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.

[Lombro2]

So, Mr. Street, [and Mr Palmer] you do not appear to be correct when you say that chloroacetamide was a 'rare chemical'. According to Professor Roberts, it was extensively used and I assume that it could have entered the ink in any number of ways.

Paul Begg Casebook 2000

[Lombro2]

I wasn’t hedging any bets with AGI’s findings.

They didn’t even register with me. I must have a good filter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wasn’t hedging any bets with AGI’s findings.

They didn’t even register with me. I must have a good filter.

As you seem to be blissfully unaware, Lombro, the findings of AFI (not AGI) in October 1994 were that:

"When the six blank ink dots [taken from the diary] were extracted with acetone and analysed using gas-liquid chromatography procedures chloracetemide was indicated to be present in the ink used".

[rjpalmer]

"So, Mr. Street, [and Mr Palmer] you do not appear to be correct when you say that chloroacetamide was a 'rare chemical'. According to Professor Roberts, it was extensively used and I assume that it could have entered the ink in any number of ways."

First off, you doctored this quote to include my name--it was not part of Paul Begg's original quote back on 20 October 2000.

Second of all, I can't take this suggestion seriously. As Paul B. wrote:

"I wasn't suggesting anything at all. It was Professor Roberts of UMIST, 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.'"

Roberts admitted there is no evidence of the compound being used in ink or paper in the 1880s.

Further, the paper was independently tested by both AFI and Leeds, who found no trace of it. Therefore, the compound was in the ink.

It was Voller himself that suggested that the diary's ink should be tested for this compound because he had introduced it to Diamine's formula and it would be a tell-tale sign. I assume Voller had good reason for making that recommendation and didn't think accidental contamination would be a plausible concern.

And lo and behold, Dr. Simpson detected chloroacetamide.

Recall that the samples of diary ink/paper that were gathered by Dr. Robert Kuranz were taken from random 'stops' or 'periods' from the album. Are we supposed to seriously believe that the spots Kuranz randomly gathered just happened to be contaminated (but not the paper itself) with the sought-after compound by "some obscure route"??

Perhaps it's not IMPOSSIBLE, but it sure doesn't strike me as remotely likely.

The obvious explanation is that chloroacetamide WAS in the ink.

As for Professor Robert's claim that chloroacetamide could not "prove the diary was forged"....this was not the intention of the tests. If that was his mistaken belief, then his comment has limited value.

In reality, the diary was already identified as a forgery (three times before it was even published) due to the bogus handwriting, the text, the lack of a provenance, the suspicious behavior of Barrett, etc.

The purpose of the test was to see if Barrett's claim of having bought the ink in a particular Liverpool art shop stood up to scrutiny.

I think it did, but by all means test it again if you like. As far as I can tell, it's an iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent and trace amounts of chloroacetamide.

If it has feathers, webbed feet, a bill, and quacks like a duck, I'm willing to assume it is a duck unless someone proves otherwise.

RP

[Lombro2]

In reality, the diary was already identified as a forgery (three times before it was even published) due to

the bogus handwriting, It’s called serial killer handwriting or just plain human handwriting.

the text, cherry picking here and there like a Bible critic with nothing to do.

the lack of a provenance, I don’t need one. It was in a hole. You need one.

the suspicious behavior of Barrett, You mean he was fencing a stolen item?

etc.

If it’s a proven forgery, why do the test?

And why do the test when you are already sure of the result?

And then why go back to the handwriting and provenance non-issues?

[Scott Nelson]

AFI used a desktop Gas Chromatograph (GC) to run their analysis. I used one years ago to analyze for DDT in soil samples. In their later analysis of the diary ink and paper, Leeds used GC coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). The GC/MS is more effective at filtering out interference of small peak curves. The MS part of the test apparatus acts like a black box, reducing the effects of accidently introduced contaminants. I would therefore trust the results of the Leeds analysis over those of AFI.

[rjpalmer]

AFI used a desktop Gas Chromatograph (GC) to run their analysis. I used one years ago to analyze for DDT in soil samples. In their later analysis of the diary ink and paper, Leeds used GC coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). The GC/MS is more effective at filtering out interference of small peak curves. The MS part of the test apparatus acts like a black box, reducing the effects of accidently introduced contaminants. I would therefore trust the results of the Leeds analysis over those of AFI.

Hi Scott--

I have no reason to question your judgment, and the GC/MS could be more trustworthy, but wouldn't it rely on the expertise of the operator?

It's difficult to ignore Alec Voller's negative critique of Leed's protocol when he's throwing round phrases like "disturbing" and "unforgivable" an "assumed."

"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".

He had no similar misgivings about AFI.

I don't know if it is relevant, but the Leeds test was conducted by a graduate student who received his PhD the following year. He specialized in "Colour Chemistry."

Dr. Simpson was a PhD of many years standing and had been conducting tests professionally for years and had won several awards, including the Royal Society of Chemistry's Distinguished Service Award.

Biography | Dr. Diana Simpson

My own belief that the ink is probably Diamine is not based solely on these results. The text overwhelming suggests a very recent concoction, as did the solubility and the initial lack of bronzing, and Voller said his ink was the only iron gall ink with nigrosine made in "many a year." If it's not Diamine, then what the hell is it? I think all the evidence, properly considered, points to an iron gall ink with nigrosine.

Off to drown my sorrows. The Mariners lose again by one run.

RP

[Lombro2]

Maybe they should use some illicit methods, like piling on.