Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[jmenges]

I did notice the following passage in Ripper Diary, pg. 235. It was a statement made by an apparently sober Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999.

"There was another deviation from earlier accounts. Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary."

This rather chaotic C&D appearance was presented as a Question and Answer session with Keith Skinner. Barrett repeatedly boasts that he "conned" Doreen Montgomery "just like Paul Newman in The Sting".
He practically yells at the audience "I created the Diary- FULL STOP."
I would be very surprised to learn that Mike was sober that evening.

JM

[rjpalmer]

Finally, I can confirm that in March 1992 Outhwaite & Litherland held auctions once a week, every Tuesday, so that the first auction held after Barrett would have received the 1891 diary would have been on Tuesday, 31 March 1992. The auction (like other auctions in that month), held at Kingsway Galleries, Fontenoy Street, Liverpool, was described in antique magazines as being for "Victorian, Edwardian & modern furniture and effects". It started at 10.30am. Had Barrett taken 11 days to forge the diary as he claims in his affidavit and, had he started work on 31 March, the writing would have been finished on 10 April. He went to see Doreen in London on 13 April.

As stated elsewhere on this thread, I have a memory of Barrett telling Gray in one of the tapes that the diary did not physically exist when he called Doreen Montgomery on 9 March 1992. I haven't yet been able to confirm that, and I may be mistaken, but I did notice the following passage in Ripper Diary, pg. 235. It was a statement made by an apparently sober Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999.

"There was another deviation from earlier accounts. Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary."

I'm not sure I agree that this was a 'deviation.' As 'Orsam' notes, Barrett also mentions the 11 day span back in his 1995 confession. It's a curious detail. If the scrapbook was obtained on 31 March, as seems logical, and he spent April 1st cutting out the pages and cleaning the manufacturer's sticker off the cover with linseed oil and letting it dry, the actual transcription would have commenced on 2 April. 2 April-12 April is 11 days inclusive. Barrett took the train to London and met Doreen on 13 April.

Would Barrett have the wherewithal to realize this timing would 'fit' with the details discovered much later by Orsam?

[David Orsam]

I've already explained, on 10th May, in #4654 of the Incontrovertible thread, why Koppenhaver's extract doesn't relate to the Diary ink but for those who can't concentrate, here it is again in all its glory:

REPEAT POST

From RJ's source, namely a 2002 book by Katherine Koppenhaver, entitled "Attorney's Guide to Document Examination" we read this (my bold):

"In addition to the first manufacturing date of ink, forensic chemists have devised a method of testing ballpoint ink samples to give a relative date of the writing. Ink dating can only determine the approximate date a message was penned on paper. According to Erich Speckin, an ink chemist with Speckin Laboratories in a lecture to the National Association of Document Examiners, "In the field of forensic chemistry advances in technology have made it possible to date ink within six months or less.

Ink chemists determine the age of ink by the rate of extraction from the paper and the percent of extraction. They measure how fast the ink can be chemically removed from the paper and how easily it is removed. Ink dries chemically in approximately three and one-half years according to Erich Speckin. By using the rate of extraction, ink chemists can determine the age of the application of the ink to within six months. After the ink has completely dried, the chemist can only state that the ink is over three and one-half years old."

So Koppenhaver was discussing, in 2002, in a book written for American attorneys (thus obviously relating only to the dating of modern documents) a technique for the dating of documents written in ballpoint ink using a method based on recent advances in technology.

The Speckin Forensic Ink Dating Technique(s) can actually be viewed here in this 1998 video, involving a punch, a backer, a vial, a syringe and/or an oven, a plate, a densitometer and a computer and it bears no relation to the type of simple solubility test that would have been conducted by Dr Baxendale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKUsdgPOzkw

Let's move along, nothing to see here.

No own goals…

[David Orsam]

The clue in the word "scrapbook" is the word scrap! A scrapbook is called a "scrapbook" which is why it's not called a book. If I go into a shop wanting a scrapbook what am I going to be offered if I simply ask for a book?

Did Eddie say he had found a scrapbook? Unless that is the evidence, he appears to have been telling his colleague that he found a book, just like Vinny Dring said he found two old books in the same premises.

[David Orsam]

Diary Defender Sleight of Hand number 278:

Let's remind ourselves of what was said in #1684. It was this:

"Still no explanation from David, for why - within 24 hours of Mike's simple but effective reply - he had found out where Eddie lived [and there's no evidence that Feldman knew the address or gave it to Mike - why would he?] and chosen to complicate things himself by going round there to introduce himself as the diary's owner, accuse Eddie of lying and saying he would never do a deal [with Paul Dodd]."

Now it's all changed. Now it's this:

"When Feldman later told Mike that an electrician was prepared to confirm he took the diary from the house, his suspicions would have been confirmed and that's when he went round to have it out with Eddie, at his girlfriend's Fountains Road address."

