Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

Here's an amusing incident.

In one of my posts, four days ago, I said:

"What I'm saying is that you can't selectively quote from a privately held document (or transcript) while withholding the rest of it. Especially when, as in this case, parts of the transcript contradict the case being made." (bold added)

Having quoted this in full, the Great Misunderstander then replied this afternoon as follows:

"Well you can, actually. Inside Story had to do that or become the size of Croydon."

Oops! So there we had an admission that the authors of Inside Story selectively referred to privately held transcripts while deliberately withholding those parts of the same transcripts which contradicted the case being made in the book!

But the Great Misunderstander realised what she'd done four minutes later and deleted the second sentence from the quotation.

Yes, highly amusing, David. Do you sit there, just waiting to pounce on my every word, like a sad person? It's obvious why I made that deletion - my response, referring only to Inside Story, did not apply to that part of your post. No 'case' was made in our book, as we all had different views.

Instead we just had the nonsensical response that Inside Story would have become the size of Croydon. No, it wouldn't. As I said above, you just make the documents on which the book is based available for an independent person or researcher to check that they have been used properly and not selectively.

Ah, all is now clear. So David wasn't requesting that James make his transcripts available to all, nor even to David, but just to 'an independent person or researcher'. It's a pity that wasn't made clear in the first place, and of course, for all David knows James had already done this long before any request of the sort was made here. Is James now obliged to come back and tell David how many independent people and researchers he has made his privately held transcripts available to and when?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

All I said was that unless it can be proved that the APS shop conversation did not take place in 1993 any investigation into that conversation will be a waste of time. I haven't told anyone not to investigate it or not to waste their time (should it in fact turn out to be a waste of time). Many investigations turn out to be a waste of time. That doesn't mean one should not investigate. And I have never told anyone not to investigate.

But I repeat that unless it can be positively established that the investigation...

[you mean conversation, I presume?]

...did not take place in 1993 any investigation into the APS shop conversation will be a waste of time. The reason for this is that it will always leave open the possibility that the comments by Davies were influenced on a belief developed by researchers in 1993 that the diary came from under the floorboards.

Nope, sorry. I still can't make any sense out of this. Were you really just saying that investigating will have been a waste of time if that investigation ends up failing to rule out 1993 for the conversation? If so, then no shi* Sherlock and may I suggest it was a complete waste of time saying it in the first place? Silly old me, imagining you were actually struggling to tell me something other than the bleedin' obvious.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The latest sleight of hand from the Great Misrememberer needs to be exposed.

In post #372, on 10th Jan, responding to my #331 of 8th Jan, the Great Misrememberer said:

"Anne, remember, wanted none of the spoils until Doreen finally persuaded her, in 1994 when she had left Mike, to take a share of the royalties for Caroline's sake. What would have been in it for Anne in 1992, to have helped concoct this thing with Mike? So she could watch him getting it published and pissing all his royalties against the wall?"

At this stage, RJ had not posted his "novella" theory (which he did in #375).

I then said (in #381):

"Did I really just read someone asking what motive a woman could have for collaborating in a financial venture with her husband? Seriously?????!!!!"...

I shan't bother quoting or addressing the rest of this, David. Had you done yourself and everyone else here a favour by using the quote function [and if it would cause you too much distress to name the poster, you can always 'wrap tags around selected text' as I often do after the initial quote, just for convenience - see my previous post for a handy example], you could have shown exactly what it was that you had 'just read', and I'd have known exactly which post you were taking issue with this time. This would significantly lessen the chances of misunderstandings leading to endless repetition, clarification and accusations of 'sleight of hand' and suchlike.

It's hard enough trying to catch up with every sodding issue you have with my posts, without you making it twice as hard by not being able to bring yourself to quote me directly, like any reasonable adult.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

David and Caz,

This is all getting rather tense.

You two aren't husband and wife by any chance, are you?

I think you'll end up falling in love. This is usually the way these things start.

*wistful sigh*

[Mike J. G.]

What I wanna know, is if we're supposed to believe this entirely nonsensical story about the electricians finding this book under the floor, then why did they bother making a bunch of shite up in the process, such as visiting universities?

I thought the whole point in the conference was to provide this damning evidence that it actually was an old artifact and actually had been found at Battlecrease? Yet here are, with zilch to show for any of it. Still, those tickets for the conference must've garnered a few quid, eh?

And the beat goes on.

[caz]

The next sleight of hand is shocking, even by the standards of the Great Misrememberer and Misunderstander.

Trying to convince us that Mike had sold his entire interest in the diary and that "5% of nothing is nothing" the Great Misrememberer must have forgotten what she posted earlier in this thread.

