It doesn't surprise me that a certain person has failed to understand what I've been saying on this forum for the last year or so. My posts are only read in order to pick out small parts in order to go on an irrelevant ramble.
I have never argued that Mike's affidavit must be true in its entirety. He could be lying about lots of things.
In saying that I don't necessarily believe that Mike concocted the Diary, this does not mean that he was not involved in concocting it with other people. He and Anne might have jointly concocted it (with assistance from Tony), just as Mike says in his affidavit. But it could also mean that Mike was part of a small group of people who drafted the text of the diary in 1990 or 1991 (or earlier) and his role was confined to obtaining a Victorian book in which to write the diary. His 1995 affidavit might have been deliberately written to protect others involved. I don't know. But what I do know is that Mike attempted to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 and the only reason I can think for him doing this was in order to forge a Victorian Diary (either him doing it or someone else).
The idea is criticized on the basis that no-one in their right mind would have handed total control of the Diary over to Mike yet those same people say that Mike was given total control of the Diary by the person or persons who found and stole it from Battlecrease!!!!
And it's ironic because, if a group of people did give Mike control, they were absolutely right to do so because he contacted the right people and ensured that money was made from the Diary!
For all I know the people who drafted the text of the diary were dead by March 1992 i.e. like Tony Devereux and Mike found himself with a text that he or he and his wife or he and others simply needed to incorporate into a Victorian Diary.
I have no idea why anyone thinks I might have a problem with Mike lying in his Jan 1995 affidavit. I've never claimed it must all be true. I have asked to be told what parts can be shown to be false, which is what seems to cause a problem for the Diary defenders.
Frankly I don't care a jot for the "evidential value" of Mike's affidavit. I've never placed any reliance on that. I have, however, noted that Mike did obtain a small Victorian diary as he claimed in his affidavit and the timing of 11 days fits perfectly with the time that he would have had to forge the JTR diary if he acquired a Victorian scrapbook at the end of March. The rest of his affidavit could be true or false but those facts point strongly towards him being involved in a forgery.
I have never argued that Mike's affidavit must be true in its entirety. He could be lying about lots of things.
In saying that I don't necessarily believe that Mike concocted the Diary, this does not mean that he was not involved in concocting it with other people. He and Anne might have jointly concocted it (with assistance from Tony), just as Mike says in his affidavit. But it could also mean that Mike was part of a small group of people who drafted the text of the diary in 1990 or 1991 (or earlier) and his role was confined to obtaining a Victorian book in which to write the diary. His 1995 affidavit might have been deliberately written to protect others involved. I don't know. But what I do know is that Mike attempted to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 and the only reason I can think for him doing this was in order to forge a Victorian Diary (either him doing it or someone else).
The idea is criticized on the basis that no-one in their right mind would have handed total control of the Diary over to Mike yet those same people say that Mike was given total control of the Diary by the person or persons who found and stole it from Battlecrease!!!!
And it's ironic because, if a group of people did give Mike control, they were absolutely right to do so because he contacted the right people and ensured that money was made from the Diary!
For all I know the people who drafted the text of the diary were dead by March 1992 i.e. like Tony Devereux and Mike found himself with a text that he or he and his wife or he and others simply needed to incorporate into a Victorian Diary.
I have no idea why anyone thinks I might have a problem with Mike lying in his Jan 1995 affidavit. I've never claimed it must all be true. I have asked to be told what parts can be shown to be false, which is what seems to cause a problem for the Diary defenders.
Frankly I don't care a jot for the "evidential value" of Mike's affidavit. I've never placed any reliance on that. I have, however, noted that Mike did obtain a small Victorian diary as he claimed in his affidavit and the timing of 11 days fits perfectly with the time that he would have had to forge the JTR diary if he acquired a Victorian scrapbook at the end of March. The rest of his affidavit could be true or false but those facts point strongly towards him being involved in a forgery.
Comment