Maybrick Diary - Fake or Genuine

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay. I’ll go with the chief chemist.

You can go with the chief liar.

So I assume you also agree with the chief chemist when he told Melvin Harris in 2001, after seeing a colour photocopy of a letter written by Nick Warren in 1995 with Diamine MS ink, that "....the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing". You also agree, I assume, with the chief chemist when he described the Leeds report as "profoundly disturbing" while at the same time, describing the Analysis For Industry report as "almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted", but perhaps you could confirm.

For myself, I'm in agreement with the document examiner Phil Kellingley who has described Voller's strange belief that he could identify ink as being not Diamine from a visual examination as "utter rubbish". Kellingley also said: "I believe he thought he could but, wonderful though the eye is, it is incapable of making such a judgement".

[rjpalmer]

I also go with Paul Begg from 25 years ago.

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

Unbelievable.

As is almost always the case, you have it 180 degrees backwards. The hooey on this point has been coming from your side of the aisle.

Let's read again what P. Begg wrote:

"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."

This is EXACTLY what I've been telling Caroline Brown for years and years!

We do not know if the quantity of chloroacetamide found in the ink by AFI is, or is not, what would be 'expected' if the ink was modern Diamine. We only know that Dr. Simpson did indeed detect the trace chemical that Alec Voller suggested we look for.

Melvin Harris made the same exact point when the Diary Team started crowing that Dr. Simpson didn't find ENOUGH chloroacetamide. Paul is, in effect, agreeing with Melvin Harris--which was a rather thing back in the day.

It is Caroline Brown who has insisted dozens and dozens of times over the years that we DO know the precise amount of the chemical in the ink and that that percentage is inconsistent with Diamine.

So, I'm afraid you have it backwards again, Lombro.

I agree with Paul Begg's limited point, but if you think he's saying the ink can't be modern Diamine, then you aren't competently reading what he wrote.

It's also interesting to see that you're hedging your bets. Earlier in the week you flatly announced that there was no chloroacetamide in the ink. Getting nervous, are we?

And as always, these issues could be resolved if Robert Smith had the will to do it; there are non-destructive means of retesting the ink.

The bit about the paper punch was just Shirley's attempt to discredit someone who was telling her something she didn't want to hear. She did the same thing with Dr. Baxendale.

There is utterly no reason to think a paper punch would be randomly contaminated with significant amounts of this rare chemical, and in the event, the test of the paper DID NOT SHOW ANY. That proves it was in the ink, and not the paper.

[rjpalmer]

Paul is, in effect, agreeing with Melvin Harris--which was a rather thing back in the day.

That should read 'rather rare thing' back in the day.

Personally, I do think the ink is modern Diamine, but it's pointless to argue about it endlessly. Test the damn thing.