Maybrick diary

[Phil Kellingley]

I posted the below on another thread, but it has relevance here.

To be clear, the chief chemist of Diamine Ink was Alec Voeller. In 1995 he examined the document at Robert Smith's office and concluded that, in his opinion, the 'Diary' ink was not Diamine ink. He also stated that, in his opinion, the ink did not go on the paper within recent years; and that the document was at least 90 years old (in 1995) and could be older. He added that if he had thought it was modern ink, he would have said so.

So should we ignore the expert opinion of Alec Voeller in favour of the experts we like?

Voeller identified it by sight. His opinion isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. The ONLY way to determine what the ink was is to properly chemically analyse it - and the holders of the diary have steadfastly refused to do that.

[Jay Hartley]

Voeller identified it by sight. His opinion isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. The ONLY way to determine what the ink was is to properly chemically analyse it - and the holders of the diary have steadfastly refused to do that.

You're right. The chief chemist of Diamine's opinion on whether the ink used was Diamine is not worth the paper it is written on.

The irony of you criticising his judgment based on sight and observation, but we are supposed to accept yours?

[Phil Kellingley]

The account of Mike's in-depth scientific experiment of mixing ink with sugar is on record. Something about separating molecules. Is that scientifically accurate to you? Not sure if this is public info or not, but I guess it is now.

I have no need to keep receipts. I do not proclaim to have ownership of a diary I supposedly hoaxed. Mike and Anne did keep receipts. They had so for a computer which RJ likes to wheel out now and then. Remember, Mike had the phantom auction ticket, which he tempted us all with. Any day now, it will be revealed. They kept the cheque stub for the diary they didn't use, and a receipt for a computer that assisted them in the hoax. Why not the ink?

Can you point to a source about the sugar? It's not in his affidavit so where is there evidence that he said it? (My guess would be that someone who hadn't a clue thought it might thicken the ink or make it stick to the paper more - but the act is pointless).

I can imagine keeping a receipt for a computer - it might be needed to claim on a warranty. And there is no direct connection with that and the diary except they were supposed to have used it to provide a transcript. The PCW stored stuff on 3 inch floppy disks. There would be no text in the computer and if the disk was disposed of no evidence that it was ever used in the fakery. (My other half had a PCW so I'm quite familiar with how it worked). Cheque stubs have a habit of being in a cheque book which was used to purchase many things and keeping a complete book isn't really a push -especially as it was Anne's cheque book and not Mike's. That he didn't keep receipts isn't really that surprising because he was trying to present a fake which would make him a lot of money so keeping evidence that disproved his fake wouldn't really be a good idea. I'm relatively sure that Barrett would have thought of that.

[Phil Kellingley]

Although the ink stuff is really inconclusive since Diamine is said to basically copy an old formula, the dating of the ink to paper can’t really be faulted and it leaves you with several possibilities.

It’s only when he veers into the Whodunnit and takes the view of people who have a vested stake in the matter and who see the value in a quick gift wrapped solution that I would take issue with the judgement.
Unfortunately, you get a square peg and a round hole. It hasn’t been fitted into the various possibilities provided.

So Phil, how about making all that inadmissible and take a second hard look and tell us what the conclusive and indisputable science really says?

The indication of the ink being modern IS possible if it contains chemicals which were not used in making the ink until years later. That is a simple fact. It is a fact that Diamine had its formula changed in the 1970s and had chloroacetamide added. If chloroacetamide was present in the ink in the diary then the ink was newer than 1973. Unless time travel was available the diary could not have been constructed until after that date To test for chloroacetamide using technology now available is simple albeit expensive. Smith refuses to do it. Harrison claimed she was going to have the original chloroacetamide tests redone by both AFI and Leeds - she didn't. I wonder why. (Actually I don't - they don't want the truth to come out).

It is possible to determine to some degree but not to pin point a year when ink was applied to paper.The technique involves electron microscope evaluation on the ion-migration. This WAS tried with the diary but failed - not because of the science but because of lack of material to test. A sample of the original paper bearing the ink and a sample not bearing the ink are taken. Ink is applied to the bare surface and after a period of time a measuement is taken - basically how far the ink has sunk in. In the case of the diary they apparently did not have the paper to use to apply fresh ink to and used something else.

[Jay Hartley]

The ink was not Diamine.

The sugar reference comes from Keith Skinner's Cloak & Dagger interview with Mike in April 1999.

[Phil Kellingley]

You're right. The chief chemist of Diamine's opinion on whether the ink used was Diamine is not worth the paper it is written on.

The irony of you criticising his judgment based on sight and observation, but we are supposed to accept yours?

