One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Ah, I see. When "Maybrick" records a false fact it is because he has suffered memory loss from his mania and/or his ingestion of pharmaceuticals (and thus he has to rely on outside sources to "fill in the gaps") but when he gets it right it is because he is genuinely recalling a personal experience.

When attempting to establish a conclusion for any conundrum, one must avoid the temptation to exclude those possibilities which would prevent us from forming our conclusion. By only looking for those angles which direct us to our conclusion, we run the very serious risk of missing plausible reasons for observed phenomena. We may not agree with the possibilities, but equally we should not be guilty of ignoring them in order to more smoothly reach the conclusion we started out for. I'm not being sanctimonious here - I obviously include myself in this.

What do we 'know'? We know that some evidence suggests Jack left Kelly's viscera around her room and we know that some evidence suggests otherwise. We also know that some evidence points to Kelly's breasts being found at her feet and her head and we know some 'evidence' (newspaper reports) had previously suggested he had left them on the bedside table.

If we are certain of what is true, we could be relying on incorrect evidence. Maybrick's scrapbook claims he scattered Kelly's viscera around the room. I suggest that we don't know with any degree of certainty that Jack did not therefore we do not yet have to rule out the possibility that he was misunderstood in his recall. On the other hand, we would probably accept that Mary Kelly's breasts were not found on the bedside table so therefore we have to be careful to consider the possibility that he was misunderstood in his recall based upon reasonable factors (such as his obvious state of high arousal and the claims made in the subsequent newspaper reports) or that he had indeed placed Kelly's breast on the bedside table initially and then removed them to her feet and head later in the carnage. We would be expected to give due consideration to the fact that he wrote in his scrapbook that he thought of leaving her breasts at her feet which is partly what we now commonly accept he did.

What we shouldn't do is rule out both the possible (which could potentially be a bit left-field) and the plausible, which the situation regarding Kelly's breasts is.

[caz]

It feels like I haven't visited this thread since 1945, so I have a long way to go to catch up, and the following was posted back on 25th June:

Let's return to Dr. Baxendale.

Recall that Baxendale had paper and ink samples that he KNEW were old. He tested these, too, in the same solvent.

The sample from 1908, when placed in the solution, was "virtually insoluble."

Another from 1925, was "similarly insoluble."

The ink and the paper wouldn't separate.

By contrast, the ink sample from the Maybrick Diary quickly separated from the paper, was 'free flowing,' dissolved "easily," (Dr. B's word) and most damning of all, left the paper almost blank.

The ink and paper were slightly bonded, but barely so, and this was in late 1992.

Baxendale's first report was dated 1st July 1992, while Nick Eastaugh's main report was dated 2nd October, just three months later.

RJ quotes Baxendale:

'In my opinion, therefore, the ink does not date from 1889. An exact time of origin cannot be established but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945'

Dr. B was apparently being overly cautious in his report to Harrison, because he also told Chittenden at the Sunday Times that he didn't think the document was more than 2 or 3 years old.

Even here Dr. Baxendale was overly cautious, because the diary was actually less than seven months old when he tested it. It originated in March/April 1992.

That would make the writing less than three months old when Baxendale tested it.

So while his solubility test is routinely wheeled out by the amateurs [most recently by Chris Jones, who describes it as the "silver bullet"] as proof that the ink had hardly been on the paper for 24 hours when Mike took the diary to London, Baxendale himself interpreted his result rather differently, cautiously allowing for the ink to have been on the paper for nearly five decades by the time he found that it dissolved easily! Even then, he only considered it 'likely' in his opinion that it didn't date further back than 1945. The fact that he inexplicably had such a radical change of mind, telling Chittenden that he didn't actually think it dated further back than 2 or 3 years [still nothing approaching the mythical three month deadline, set by the awesome auction], hardly inspires confidence in his ability to analyse his own result, either accurately or objectively. The former would not be his fault if solubility isn't the infallible way to prove modernity that it has been cracked up to be in this place [the yawning chasm between 1945 and 1990 speaks for itself], but the latter would be, if he was tailoring his opinion to mollify the recipient: 1945 for Shirley Harrison and 1990 for the still smarting, Hitler Diaries-embarrassed Sunday Times.

