If the edge of the photograph found in the diary's binding had been albumen (or sepia), it should have been abundantly obvious, even using nothing more than a strong magnifying glass, because the paper contained telltale fibers (and sepia paper would have been obvious to a forensic examiner).
If this edge found in the binding was part of a Victorian photograph, why didn't Baxendale or Eastaugh describe 19th Century photographic paper? Why just 'the edge of a photograph'? Is there a more specific description of this that we haven't heard about?
Further, albumen paper was very thin and easy to damage, which is why carte-de-visit photographs were pasted onto card stock, which, in turn, made their dimensions larger.
But if the piece found by Baxendale was the edge of a carte-de-visit, then the rectangular squares in the diary would have been bigger than the dimensions given, so FDC's suggestion doesn't hold water.
I sent a letter to Eastaugh, asking for clarification, but he never responded. I imagine the diary detectives aren't eager to relive this episode, because they apparently lost the paper that was found in the binding--which would have been one of the most important pieces of forensic evidence. The only reason we ever heard about this is that Keith Skinner mentioned it in passing while interviewing Barrett at the 1999 Cloak and Dagger meeting (as first noticed by Lord Orsam).
And without a proper forensic analysis of the paper ever having been conducted, the diary faithful can now announce that Barrett's description of World War One era photographs in the guard book was nothing more than fantasy.
What a lovely set of circumstances.
Leave a comment: