Here's the thing. My only knowledge of Mike's purported research notes is what Shirley Harrison said about them in her 2003 book. And this is what she said (bold and underlining added):
"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches. They are a record of his forays to Liverpool Library before he brought the Diary to Londonwhen he was desperately trying to make sense of it all."
If anyone now says they include a record of his forays to Liverpool Library after he brought the Diary to London it makes me wonder why the story is changing.
I can't see anywhere in the book where Shirley says that she provided some information and input into Mike's research notes but perhaps she wasn't telling the full story, I have no idea.
If the notes needed to be 'tidied up' by Anne, does this show that the Barretts prepared other written work in this way, with Mike having a first crack and Anne tidying it up?
More than ever I question why the original notes were not produced. If they were hard to read then a transcript should have been prepared. If they were destroyed then that is destruction of original evidence pure and simple.
And yet you're prepared to take mikes word over the scientists who claim the inks been dry since 1970...
Are they all incompetent aswell? Or are they lying to you like the rest behind the diary... apart from mike...obviously..
The first document examiner to examine the Diary was the experienced Dr David Baxendale:
From the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993:
"One test used commonly to date documents such as this is, the solubility test... For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in just a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."
Let's remind ourselves about what Feldman said of his miraculous Grand National discovery:
"But what of the race, 'the fastest....?' The newspapers had certainly described the race as exciting and even surprising, but we could not find detail to confirm the diarist's use of those words. My Liverpool researcher, Carol Emmas, visited Aintree. They were not able to help. Carol, like all my team, was resolute. She scoured magazines and newspapers for days on end. Her efforts were not unrewarded.
In an obscure magazine entitled the Liverpolitan, in an issue dated March 1939, page 27 carried the headline A STATISTICAL GUIDE TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST STEEPLECHASE. Every result since 1837 was listed. So were details of the owner, age and weight of the horse, number of horses in the race, jockey and time. The Grand National of 1889 was won by a horse called Frigate. It was the fastest Grand National run for eighteen years!"
Here is the page of that very same Liverpolitan that Feldman's researcher had miraculously found. It's just a list of owners, winners, weights, riders and times etc.