Bottom line is the bare-faced cheek of the amateur, who claims that Baxendale was being 'overly cautious' when interpreting his own test results, as if he didn't really have a clue what they indicated about the actual age of the writing, and should have asked RJ to act as interpreter. With friends like that, Baxendale doesn't need enemies, does he?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

So while his solubility test is routinely wheeled out by the amateurs [most recently by Chris Jones, who describes it as the "silver bullet"] as proof that the ink had hardly been on the paper for 24 hours when Mike took the diary to London, Baxendale himself interpreted his result rather differently, cautiously allowing for the ink to have been on the paper for nearly five decades by the time he found that it dissolved easily!

Hi Caz,

This point really is the nub of the solubility test. Given that it wasn't initially described in any way as debilitating in terms of the scrapbook authenticity, we can sadly understand why no follow-up solubility tests were immediately done on it (this, of course, is how science proceeds - you see something supposedly critical in your experiment and so your experiment gets repeated over and over again to ensure that your conclusions are confirmed). But no-one lit the fuse paper underneath the scrapbook despite Baxendale's apparently game-over analysis, so the immediate follow-up tests were not done. Instead, rather unaware that there was any kind of lingering issue from Baxendale's flawed report, the tests continued in other directions. A huge opportunity to establish the scrapbook ink's true age was lost.

But were Baxendale's conclusions the death knell for the scrapbook we have been latterly so assured of by rank amateurs with a well-established agenda? Well, clearly not. And it all rests on Baxendale's language. If we are to believe the likes of Orsam, Palmer, Jones and their ilk, Baxendale should have phrased his conclusions somewhat as follows: "In my professional opinion, the ink on this scrapbook was laid onto the paper as recently as a few short months ago and possibly as long as perhaps a year or so. It is clearly unbonded to the paper and this shows categorically how recently the text of this document was laid down. There is no possibility of error in this conclusion: this document could not possibly have been written in 1889 or even 1989. I stake my professional reputation on this assertion the reliability of which is not in doubt unless, of course, you happen to have a copy of my cackhanded, prima facie, ill-thought out initial report which, frankly, was well below the standards the client was expecting from me and which I have now requested be hidden in a drawer for all eternity (please)".

No, Baxendale made no such assertions. Instead, he argued that the ink had not been laid down any earlier than - what was it, Caz? - nineteen forty-five. Nineteen forty-five! Do my eyes deceive me? Nineteen forty-five! That's like Rod McNeil stating it was laid down around 1921 give or take around twelve years! These are impossible periods of time for this document to have been created. It was either created before then or a long, long time after then; and yet Baxendale's analysis wasn't so conclusive that he was able to make that latter claim. I do not understand why he could not be clear about the conclusions to be drawn from such a potentially debilitating piece of evidence and why instead he relied on a bunch a biased amateurs jumping on a bandwagon around twenty or more years later.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63636641

Oh my giddy aunt ...

An ancient gold coin proves that a third century Roman emperor written out of history as a fictional character really did exist, scientists say.
The coin bearing the name of Sponsian and his portrait was found more than 300 years ago in Transylvania, once a far-flung outpost of the Roman empire.
Believed to be a fake, it had been locked away in a museum cupboard.
Now scientists say scratch marks visible under a microscope prove that it was in circulation 2,000 years ago.

This sounds rather familiar, everyone. 'Experts' claim a coin found 300 years ago by my great-great-great-etc-uncle Draconoclast was declared a hoax in the 19th century so they pushed it aside and hid it away in order to avoid having to use their brains and work out what it might all mean in terms of our understanding of history.

The final blow came in 1863 when Henry Cohen, the leading coin expert of the time at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, considered the problem for his great catalogue of Roman coins. He said that they were not only 'modern' fakes, but poorly made and "ridiculously imagined".

Hold on, Henry Cohen was a coin 'expert' - how on earth could anyone doubt his conclusions? Not even an amateur, guys - a real, live (back then) 'expert'!

They examined all four coins under a powerful microscope and confirmed in the journal, PLOS 1, that there really were scratches, and the patterns were consistent with them being jingled around in purses.

Goodness, the coins were scratched in a way you would expect if they had actually been used! Surely this just means that the hoaxers scratched them artificially? Isn't that what we are expected to swallow in a parallel case?

