flowing, natural-looking and remarkably blotch-free writing over 63 pages. Not one spoiled page has had to be removed or excused.

Love,

Caz
X

Paul Butler

06-08-2010, 11:30 AM

It gives every appearance of being something legitimately old, and I would not describe the ink as appearing bold and fresh.

Hi Sir Bob.

I agree entirely that the diary's appearance gives every indication of being legitimately old, and people a damned sight more qualified than me feel the same.

You can get really bogged down with these contradictory ink tests, and as a result I tend not to take any of them too seriously.

I still tend toward the belief that the diary IS old, and quite possibly of the period it purports to be, but that is mainly due to other things, particularly its appearance and the insistence of one expert very well qualified to comment who tells us that its present appearance would be "impossible" to fake.

Regards.

Paul

P.S. There's a TV programme here called "Waking the dead" which features a pathologist with a magic dropper containing a colourless fluid that seems to be able to perform all sorts of tricks, like making long washed away ink reappear, restoring photographs that have been at the bottom of a lake for six months, anything you want it to really.

I think she should have a go at it.

SirRobertAnderson

06-08-2010, 01:32 PM

I still tend toward the belief that the diary IS old,

It and the Watch are old. The question is who created them and got them into Battlecrease, if they weren't there in the first place.

Those are the questions. Everything else is internet ranting and raving.

Nemo

06-08-2010, 02:05 PM

Hi Caz

You are certainly not invisible and I am taking on board the "irregular fading" and how it would be "impossible" for a modern hoaxer to produce the appearance of the writing in the diary, I'm just not agreeing with it in my lowly way

There seems to me to be variations in the writing style that are consistent with a person not used to writing at length with a pen and ink - not just when and where the writer dipped his pen, but intrinsically associated with that action

I certainly don't agree with the Israeli graphologist who stated that the writing is fluent and the writer is putting his/her thoughts on paper as they occur in the mind

For example, the overly elaborate "B" in Battlecrease on the second page implies a halt to the thought process at a location where a pause is not necessary or expected if it was Maybrick writing it

However, as you say, I'm no "expert" and have not examined the diary itself, so that is pure speculation based on my examination of the facsimile

I'd be in a better position discussing the actual text, which requires little interpretation

Hi Paul

I'm not sure what you are referring to in the diary text that points to the writer NOT making a mistake as far as the breasts are concerned

Many newspaper reports in 1888 state that the breasts were cut off and placed on the table

Within the diary, Maybrick implies that he reads the reports of his crimes so he should have been aware of that misconception and should have known the real location of the breasts

However, He repeats the fallacy within the text not once, but twice

It is not a passing reference either as the first time they are mentioned, he says...

"Left them on the table with some of the other stuff. Thought they belonged there"

Shirley Harrison then states

"However, a few days later, when he recalls the murder more tranquilly in a poem, he largely gets it right.

They tasted so sweet
I thought of leaving them at the whores feet"

Conveniently, Harrison leaves it at that, failing to point out that the poem reads...

I kissed them,
I kissed them
They tasted so sweet
I thought of leaving them by the whores feet
but the table it was bear
so I went and left them there

In Feldmans book I can't find any explanation of the breasts error, despite on pg 65 there being a rebuttal of some views put forward by Philip Sugden, in which the misplacement of the breasts is mentioned and in which Feldman says...

"The key and the breasts I've already dealt with..."

