Originally posted by Lombro2
View Post
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
Comment