A chemical analysis also showed that the coins had been buried in soil for hundreds of years, according to Jesper Ericsson, who is the museum's curator of coins and worked with Prof Pearson on the project.

Well, what on earth do Jesper Ericsson and Prof Pearson know when a bunch of amateurs are still screaming, "Fake! Hoax! (Don't forget to buy my latest book!)"? It must surely be obvious to everyone - amateurs and experts alike - that all the hoaxers had to do was to bury the hoaxed coins in some soil that was already hundreds of years old?

Once the researchers had established that the coins were authentic, and that they had discovered what they believed to be a lost Roman emperor, they alerted researchers at the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu in Transylvania, which also has a Sponsian coin. It was part of the bequest of Baron Samuel von Brukenthal, the Habsburg Governor of Transylvania. The Baron was studying the coin at the time of his death and the story goes that the last thing he did was to write a note saying "genuine".

This is one of my favourite bits, just for irony, wouldn't you?

The specialists at the Brukenthal museum had classified their coin as an historic fake, as had everyone else. But they changed their minds when they saw the UK research.

Well, well, well, once again the United Kingdom shows the rest of the developing world (such as the USA) how to interpret simple data.

Now, before you all get too excited, I have no doubt that a bunch of self-righteous Naysayers will come along and find reasons why our friendly Roman emperor could not possibly have existed. Watch this space, dear readers!

PS On the subject of our little colony over the pond, do you think it is possible that - when they co-host the damned tournament in 2026 - their fans could develop a better chant than "U-S-A, U-S-A" - I mean, it must have taken all of a billionth of a nanosecond to come up with and it definitely takes less to irritate. It's football, man - we craft beautifully inventive rhymes. You cannot possibly host the world's premier footballing event if that's all you've got in your locker!

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I'm both amused and delighted to see that Thomas Mitchell is now championing expert opinion over the opinions of "amateurs."

So, too, with the handwriting in the diary?

As I see it, the Maybrick Diary is largely a saga of a few scattered amateurs (Robert Smith chief among them) dismissing the views of the experts, including Dr. Audrey Giles, Former Head of the Questioned Document Section of the London Metropolitan Police, and Maureen Casey Owens, Former President of the American Society of Document Examiners, who both stated the handwriting in the diary is not James Maybrick's. These were the two chief handwriting experts on either side of the pond at the time the diary was being examined.

But apparently these two ladies were wrong, and we should instead listen to the amateur opinions of Messrs. Mitchell and Smith.

If one wishes to gauge Dr. Giles' curriculum vitae, watch the following Inner Temple Reader's Lecture, where Dr. Giles discusses forensic document examination.

Forensic Document Examination - The Science Today - YouTube

[rjpalmer]

Here is my commentary about the coins. Elsewhere, Jay Hartley writes:

Apparently there is no such thing as experts at dating scratches in metal, so I think RJ would have to rule out this discovery of the coin as being a hoax.

The article doesn't say anything about a technique for dating scratches in metal. Hartley is off and running again.

Rather, it states:

"They examined all four coins under a powerful microscope and confirmed that there really were scratches (no one has ever disputed there aren't scratches on the 'Maybrick' watch) and the patterns were consistent with them being jingled around in purses."

How is that 'dating' the scratches in metal?

All it states is that there were minute scratches consistent with the coins having been in circulation. It doesn't date the scratches to a specific era, let alone to a small timeframe of several decades.

Are you suggesting that the suspicious pattern of scratches on top of the 'Maybrick' etchings on the inside back cover of the watch were formed by Albert Johnson or someone else carrying around the inside back cover in his pocket for many years?

The two cases aren't at all analogous. They are actually polar opposites.

With the coins, we have scratches that one would expect to find it the coins had been in circulation.

With the Maybrick Hoax, we have a suspicious network of superficial scratches and wear-and-tear that shouldn't be there.

The article also states:

"A chemical analysis also showed that the coins had been buried in soil for hundreds of years"

We have no such luxury with the Maybrick watch. It was not buried in soil for hundreds of years.

How exactly do you think the watch received all these all these superficial surface scratches while buried under Dodd's floorboards?

Someone had obviously roughed up the surface after making the undatable etchings.

[caz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63636641

Oh my giddy aunt ...