So, originally, he went there specifically to accuse Eddie of lying. Now he went there to "have it out" with him.. Tomorrow it could be something else.

On today's account, there is no mention of Mike accusing Eddie of lying. In fact, on the new account he's not going to do that because his suspicions have been confirmed and he now believes that Eddie did find the Diary in Battlecrease.

And I reproduce my original post back at #1695:

"We are told (again) that Mike threatened Eddie with solicitors although no evidence has ever been produced of this. Perhaps the world’s leading expert on the subject was in Eddie’s house at the time. What Feldman said about the meeting was this: “Within twenty-four hours Mike Barrett had knocked on the door of the said electrician; he accused him of lying and told him he would never do a deal.” That’s it. Where do the solicitors come from?"

Answer cometh there not.

[David Orsam]

Diary Defender Sleight of Hand number 277:

Apparently, nobody suggested that Eddie told Mike what to do with the diary. Except that it was suggested that Eddie told Mike to "do something" with it. Well that is telling him what to do with it!

And one day Mike asks Eddie for £25 for the Diary, another day they come to some kind of complicated licensing or profit share deal, but today the Diary is handed over for free with a vague promise of a percentage if Mike makes £1 million. The quote: "Just don't forget your mates when you make your first million, Mike, and remember, you didn't get it from me, right?" is the work of a writer of fiction based on no evidence whatseover. I didn't realise this was a thread for budding writers of fairy tales.

[caz]

Arguing about what Melvin Harris might or might not have said, however, is pointless because he is not the Lord Almighty.

Never a truer word...

If a Diary Defender thinks that it is a simple matter for a document examiner to establish on Tuesday that a forged document had been written on Monday, then let that evidence be quoted from an expert in the field. And we can find out how it is done.

The huge mistake which I know the Diary Defenders make in their thinking is that they assume that a very recent forgery would be easy for a document examiner to expose so that they can say "This was written yesterday" or "This was written last week". But that's simply not the case. All they can test for is whether the ink is soluble or not and, if so, how soluble. Trying to date it is a matter of judgment but the best they can usually say is within the last few years.

Here we go again:

Originally Posted by rjpalmer
"Ink chemists determine the age of ink by the rate of extraction from the paper and the percentage of extraction. They measure how fast the ink can be chemically removed from the paper and how easily it is remove. Ink dries chemically in approximately three and one-half years according to Erich Speckin. By using the rate of extraction, ink chemists can determine the age of the application of the ink within six months. After the ink has completely dried, the chemist can only state that the ink is over three and one-half years old."--Attorney's Guide to Document Examination by Katerine Koppenhaver (2002)

Equally those Diary Defenders seem think it would be so much easier for me to argue in support of a forgery if the Diary had been written in 1990. It would not. An expert wouldn't be able to tell if it was written in April 1992 or April 1990. The technology just doesn't exist to do so, or rather did not exist in 1992 (because I have no idea what can be done today). To repeat, all they could do in 1992 is see whether an ink was soluble or not and how quickly the ink dissolved. As Baxendale told Harris:

"The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds”.

And that's it!

Did things change that much between 1992 and 2002, when Koppenhaver published the Attorney's Guide to Document Examination?

Baxendale is not the Lord Almighty either, but readers would be forgiven for assuming that's exactly how David sees him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have no knowledge of Eddie referring to the diary as a book and no evidence has been provided of this. But it is unlikely for a journal or diary to have been described as a book by anyone who wants to try and convey information to someone else because the normal meaning of that is a printed book.

But this isn't 'a journal or a diary'. To anyone coming across it, it's an old scrap book with writing in it and a single date right at the end. A scrap book [there's a clue here] is just as much a book as a printed book.

What information do you imagine Eddie would have been trying to convey? He was denying finding anything in the house, but when referring to the physical diary he called it "the book", which is exactly what it would have looked like to anyone seeing the scrap book for the first time, not knowing what might be in it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

David is not assuming that Eddie would have told Mike early on exactly how and where he'd got the diary. If Mike had truly had a "light bulb" moment in early 1993 he had already worked out that Eddie had found the diary in Battlecrease.

Not necessarily, David. He'd have had his suspicions, but if Eddie had told him nothing, he'd still have had to establish if his mate had ever actually worked in Paul Dodd's house. When Feldman later told Mike that an electrician was prepared to confirm he took the diary from the house, his suspicions would have been confirmed and that's when he went round to have it out with Eddie, at his girlfriend's Fountains Road address.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Encouraging someone to "do something" with the Diary is the type of thing a friend would say when handing it over free of charge. It's not the type of thing said by someone trying to pass off a stolen item for cash. In that scenario the seller doesn't care what the buyer does with it, he just wants the money. So it would be very odd and unnatural for Eddie to have told his buyer what to do with the Diary.

