Originally posted by caz
View Post
Yes, very important point about TD. Thus, in the affidavit, Mike remarks:
"During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony with Tony being severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990"
On this basis, the Diary must have been completed in the summer of 1991 at the latest which, of course, can in no way be reconciled with David's theory, involving the Diary being completed in the spring of 1992, I.e. at least 6 months later.
Now, at a stretch, you might accept that Mike, during his affidavit, got mixed up over a few dates. However, I can see no way that he would have got confused about the Diary being completed before Tony died, especially as he also recalls the fact that the project was put on hold on account of TD's illness.
But if the affidavit is broadly accurate, why would he lie about this incident? In fact, why mention TD at all, considering that he seemed eager to claim most of the credit for himself? It's also worth bearing in mind that the affidavit was submitted just 3 years after the Diary was made public, not 30 years, making it even more difficult to explain how he could have made such a fundamental factual error.
However, David's theory has a certain neatness about it: the red book being acquired in March, shortly followed by the photograph album, resulting in the phone call to Doreen in April. Moreover, if the Diary had been completed in the summer of 1991, why were efforts still being made in March to acquire a Diary? Even if you argue that the purpose of this initiative was to determine how easy it was to obtain the basic materials for a hoax, it doesn't explain a delay of of at least 6 months.
Nonetheless, it's important not to be selective about the parts of Mike's affidavit we choose to accept, and those we elect to reject. In other words, it's obviously not objective to totally dismiss the TD anomaly, simply because it doesn't fit with a particular theory, especially as the inconsistency is difficult to explain. I would also add that there is no proof Mike purchased the Victorian photograph album, let alone the time of purchase, or the method of acquisition.
If I may, I'll just make a few comments about the alternative Battlecrease theory. Personally I have a number of issues with this argument. Firstly, the only evidence for a diary being found under the floorboards rests with Alan Davies. However, this is hearsay evidence at best: He wasn't working at the house, it was a story related to him by Brian Rawes, who also wasn't inside the house at the time of the alleged discovery as he was the driver, with the story being related to him by one of the electricians. Moreover, all he recalled was being told that "I've found something", so not necessarily a book, let alone a diary.
Secondly, a find at Battlecrease would suggest an old forgery, whereas I believe the Diary to be a modern forgery, if only on account of the "one-off" problem.
Thirdly, if Mike had stolen the Diary from one of the electricians, or tricked him out of it, I see no way that Mike would have subsequently confronted Eddie Lyons on any pretext. More likely he would have fled the city under an assumed identity!
Comment