This sounds rather familiar, everyone. 'Experts' claim a coin found 300 years ago by my great-great-great-etc-uncle Draconoclast was declared a hoax in the 19th century so they pushed it aside and hid it away in order to avoid having to use their brains and work out what it might all mean in terms of our understanding of history.



Hold on, Henry Cohen was a coin 'expert' - how on earth could anyone doubt his conclusions? Not even an amateur, guys - a real, live (back then) 'expert'!



Goodness, the coins were scratched in a way you would expect if they had actually been used! Surely this just means that the hoaxers scratched them artificially? Isn't that what we are expected to swallow in a parallel case?



Well, what on earth do Jesper Ericsson and Prof Pearson know when a bunch of amateurs are still screaming, "Fake! Hoax! (Don't forget to buy my latest book!)"? It must surely be obvious to everyone - amateurs and experts alike - that all the hoaxers had to do was to bury the hoaxed coins in some soil that was already hundreds of years old?



This is one of my favourite bits, just for irony, wouldn't you?



Well, well, well, once again the United Kingdom shows the rest of the developing world (such as the USA) how to interpret simple data.

Now, before you all get too excited, I have no doubt that a bunch of self-righteous Naysayers will come along and find reasons why our friendly Roman emperor could not possibly have existed. Watch this space, dear readers!

PS On the subject of our little colony over the pond, do you think it is possible that - when they co-host the damned tournament in 2026 - their fans could develop a better chant than "U-S-A, U-S-A" - I mean, it must have taken all of a billionth of a nanosecond to come up with and it definitely takes less to irritate. It's football, man - we craft beautifully inventive rhymes. You cannot possibly host the world's premier footballing event if that's all you've got in your locker!

Ike

Afternoon Ike,

In that case, I'd better not repeat the version Chelsea fans used to sing back in the late 1960s, of the Jim Reeves classic, Distant Drums!

I was going to post much the same as you did, regarding poor old Baxendale.

What I couldn't figure out was why he needed to give any guesstimates for the number of years [not weeks or even months, but years] the diary ink had been on the paper, if the results of his solubility test on the ink in July 1992 left no reasonable doubt in his own mind, or any wriggle room for a prospective publisher, that it had been applied 'recently'.

With a result like that, Baxendale ought to have been able to take it proudly to the bank along with his fee, for another job well done. But instead of sticking to his professional guns, he buckled under the fee payer's immediate concerns, and waived it to prevent his report seeing the light of day, in any form and for any purpose. No wonder the spin has always been to make it seem like Robert Smith was the one who was embarrassed by it and wanted it to "go away and shut up". But Robert had not even committed himself at that stage, and when Eastaugh failed to confirm Baxendale's misgivings, Robert was persuaded to trust his initial instincts and push ahead.

The worst thing Baxendale did to his own reputation was to give Chittenden a completely revised opinion in 1993, that the diary was no more than 2 to 3 years old when he examined it, after having given an earliest date of 1945 in his 1992 report. Not only did his 'new and improved' dating fit in very nicely thank you with what the Sunday Times wanted to hear, but he also knew that Robert Smith couldn't reveal this unexplained change of mind over the course of a year, without breaking his written agreement not to publish Baxendale's original opinions.

The more they wheel out Baxendale, in support of the wildly improbable April 1992 'creation', the less confidence he inspires in his own work on the scrapbook three months later.

And the fact that Mike Barrett was never able to produce any proof of purchase for it will be swept under the rug as always, as of no consequence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

But no-one lit the fuse paper underneath the scrapbook despite Baxendale's apparently game-over analysis, so the immediate follow-up tests were not done. Instead, rather unaware that there was any kind of lingering issue from Baxendale's flawed report, the tests continued in other directions. A huge opportunity to establish the scrapbook ink's true age was lost.

Hi Ike,

Confirmation tests cost more money. Apparently at that time nobody wanted to foot the bill for the additional tests, so they continued in other directions.

[Iconoclast]

And the fact that Mike Barrett was never able to produce any proof of purchase for it will be swept under the rug as always, as of no consequence.