I'd be pleased if someone can direct me to the relevant page

It seems quite clear to me that the writer of the diary is under the impression that the breasts were left on the table - no question

I can't see much room for any ambiguity there

Nemo

06-08-2010, 02:18 PM

Hi Paul / Bob

When examining the watch, (facsimile photo!) I can't see how scratches made over the older stamped marks and polished out could be distinguished from scratches made before the stamped marks were made

The "Y" in Maybrick passes "under" one of the marks yet that area has been overly polished - it seems apparent from the marks around each number

If you polish a watch, why would you over-polish that small area I wonder

I feel pretty certain a modern forger could replicate such an effect which would deceive the scientists

The caveats put on the examination covers that in that the examiner has to assume a certain amount of wear, tear and polishing, and within that framework a date may be reached

However, with the action of a skilled forger at work on it, the conclusion of an age of decades for the scratches could easily be arrived at in my opinion

I did see the police and military on TV being able to retrieve a filed off serial number on car engines and firearms via a method which involves examining stress marks in the metal which coincide with the numbers

If the scratch, or it's accompanying stress marks are visible at the base of the stamped mark then there may be something in it - though I think it works best with stamped on marks

Paul Butler

06-08-2010, 03:35 PM

Hi Nemo.

I think you hit the nail right on the head yourself. I suppose it all depends if you believe the real ripper would have perfect recall of the events at Millers Court that night or not.

Sir Jim is telling us he has read of his exploits and that according to the papers he left the breasts on the table. A few sentences later he is doubting that fact, saying in effect, "I'm sure I left them at her feet".

To my mind he hasn't made any mistake, but has neatly managed to cover himself. I don't think it very likely that the real James wrote those words anyway, and a hoaxer could have written them at any time since 1888.

As for the watch scratches....if you make a scratch in metal and then cross it with a second scratch, the second will drag metal into the first one made. This is very easy to observe and frankly impossible to fake, particularly with scratches so small and indistinct that it takes an electron microscope to observe. No amount of polishing will disguise the fact.

Regards.

Paul

Paul Butler

06-08-2010, 03:39 PM

Hi Nemo.

Just read your post again. The stamped marks on the watch were there first, and the "Maybrick" scratches are not beneath them. They are hallmarks and manufacturing numbers.

The "Maybrick" scratches were there before the neatly engraved repair numbers were added as they are beneath them, NOT any of the stamped marks.

Regards.

Paul

Nemo

06-08-2010, 04:11 PM

Hi Paul

I was just printing out the photos from the watch reports

I must admit I can see where one scratch goes beneath another though the pictures are unclear

The examiner himself states that it would be possible to fake the scratches albeit via a complicated process

I have an old watch and forensic microscope with a camera on it so I'll see what I can come up with myself in regard to marks and scratches

I notice in the 1994 report that it was stated that an attempt was made 6-10 years previously to polish out the scratches. It doesn't appear to have been successful as the scratches remain and that timing is suspicious as regards the watch being a fake

---------------------------------

The diarist make quite an issue of Kelly's breasts, kissing them, tasting them, choosing an appropriate location for them - in identifying the wrong location, to me, that seems an error in knowledge, not memory

There are a number of anomalies I would like to discuss - Many thanks Caz, Paul and Bob for your comments so far. It's all very enlightening and you have cleared away some of my initial confusion on this subject

SirRobertAnderson

06-08-2010, 06:44 PM

FWIW, and of course it is all a matter of opinion, but it is the Watch that convinced me that Maybrick was the Ripper. The Diary is nise, but it is the Watch that is the critical piece of evidence.

Unfortunately we all need to wait until Keith Skinner can come forward with his findings on all these matters, but eventually the truth will come out.

Tempus Omnia Revelat indeed.

Nemo

06-08-2010, 09:04 PM

I can't see how/why someone would scratch across the key hole on the watch

I've been reading some of the dissertations by Melvin Harris who has covered most of the ground regarding obvious anomalies

I see he suggests a watering down of the diary ink to account for some fading, which had occurred to me also

I'll leave it at that really as in researching the watch and diary, I can see that a lot has been already said, so I'll respectfully return to the subject after some intensive reading

I'm looking forward to Keith's "new" research - any idea how the watch is to be tested?

Harris states that there is a signed affidavit from the watch repair guy stating that the scratches were not there in 1992

Should that be believed?

