One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

As for the Leeds report, my understanding is that the atomic number for nitrogen is so low that it may be difficult to detect in an SEM/EDX analysis.

According to the imaginary doctor, Voller, speaking of the Diary ink in October 1995, "This is definitely nigrosine". He has a doctorate so he must know. But a major constituent of nigrosine is nitrogen so, if Voller is correct, it might seem surprising that Leeds found none. But, yes, nitrogen has the atomic number 7 and anything with 8 or less is difficult for SEM/EDX to detect.

The thing I don't understand about Voller's, analysis, though is that he says that if the Diary ink were Diamine of recent manufacture, "it would be blacker and more opaque". Now that of itself is fine but Robert Smith gives an example in his book of what he says is "pre-1992 Diamine Black Manuscript Ink" (something of possible concern if the forger purchased the ink in 1992) and unless I am completely colour blind this ink is in no way blacker than the Diary ink, it is, in my view, much more blue than the Diary ink. In fact, to me that ink looks blue not black. And it looks completely different to the example written by Nick Warren in 1995 from what is supposed to be the same ink (i.e. provided by Voller to Warren and Harrison in 1995).

[caz]

"I don't claim Mike was being honest when he claimed he got the diary from a pal who used to drink in the Saddle."

So there we have it from the horse's mouth. Mike did NOT receive the diary from a drinking friend from the Saddle called Eddie Lyons. At least we've finally got that one sorted.

What? David really has lost it this time. He seems to be confusing Tony Devereux with Eddie Lyons, for some strange reason, which is ironic considering he doesn't believe Caroline could possibly have confused two of her Dad's drinking pals.

Mike never claimed he received the diary from Eddie Lyons, either down the pub or at his home. He always denied this.

When Mike claimed he got the diary from a pal who used to drink in the Saddle, and died in 1991, he was always referring to Tony Devereux, and David knows as well as I do that he wasn't being honest about this.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

According to the imaginary doctor, Voller, speaking of the Diary ink in October 1995, "This is definitely nigrosine". He has a doctorate so he must know. But a major constituent of nigrosine is nitrogen so, if Voller is correct, it might seem surprising that Leeds found none. But, yes, nitrogen has the atomic number 7 and anything with 8 or less is difficult for SEM/EDX to detect.

The thing I don't understand about Voller's, analysis, though is that he says that if the Diary ink were Diamine of recent manufacture, "it would be blacker and more opaque". Now that of itself is fine but Robert Smith gives an example in his book of what he says is "pre-1992 Diamine Black Manuscript Ink" (something of possible concern if the forger purchased the ink in 1992) and unless I am completely colour blind this ink is in no way blacker than the Diary ink, it is, in my view, much more blue than the Diary ink. In fact, to me that ink looks blue not black. And it looks completely different to the example written by Nick Warren in 1995 from what is supposed to be the same ink (i.e. provided by Voller to Warren and Harrison in 1995).

The clues are in the words 'Black' and "bluish undertones", which Voller himself said was characteristic of the presence of nigrosine in his ink.

The diary ink is clearly lighter and dark grey, not black or blue.

Even if David suspects Mike didn't buy his Diamine until late March 1992, I would have thought the shop still had stocks of the pre-1992 formula to sell off first, unless there had been a rush on to forge Victorian diaries and what have you.

IIRC, wasn't there something about the later formula - apart from it just being later - that eliminated it from diary enquiries?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

This is the explanation we were given by the world's leading expert for how Mike got his hands on the Diary (Acquiring a Victorian Diary thread, #49, 30 Oct 2017):

"Here's one explanation I prepared earlier:

Sometime in March 1992, a Battlecrease electrician approaches Mike in The Saddle: "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?"

For Mike to do anything with it, he has to come up with some other story. He thinks – and hits on the idea quite quickly, remembering another pal, who used to drink in The Saddle and even lived on the same road as the electrician, who has been dead for around six months. Perfect. He simply backdates his acquisition of the diary to before August 1991, so he can have a housebound Tony thrust it upon him in gratitude - a funny little reward - for the errands he could feasibly have been running for him. "Do something with it, Bongo, but I'll say no more so it's no use asking." Death comes not long afterwards, relieving Tony from Mike's persistent questions, which naturally he refused to answer to the end. If Tony's daughters are highly sceptical [and they were], at least they can't prove it didn't happen."

Now, there were no known witnesses to any transfer of a Diary from Eddie to Mike and Eddie has always denied transferring it. So where do the words "Do something with it" come from? The answer is that they come directly from Mike Barrett's mouth! So there he was supposedly telling us the truth about what he was told when he received the Diary. And we are supposed to believe it is true!

In the same post, we were also told this:

"So the live wire electrician becomes a real but deceased invalid; 1992 becomes 1991; the Anfield pub becomes a real house on Fountains Road; the stolen diary becomes a gift for services rendered; and Mike's persistent questions to the electrician become persistent questions to Tony instead, but the bottom line is the same. He has acquired this diary and is determined to do something with it. He can hardly deny any links with The Saddle, can he? And he has to base his story on real people and places featuring in his life at the right time. But at least he has the sense to move the centre of operations from a public house to a private one."

See that? Mike's "persistent questions to the electrician". What persistent questions to the electrician? Sure, Mike said he asked persistent questions about the Diary of the person (a drinking pal from the Saddle) who he said gave it to him. But are we now supposed to believe that this was true????

[David Orsam]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't find it helpful that when I note that the ink used by Robert Smith to provide a test example in his book was "pre-1992 Diamine Black Manuscript Ink" that the word "Black" is highlighted in bold as if I, or anyone else, had missed it. On the contrary, it was the very point I was making. The ink in the test sample does not look black!!

So if a clue about Diamine ink is in the word "Black" why does it not look black in Smith's test sample?

Further, I have read through the four pages of transcript of Voller's conclusions at the meeting on 30 October 1995 [and LOL he's now back to plain "Voller"!] but I see no reference to the expression "bluish undertones" to describe Diamine Ink or any other ink.

But what he does say is this:

"you only get pronounced bronzing where the ink is a blue-black that is to say when the ink is not nigrosine"

In other words, he is saying that nigrosine based ink is NOT blue-black ink but surely the ink in Smith's book appears to be blue-black. For Voller, on 30 October 1995, "The dyestuff here is clearly nigrosine". If, as the world's leading expert tells us, the ink in the Diary is "dark grey" then does that not mean that nigrosine ink is dark grey?

Now, I appreciate that, as I quoted earlier, Voller said that Diamine Manuscript Ink of recent manufacture would be "blacker" than the ink in the diary, but that is NOT "bluer" is it? (if such a word exists). It's not "more blue". It means blacker. But I don't see the ink in Smith's test sample as blacker at all.

[caz]

caz -- Certain chemicals leach out over time, due to oxygen, sunlight, etc. You are assuming (wrongly) that because Diamine ink had a certain percentage of chloroacetamide in its liquid state, that, 2 or 3 years later, after it had dried out and was exposed to air and sunlight, that it would still have the same percentage of chloroacetamide. Not true. Experiments would need to be conducted to determine the percentage that one would be expected to find. Talk to a chemist.

Hello rj,

A recap is in order...

If you are saying no such experiments have been conducted, do you not find this quite incomprehensible, considering Warren believed the diary was written in pre-1992 Diamine Black Manuscript ink bought by Mike Barrett, and he was given the stuff by Voller in 1995 to experiment with? Why did he only make a visual examination to see how long it took to show signs of bronzing on the page? How would that prove anything unless he could show that Diamine bronzed at the same rate as the diary ink and stopped at the point when its appearance was 'entirely consistent' with it?

Warren found signs in 'as little as 2 or 3 years', but what is that supposed to mean? He either observed signs after 2 years or he didn’t. How much bronzing was evident after 2 years? How much after 3? How long before it was consistent with what Voller had described in October 1995, three and a half years after the diary emerged? Did the Diamine carry on bronzing after 3 years? Do you have the answers, rj? Does anyone?

If Warren didn't send one of his writing samples to AFI after, say, 2 or 3 years, to conduct exactly the experiment you say we would need, to determine the percentage of chloroacetamide remaining in dry Diamine ink dots on paper [just as they claimed to do in October 1994 with dry diary ink dots on paper], why not? Wasn’t it a golden opportunity to ask AFI to compare like with like and report back that yes, we can confirm that 6.5 parts per million in the diary ink is 'entirely consistent' with it being Diamine?

There are only two possible conclusions anyone could reach if no such report has ever been made available. Either Warren failed to take this opportunity, or he wasn't happy with the result.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Let me try and give a clear example of what I am talking about.

Nick Warren was provided with a sample of recreated Diamine Ink directly by Alec Voller in January 1995, and he wrote a test example with that ink on a document dated 26 January 1995. This compares with Robert Smith's example written (with what was supposed to be a duplicate bottle of Diamine Ink provided in Jan 1995 by Voller) more than 18 years later, on 19 September 2012, after the bottle went missing, only to be found in an attic in December 2011.

To my eyes - and I confirm that I have not used any effects on this image - the ink would best be described as dark grey (and not dissimilar to the ink in the Diary). It certainly seems to bear no relation to the example written by Robert Smith in 2012 and reproduced in his 2017 book. I'm not sure how one explains this discrepancy bearing in mind it is supposed to be exactly the same ink.

[caz]

Shirley's book gives the ingredients of liquid Diamine ink and their percentages, which, excluding the 92.08% water, add up to 7.92%, with chloroacetamide coming in at 0.26%, which is the equivalent of 0.02%, or 200 parts per million [is that right?] with the water taken out. AFI's figure was 6.5 parts per million.

I feel rather embarrassed about the above. I was waiting for someone to pick up my mistake with the sums so I could say in my best Captain Mainwaring voice: "I wondered who'd be the first one to spot that".

Alas, it seems that only two people and my cat are reading this thread, or they are all worse than me at maths. And my fellow posters had a reason on this occasion not to comment on my failings.

You see, I got it totally arse about face. Looking at the percentages again, in fresh liquid Diamine, I realised that when the 92.08% water has evaporated, the percentage of chloroacetamide left with the remaining ingredients on the paper will have increased accordingly, not decreased.

Recalculating then, the 0.26% will be 3.28% of the ink minus all the water, or 32,800 parts per million, although, as rj observed, 'certain chemicals leach out over time, due to oxygen, sunlight, etc', so that just 2 or 3 years later, the 32,800 parts per million of chloroacetamide could have reduced by 32,793.5 parts per million in the dry ink residue, to just 6.5 parts per million.

I honestly have no idea whether this is a reasonable possibility or not, because it seems that Nick Warren had the best chance to find out back in the late 1990s, but didn't, or chose not to publish the findings.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

"pre-1992 Diamine Black Manuscript Ink" (something of possible concern if the forger purchased the ink in 1992)

It will be noted that I used the expression "possible concern".

My understanding is that the Bluecoat art shop sold its last remaining pre-1992 bottle of Diamine Ink in July 1993 (although I haven't seen express confirmation that it hadn't ordered any 1992 ink prior to this).

But to say that disposes of the matter would be wrong because we cannot simply trust Mike Barrett to be telling us the truth as to the purchase of the ink. He might have purchased Diamine Ink from another shop entirely or someone else might have purchased it on his behalf, or given it to him, that person being someone he didn't want to name in his affidavit.

More to the point is what the formula of the ink was in 1992, and, of course, whether this new formula was commercially available in March 1992, and those questions I have not seen answered.

[caz]

Let me try and give a clear example of what I am talking about.

Nick Warren was provided with a sample of recreated Diamine Ink directly by Alec Voller in January 1995, and he wrote a test example with that ink on a document dated 26 January 1995. This compares with Robert Smith's example written (with what was supposed to be a duplicate bottle of Diamine Ink provided in Jan 1995 by Voller) more than 18 years later, on 19 September 2012, after the bottle went missing, only to be found in an attic in December 2011.

To my eyes - and I confirm that I have not used any effects on this image - the ink would best be described as dark grey (and not dissimilar to the ink in the Diary). It certainly seems to bear no relation to the example written by Robert Smith in 2012 and reproduced in his 2017 book. I'm not sure how one explains this discrepancy bearing in mind it is supposed to be exactly the same ink.

Any idea when this was photographed, David? Was it in 1995 just after Warren wrote it? 1997, when he observed the first signs of bronzing? 1998 when the writing reached 3 years of age? Any advance on 3 years?

Any idea at all?

How many pictures did he take of this writing and at what intervals?