My judgement will be made when a defintive test is done. My opinion, based on the evidence of world reknowned experts related to my personal experience in detecting document fraud, is that it is a fake. It has all the markings of a fake, it has laboratories that have tested it that weren't motivated by money from the diary holders that said it was fake.The handwriting wasn't Maybrick's. I could present anyone with 5 different inks on a piece of paper and ask them to tell me which one was different to the others by sight alone and they wouldn't be able to do it. Neither could Voller.

Beliefs are a wonderful thing - but totally valueless when every person who has been invited to conduct a proper investigation says either it's a fake or futher testing is required.

[Phil Kellingley]

The ink was not Diamine.

If that is the case perhaps you would be kind wnough to point me to some reference as to how Barrett obtained the formula and procedure for making the ink he said he used.

The sugar reference comes from Keith Skinner's Cloak & Dagger interview with Mike in April 1999.

Where is a copy of that interview available? It wasn't mentioned in his 1995 statement which gave clear recollection not only of the ink type but where he bought it and the pen nibs that he used..

[Kattrup]

If that is the case perhaps you would be kind wnough to point me to some reference as to how Barrett obtained the formula and procedure for making the ink he said he used.



Where is a copy of that interview available? It wasn't mentioned in his 1995 statement which gave clear recollection not only of the ink type but where he bought it and the pen nibs that he used..

Hi Phil

Mike asks and then answers his own question:

'What do you do with the ink? You put a little bit of sugar in it.'

Asked why he would do this, he said: 'To mix up the molecules'.

there’s a thorough analysis of the interview here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/amaninapub.htm

[Jay Hartley]

My judgement will be made when a defintive test is done. My opinion, based on the evidence of world reknowned experts related to my personal experience in detecting document fraud, is that it is a fake. It has all the markings of a fake, it has laboratories that have tested it that weren't motivated by money from the diary holders that said it was fake.The handwriting wasn't Maybrick's. I could present anyone with 5 different inks on a piece of paper and ask them to tell me which one was different to the others by sight alone and they wouldn't be able to do it. Neither could Voller.

Beliefs are a wonderful thing - but totally valueless when every person who has been invited to conduct a proper investigation says either it's a fake or futher testing is required.

Let’s not pretend you have not already made your judgement.

I’m glad you are coming around to my way of thinking. You shouldn’t accept my words as anything. You shouldn’t accept the chief chemist of Diamine’s word of anything. Then you should not trust Rendell’s word on anything, nor Melvin Harris.

We should all trust the science. You say the science is not good enough well only Robert Smith has the power to decide what can and can’t be done to the document. Not me. Not you.

I personally welcome more scientific tests on both the watch and scrapbook and encourage those scientists to stop sitting on the fence and give the answers the science actually shows. Too many people are worried reputations will be damaged by acknowledging what is true.

I cannot rule the diary out as a hoax as the science is not good enough to do so. The same applies for declaring it as one.

[Steve Blomer]

Just a polite note here from ADMIN, can we make sure we don't cross the line in personal comments, it's not happened yet, so I am not accusing anyone, but we seem to be drifting in that direction.

Of course it's to easy occur when people hold pasonate beliefs, but lets prevent the thread going that way.

Steve

[R. J. Palmer]

You're right. The chief chemist of Diamine's opinion on whether the ink used was Diamine is not worth the paper it is written on.

The irony of you criticising his judgment based on sight and observation, but we are supposed to accept yours?

Uh, Jay. Pardon my interruption, but is it possible that you really haven't thought any of this through?

Handwriting analysis, as conducted by Baxendale, Giles, Casey Owens, Rendell, and Nickell as part of their regime, is, by its nature, VISUAL. So of course, it is going to be based on 'observation.' How could it have been otherwise? Your wistful attempts to dismiss their analysis as 'unscientific' will strike many as convenient. For that matter, there are now computer programs that compare handwriting samples, so the human element can be removed--not that that is necessarily an improvement.

By contrast, a visual examination can hardly be a substitute for a chemical analysis when it comes to identifying an ink. Are we supposed to believe that Alec Voller (the correct spelling, by the way--it's not Voeller) could unequivocally identify an ink's chemical composition (including whether the ink contained a trace amount of chloroacetamide) just by looking at it?

Since the appearance of an ink can be altered by various means--both deliberately and incidentally---people are naturally going to consider a strictly visual examination inconclusive.

On one hand you claim you want 'hard science' and then you challenge someone who is merely asking that hard science be used.

Anyway, it was Voller himself who suggested testing the ink for chloroacetamide, so one can assume he believed it was worthwhile to do so. (Note: yes, it was Melvin Harris who organized the test, but I think I am right in saying he first consulted with Voller about the properties of Diamine ink, and Voller pointed out that chloroacetamide would the best thing to test for).

The problem we face with Voller is that although he doubted the ink was Diamine, years later he was shown a manuscript that we know with 100% certainty was written using Diamine. He was shown a control experiment by the surgeon and Ripper historian Dr. Nick Warren who had created the sample in 1995 and Voller admitted its appearance was similar to that of the diary:


"...the poor opacity and fading and bronzing that are apparent in your copy of Nick Warren's letter. These are aspects that can be drastically influenced by relatively small shifts in the conditions...One factor that can strongly affect both the initial result and the subsequent behavior of the ink, is the choice of paper and it may perhaps be that Nick's choice was not such as to bring out the best in the ink...I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing..."

As such, why would any reasonable person bellyache about retesting the chemical composition of the ink to clarify matters and clear up the controversy?

[R. J. Palmer]

The ink was not Diamine.

I suspect you're wrong, but as you now acknowledge, the ink should be analyzed again.

In my opinion, the argument that Caz Brown has always used for claiming the ink is not Diamine is flawed, but perhaps Phil can address her concerns. She certainly has never accepted what I or anyone else has ever said about it.

In brief, her argument is that Dr. Simpson at AFI only detected a trace amount of chloroacetamide, and it was not enough to be consistent with Diamine's pre-1992 formula. (6.5 parts per million is what was detected)

But has been pointed out many times, the ink sample was heavily diluted, so one wouldn't expect to find the same percentages. The test was only intended to determine the chemical's presence. That's how I understood it.


Recently, David Barrat contacted me about this, and sent the following:


"As for the chloroacetamide, one of the key aspects of their test, as far as I'm concerned, is that the ink sample they tested contained in excess of 90% paper. But Smith falsely gave the impression that they tested pure (dry) ink. It was as a result of there being so much paper in the sample (in my opinion) which meant that the amount of chloroacetamide found was only a small fraction of the "ink" (i.e. the ink and paper) namely 6.5 parts per million. But the small amount of the chloroacetamide found in the ink is what is always used by diary defenders to undermine the finding. They say it's so small it could have got there through contamination. But, like I say, I think they've misunderstood what was being tested. But that is just my layman's opinion (discussed at length in Not True Funny How It Seems under heading "Smearing of Ghosts") and, as far as I know, I'm the only one to have said it. Even Harris didn't mention this, explaining the small amount as due to the ink being 92% water, which was no doubt a factor too, as well as the dissolution of samples."

In Joe Nickell's book, there is a photograph of Robert Kuranz removing a sample of the Maybrick Diary's ink for testing.

He used a specialized tool that is like a tiny paper punch--it removes both ink and paper in one motion. A tiny dot of ink and paper. This is why Robert Smith alluded to 'damaging' the diary through more testing--a small hole is punched through the paper. Newer methods don't require it.

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

And if they do the test and they don't find chloroacetamide, what are you going to say?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Did anyone see or read the book American Psycho? It came out in 1991.

The businessman uses a daytimer to record his murders. His secretary rifles through his desk and finds it.Brett Easton Ellis is able to put himself into the mind of such a character.

Serial killer Randy Kraft who was a computer programmer used a binder to record his murders and James Holmes used a spiral notebook but I doubt Ellis had to source his idea to real life examples. He probably just thought it up from common sense. The "Diary author" used a stub book. I don't think he sourced anyone. He simply used what was available the same way as Patrick Bateman (played by Christian Bale) does in the movie.

And his book generated just as much controversy. Do you think any of the controversy for either of the books was for the reasons given? I recall avoiding American Psycho because of the reasons they gave, then reading some of it and wondering why the fuss over the violence in this book as opposed to other ones.

Why was American Psycho so controversial?
Upon its release, it was widely condemned as being too graphically violent, outright misogynistic and got him labelled as a sadist.
Controversial 'American Psycho'

Ellis was obviously being prophetic and philosophical with his book. Maybe that's the problem since we find out that none of the violence was real but all of it was imaginary which makes the condemnation even harder to fathom otherwise.

[R. J. Palmer]

My opinion is that the confession that Barrett wrote was largely accurate as it gives a certain amount of detail that fits with expert findings. I tend also to believe that he and his wife wrote the contents together. As to the handwriting - did anyone ever complare Anne's writing to the diary contents? Alternatively, the easiest way to disguise one's own handwriting is to shift the writing implement to the other hand. The evidence for that would be discernable by looking at the ink application to the paper through a stereo microscope as it is usually possible to discern the relative speed at which words are formed (slower with the 'wrong' hand).

Hi Phil: I don't know if you're still stopping by, but there was some discussion of Anne's handwriting here (with samples):

Diary Handwriting - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

I guess the short answer to your question is no: Anne's handwriting was never compared to the diary's by any professional handwriting expert that we have been made aware of; just 'amateur' opinions have been offered as far as I know.

It's been noticed that the handwriting samples that Anne submitted to one of the authors of Ripper Diary (when she knew her handwriting was being scrutinized) looks considerably different than the letter she wrote to her estranged husband at around the same general time--when one assumes she would have had no reason to suspect it would be analyzed.