I refer to #24 when were told that Mike sold the diary to Robert Smith:"to protect his very substantial future royalties".

The offer made by Feldman to Mike in 1993 (as recounted by Feldman) was this:

"I've spoken to Paul Dodd and he's requested five per cent of whatever you receive in order not to contest ownership of the document".

There is no mention in that offer of it being five per cent of whatever Mike received for selling the Diary. It was five per cent of "whatever you receive".

That must mean five per cent of the "very substantial" future royalties.

Now it doesn't matter whether legally Paul Dodd would have been entitled to 5% of this (just as it doesn't matter whether, legally, Eddie Lyons would have been entitled to this same money if he and Mike had agreed on a 50/50 split of "the proceeds"). That was the offer being made to Mike, a person who was expecting "very substantial" book royalties. Five per cent of whatever he received.

I wouldn't mind but I've made this point already in this thread, not that this seems to matter any more.

But it was Feldman trying to do a deal with Mike, David. Mike was in no position to do any kind of deal with Feldman by this point and he knew it. The diary, and the prospect of those substantial book royalties [if it didn't all go tits up before October 1993], lay in Robert Smith's hands. That's why I acknowledged that any deal Mike might have considered, giving a cut of his royalties to Paul Dodd, could only have been a private one between the two of them, on trust. How would that have helped Feldman? It's obvious why Mike refused to entertain the idea, if the last thing he wanted coming out was the diary from Battlecrease.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Did I really see the expression "perfect provenance" earlier?

I think I did. Someone was trying to convince us that Mike was being offered the "perfect provenance" in 1993.

But of course if you assume that Mike knew that the diary was a modern forgery it wasn't the perfect provenance at all. On the contrary, it was a rubbish provenance. A fake provenance that, for all Mike knew, could easily be exposed as a fake provenance for which he was supposed to give up five percent of everything he received to a stranger.

In any case, if the story was that an electrician had found the diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease, why did Mike have to do anything? Why did he have to give up any percentage to Paul Dodd?

He didn't. That's the point. Why did he have to go round to Eddie's house to threaten him if he 'confessed' to stealing the diary, if he knew it hadn't happened because he helped forge it, and Eddie's fake provenance could therefore 'easily be exposed'?

More to the point, how did Mike know where to find Eddie, if they didn't yet know each other? Feldman wasn't given the Fountains Road address and had to get a phone number for Eddie from another electrician, who told him that Eddie drank in the Saddle and lived 'around the corner'. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Feldman was given the actual address, even if he repeated to Mike that he lived 'around the corner' from the Saddle.

All he needed to do was stick with his story that Tony Devereux gave him the diary and let OTHERS conclude that it came from Battlecrease (having been passed from the electrician to Tony and then on to him). Because if Mike suddenly said "Oh yes Tony told me that he got it from Eddie" he would have had to admit that he had previously been lying.

What? He fiercely denied it had come from the house, which means he either knew it didn't, because he helped forge it [but he wasn't yet in confession mode so that doesn't make much sense], or he knew or suspected it did, and couldn't have the truth coming out and ruining everything. Of course he wasn't going to change his story and say that Tony had told him where it came from after all. He didn't need to, and it's not something I have suggested. I said he could have pretended to suppose it had ended up with Tony after coming out of Battlecrease, leaving him the innocent benefactor. But instead he denied even the possibility, which makes no sense alongside his claim that he didn't know where it had or hadn't been, because Tony never gave him a clue.

Similarly if he suddenly said that he didn't get it from Tony but direct from Eddie he again has to admit that his previous story has been a complete lie.

Of course. That goes without saying.

And bear in mind that, in this scenario, Mike knows that his story about getting the diary from Tony is a lie but also that the new story about getting it from Eddie is also a lie. So why would he want to swap one lie for another lie? At least with the "I got it from Tony" story he was in control of that one and no-one could disprove it. Now it would only need the electrician to admit "actually I didn't find it under the floorboards after all" and Mike's in a far worse position than he was at the start. But now he's given up five per cent!!

And? Your point is... what?

Nobody suggested that Mike would have needed to do anything like you suggest here, if he had wanted to take advantage of a fake Battlecrease provenance. But instead of a) sitting back and letting others speculate about the possibility, or b) pretending to speculate about it himself, because the diary had to come from somewhere and Tony had been awfully shy about it [neither of which need have resulted in him giving up any percentage of his earnings to anyone], he clearly wanted nothing whatsoever to do with it in 1993 and he maintained that position until his dying day.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

The Great Misunderstander is certainly on top misunderstanding form today.