It was Warren's contention that his Diamine ink changed in appearance after application, and that the diary ink changed too, between its first and subsequent outings for tests. So it's surely crucial to know how long after January 1995 the above image was snapped, and what the writing looks like today, otherwise there is no way for anyone to judge and make sensible comparisons with the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It certainly sounds like the ink bronzed sometime between 1992 and 1995, which would match the observations made by Nick Warren using the ink that Voller had sent him to "play around with."

Again, it's a great pity that Warren "played around with" his Diamine, if he didn't think to send a writing sample to AFI when it had been on the paper for 2 or 3 years, to ascertain if the level of chloroacetamide was comparable to what they found in the diary ink in 1994, two and a half years after the diary was supposedly written.

Voller's suggestion that the ink was old was evidently based on its washed-out and unevenly faded appearance. An amateur forger like Barrett might have simply added water to the ink in order to give it a faded look.

But Voller said: "You see dilution would simply not produce this sort of effect".

And I don't recall Mike Barrett ever saying he "simply added water" to the ink to give it a faded look that would completely fool an ink chemist. He did say he simply added sugar, to do something or other to the molecules.

But then, Mike was supposedly an expert in pretending to be clueless; an expert in diluting Diamine ink to produce an effect which Diamine's ink chemist would say dilution would "simply not produce"; and an expert in how to artificially age one's forgery, immediately after completion, over a wet weekend using a sunlamp, to simulate a century's worth of natural fading, while avoiding the 'savage bleaching effect on the paper', which Voller also said would result from such harsh exposure to U.V. radiation.

And Anne supposedly had the rare talent of being able to completely disguise all aspects of her normal handwriting over 63 pages.

Good luck with proving it. You'll need it.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Unless it is being argued that the ink magically changes colour, what difference does it make to my point (about the ink being grey not blue) when the photograph was taken?

[David Orsam]

Here's another question. What is the rate of evaporation of water from ink on a page?

[caz]

When I posted those quotes from Voller's correspondence I deliberately made no comment. His words speak for themselves.

They might have, if we could be sure David had not been selective but had quoted all Voller's words, without making any transcription errors in the process.

Voller, in my opinion, was quite wrong to have ever factored in Mike Barrett's stupidity in the first place when assessing the diary (regardless of whether Barrett is stupid or not) because he should have assumed that he could be dealing with a forger who would take any humanly possible steps to make the Diary look old. It's a classic mistake made by experts to underestimate the lengths a determined forger can go to, and the knowledge that is available outside of the scientific community, which leads them to conclude that a forged document is genuine.

I don't know that Voller ever concluded the diary was 'genuine', but would it not be equally wrong for anyone, expert or not, to factor in Mike Barrett's drunken forgery claims, when assessing the diary, and to assume they are dealing with a 'determined forger', and a recent one at that, just because there has been a 'confession'? It's a classic mistake to judge the diary by any of Mike Barrett's claims for it, or to judge Mike Barrett's abilities by the diary, and try to conclude anything meaningful about his actual involvement in, or knowledge of its creation.

But I'm glad to see that David is not relying on Mike knowing anything much at all about it, but imagines there may have been some shady characters in the background, doing Mike's bidding, even purchasing the ink and what not for him, and giving him control of the promoting and publishing side. At least it keeps all the forgery options wide open [aside from the actual creation taking place over those 11 days between April 1st and 12th 1992] and the Barrett hoax conspiracy theories alive.

Mind you, why Voller was told that Barrett was stupid, and who told him, is quite another question. If it was someone involved with researching the diary this should never have happened because it clearly could, and this case did, lead Voller to give an incomplete answer in the first instance.

Do we now have Voller's 'complete' answer then? Or just what David selectively quoted from it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"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)

This is just the point I made recently myself, rj. If David wants to argue that ink met paper in early April 1992, then why did Dr. Baxendale fail to determine this with his 'solubility' test, instead of fannying about getting the history of synthetic dyes wrong, failing to find the iron in the ink and not concluding that it had been applied to the paper "within the last six months"? I can see only two possibilities here: Baxendale wasn't as good as some wish to claim; or ink didn't meet paper within those six months, which would mean saying a fond farewell to our little red diary [sniff].

Love,

Caz
X