You couldn't make this stuff up, Caz, and still expect the men in white coats to stop following you about. From the infamous Cloak and Dagger meeting on April 10, 1999 (Keith Skinner interviewing Mike Barrett with additional comment from unknown audience member):

KS: - no, I’m saying, I’m saying that that is what that, ‘cause I’ve seen the Baxendale report, and it was Nick Eastaugh actually, yep, Nick Eastaugh actually lost that tiny bit of, of, of fragment -
MB: - but is that true or not?
KS: I’m saying, yes, it is, Robert, believe me, it is true. Here’s the ace – you’ve got the photograph.
MB: Thank you.
??: Let’s see it.
MB: I haven’t got the photograph.
??: You haven’t?

Just like the receipt for the scrapbook, he didn't have the photograph he had just thanked Keith Skinner for identifying as his 'ace'. It was still in the diary, you see. You what??? I hear you all say - an entire photograph still in the diary??? Shurely shum mishtake???

No-one who knows what an utter moron Mike Barrett was will be in the least bit surprised to find that the 'photograph' to which he appeared to be referring was actually no more than the tiny edge of a photograph wedged in the folds of the scrapbook.

Master hoaxer, my arse.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

Confirmation tests cost more money. Apparently at that time nobody wanted to foot the bill for the additional tests, so they continued in other directions.

Hi Scotty,

I agree entirely. It is unfortunate but these tests cost a lot of money and - because Smith didn't realise the urgency of re-testing asap - his modest budget was spent in other ways.

Maybe if Baxendale had given a lower range to the ink of more like 1989 or 1990 - in the way he conveniently did a year later for Maurice "They won't remember me as another Sunday Times idiot!" Chittenden - then Smith's ears might have pricked-up and his brain screamed, "Bejesus, man, this ink needs to be tested for solubility again and super-quickly before it dries out in the next few months!!!". Now, sadly, we'll never know whether Baxendale's second report of July 1992 actually contained replicable claims or not.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

Confirmation tests cost more money. Apparently at that time nobody wanted to foot the bill for the additional tests, so they continued in other directions.

Hi Scott. That's one explanation, but isn't there another?

Personally, having a more cynical view of human nature than you and Thomas, I wouldn't necessarily underestimate the sound of the Sugar Plum Fairies and Cash Registers were dancing in Smith's head. He thought he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper and all the fame and fortune that would go with it, but here was his forensic expert telling him the inconvenient and deflating news that the ink was too freely soluble and flowing for the diary to be genuine, so, in the words of Mr. Chittenden, Smith put Dr. B's report in his desk drawer and "forgot about it."

How much would a second test have cost him? 100 quid?

Two years later, with the diary's "modest budget" miraculously restored, there was a second ink solubility test, this time conducted by a lab assistant named Davey at the University of Leeds.

His results:

“Ink scrapings from the diary were soaked in 40 µ litres of the solvent combination [methyl ethyl keytone, isopropyl alcohol and ammonia] yet despite warming and ultrasound treatment, the ink remained bound to the paper.”

Wow. What a radically different result from what Dr. B noticed two years earlier.

I'd be interested in knowing how you might explain these differing results, Scott.

In 1992, Baxendale found the ink so readily soluble that it left only a slight residue of ink on the paper when placed in the solvent. The ink had dissolved before his very eyes.

In 1994, Davey at Leeds couldn't get the ink and paper to separate using two heated solvents, even when subjected to the scrubbing action of ultrasonic waves. The ink was now firmly bonded to the paper.

A bit ironic, eh? Tempus Omnia Revelat

Time Reveals All.

The passing of two years revealed something seriously wrong with the diary's ink, but no one in the inner circle seemed to notice or comment on it.

As Dr. Joe Nickell (the author of two books on forensic document examination) put it, this must mean that when Barrett had brought the diary to London in 1992, the ink was "barely dry on the pages."

Sadly, the rest is just Thomas desperately trying to wish-away these results, having no explanation for them.

As I have said before, it is not Baxendale's estimates or conclusions that does in the diary, though this is what Thomas and Caz always focus on.

It is his objective observations that are so deadly. Are we to believe that Smith's own consultant lied to his client about what he observed?


RP

[Iconoclast]

Personally, having a more cynical view of human nature than you and Thomas, I wouldn't necessarily underestimate the sound of the Sugar Plum Fairies and Cash Registers were dancing in Smith's head. He thought he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper and all the fame and fortune that would go with it, but here was his forensic expert telling him the inconvenient and deflating news that the ink was too freely soluble and flowing for the diary to be genuine, so, in the words of Mr. Chittenden, Smith put Dr. B's report in his desk drawer and "forgot about it."

To be clear, Smith could have withdrawn his offer of £50,000 after Baxendale's reports of July 1992 but chose to continue, albeit at a lower level of investment. He was clearly concerned that Baxendale's initial prima facie report - whilst 'under-powered' (i.e., too weak to establish any meaningful data) - might yet prove to be correct in critical ways. What he evidently hadn't realised (for whatever reason) was that Baxendale's second report of July 1992 could be used to argue that the ink was barely dry. I assume if he had realised this, he'd have immediately sought one or two more opinions after which - if they agreed with Baxendale - he could potentially save himself his lower level of investment also.

So, during July 1992 additional reports from Baxendale were sent to Smith and Montgomery and letters were exchanged. The publishing contract (now reduced to £15,000) was agreed on July 29th 1992. Nick Eastaugh was approached for a second opinion and his report was presented on October 2nd 1992. Had it agreed with Baxendale's then Smith would have cancelled the project (as confirmed by Keith Skinner who discussed this point with Smith recently). It's up to the individual reader, of course, whether they believe this.

Quite why Baxendale's incendiary second report of July 1992 failed to 'go off' until decades later is another key question in this convoluted case.

[rjpalmer]

Quite why Baxendale's incendiary second report of July 1992 failed to 'go off' until decades later is another key question in this convoluted case.

Why you keep repeating this over and over is anyone's guess, Ike. Just because you are late to the party doesn't mean everyone else was.

Baxendale's "incendiary" findings were mentioned in Chittenden's landmark article in the Sunday Times in 1993, in essays by Melvin Harris, in articles by David Barrat several years ago, etc.

It was even mentioned by Paul Feldman on page 20 of his book:



And here I thought you were a fan of this book.

Significantly, after mentioning this troubling result, Feldman does something very interesting: he ignores them, just as you are doing now.

Instead, Feldman quickly moves on to Dr. Eastaugh's chemical examination of the diary using a nuclear microscope (pg 21)

He never mentions the inconvenient solubility test again, even though there is nothing in his discussion of Eastaugh's analysis that refutes the results of that test, despite the impression you are leaving in your above post.

Nick Eastaugh was approached for a second opinion and his report was presented on October 2nd 1992. Had it agreed with Baxendale's then Smith would have cancelled the project (as confirmed by Keith Skinner who discussed this point with Smith recently).

Again, how could Dr. E's report have disagreed with Baxendale's ink solubility test?

Eastaugh used a nuclear microscope.

Are you suggesting Dr. Eastaugh conducted an ink solubility test with a nuclear microscope?

Put another way, do you have the results of any solubility test that Eastaugh conducted, and can you cite which extractant was used?

[Scott Nelson]

Two years later, with the diary's "modest budget" miraculously restored, there was a second ink solubility test, this time conducted by a lab assistant named Davey at the University of Leeds.

His results:

“Ink scrapings from the diary were soaked in 40 µ litres of the solvent combination [methyl ethyl keytone, isopropyl alcohol and ammonia] yet despite warming and ultrasound treatment, the ink remained bound to the paper.”

Wow. What a radically different result from what Dr. B noticed two years earlier.

I'd be interested in knowing how you might explain these differing results, Scott.

Hey, RJ...I can't. As you know, I postulate the ink met paper sometime after 1988. How much time after.. I can't say. If it was, say 1990-1, would that be close enough to July 1992 so that the ink could still be readily soluble, but not so much 6 months later, let alone two years later?

[rjpalmer]

Hey, RJ...I can't. As you know, I postulate the ink met paper sometime after 1988. How much time after.. I can't say. If it was, say 1990-1, would that be close enough to July 1992 so that the ink could still be readily soluble, but not so much 6 months later, let alone two years later?

I don't know if we can obtain reliable information after all these years, but the question I would ask is if Barrett ever had unsupervised access to the diary anytime between July 1992 and when he ultimately sold it to Smith in March 1993? Did he ever return home with it, or was it continually out of his hands over those eight months?