It's difficult to put your finger on the facts in the diary case

SirRobertAnderson

06-08-2010, 10:42 PM

I'm looking forward to Keith's "new" research - any idea how the watch is to be tested?

Testing isn't the issue; it's plain old fashioned gumshoe detective work i.e. where did these things come from and who first had possession. Who what why and where.

I say this with zero malice towards Harris - honest - but he was so full of rage towards the Maybrick camp that I would take everything he every wrote on the subject and toss it. He was in no position to objectively look at the matter.

Just one quick observation : you are aware he never actually examined the Diary himself despite the opportunity ? Kind of hard to opine on its physical characteristics ain't it ?

Nemo

06-09-2010, 05:24 AM

Thanks Bob

I can't really argue with Harris' findings in regard to the information in the diary being found in two or three books

He has plenty of other good points to answer and practically demolishes Feldman's book

I'm not sure why he didn't physically look at the diary as that may go against his assessment of the ink

I thought Keith Skinner was more searching for links between the diary and Battlecrease, resulting in "recent" documentary evidence that the diary at one time WAS in Battlecrease

Is that correct?

I can't see why the watch guy would sign an affidavit saying that the scratches on the watch are post 1992 if that is incorrect - but then, nothing seems straightforward really

Caroline Morris

06-09-2010, 05:53 AM

Hi Nemo,

This is part of my response to Bill Beadle's Maybrick article, as published in the WS1888 journal:

It is no secret that Sir Jim is meant to have read about his ‘latest’ before recording his thoughts on the murder of Mary Kelly. Anything that has been wiped from his memory, or jumbled up in his over-medicated mind, in the wake of his most monstrous crime to date, can be put back or straightened out by what the papers say.

Or can it? If he expects eye witnesses to the grim scene to fill in the gaps in his own recollection of how he left it, he is going to be misled. If he assumes he is being reliably informed that the breasts were found on the table, he will naturally conclude that he must have put them there, even though, as he later recalls, he did think of ‘leaving them by the whores feet’.

But do killers forget such major details of their own crimes? The notorious cannibal Albert Fish apparently did. After abducting and murdering little Grace Budd, and with parts of her body still there with him, Fish could not remember ‘what it had been. He felt it must have been a boy. Yes, a boy; that was it’.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-09-2010, 06:05 AM

Caroline Morris

06-09-2010, 06:20 AM

I'd be in a better position discussing the actual text, which requires little interpretation...

...It seems quite clear to me that the writer of the diary is under the impression that the breasts were left on the table - no question

I can't see much room for any ambiguity there

And I think it points to a very clever and subtle bit of hoaxing, or a very peculiar coincidence indeed. If the writer believes that the breasts were found on the table, and has absolutely no clue where they were actually found, his 'whores feet' afterthought is simply inexplicable.

But what was our "Sir Jim" meant to think, when he read all the gory details in the Times?

"I have read about my latest..."

That they got it wrong when examining the scene at their leisure, mistaking whatever was on the table for a pair of breasts? Or that he had misremembered where he dumped them when he had done with kissing and tasting them?

On the contrary, Nemo, I find almost nothing in this 63 page text that requires 'little' interpretation, and plenty of room for ambiguity throughout.

So much depends on knowing who the author was, when he was writing this and most of all why he was writing it.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-09-2010, 06:27 AM

Hi Caz

That's a possible explanation

Do you think he was going to the Lord Mayor's show dressed up to the nines? possibly carrying his tools in a parcel?

Maybrick must be Astrakhan and indeed, does he not dwell in Middlesex St?

When Hutchinson's description appeared in the paper, Maybrick must have been in fear of recognition and arrest

Why was this not referred to in the diary?

What??

Of course I don't think Maybrick was doing any such thing, Nemo!

If the real James ever popped into the East End for a bit of rough, for instance, I'm sure he wouldn't have 'dressed up to the nines' for a start.

