Given the unreliability of the source, I don't suppose anyone actually believes that I might think that Shirley Harrison made up her "one-off" information but some people clearly have problems with understanding and comprehension.
Here is what I posted on the "Incontrovertible" thread as recently as 8th June (#3371):
"I haven't said Harrison is being untruthful. I haven't said she has made anything up.
It's obvious she got into a terrible muddle with her notes and her memory. She was told something in 1993 by Dr Tony Deeson, who might have found something in Traynors' archives, but she never managed to verify it. In 2003 she seems to think she got the information directly from Traynors but probably forgot it was from Deeson. She never saw any document herself.
The end result is that we cannot rely on this supposed information."
I love how it's possible to think that Mike's original research notes were quite innocently thrown into the wastepaper basket, not appreciating their significance (even though someone was going to all the trouble of typing them up and/or re-typing them and tidying them up) yet, at the same time, to also think that those same research notes might have been fabricated to make them appear that they reflected research going back earlier than 9th March 1992 in order to corroborate the Devereux story. Yet it doesn't seem to occur that that might have been the very reason for their destruction!
And if they were destroyed to cover up a fabrication, could that fabrication have been that they were not genuine research notes at all but notes made to look like genuine research notes?
I must say, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the possibility that Mike's research notes were deliberately changed to make them appear that Mike had been researching for longer than he really had been.
So let's get this straight.
Mike receives the Diary on 9th March 1992 and, bang!, he is on it with the research at the library (perhaps just after ordering that Victorian diary with blank pages) so when he later meets Shirley in London he is able to present her with the results of this research which shows him innocently trying to find out if it was fake or genuine.
He's got a very good head start knowing that the Diary came from Battlecrease, the home of James Maybrick, and no doubt his research notes, when seen in full, must reflect that knowledge.
Oh no, but hold on, he couldn't have given THAT PART of his research notes to Shirley because that would have given away his knowledge of a fantastic provenance for the Diary. And that would never do. Much better to make up a fake cover story and say he got it from a dead man in a pub (because those daft Londoners will believe that).
Any notes showing a starting point that this was James Maybrick's Diary must have been quietly destroyed to demonstrate Mike's ignorance of where the document came from. They were then not included in the "re-typed" and "tidied up" version.
Got it? Right let's continue.
So he's done his research starting no earlier than March 1992 but when he is ready to give his research notes to Shirley it occurs to him that it would be rather difficult to explain why he was given the Diary to Tony Devereux some significant time before this but did not start doing any research until after his telephone call to Doreen.
So the incompetent and stupid Mike and the honest and upright Anne cook up between them a cunning and crafty little plan to destroy Mike's original notes, which reflected only a few weeks of research, to create a document showing a masterpiece of research conducted over many months.
My goodness, one could almost think the evil genius of a mind (or minds) behind such a clever scheme was capable of forging the Diary, not just the research notes!