No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Those who claim the diary was a "hoax", written after Maybrick's death and placed under the floorboards in the hope that someone would find it one hundred years later, or whenever, so that they could have a good chuckle, have only had 25 years to come up with a half-plausible and coherent scenario as to who, with some knowledge of both Maybrick's life and the JTR murders, as well as access to Battlecrease, could possibly have done such a thing and why they would have done it. I'm still waiting to read such a scenario but until then such a thing has to be considered as literally beyond belief.
    Who is actually 'claiming' this as a fact, David? For those who continue to explore and test all avenues, who cannot reconcile the handwriting as being either James Maybrick's or Mike Barrett's, or that of any of his suspected accomplices, it has to remain a possibility that someone unknown and unconnected to Mike created the diary, and that it didn't get into Mike's hands in any of the ways he claimed as a fact that it did.

    Do you also have to consider this last possibility as 'literally beyond belief', or is it only the raising of the floorboards that floors you?

    It's funny that when anyone observes that modern hoax theorists 'have only had 25 years to come up with a half-plausible and coherent scenario as to who' actually created the text and penned the thing, if it was done in the early 1990s and, assuming Mike had to be one of those involved, what his actual involvement was and how he - or they - went about choosing the ripper's identity and making sure Maybrick had no alibis and what have you, they are told that no definitive answers to such questions are needed, and they are sent away with a flea in their ear. Are they not merely making a similar point to your own, but in reverse? Are they not 'still waiting to read such a scenario', which until then can only ever be just an unsupported exercise in wishful thinking?


    Last edited by caz; 12-07-2017, 07:49 AM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      Here's a good example of the muddle and confusion at the heart of the Battlecrease provenance theory.

      On 30 October in this thread (#49) were were told this about Mike:

      "He is already denying this very real and potent connection between his diary and Battlecrease, long before anyone will make one, and continues to deny it for the rest of his life, so this requires a sensible explanation. He certainly isn't in the business of setting up a Battlecrease provenance for his diary, so we must look elsewhere.

      Here's one explanation I prepared earlier:

      Sometime in March 1992, a Battlecrease electrician approaches Mike in The Saddle: "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?"

      "Sometime in March 1992" is rather strange wording considering that such a conversation can ONLY have taken place on 9 March 1992 (if the diary didn’t come out of the floorboards until that day and bearing in mind that Mike called Doreen that day too). But how is this in any way consistent with a supposed period of protracted negotiation over price that we are also told occurred and which was supposedly only resolved on or after 26 March once Mike discovered that the price for a Victorian diary was £25?

      Or did the electrician simply give the diary to Mike for free and then only ask to be paid a few weeks later once Mike had worked out what the value was? A rather odd way of going about business I would have thought.
      Of course, this was clearly only speculation, David, and not to be taken literally, even by you. But who said the diary had to be sold and handed over to Mike on the same day he called Doreen? It's more likely he was just shown it on that day, while he was in the pub before collecting his daughter from the school opposite, because the electrician thought Mike was the right sort of bloke to confide in. He only had to flip through it, read the signature at the end and say: "Jesus Christ, Eddie, what the effing hell have you got here? Nobody's going to believe this in a million years, are they? Tell you what I'll do, I'll make a couple of discreet enquiries when I get home and let you know the score". That would fit with an initial call to Rupert Crew sans diary [which you believe he did anyway], using a false name. The following day he gets through to Doreen and asks if she is interested in seeing JtR's diary. He gets back to Eddie, who agrees to sell it to him as long as his name is never mentioned, and at that point I suspect there would be some kind of gentleman's agreement to share any big money if and when it comes. Mike hasn't got much spare cash and there are no guarantees either of them will get rich, especially if both are naturally sceptical about the possibility of it being genuine. As soon as the royalties come in, in May 1994, Mike makes several large cash withdrawals, which could represent Eddie's payday.

      It is to be noted at this point that the attraction of the above "sensible explanation" for the Diary Defender is that everything happened just like Mike said it did with Tony Devereux only that, instead of Tony, one has to substitute Eddie - and bob's your uncle, it all fits. We have even been told that young Caroline got confused and genuinely thought that Mike's conversations about the diary were with Tony, not Eddie (even though, as I have quoted previously, Caroline made perfectly clear in her account that her father was discussing the diary with Tony Devereux, not anyone else).
      Yes, that is a problem. How could a child still at primary school possibly not have known and later recalled that her father had discussed the diary on the phone with someone he had called "Tony", and when this was going on, and that he spoke to nobody else about it, certainly nobody he may have called "Eddie"? Hmmm, that's a tough one. Those names - so completely different and memorable in their own right. Or maybe Mike called all his mates by their surnames to make it easier for little Caroline to earwig and commit them to memory.

      Or indeed, how could Caroline have known her father was discussing the diary with Tony Devereux, if the story Mike told about getting it from him, and even swore an affidavit to that effect, was just another lie? If you believe Caroline was recalling things accurately, you must either believe Mike did get the diary from Tony, or that Tony was helping Mike to forge it. But then you'd have Mike discussing this openly with him over the phone, calling him by name while doing it, and all in his daughter's hearing. Not likely in my view, but then nothing much about this whole saga is very likely.

      So the "sensible explanation" of Mike being given the diary in a pub and told to do something with it is suddenly not so sensible (and is abandoned) and Mike was only able to glimpse the book on 9th March before he made the telephone call to Doreen!
      As I explained [and you could have read for yourself], I didn't actually say the diary was given to Mike on March 9th. I suggested 'sometime in March', which you assumed could only mean 9th. We only know he had it by April 13th when he was able to take it to London, so I should have allowed for Eddie to have parted with it 'sometime in March or early April'.

      Far from being told to "do something with it" and forget who gave it to him he is now being asked to fence it on behalf of that same person.
      Do they have to be different things? If Eddie chooses Mike to fence the diary for him, he has little choice but to hand over both the book and control of it in return for Mike's word that he will never "split on a mate" and say who gave it to him. I'm really surprised anyone would struggle with the concept.

      The dizzying changes to the story are enough to make one's head spin.
      Blimey, and I'm meant to be the dizzy blonde!


      Last edited by caz; 12-07-2017, 09:29 AM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        And certain people seem to have an almost religious fervour in their belief, viewing any challenge to their view as heresy, while being unable to appreciate that there might be another answer, which makes it impossible to have any kind of sensible and rational discussion, although I am very much hoping that James will be different and, so far, despite the obvious agenda in his first post, there are some promising signs.
        Oh yes, David, I believe James is very different. You do realise you managed to describe precisely how your own posts must come across to anyone still keeping their options open?

        I could have sworn you had openly admitted to your own complete inability to appreciate there 'might be another answer' - to all sorts of issues, from why Mike tried to obtain a diary from 1880-1890 and why he was never able to prove his forgery claims if he really was involved and serious about confessing, to the whole modern forgery theory.


        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        • The smoke is a thick as ever I see and the mirrors are now wall to wall. What a load of you know what!!!


          • Once again I am asked why I am posting in my thread – the thread I created – as if there is something strange about it, despite the fact that many others are posting in it and it is, I think, the duty of an OP to respond to posts in their threads if they can be of assistance. One might more pointedly ask why someone who is so certain that the Diary came from beneath the floorboards is still posting in this thread, my thread, which is all about Mike Barrett acquiring a Victorian diary.

            The supposed image of me being "mesmerised" by the notion of the diary's author being Mike Barrett, who obviously and undoubtedly was a professional freelance journalist by any definition, despite some people being in a serious form denial about it, is a complete fiction just like most of the daily round of nonsense that is posted by the Great Misunderstander. The concept of Mike having been involved in the creation of the Diary is nothing other than the most likely and logical outcome of him attempting to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages at a time when no-one else alive is known to have seen the JTR Diary.

            Once again I see confirmation of ignorance on the part of someone who thinks it is not possible for a diary to be created on Monday and passed off as nineteenth century on the Tuesday, as if forgeries have to be allowed to mature for months or years before they suddenly take on the appearance or properties of age. It's nonsense! Art forgers do indeed produce purported Old Masters on Monday and sell them on Tuesday. The forger Kujau was churning out his Hitler diaries on a weekly basis and expecting them to be accepted as having been produced during the Second World War. It's a basic misconception that there is a foolproof way of testing a document for an old forgery.

