Let's remind ourselves of what was said in #1684. It was this:
"Still no explanation from David, for why - within 24 hours of Mike's simple but effective reply - he had found out where Eddie lived [and there's no evidence that Feldman knew the address or gave it to Mike - why would he?] and chosen to complicate things himself by going round there to introduce himself as the diary's owner, accuse Eddie of lying and saying he would never do a deal [with Paul Dodd]."
Now it's all changed. Now it's this:
"When Feldman later told Mike that an electrician was prepared to confirm he took the diary from the house, his suspicions would have been confirmed and that's when he went round to have it out with Eddie, at his girlfriend's Fountains Road address."
So, originally, he went there specifically to accuse Eddie of lying. Now he went there to "have it out" with him.. Tomorrow it could be something else.
On today's account, there is no mention of Mike accusing Eddie of lying. In fact, on the new account he's not going to do that because his suspicions have been confirmed and he now believes that Eddie did find the Diary in Battlecrease.
And I reproduce my original post back at #1695:
"We are told (again) that Mike threatened Eddie with solicitors although no evidence has ever been produced of this. Perhaps the world’s leading expert on the subject was in Eddie’s house at the time. What Feldman said about the meeting was this: “Within twenty-four hours Mike Barrett had knocked on the door of the said electrician; he accused him of lying and told him he would never do a deal.” That’s it. Where do the solicitors come from?"
The clue in the word "scrapbook" is the word scrap! A scrapbook is called a "scrapbook" which is why it's not called a book. If I go into a shop wanting a scrapbook what am I going to be offered if I simply ask for a book?
Did Eddie say he had found a scrapbook? Unless that is the evidence, he appears to have been telling his colleague that he found a book, just like Vinny Dring said he found two old books in the same premises.
I've already explained, on 10th May, in #4654 of the Incontrovertible thread, why Koppenhaver's extract doesn't relate to the Diary ink but for those who can't concentrate, here it is again in all its glory:
From RJ's source, namely a 2002 book by Katherine Koppenhaver, entitled "Attorney's Guide to Document Examination" we read this (my bold):
"In addition to the first manufacturing date of ink, forensic chemists have devised a method of testing ballpoint ink samples to give a relative date of the writing. Ink dating can only determine the approximate date a message was penned on paper. According to Erich Speckin, an ink chemist with Speckin Laboratories in a lecture to the National Association of Document Examiners, "In the field of forensic chemistry advances in technology have made it possible to date ink within six months or less.
Ink chemists determine the age of ink by the rate of extraction from the paper and the percent of extraction. They measure how fast the ink can be chemically removed from the paper and how easily it is removed. Ink dries chemically in approximately three and one-half years according to Erich Speckin. By using the rate of extraction, ink chemists can determine the age of the application of the ink to within six months. After the ink has completely dried, the chemist can only state that the ink is over three and one-half years old."
So Koppenhaver was discussing, in 2002, in a book written for American attorneys (thus obviously relating only to the dating of modern documents) a technique for the dating of documents written in ballpoint ink using a method based on recent advances in technology.
The Speckin Forensic Ink Dating Technique(s) can actually be viewed here in this 1998 video, involving a punch, a backer, a vial, a syringe and/or an oven, a plate, a densitometer and a computer and it bears no relation to the type of simple solubility test that would have been conducted by Dr Baxendale: