Maybrick Diary - Fake or Genuine

[Lombro2]

I also go with Paul Begg from 25 years ago.

Professor Roberts did observe that Analysis For Industry did not seem to have carried out a control test to see whether the chloroacetamide could be cointained in the paper attached to the ink sample. I also understand that when Shirley Harrison hired AFI to analyse the paper, Dr. Simpson produced a hole punch purchased that morning from W.H. Smith with which she intended taking the sample. So much for sterility! Mr. Kazlauciunas of Leeds University , in a letter dated 16 January 1995, also suggested that AFI's anti-contamination procedure could have left some chloroacetamide attached to the column (whatever that may mean) which then contaminated the sample. He was mistakenly thinking that an ultra-tiny amount of chloroacetamide had been found in the sample, but since we don't know how much chloroacetamide was found, we don't know whether his explanation or something like it could be correct or not. So perhaps AFI's tests weren't as meticulous or as sterile as you think....

It was Professor Roberts of UMIST [John C. Roberts, Professor of Paper Science], who I assume is qualified to talk on the matter, who said that chloroacetamide was an old compound, extensively used in the 1880s (albeit not known to have been used in the manufacture of paper or ink). He said, 'Even if no references could be found to its use in paper in 1889, the fact that it existed well before that date would devalue the scientific evidence in support of the fact that the diaries were forged...The argument that it found its way into the ink or paper by some obscure route can never be completely discounted.'... According to Professor Roberts, it was extensively used and I assume that it could have entered the ink in any number of ways.

The bottom line, as far as I am aware. is that we do not know what quantity of chloroacetamide was found in the sample and we do not know whether the quantity matched what would be expected if it had been used in the manufacture of the ink. Since we don't know, we can't safely draw any hard and fast conclusion. And all this actually accepts that there is chloroacetamide in the ink. Leeds University failed to find any.


Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 20 October 2000

Archive through October 26, 2000

Thanks for 25 years of horse hooey from the Barrett Hoax Believers.

[Lombro2]

Okay. I’ll go with the chief chemist.

You can go with the chief liar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll go with the mother of Diamine.

You can go with Michael, the Mother of All Lies.

A quick internet search tells me that Diamine started making ink in 1864, with their Liverpool factory opening in 1925.

Voller was never the mother of Diamine. Just a possibly confused child of it.

[Lombro2]

If Mr. Voller (whose gender is strangely changed to 'mommy' in Lombro's imagination) failed to recognize his 'baby'…

I’ll go with the mother of Diamine.

You can go with Michael, the Mother of All Lies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know why scrapbook detractors bother about whether the ink is Diamine or not. Just because Barrett said it was, his track record in the truth department is frighteningly poor so if it ever transpired that it wasn't Diamine at all, what would that prove? In their eyes, nothing. It would simply become yet another Barrett claim which was wrong or never proven or whatever. If it isn't Diamine, then let it be Quink or let it be Waterman or let it be home made or let it be some ink that no-one knew existed (Barrett is allowed all of these luxuries, note, and Tony Devereux probably made him some new ink).

The research chemist who developed Diamine ink was very clear that the ink in the scrapbook wasn't Diamine, but that gets us no further to the truth of the matter because it could have been some other modern ink altogether, and we know that more or less nothing Barrett ever claimed was true so we can just shift to some other unproven belief when needs must and it suits us.

The ink was not Diamine, you are correct, but all that shows is that Barrett was wrong. Yet again.

As I understand it, Ike, Voller was "very clear" that the diary wasn't written with Diamine ink upon a visual examination in October 1995 but was then less clear about this, even appearing to concede that it might have been, later on. As someone who seems to want incontrovertible proof about everything, it's rather surprising that you feel able to say "The ink was not Diamine" as if you are possibly in any position to be able to state such a thing. Where is the proof that the ink was not Diamine? Voller's wobbly visual opinion? He might have been able to create the ink but what actual experience and qualifications did he have to know what Diamine ink looked like on all forms of paper under all conditions (including possible dilution) after a period of two years?

[rjpalmer]

The ink was not Diamine, you are correct.

That you and your Sasquatchian sidekick state this as a fact shows that you are operating on desire and emotion, Ike, and not on reason. In the real world, it's very much an open question.

But....whatever. There's no law preventing you from believing what you believe and spreading this dubious belief promiscuously over the internet, even if it eventually is shown to be the wrong answer.