            Dr Baxendale, who is said to be my chum, although he isn't, was the first expert to examine the diary and he concluded in a written report that it was a modern forgery. Melvin Harris, also said to be my chum, although he wasn't, made some valid points, which I have never seen refuted, that most of the contents of the Diary in respect of information about the Ripper murders and the Maybricks could have been taken from a small number of books.

            A look through the history of this thread will see that I was content to stop posting in it on 23 March 2017, having made all the points about the acquisition of a Victorian Diary that I wanted to make. I didn't bother to respond to an inconsequential post made by the Great Misunderstander on 4 April 2017. Others then brought the thread back to life in August (at which point I didn't post) and then again in October at which point I did respond. I really have no idea why this thread seems to have taken on a new life as a Battlecrease provenance thread but I don't complain about that. However, if people want to discuss the Battlecrease provenance and don't want to hear dissenting voices they can start their own thread and I will happily leave them alone to live in De Nile.


            • The fact that the Diary is not in Mike Barrett's handwriting probably doesn't bother people for two reasons, namely (1) any forger who managed to produce the Diary of the Jack the Ripper is not very likely to have written it in his or her own undisguised handwriting (durr!) and (2) Mike's stated position in his Jan 1995 affidavit was that his wife wrote the text.

              As for the point that the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, I don't recall ever doing any research into this issue or telling anyone anything about it. But, yes, of course the fact that the handwriting is not Maybrick's is important but we have been told that psychopaths or sociopaths or whatever can have multiple styles of handwriting. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of graphology to contradict such a statement and feel I have to accept it as true. That being so, the handwriting can hardly be the clincher that the Diary was not written by Maybrick.

              What I did do was look into the origins and development of the expression "one off" and I concluded that it is a historical impossibility that it could have been written down by James Maybrick in 1889 which is the reason why I don't believe that he was the author of the diary.


              • I suppose I must repeat, in the hope that it sinks in, that what I regard as literally beyond belief is that the diary was written after Maybrick's death and placed under the floorboards in the hope that someone would find it one hundred years later, or whenever, so that they could have a good chuckle.

                We are still 25 years on, and now one extra day, and still no plausible scenario has been presented as to who would possibly have forged such a diary (and why) let alone how it would end up under the floorboards of Battlecrease where it would not be seen by anyone. What kind of crazy "hoax" would produce such a result?


                • Maybe we are all thought of as stupid by the Great Misunderstander but it is perfectly obvious that the idea that Eddie Lyons said to Mike Barrett in the Saddle "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?" was specifically designed to incorporate young Caroline’s recollection that Tony Devereux said pretty much exactly those same words to her father when supposedly handing over the diary to him. The point is that Mike is supposed to have done no more than exchange Tony for Eddie in his story with pretty much everything else happening the way he said it did, except for a much shorter timeline between the handing over of the diary and the call to London.

                  The problem with the theory is that Caroline was very clear it was Tony who gave her father the diary. Thus, Harrison tells us:

                  The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary. How long had he had it? All Tony would say was "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves. I have given it to you because I know it is real and I know you will do something with it.""


                  "Caroline remembers clearly how her Dad continued to pester Tony for information on the telephone."

                  You see, Caroline says she specifically recalls what Tony actually said. And he said he had given it to her father.

                  So it’s just not possible to swap Eddie for Tony in the story and it all works out.

                  But what was the reason for so badly wanting to swap Eddie for Tony in the first place? Obviously it was so Caroline was not labelled as a liar. Her recollection was supposed to be genuine and it was supposed to actually support the Battlecrease provenance!

                  But I think we are now being told that Caroline simply muddled up the names of Eddie and Tony. I guess she also must have heard Eddie say that the reason he gave the diary to Tony was because he knew it was real and wanted him to do something with it but otherwise he should leave him alone and stop pestering him.

                  But hold on we are not supposed to take what we are being told "literally". Well of course not. We will probably have another twenty different imaginary and contradictory scenarios presented to us over the course of the next few days.