So no, I don't think he would have had anything to fear from Hutchinson's description. If anything, he would have looked much more like Mrs Cox's Blotchy carroty whiskers (who must have welcomed Mr Astrakhan with open arms), but was probably in Liverpool at the time, dosing himself up to the gills!

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-09-2010, 06:55 AM

Caroline Morris

06-09-2010, 07:30 AM

Harris states that there is a signed affidavit from the watch repair guy stating that the scratches were not there in 1992

Should that be believed?

Yes and no.

Yes, Timothy Dundas stated that he saw no such scratches before the watch was sold to Albert in July 1992.

Don Rumbelow actually made the same point at the WS1888 meeting on Saturday night, but he didn't name the chap or go into any of the circumstances. He implied that this was a third "examination" that was being kept quiet because it challenged the two "decades old or more" verdicts of Drs Turgoose and Wild from UMIST and Bristol.

I tried to explain to him afterwards that Dundas, whose job was servicing watches, not examining their inner surfaces for barely visible scratches, must have been thinking about the wrong watch when making his statement, because the details didn't tally. If he remembered no engravings of any kind on the relevant surface he either should have gone to Specsavers or this was clearly not the watch that Albert later bought from Mr Murphy - who incidentally did remember seeing scratches and the other engravings in the right places before selling it. He'd have soon smelled a rat when Albert took the watch back to him to ask about it, if he had been confronted with a variety of crude scratches and neat engravings that hadn't been there before!

It would have been an honest and understandable mistake for Dundas to make, assuming that many watches passed through his hands, and he wasn't expecting to have to remember a particular one more than a year later. If none of the watches he saw in 1992 had struck him as remarkable, his recollection would simply be that no 'ripper' marks could have been in the one Murphy asked him to get working or he would have noticed them. But how could he be sure of that? The offending marks inside Albert's would hardly have been visible to the casual observer, let alone noteworthy, and Dundas never saw the watch after learning what had been found inside, so no comparison was possible.

Love,

Caz
X

Caroline Morris

06-09-2010, 07:38 AM

Hi Caz

Can I ask, where does the red hanky came into it?

This is from Hutchinson's description - and we have, "a handkerchief red led to the bed" comment

Why would Hutchinson give a detailed description that was not correct?

Was he protecting Maybrick?

If so, then leading the police to Middlesex St wouldn't appear helpful...

I really don't know how our hoaxer was interpreting such things or why, Nemo.

No two people here seem to interpret the Hutchinson episode in the same way, and none of us knows how it should be interpreted. So it's a tough one for me to comment on.

Love,

Caz
X

Nemo

06-09-2010, 07:59 AM

Best regards Caz

I don't expect you to have all the answers but you've been extremely informative so far

I haven't checked yet but I suspect there is already a lot of discussion extant in regard to the diary verifying Hutchinson's story somewhat

Many thanks

Nemo

SirRobertAnderson

06-09-2010, 11:23 AM

He has plenty of other good points to answer and practically demolishes Feldman's book

To be blunt, I wouldn't wipe my behind with Harris' Diary research.

Unfortunately we've been over a lot of this ad nauseum over the years and I really don't have the inclination to get dragged back into the bad old days. I guess if one repeats stuff enough times on the net some of it sticks.

I am always surprised when posters pop up and expect the Diary to hold some hithertofore unknown revelation about the crimes or regarding the Maybricks. Why should it ? Or more importantly, why must it ? The Diarist wasn't writing to impress....It is more remarkable to me that the document contains no errors regarding the Maybricks considering the notoriety of the case and how relatively easy it would have been to trip oneself up.

Feldman was wrong as well, needless to say. But at least he was intellectually honest. He actually believed the crap he wrote.

On the contrary, Nemo, I find almost nothing in this 63 page text that requires 'little' interpretation, and plenty of room for ambiguity throughout.

So much depends on knowing who the author was, when he was writing this and most of all why he was writing it.

Well said as always, Caz. One man's cheap hoax is another's fascinating little telegram from Hell.