If Mr. Voller (whose gender is strangely changed to 'mommy' in Lombro's imagination) failed to recognize his 'baby' it could be down to the photo album having unsized paper (which would mean far great absorption than standard writing paper) or the forger may have diluted the ink with water to make look old and faded.

Either way, Voller's initial dismissal during a strictly visual examination was characterized as "worthless" over on JTR Forums by the document examiner Phillip Kellingley who suggested that the matter be settled with the new technology that is available.

I somehow doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes, though. Lift not the painted veil, etc. etc.

[Iconoclast]

But the answer is no. It's not Diamine.

I don't know why scrapbook detractors bother about whether the ink is Diamine or not. Just because Barrett said it was, his track record in the truth department is frighteningly poor so if it ever transpired that it wasn't Diamine at all, what would that prove? In their eyes, nothing. It would simply become yet another Barrett claim which was wrong or never proven or whatever. If it isn't Diamine, then let it be Quink or let it be Waterman or let it be home made or let it be some ink that no-one knew existed (Barrett is allowed all of these luxuries, note, and Tony Devereux probably made him some new ink).

The research chemist who developed Diamine ink was very clear that the ink in the scrapbook wasn't Diamine, but that gets us no further to the truth of the matter because it could have been some other modern ink altogether, and we know that more or less nothing Barrett ever claimed was true so we can just shift to some other unproven belief when needs must and it suits us.

The ink was not Diamine, you are correct, but all that shows is that Barrett was wrong. Yet again.

[Lombro2]

It's his baby. But "Mommy" can't recognize his own baby?

And multiple negative paternity tests and he's still the daddy. Voller, you da daddy! Because we say so!

P.S. We still accept the test-tube eyeball test on solubility. Which shouldn't really count on a practically vacuum-sealed artifact. But why let the truth get in the way of the "facts"?

[rjpalmer]

Yup. As expected....the old "goalpost shuffle."

Now that your earlier claim about chloroacetamide has died on the vine, you retreat to Voller's strictly visual examination.

Same old argument, different year.

Of course, as you admit, Voller later told Nick Warren that his samples of writing using 'old style' Diamine ink DID resemble the diary.

So, we have a contradiction. An enigma.

You attribute this to Voller being a 'nice guy' and 'accommodating.'

If such was the case, how do you know Voller wasn't being 'accommodating' when he told Shirley back in 1995 that he didn't think the Diary was written with Diamine?

In conclusion....

Putting it all together we have an iron gall ink in a text written in the second half of the 20th Century, almost certainly after 1988. Nigrosine as a sighting agent. Traces of chloroacetamide.

By George, that sounds a lot like Diamine!

I guess we'll know if it ever goes up for auction.

[Lombro2]

Here's the relevant quote from the Diamine's chief chemist on "20 October 1995" ("A very inky question" right before the subject was conveniently changed.)

'Certainly the ink did not go on to the paper within recent years ... you are looking at a document which in my opinion is at least 90 years old and may be older ... I came with an open mind and if I thought it was a modern ink I would have said so.'



That's the same guy who said the ink looks nothing like his.

But then changed his mind when someone did an experiment with his ink on a similar type of paper and he was nice enough to say it wasn't bad.

Seems like a nice guy and very accommodating. But the answer is no. It's not Diamine.

[rjpalmer]

Here are two relevant quotes from Diamine's chief chemist, Alec Voller, in letter he sent jointly to Shirley Harrison and Nick Warren on 27th December 1994:

His comment on the Leeds analysis:

"The Leeds report is profoundly disturbing. That any possibility of cross contamination should have been allowed to arise in Gas Chromatography is unforgivable but even worse, calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established".

On Dr. Simpson and AFI:

"By contrast with the above, the report by Analysis For Industry presents us with almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted and reported...The methodology employed seems faultless and there is therefore no reason to question the results obtained".

And yet, bizarrely, you put great faith in the Leeds results and look on the AFI results with suspicion or indifference.

Why does this not surprise me?

Agenda, anyone?

[Lombro2]

I just did some more research. I was already ready to dismiss the Rendell/Harris/AGI and Eastaugh teams based on one negative test. Now I find out there were three negatives in the Leeds test.

Not only was there no trace of Cloroacetimide. There was no Nigrosine and no sodium. All three were found by Eastaugh and his SEM test (same as Leeds). I doubt all three are difficult to trace.