                  I mean honestly, a gentleman’s agreement! Yeah right.

                  Of course, it was only a few days ago that we were being told that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £20 based on a valuation derived from Mike’s payment of £25 for a genuine Victorian diary. Now we can forget all that because, we are now told, there was no sale. Mike was acting in his capacity as an honest middleman and Eddie just handed the item over because he had absolute faith in Mike’s capacity to make him rich. This is Mike Barrett, the same man we have been told over and over was a complete idiot who no-one in their right minds would even trust to make a cup of tea.

                  One thing is clear: you cannot create a sensible scenario which replicates the actions of Tony Devereux by which an electrician approaches Mike, hands over the diary to him and tells him to do something with it!


                  • I see that the Great Misunderstander is back to her best form, as her alter ego of the Great Misrepresenter, in misrepresenting my posts.

                    The idea that I have “openly admitted” to my own “complete inability to appreciate” that there may be another answer as to why Mike tried to obtain a diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages is purest nonsense. What I have said quite clearly, more than once, is that I cannot think of another sensible and coherent explanation as to why Mike did try to obtain such a diary other than to create a forged Victorian diary. And from the attempts others have made, it’s perfectly clear that no-one else can come up with a sensible explanation either! We’ve had various suggestions offered, all of them ridiculous, and one by one they seem to have been abandoned. Ironically, after months of resistance, just this week we have had an acceptance that perhaps the explanation of Mike wanting to forge a diary was the correct one after all!

                    The idea that I have ever “openly admitted” an inability to appreciate why Mike was never able to prove his forgery claims can only be considered to be a complete lie. So I look forward to either reading an apology or a quote of me making such an admission. Clue for anyone looking: It doesn’t exist!

                    It’s perfectly clear to me that someone has created a fictional characterisation of me in their head, probably thinking that I am the reincarnation of Melvin Harris, and is barking out aggressive nonsense accordingly. Frankly James’ arrival in this thread is a breath of fresh air and he genuinely seems to want to engage in the discussion and has posted more helpful information in the past few days regarding the Battlecrease provenance than I have read in the past three months.


                    • Evening David,

                      Thank you for the kind words. Just to pick up on a couple of your questions...

                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      But if the timesheets do not accurately record who was working at Battlecrease, both Rigby and Coufopolous could have been working in Battlecrease during week ending 21st July couldn't they? And if that is the case then is it possible that this was the week that Eddie found something which he threw into a skip (as recalled by Rigby)?

                      And Lyons, Rigby, Coupofoulos, Rhodes and Bowling could all have been in Battlecrease on 9 June 1992 when the timesheets supposedly show the night storage heater being installed in the first floor flat (although this particular timesheet remains unpublished)? Can I ask how you know what is in the 9 June 1992 timesheet? Have you seen it? I thought you had only seen what was in Robert Smith's book or have I got that wrong?
                      You do have a point here David. Supposing that the electricians were occasionally sent to Riversdale Road - and depending on the duration of their stay, may not have been recorded on the corresponding timesheets - then Rigby and/or Coufoplous could have been working at the house on 9.6.92, or during the week ending 21.7.92... however...neither of those dates tally with Eddie's description of the work carried out.

                      Let's rexamine what Eddie told me (and the detectives from SY):

                      JJ: Ok. I don’t know if you can remember, but what did Scotland Yard ask of you?
                      EL: They just asked my story.
                      JJ: Ok...
                      EL: You know, ‘what you done there’? And I said; ‘well we had the floorboards up'

                      JJ: Ok.
                      EL: I think we had floorboards up, on maybe the first floor.

                      JJ: Ok. I think it was ‘overnight storage heaters’?
                      EL: Yeah could have been. Yeah, could have been.
                      JJ: Ok, and would that involve taking the floorboards up?
                      EL: I think it would have done yeah. Yeah, probably would have done.

                      On the basis of this information, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Eddie was present at Battlecrease when floorboards were lifted on the first floor of the house. According to the timesheets, the only date on which floorboards were lifted on the first floor was 9.3.92.

