Maybrick Diary - Fake or Genuine

[caz]

Hi Scott,

I've long been under the impression that less than eight or nine people follow the Maybrick 'debate' with any regularity, but I was surprised to be contacted by a lurker who wondered about your above statement.

Leeds' own reports do not refer to "GC coupled with Mass Spectrometry."

They refer to Thin Layer Chromatography coupled with SEM/EDX coupled with Optical Microscopy (OM)

My technical knowledge of this subject could fit into a thimble, but there appears to be relevant limitations to SEM/EDX including "detecting and resolving elemental peaks, especially at low concentrations or for light elements (such as hydrogen).

"Key limitations include: detection limits, peak overlaps, energy resolution, and matrix effects" which doesn't sound (to me, at least) that it would be as effective as GC/MS at "filtering out interference of small peak curves."

The same correspondent wondered if Mr. Voller was correct in saying that Leeds used Gas Chromatography; the reports he has seen states that they used Thin Layered Chromatography. Or are we missing a report?

Anyway, I'm not all that keen on discussing it; not being a chemist, I fall back on Voller's criticism that Leeds "assumed rather than established" their ability to detect chloroacetamide. I pass this on for those who might be interested.

RP

My technical knowledge of this subject could fit into half a thimble, so for me it boils down to the same old question of why Leeds reported that they had detected the presence of chloroacetamide as a result of their first test, and why it was suddenly undetectable when they repeated the test using the same method and equipment.

It was in Diamine ink to act as a preservative, so it should still have been doing its thing in the diary by then if Mike had bought a bottle new in 1992 for the purpose. I don't know how much would have been sufficient in the dried ink to preserve handwriting for any length of time, but if Leeds detected chloroacetamide once, it should have been present in the same detectable amount twice - and thirteen tests later in theory - unless Mike lied.

By all means fall back on Voller's criticism of Leeds, but it still doesn't explain how the chloroacetamide pulled a Houdini if it was in the diary ink from the start and at the finish.

When Voller finally saw the original diary in October 1995, I wonder how he reconciled his categorical conclusion that the ink wasn't Diamine and hadn't been diluted, with what he had previously said about the testing done by AFI and Leeds. He could so easily have ducked it and said he couldn't be sure from a visual examination, in light of AFI's impressive methods, which had detected an ingredient used in Diamine. But he didn't do that. Instead, he put his own professional reputation on the line, as chief chemist for Diamine ink, and effectively disputed AFI's findings. This is what I fall back on, because he had absolutely no reason to sugar the pill for his audience in October 1995, and every reason to say so, if the diary ink had appeared to him consistent with AFI finding chloroacetamide in it.

[rjpalmer]

And now we know, thanks to RJ Palmer, that 'one off instance' does not require the 'one off' to mean unique or unrepeatable.

If I was a weekday day drinker, I'd be heading for the liquor cabinet.

A "one off instance" is absolutely a unique, one-time event.

What I disputed was your claim that adding the additional statement "it won't happen again" makes it redundant or a "tautology."

No so. He is promising that this one-time, unique event will remain a one-time unique event, because it won't happen again in the future.

It's really not that difficult. Any instance of one-off bad behavior IS POTENTIALLY repeatable--he is just saying that it won't be.


For the sake of closure, let me remind you of your original post from 2022 that Ike was referencing:

It's as clear as a bell because the diary author writes:

'I assured the w.... it would never happen again.'

It only has to be as clear as a bell to the person writing the diary. He is meant to be writing down his own thoughts, for nobody but himself. And yet here we have a tautology, unless he needs to explain to himself in his diary, what he meant by writing 'one off instance'.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Love,

Caz
X

The usage is not 'curious.'

He doesn't need to 'explain it to himself.'

He is adding a reassurance that the uniquely bad behavior won't be repeated in the future. It's that simple.

Mr. Johnstone in Aldershot said the same thing in the 1980s as did the other various speakers in the similar examples given.

Capice?

[rjpalmer]

By all means fall back on Voller's criticism of Leeds, but it still doesn't explain how the chloroacetamide pulled a Houdini if it was in the diary ink from the start and at the finish.

Aren't you merely assuming there was a Houdini act--that Leeds legitimately detected the chemical the first go round, and then somehow failed to do it again the second time?

Is that really what Voller concluded?

Isn't there another explanation?

Recall that Voller warned that chloroacetamide might not be detectable. He also rubbished Leeds for "assuming" that they could detect it, rather than confirming it.

So, personally, I'm fine with Leeds' own explanation. There was no Houdini act. They didn't detect it on either run. The first was down to contamination and shoddy protocol as per Voller, and the second is because they failed to detect it. This is not particularly mind-blowing nor mysterious because Voller warned that that might turn out to be the case.

What should truly worry anyone looking at it dispassionately is how the highly praised Dr. Simpson, who was lauded by Voller himself, was able to detect it during her 'model' examination....that is....if it wasn't there.

I suppose one can fall back on Melvin Harris tinkering with the capsules, as was insinuated at the time, except that Harris was never anywhere near them. Kurantz sent them from America, the Land of the Formerly Free.

Have a wonderful afternoon; I'm leaving my desk.

[rjpalmer]

He is adding a reassurance that the uniquely bad behavior won't be repeated in the future. It's that simple.

And, of course, he is not 'explaining it to himself' in his own private journal. He's recording what he had said to his wife. "I assured the wh--e....."

[Admin]

We are receiving Report Post after Report Post in the last few days, all on Diary threads. Anyone who is reported from this point on for cause will be banned from posting on the Diary threads for a year.

Knock this **** off. Apologies to all who are impacted.