I go by rule of three so fuggetabuddit! Otherwise I'd go looking for the ivory-billed woodpecker.

The subsequent AFI report of 19.10 1994, concluded:-...chloroacetamide was indicated to be present in the ink used."

(At this point let me emphasize that these ink tests organized by surgeon Nick Warren and myself were not meant to prove that the Diary was a fake. We had already established the fact that it was a modern forgery. There were no doubts on that score. Our tests were simply aimed at seeing whether Barrett's claims would stand up to investigation.)

Melvin Harris. The Feldy of Barrett Forgery supporters.

[rjpalmer]

Wow, Caz. The Barrett Hoax Theorists’ earth is flatter than I thought.

No, she's just blowing smoke up your backside. Why she dangles imaginary carrots for the True Believers is anyone's guess.

The idea that the samples tested by Dr. Simpson were accidentally contaminated with the exact chemical that she was looking for while in transit from America is as laughable as it is desperate. There is utterly no reason to grab hold of this fantasy.

Dr. Robert Kuranz, the chemist who had carefully gathered these ink samples from the diary when part of Kenneth Rendell's team, had preserved them from the possibility of contamination by placing them in pristine laboratory grade gelatin capsules. Caroline seems to be harkening back the crazy theories of Paul Feldman who fantasized that Melvin Harris had somehow gotten hold of these samples and contaminated them at the nano level. Harris was in the UK; Kuranz sent them directly to AFI himself. It's a silly suggestion, if that is indeed what she is suggesting.

Notice the word "If" in her final, meaningless line. IF Dr. Simpson didn't find chloroacetamide, those dirty skeptics would have said X, Y, and Z, etc. etc. How is this a fact? This is mere mischief making by Caroline and is hardly one of the "facts" that she claims she is going to adhere to moving forward. I guess old habits die hard.

In truth, her statement is meaningless. Dr. Simpson DID find chloroacetamide but she did not set out to determine the percentage of that chemical in the paper/ink samples, which were diluted. Caroline has long been under the misapprehension that this disproves the ink is Diamine, but it does not. Far from it.

As for Leeds, if I recall Mr. Voller himself admitted there were deep concerns about their findings (or non-findings) due to their haphazard protocol, while in contrast Voller praised the work of Dr. Simpson. Why would any objective, non-partisan person favor the findings of someone who admitted they had allowed contamination over one whose protocol was proven to be expertly conducted? This is the sort of willful self-deception that is so typical of those who champion the Maybrick Hoax.

Of course, the matter could be revisited by Robert Smith if he wanted. There are now non-destructive means of analyzing the diary's ink as I mentioned on another thread. If the scientists in Russia can detect that George Orwell was on morphine when he wrote a letter from Spain in the 1930s, they can tell us the exact composition of the ink. But let's face it. The world has moved on, and no one is willing to fund further tests on this proven fake. If Smith ever tries to sell his relic at auction, perhaps it will happen then.

RP

[Lombro2]

Wow, Caz. The Barrett Hoax Theorists’ earth is flatter than I thought.

[caz]

But they were able to find trace evidence of Chloroacetamide. So the test was good enough.

But they then concluded the traces came from the control. The machine was apparently cleaned and voila! No traces of Chloroacetamide.

Game over. Set and match. A long time ago.

Call me thick, Lombro2 [why not? Most posters around these parts think so], but Leeds University tested samples of the ink scraped directly from various parts of the diary, so if this was Diamine, where did the expected amount of chloroacetamide disappear to when the test, which was repeated specifically to eliminate the possibility of a false positive first time round, indicated that none was present? How does that happen on an earth that isn't flat?

Palmer calls the Leeds tests 'muddled', but I prefer the term 'belt and braces'. If only one test was conducted by AFI, on ink dots sent over from the US if memory serves, how was it possible for anyone to be 100% positive that it could not have produced a false positive?

One can just imagine the howls of protest if Robert Smith had got a more favourable result from Baxendale and stopped there. Robert wasn't happy that Baxendale considered it 'likely' that the ink had originated since 1945, based on the supposed presence of a synthetic dye, which turned out to have been in general use in writing inks by the 1870s, and who could really have blamed him under those circumstances?

If AFI and Leeds had both returned repeated negative results for chloroacetamide, we can be 100% positive that Voller's warning about the difficulty of detecting it would have come into play to keep the Barrett hoax dream alive.

Love,

Caz
X