                      The timesheet for 9.6.92 provides no indication that any floorboards were raised in Battlecrease House. Similarly - the timesheets for week ending 21.7.92 do not indicate that any floorboards were lifted in the house - nor were the electricians recorded as having conducted any work on the first floor. There are no 'floorboard protectors' listed in the 'materials' column of the timesheets - unlike the timesheet for 9.3.92. To assume that floorboards were lifted in the first floor of the house, at any time on either the 9.6.92, or the week ending 21.7.92, is not supported by the timesheets. It is pure speculation, and does not explain why Eddie clearly remembered (on more than one occassion) that he was present at Battlecrease House when the floorboards were lifted on the first floor.

                      ** Just to clarify - at the time of writing my chapter, the only timesheets I had access to were those presented in Robert Smith's book. Since the Liverpool Conference, I have had the opportunity to study the remaining timesheets. It was only after reviewing these remaining timesheets that I was able to contextualise Eddie's account - which brought me back to the timesheet for 9.3.92.

                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      If he didn't complete a timesheet how did anyone at Portus & Rhodes know how many hours he had worked on the job? Or was that not important?
                      As far as I am aware, it was up to the electricians to fill out the timesheets, so if Eddie was present at Battlecrease on 9.3.92, one has to wonder why he did not fill out a timesheet accounting for that particular day. It was his responsiblity.

                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Can I ask this. Have you transcribed the entire interview or interviews with Eddie? If so, can you post the whole thing? If not, are you planning to do so?
                      Yes - I have several interviews transcribed and digitised. I would be keen to share these were it not for the fact that Eddie told me much of the information in confidence. The conversations range from personal circumstances to private financial details, which unfortunately, are not suitable for me to share on this forum. It is a frustration, but as an aspiring researcher I do not wish to compromise a trust which has been placed in me. I have honestly shared as much as I am able. I'm sure that you will understand my position.

                      Having said that - I am confident that more details will be forth coming in the near future. Until then, I think that shall conclude my brief spell posting on these forums...

                      Onwards & upwards.

                      Best, James.
                      Last edited by James_J; 12-07-2017, 02:32 PM.

                      Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.


                      • Hi James,

                        It is of course disappointing that you are going to cut and run now.

                        I'm going to reply to your post, however, as if you hadn't said that, in order to give you the opportunity to respond, should you wish to do so.

                        My first response to your post is in respect of this statement:

                        "According to the timesheets, the only date on which floorboards were lifted on the first floor was 9.3.92."

                        I don't think that can be quite right on any level, even if what you really mean is only that the timesheets indicate that the floorboards were lifted was 9 March 1992. For how do we know that floorboards were not lifted on 10 March 1992?

                        Forgive me for being pedantic but to say they were definitely only lifted on the 9th and not the 10th - while possibly something that could be argued - strikes me as going further than what the evidence actually shows.

                        Secondly, you say that the timesheet for 9th June provides no indication that any floorboards were lifted. Not having seen that timesheet it's difficult for me to comment but is it fair to say that the only actual indication in the timesheet of 9/10 March that the floorboards were lifted is the mention of the floorboard protectors (the purpose of which you have very helpfully explained to us)? So what you are saying about the 9th June timesheet (as well as all the other timesheets) is that there is no mention of floorboard protectors, is that right? And from this you conclude that no floorboards were lifted, right?

                        Regarding the accuracy of the timesheets, I am sensing that you may be suggesting that Eddie didn't complete a timesheet on 9 March because he didn't want his presence on Battlecrease on that day to be known. If that is the suggestion (and I appreciate it may not be) it strikes me as curious that Eddie then gives you information to suggest he was in Battlecrease on that day. Also, if that is the suggestion, would it be fair to say that is very unusual and irregular that a Portus & Rhodes timesheet does not show all the people who worked in a property on a particular day?

                        On the subject of Eddie, I am wondering about his motivation in speaking to you. Do you have any thoughts about this? I mean he has obviously agreed on at least two occasions to answer your questions about his work at Battlecrease. You seem to think that he is telling you the truth in his answers yet you must also think that his primary purpose in speaking to you was to lie to you and try to falsely convince you that he didn't find the Diary under the floorboards. Is that right, would you say?