Having noted that I said that documents should be made available to "an independent person or researcher to check that they have been used properly and selectively" this has somehow become something new in the Great Misunderstander's mind.

But it isn't. An "independent person or researcher" basically includes everyone in the world (other than the original author who already possesses the information). So yes I am saying it should be made available to all, i.e. anyone who has read the original and wants to check the facts. That doesn't mean that it needs to be circulated to everyone's home through the letterbox. I already gave the examples of archives and libraries. Not everyone is a member of all the archives and libraries in the world and it's not even convenient to get to them all but documents in archives and libraries are available to all.

The key point is that I've always been talking about information being available to everyone.

In my first post on the subject (#377) I said:

"I'm not saying you need to publish all your research before you are ready but it's just not right to selectively quote from documents or transcripts to which others don't have access."

In my second post on the subject (#424) I said:

"Most books, documentaries etc. are based on information publicly available in archives or libraries. So anyone with an interest in the subject can check the way that information has been used. What I'm saying is that you can't selectively quote from a privately held document (or transcript) while withholding the rest of it. Especially when, as in this case, parts of the transcript contradict the case being made".

In my third post on the subject (#448) I said:

"It should be perfectly obvious that one should not quote selectively from documents which no-one else can check."

It's the same thing every time and is the same thing when I refer to an independent person or researcher. I've not said anything different.

All I have ever said is that the information should be "made available". I have never expressed any preference as to how this should be done, whether electronically, on the internet or in hard copy or published form or placed in archives or libraries. So the Great Misunderstander's comment that I have a "huge" problem as to which format is used is baffling because I've never expressed any such opinion.

It must be obvious to anyone with any standards that you just cannot quote selectively from a document or transcript and not make available the entire document or transcript, especially in circumstances where other parts of the document or transcript contradict the impression given by the quote used. For that is to put a misleading impression or misleading information into the public domain. That is why there is an obligation to make the entire document available. As an author you can do it or not do it (you cannot be legally compelled to) but to say that there is no obligation to do it is simply wrong.

[David Orsam]

Apparently, if I happen to read a post on this forum shortly after it is made I am "just waiting to pounce" and am "like a sad person?". (The normal smear type language we have come to expect.) But that is what happened. I read a post shortly after it was made and then much later noticed it had been amended. Bad luck to the person who tried to quietly delete their mistake but got found out and doesn't like it.

But on the issue of substance, my point is that I said that one cannot selectively withhold parts of a transcript especially when parts of the transcript contradict a case being made. This sentence was quoted but then quietly deleted without any response to it. So what is the response? Is the Great Misunderstander saying that you CAN properly withhold parts of a non-public transcript which contradict a case being made, having quoted other parts of the transcript which support that case? Is selective quoting from private documents which cannot be checked supposed to be acceptable? Let's find out what the standards of the Great Misunderstander are.

[David Orsam]

It's good to know that no "case" was made in Inside Story.

But let's examine that for a moment. This is from pages 167-8 of Inside Story commenting on Mike Barrett's account in his January affidavit of buying the scrapbook at Outhwaite and Litherland:

"According to Shirley Harrison, Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite and Litherland, gave it little credence. Having searched through the company's files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that 'no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett's statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.' In a telephone conversation with Harrison soon after Barrett's affidavit was made public, Whay went further. 'Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details for such an album from us is talking through their hat.'"

Now it might be interesting if the full account of the telephone conversation between Harrison and Whay could be posted by one of the book's authors and we can all see if it was reported in the book in a fair and unbiased fashion.

[David Orsam]

I see that the Great Misunderstander struggles with simple and obvious points being made on the board and then has to try and turn them in her mind into something far more complicated. I usually feel I have to make my points as simple as possible because otherwise they tend to be misunderstood by the Great Misunderstander. I certainly have no idea what the Great Misunderstander thinks about any particular investigations, and whether they will be a waste of time or not, but it seems to me that we have had a very interesting admission. I make a simple point in straightforward English and, rather than read and understand it properly, the Great Misunderstander translates it in her mind into something else, causing about five subsequent unnecessary posts while I have to keep explaining it. This doesn't happen with James Johnston funnily enough. Now that this very simple point is finally understood I am berated for actually making it!! Really, it's Alice in Wonderland and like living in some kind of nightmare where every single thing I say is jumped on whether it is obvious and undeniable or not.

[David Orsam]

The latest nonsense I read today is that

"any deal Mike might have considered, giving a cut of his royalties to Paul Dodd, could only have been a private one between the two of them, on trust"

On trust? Really? Perhaps the Great Misunderstander has never heard of lawyers. Or legal agreements. I suspect that Mike had heard of them.

