Dr. Shapiro was kind enough to respond to my post I will include his response in brackets.
First I refer you to several of the posts I have already edited on this issue - Historical fraud, Introduction -here, and Plagiarism -here.
Dr. Shapiro in his latest post has again raised this issue. First, surprisingly Dr. Shapiro added some extra proof to my defense of the Torah Temimah's "Plagiarism". For in my earlier post (well before Dr. Shapiro's post) - I wrote -
"Dan Rabinowitz’s has a far more balanced discussion in Tradition (Rayna Batya…An evaluation of R’ Baruch Halevi’s sources). Lacking access to a Mayin Ganim I cannot refute his sole proof . Still being as her son R’ Chaim Berlin (and presumably other people who would have know her well) alive, R’ Baruch could not have entirely recreated her personality. This holds good for many of R' Baruch's accounts."
Now compare this to Dr. Shapiro's post:
"When Mekor Barukh was published there were still plenty of people alive who had known her and it would have been impossible to entirely fabricate her personality. The same can be said about Epstein’s report of the Netziv reading newspapers on Shabbat. This is not the sort of thing that could be made up. Let’s not forget that the Netziv’s widow, son (R. Meir Bar-Ilan) and many other family members and close students were alive, and Epstein knew that they would not have permitted any improper portrayal. It is when recording private conversations that one must always be wary of what Epstein reports."
Obviously Dr. Shapiro- who is a busy man- read my post (see his comment there) then forgot and thought it was his own idea - Exactly as I claim about the Torah Temimah. Thus the accusation of Plagiarism really holds very little water.
[Yes, I read your post, but I have been saying the same thing for a lot longer than your post, that is, that the TT couldn't have made everything up since people were alive who knew her. That is why I didn't feel a need to refer to your post (that is my rule: if I thought of something beforehand, and then weרe someone else mention it, I see no need to cite it. However, if someone says something and then I discover it on my own, I usually cite it.]
(I have also already noted the Aruch Hashulchans reference to Sefei Tav in an earlier post - See here)
I have already linked to the JNUL site containing the Netziv's letters to HaMagid and his article in HaLevanon - See my earlier post. I do not see why Dr. Shapiro leave the matter as inconclusive ("This is not the sort of thing that could be made up") It was very clearly not made up.
[The fact that he read newspapers was no chiddush. I was referring to Epstein's report that he read them on Shabbat. ]
[My response: What's the chiddush that he read newspapers on Shabbos - the Magen Avrohom already permits - Taanug, It's that he read a Maskilish newspaper like Hamaggid that is in truth surprising.]
I have already deconstructed Mondshine's deeply flawed article. I will now add one more point. Mondshine is surprised that the Aruch Ha-Shulchan who knew R' Zevin would not have told him the stories about the Tzemach Tsedek. But in the K'sav Haskamah to R' Zevin that Shapiro refers to - we see that R' Zevin never met the Aruch HasShulchan. Rather the AS refers to their correspondance. Those familiar with the AS's letters know that he doesn't go into extra details.
Dr. Shapiro cites Sicha Temimah and refers us to Bezeks article.
Bezek writes קונטרסו של זקהיים כתוב בחריפות יתירה ובעוקתנותו מרובה, אכן דבריו בסיום הקונטרס מעידים כי לפנינו איש נרגן, בעל מחשבות גדולות שאין להתייחס להאשמותיו ברצינות יתירה, "ואלה דבריו - "ואתם הקוראים בספרו - דע כי אנחי נתתי לכם את הספר. כי אשר לי בספר - ךי הוא. וגם אשר לא לי הוא - נתתי לכם אנכי וכו"
Now as to Shapiros main point - "I can only say that the entire report of Rayna Batya discovering the relevant text in Ma’ayan Ganim was made up by Epstein. This book, which was published in Venice in 1553, is an extremely rare volume. There would have only been a few copies of this book in all of Lithuania. (In Torah Temimah Epstein also says that it is a rare book.) It is therefore impossible to imagine that the rebbetzin, sitting in Volozhin, would just so happen to come across this volume on her husband’s bookshelf"
Dr. Shapiro is clearly not very familiar with Mekor Baruch for if he was he would recall the story of the TT and the Maggid concerning a recipe to turn copper into gold  - The TT writes "and I went over to the Seforim Shelf and dug under and brought up an old Sepharadic Sefer ... "
I do not recall when and where that story took place but it at least demonstrates that some very rare strange seforim travelled around the Lithiuania of R' Baruch's youth. As for the article in Ha-Tazefirah- obviously when R' Baruch was writing Mekor Baruch he did not have access to a Mayin Ganim anymore and he therefore made use of the Ha-Tzefirah article. I fully agree that the TT had a faulty memory (hence the whole - אולי story) and that he did make use of some artistic license.
[I certainly do recall the alchemy story, and Epstein had access to all sorts of rare books. But Maayan Ganim was not one of them. Until modern times everyone who cites Maayan Ganim cites it from Epstein. The book was literally impossible to find.]
[My response:מי גילה לך רז זה Clearly who ever wrote the HaTzefirah article had it so why not Epstein]
 For those interested - (I make the sole request that if it works the would-be-alchemist should please inform me so that I can arrange some investments)- 1. Take six large eggs, 2. Place them under a garbage dumb for the course of two weeks. 3. There should appear large worms within the eggs - Burn these and rub the ashes on to the copper.
[I think what it comes down to is that you are inclined to judge favorably and I am not. The rest is commentary.]
[My response: Since very few of the complaints against the TT really hold up against strong light - I see no reason not to fullfil the Mishna in Avot - אל תדין את חבירך עד שתעמוד במקומו)]