                        Why do you think Eddie didn't just refuse to speak to you? Why do you think he would give you a truthful account of his work at Battlecrease, including the lifting of floorboards, while, at the same time, telling you a blatant lie about finding something under those same floorboards, despite having told Robert Smith that he did find something? Or did he also tell you that he found something, just not the diary?

                        On the issue of the transcripts, of course I would not expect you to reveal any personal or private information about anyone. But would it not be a simple matter to simply redact any such information while still posting the rest of the transcript?

                        I am troubled by the fact that we have not seen Eddie's answer to your question asking him if he found the Diary. You might not think that is important because you don't think he would tell you the truth but others might not share that opinion and might think it extremely important to see the way he responded to it and exactly what he said.

                        Something else I would like to know is: what did Eddie say when you asked him about whether he found a book under the floorboards which he threw into a skip? And did he agree that he said he had done this when speaking to Robert Smith in June 1993? Was he asked to comment on what Brian Rawes claimed he had said to him in July 1992?

                        Are you planning to go back to Eddie to show him the timesheets and ask whether he can help to reconstruct the days he worked at Battlecrease?

                        I note that Eddie repeatedly refers to storage heaters or heaters in the plural. How many storage heaters were installed in Battlecrease by Portus & Rhodes electricians? The timesheet of 9/10 March only seems to refer to a single storage heater.

                        Regarding the helpful information about the floorboard protectors being used to protect raised floorboards, can I ask this. When did you speak to Colin Rhodes to ask him about the floorboard protectors? Did you also ask him at the same time why Eddie Lyons does not appear on the timesheet for 9 March 1992, if you think he was working there on that day?

                        A final question for you, if you don't mind, as you seem to be familiar with the electricians. Who is Vinny Dring?


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Where have I said I thought it was genuine, John?

                          I 'faced' the fact years ago that the handwriting is not James Maybrick's. No research by David was needed to tell me that. I worked it out all by myself.

                          The fact that the handwriting is not Mike Barrett's either doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much for some reason. The argument is always the same: "We don't need to know who penned the diary for Mike. It's obvious that someone did".

                          Well that's about as obvious to me as a white cat hiding in a snowstorm.


                          If you're not even convinced the diary is genuine then who is? The diary is clearly a fake as I've stated previously. The evidence is all there that it's a fake. Mike himself has previously stated his wife penned the diary there is nothing to say this isn't the case.


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            I’m not saying that interviews are useless. But perhaps someone might want to spend their time interviewing the now grown up Caroline Barrett. Perhaps she holds the key.
                            We tried, David, circa 2002, when we arranged to interview her and Anne for Ripper Diary. Anne duly turned up for her interview [and said it was the last one she would give] but Caroline was a no show. Anne made some excuse about her daughter having somewhere else to go, which was a great shame if she could have helped support her mother's version of the story by recalling, for instance, the day her father brought home the diary saying Tony had given it to him but refused to say another word about it. But Caroline was probably at an age when social functions with friends would have been far more important to her, so the opportunity was lost.

                            I'm not sure what Caroline would recall of those events today, but who could blame her if she'd wanted to blot it all out, given the marital problems she must have witnessed her parents going through in the early to mid 1990s.

                            Have a great weekend, David, everyone. I'm off to The Cary Arms on Babbacombe Beach shortly for a couple of days. I think I'll need my fur lined undies!


                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                              If you're not even convinced the diary is genuine then who is? The diary is clearly a fake as I've stated previously. The evidence is all there that it's a fake. Mike himself has previously stated his wife penned the diary there is nothing to say this isn't the case.
                              That's fine, John. We're all entitled to our views, and I'm not remotely 'convinced' the diary can help us solve the ripper case.

                              I do find it odd that people who believe as you do continue to spend their time reading and posting on diary threads, as if there are scores of rabid diary believers who need to be shown the error of their ways. I haven't seen more than one or two at most on the boards for as long as I can remember.


                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              • It occurs to me that Caroline might not recall events from 1992. But, then again, she might have perfect recollection of those events. What's the point of even speculating about it? None.

                                Clearly the grown up Caroline has never been interviewed so perhaps someone might want to spend their time interviewing her because she might hold the key. Until someone actually does it we won't know.