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.

[caz]

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

I would hate to have driven RJ Palmer to drink, on top of all my other faults.

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.

What I still struggle with is the logic of defining a 'one off instance' as 'absolutely a unique, one-time event', and then in the next breath conceding that it's potentially repeatable.

Unrepeatable is a synonym of unique, so it's like saying it's an absolutely unrepeatable event, which is potentially repeatable.

If it requires a qualification as to whether this particular unique, unrepeatable, one-time event will or will not be repeated in the future, as we see in the diary, then did the Barretts trip over with their use of language in 1992, or did our unidentified author use a three-word phrase that is not known to have been used by anyone before - what was it? - the 1930s?

[caz]

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'm still struggling with this. The first run gave Leeds a positive result for the presence of choloroacetamide. The suggestion appears to be that this was some unknown contaminant which was misidentifiable as chloroacetamide, and they then got a negative result for this same unknown contaminant on the second run, while chloroacetamide was there in the ink all along, as an active ingredient, but undetectable by their equipment.

Voller's early warning is all very well, but he went on to conclude, after seeing the diary ink for himself in situ, that it wasn't Diamine, in which case both AFI and Leeds must have got one false positive each for chloroacetamide. A positive result first time round should be repeatable and repeated, in case of a negative result which proves the positive one false.

We effectively have two negative conclusions, one from Leeds and one from Voller, both of which provide reasonable doubt about the safety of AFI's one positive.

And that's without factoring in Mike Barrett, as one of the least reliable witnesses ever to wax lyrical about his part in the diary's downfall. If I'd been a serious gambler, I would have bet an awful lot against the ink coming from the Bluecoat art shop, purely on the basis of Mike once claiming it did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would hate to have driven RJ Palmer to drink, on top of all my other faults.



What I still struggle with is the logic of defining a 'one off instance' as 'absolutely a unique, one-time event', and then in the next breath conceding that it's potentially repeatable.

Unrepeatable is a synonym of unique, so it's like saying it's an absolutely unrepeatable event, which is potentially repeatable.

If it requires a qualification as to whether this particular unique, unrepeatable, one-time event will or will not be repeated in the future, as we see in the diary, then did the Barretts trip over with their use of language in 1992, or did our unidentified author use a three-word phrase that is not known to have been used by anyone before - what was it? - the 1930s?

Hello Caz,

I'm having difficulty understanding your position on this.

Earlier this month, on 7th August, in the 'Meltdown' thread (#69), you correctly summarized my view on the 'one off instance' diary entry as being "a perfectly normal and acceptable way for anyone to have emphasised a point" and you commented: "I tend to agree with you - don't faint!". You now seem to be walking back on that by suggesting that the Barretts, as forgers, tripped up with their their language in 1992. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

For the record, the first currently known use of "one off instance" is from the 1970s while the first known usage of similar expressions is from the late 1950s.

[rjpalmer]

Voller's early warning is all very well, but he went on to conclude, after seeing the diary ink for himself in situ, that it wasn't Diamine, in which case both AFI and Leeds must have got one false positive each for chloroacetamide.

Do you recall the response you received from the retired document examiner Phil Kellingley when you ran these same ideas past him a couple of years ago?

"Voller's opinion was that the ink didn't look like Diamine. As I've said before 'looking' at an ink is simply not a reasonable test. Did he have a piece of paper with Diamine on it and compared that to the diary? If he did, was it the same paper? I don't believe he did either of those but simply gave his opinion by looking at the diary. That is, quite simply, a ludicrous statement for him to make. If he gave that opinion in a court room he'd be ripped to shreds." --- Phil Kellingley, 17 April 2023 JTR Forums.

That Voller didn't think the diary's ink looked like Diamine is 'all very well,' but he later made a visual example of a letter that Nick Warren had written with Diamine ink and he admitted "I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing..."

So much for putting faith in visual examinations.

Mr. Kellingley's question about paper was very much on point. There is little doubt that Voller would have been accustomed to seeing Diamine Ink on modern stationery, which is sized. Sizing is a starch that coats the paper so the ink will sit on the surface while it dries, giving it a crisp look.

By contrast, the diary's paper was determined to be unsized; it's a photograph album, not intended to have been written on.

[rjpalmer]

And that's without factoring in Mike Barrett, as one of the least reliable witnesses ever to wax lyrical about his part in the diary's downfall. If I'd been a serious gambler, I would have bet an awful lot against the ink coming from the Bluecoat art shop, purely on the basis of Mike once claiming it did.

You might consider applying this same principle to Barrett's claim of having first learned of 'Battlecrease' while thumbing through a copy of RWE's booklet in a bookstore some months after Tony's death. There is no doubt whatsoever that Mike had already owned the book.

Or Mike's claim of discovering the source of the Crashaw quote during a 'serious week' in the Central Liverpool Library.

Considering there is no source for these assertions other than Bongo Barrett, do you really want to plonk down those wagers?