Mike was evidently being asked to enter into a legally binding agreement with Paul Dodd to give Dodd 5% of his very substantial future royalties in return for Dodd not contesting ownership of the diary. That is what Feldman records.

Naturally, if Dodd was successful in claiming ownership of the diary he would have owned the copyright thus potentially blocking publication of the book and, in effect, denying Mike 100% of those very substantial royalties that he was expecting.

So, if Mike knew that the Battlecrease provenance was a false story, a rejection of the offer being put to him by Feldman was perfectly understandable. His rejection certainly does not require Mike to know that the Diary had been stolen and, if Mike actually believed that the diary came from Battlecrease and thought the offer being made was genuine, it would have been sensible for him to accept it because he would possibly have saved 95% of his royalties.

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure the Great Misunderstander even understands her own fantasy scenarios anymore.

With the book deal we were first told that Eddie sold it in an Anfield pub to Mike for £25. Sorted.

Oh but then with those cash withdrawals made by Mike it's just soooo tempting to speculate that he was passing on money to Eddie. So the £25 cash deal is abandoned and instead there was some kind of complicated royalty share based on future royalties from a book that neither of them could have known in April 1992 that Mike was going to benefit from.

But somehow they came to an agreement and Mike agreed to give Eddie a percentage (50%?) of his book royalties, even though Eddie had no way of checking if he was being given an accurate amount.

So Mike came to an arrangement with Eddie to give up a percentage of royalties but the Great Misunderstander seems to think that Mike couldn't have come to an arrangement to give up 5% of his royalties to Paul Dodd if he wanted to.

I have no idea why she has convinced herself of this.

We are told that "it was Feldman trying to do a deal with Mike". But that's not true at all. In Feldman's book it is clearly stated that Paul Dodd had "requested five per cent of whatever you receive" and it is equally stated that, in return, Dodd would not contest ownership of the diary. Feldman was simply passing on the terms of the deal, not doing the deal himself.

We are also told "Mike was in no position to do any kind of deal with Feldman by this point and he knew it." Well he wasn't being asked to do a deal with Feldman, he was being asked to do a deal with Dodd. And Barrett could have done any kind of deal with Dodd if he had wanted to.

Then we are told:

"The diary, and the prospect of those substantial book royalties [if it didn't all go tits up before October 1993], lay in Robert Smith's hands."

But that's the whole point. If the diary's ownership was successfully challenged by Dodd then the diary, and those substantial book royalties, lay in Paul Dodd's hands. Not Smith's. Stolen property has to be returned however far down the chain it goes and if the Diary had been stolen from Dodd it was Dodd's property, not Smith's.

We are told that it is "obvious" why Mike refused the deal but let's look at Mike's own words: "Tell him to f*** off. The diary never came from the house."

That could be said to the be the reaction of someone who does not want to give up 5% (of anything) knowing that the diary did not come from Battlecrease.

But, strangely, Mike's denial that it came from Battlecrease, we are told, "doesn't make much sense". Why not? Well, we are told it's because "he wasn't yet in confession mode". Er!! So if Mike is not in confession mode he can't deny that the diary came from Battlecrease?? Does that make any sense at all? The opposing point is that he knew the diary had been forged so, of course, he will deny that it came from Battlecrease.

But let's fantasise for a moment and assume that Mike knew that Eddie had found the diary in Battlecrease. I'm really not sure why it's more obvious that he would refuse Paul Dodd's offer than accept it. If he knew the diary came from Battlecrease he might have been worried that Paul Dodd would take ownership and block publication of the book so accepting the offer would have negated that problem. But I don't make any kind of positive case that because Mike declined the offer he must have known the diary was a forgery.

Equally it's just not possible to say that because he declined the offer it means that he knew the diary came from Battlecrease. Not, at least, if you are not Alice and you are not living in Wonderland.

[David Orsam]

So I like to think that we have now, finally, established that there is no need to ask why a wife might collaborate on a venture with her husband without remuneration if her husband is being paid.

[David Orsam]

I've already made the point ages ago that it would have been a completely daft for the person involved in forging the diary to include the books used to forge it in any fake "research notes" produced later. Yet the absence of those books from the research notes is used (once again) as part of the case that the diary was not forged. We do seem to go round in circles. The exact same points are made over and over again even though they've already been answered. I've noticed this on at least two other occasions over the last few days but I ignored them because it clearly doesn't matter what is said in response, the bad points just keep on being repeated.