In any case, there is not one jot of evidence from anyone in the entire world that Mike Barrett was a "drinking pal" of Eddie Lyons, something which seems to be a diary defender fantasy.

You wish.

Nobody suggested Eddie told Mike what to do with the diary. I expect Mike gave him some old chat about his "connections" and Eddie was happy enough to let him take the old book off his hands and do something with it, saving himself the job. "Just don't forget your mates when you make your first million, Mike, and remember, you didn't get it from me, right?"

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

So the truth is finally revealed that Melvin Harris's supposed claims about ink dating cannot be supported because only a summary of a letter he supposedly once wrote to Paul Feldman is available. This is ironic coming from someone who stresses the importance of quoting in full and in context. How do we even know the summary is accurate?

On the other hand, I have posted a quote from Melvin Harris in which he says, "I have to repeat that there is no known testing method that will date ink-on-paper."

I don't know why anyone thinks I have a full set of Melvin Harris's correspondence. I do not. I have never seen a letter written by him to Paul Feldman dated 23 July 1993.

Arguing about what Melvin Harris might or might not have said, however, is pointless because he is not the Lord Almighty. If a Diary Defender thinks that it is a simple matter for a document examiner to establish on Tuesday that a forged document had been written on Monday, then let that evidence be quoted from an expert in the field. And we can find out how it is done.

The huge mistake which I know the Diary Defenders make in their thinking is that they assume that a very recent forgery would be easy for a document examiner to expose so that they can say "This was written yesterday" or "This was written last week". But that's simply not the case. All they can test for is whether the ink is soluble or not and, if so, how soluble. Trying to date it is a matter of judgment but the best they can usually say is within the last few years.

Equally those Diary Defenders seem think it would be so much easier for me to argue in support of a forgery if the Diary had been written in 1990. It would not. An expert wouldn't be able to tell if it was written in April 1992 or April 1990. The technology just doesn't exist to do so, or rather did not exist in 1992 (because I have no idea what can be done today). To repeat, all they could do in 1992 is see whether an ink was soluble or not and how quickly the ink dissolved. As Baxendale told Harris:

"The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds”.

And that's it!

[David Orsam]

I really don't know if Eddie Lyons is steadfastly denying anything, not least because James Johnston is refusing to provide the full transcripts of his interviews with Eddie. If Eddie did find something which was not the Diary he might be refusing to admit to having found it for the exact same reasons that we are being told he refuses to admit to finding the Diary, namely that he sold it illegally. But the important word is "if". It is uncertain whether he did actually find anything.

I have no knowledge of Eddie referring to the diary as a book and no evidence has been provided of this. But it is unlikely for a journal or diary to have been described as a book by anyone who wants to try and convey information to someone else because the normal meaning of that is a printed book.

[David Orsam]

David is not assuming that Eddie would have told Mike early on exactly how and where he'd got the diary. If Mike had truly had a "light bulb" moment in early 1993 he had already worked out that Eddie had found the diary in Battlecrease. So he's not going to go round to Eddie's house and accuse him of lying about that is he? If he told Feldman that's what he had done he must have been lying to Feldman.

But if Mike knew the Diary was a forgery then he might well have accused Eddie of lying, saying he would never do a deal, exactly as he told Feldman.

[David Orsam]

Encouraging someone to "do something" with the Diary is the type of thing a friend would say when handing it over free of charge. It's not the type of thing said by someone trying to pass off a stolen item for cash. In that scenario the seller doesn't care what the buyer does with it, he just wants the money. So it would be very odd and unnatural for Eddie to have told his buyer what to do with the Diary.

In any case, there is not one jot of evidence from anyone in the entire world that Mike Barrett was a "drinking pal" of Eddie Lyons, something which seems to be a diary defender fantasy.

[David Orsam]

Those who have been paying attention will know that I have already sorted out the "mess" in Mike's affidavit. For example, he says he purchased a word processor from Dixons in 1985 but we now know it was in 1986 . He says that Tony Devereux died in late May early June 1990 when it was actually over a year later. He says that he decided in "November 1993" to claim that the diary was a forgery when this did not happen until the following year.

So there can be no doubt whatsoever that the chronology of Mike's affidavit is wrong and needs to be adjusted with known facts. Anyone who says otherwise and sticks rigidly to the dates in the affidavit is being perversely stubborn.

One known fact is that Mike bought a little red Victorian diary in March 1992, not in 1990 or 1991 as one might think from reading his affidavit. When we adjust the chronology to take that into account then we can well understand why he says it took 11 days to write the diary because this fits perfectly with the time between a likely acquisition of the scrapbook and the very first time the Diary was seen by anyone outside of the Barrett family.