Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor

[David Orsam]

With the chronology of events, one has to take into account the possibility of confusion and that what Mike was trying to say was that the Diary was substantially drafted while Tony was alive, then left alone, before it was transcribed in March/April 1992.

Incidentally, the fact that I've already said this on more than one occasion should not stop the counterpoint being made again because it's important to go round and round in circles until the end of time.

[David Orsam]

Of course, anyone can take on the role of a solicitor by drafting an affidavit if the deponent wants them to and no qualifications are necessary.

With the chronology of events, one has to take into account the possibility of confusion and that what Mike was trying to say was that the Diary was substantially drafted while Tony was alive, then left alone, before it was transcribed in March/April 1992. This would be perfectly consistent with how Mike slots to the little red diary into the chronology which we know for a fact was only acquired in March 1992.

[caz]

Mike's affidavit is certainly not thrown into question if there is even the slightest doubt that it was in Mike's own words and that he was aware of what he was signing. Affidavits or witness statements are frequently drafted by lawyers on the basis of what a witness has told them and it's not impossible that there can be a misunderstanding over a date which is not picked up in the final draft. If Alan Gray took on the same role as a solicitor, the key thing is that the affidavit was based on what Mike had told him, so unless there is an allegation being made that Gray fabricated the affidavit then, even if Mike didn't read it properly before signing it, it still reflects his version of events.

Was Alan Gray qualified to take on 'the same role as a solicitor'? In any case, judging by the wild goose chases Mike took Gray on, and all the lies he told, while attempting to convince him of his own role in the diary's creation, and considering Gray's eventual total disillusionment with Mike and his shenanegans, I'm finding it hard to believe anyone could accept the garbled January 1995 version of events, whether it was garbled by Mike in the telling, or by Alan Gray in translation, or by a real solicitor, pissed to the bollocks on Mike's Scotch.

And what I note is that the key point of my post has been totally ignored. That key point is that there are a number of obvious dating errors in Mike's affidavit...

...Given these errors, the fact that Mike might have got the date wrong about the acquisition of the guardbook is hardly a fatal flaw.

If you say so, David. For me, it's the order of events, along with the implication that everything, from the purchase of the materials and the initial drafting of the diary, to writing it out in the very recently acquired guardbook, took not much longer than those 11 days to complete, and that it then had to be left for a while after completion because Tony was severely ill at the time, which puts the mockers on any idea that this affidavit was grounded in 'reality' as most people would define it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Anne Graham lied?

Funnily enough, rj, I was merely repeating what you had previously posted yourself: 'the fact that Mike and Anne lied...'.

I responded by saying okay, the Barretts both lied. So what?

I really can't see how it helps you to nail down that they were lying about the diary coming from the conveniently deceased Tony in 1991 because they forged it between them over the first 11 days of April 1992, and not lying about the diary coming from the same conveniently deceased Tony in 1991 because it came from the inconveniently alive electrician in March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Anne Graham lied? Can you give me an example?

Well I believe she lied about the diary coming from her family and I thought you did too.

If so, she also lied when typing up Mike's research notes and letting Doreen and co believe they dated back to 1991, when Tony Devereux died, and were compiled because he'd been left with a diary he knew nothing about.

Even if all that had been true, she'd have been lying to Mike by omission, for letting him think she knew no more than he did. Ditto with Doreen, Shirley, Robert, Paul Feldman, Keith... do you want me to go on?

As you know, I believe she first saw the guardbook in March 1992, not in the late 1960s. And David seems to think so too, although we obviously differ over its contents at that point.

You've spent much of the past two weeks, Dear caz, arguing that Anne showed great innocence and integrity by bringing forth the maroon diary. So if she was selling pork pies why am I supposed to believe her?

You are not 'supposed' to believe anything you don't want to believe, rj.

But really - great innocence and integrity? It was more a case of Anne apparently seeing no need to hide anything regarding the red diary, which it seems she considered to be a red herring - just the result of Mike doing something impetuous, in the early days of not knowing quite what to do with 'the' diary. From Anne's point of view it was something he ordered [which she later paid for] around the same time he was attracting the interest of a literary agent. Did Anne have good reason at the same time to warn him strongly against getting the bloody thing published, and to advise him to write a "story" around it instead, if he refused to drop it like a hot brick?

Had the Barretts been involved in the creation of the Diary, then lying about when the word processor was purchased makes perfect sense. It was an attempt to disguise Mike's earlier career as a would-be (and partially successful) freelance writer. Had they stolen the Diary from Fast Eddy, this lie about when they purchased the word processor would have been pointless and unnecessary. Much the same can be said about the purchase of the red diary.

But did Anne ever attempt to deny Mike's creative endeavours, which she readily admitted to tidying and typing up for him? Wouldn't that have been pointless and unnecessary considering the evidence was out there? It might have been pointless and unnecessary to lie about the purchase of the maroon diary, but she didn't lie about this, did she? If you are referring to her explanation for why Mike wanted it, she could only have repeated any reason he had given himself. He made the enquiry and there is no evidence she knew anything about it until May 1992, when it came to her attention that Mike had been sent something he hadn't yet paid for.

"What were you thinking, Mike? You already had the diary."

"But you didn't want me to get that one published. You thought the book was nicked and we'd get found out."

"Yes, that's why I said you could just write a novel around it."

"So I thought, I know, I could write it in the form of an actual Victorian diary, so I wanted to see what one would look like."

"God, Mike, you do have some strange ideas."

Could you remind me, rj, of exactly what Anne did claim about the wretched word processor, when she claimed it and under what circumstances? Was it a deliberate lie or was she only being asked to remember what it had been used for in a diary context? She'd have been thinking on her feet as it was, and trying to keep the story straight, if the word processor was first employed on diary business in March/April 1992, but she was claiming it was from August 1991.

Thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Of course Mike was supposed to have bought the diary from Eddie, but since there is no evidence either way, it hardly matters.

[David Orsam]

Mike's affidavit is certainly not thrown into question if there is even the slightest doubt that it was in Mike's own words and that he was aware of what he was signing. Affidavits or witness statements are frequently drafted by lawyers on the basis of what a witness has told them and it's not impossible that there can be a misunderstanding over a date which is not picked up in the final draft. If Alan Gray took on the same role as a solicitor, the key thing is that the affidavit was based on what Mike had told him, so unless there is an allegation being made that Gray fabricated the affidavit then, even if Mike didn't read it properly before signing it, it still reflects his version of events.

And what I note is that the key point of my post has been totally ignored. That key point is that there are a number of obvious dating errors in Mike's affidavit. I mean, he says he bought his word processor in 1985. Does the fact that this is the wrong year means that he never bought a word processor? Clearly not. But that's the logic being applied to the guardbook. And Mike says he came up with his forgery story in November 1993, which he then changes to December 1993. But that isn't correct. So does that mean he never offered up a forgery story? No, he did but it was in June 1994. He says that Tony died in about May 1990. But he didn't. So does that mean that Tony didn't die? Obviously not. He died in August 1991. Given these errors, the fact that Mike might have got the date wrong about the acquisition of the guardbook is hardly a fatal flaw.

[rjpalmer]

The Barretts both lied. So again, what's new?

Anne Graham lied? Can you give me an example? You've spent much of the past two weeks, Dear caz, arguing that Anne showed great innocence and integrity by bringing forth the maroon diary. So if she was selling pork pies why am I supposed to believe her?

But that's hardly the point. Keith assured us, or at least me, that the new improved Battlecrease provenance could neatly explain the motivations and behaviors of all the key players. If the Diary was nicked from Battlecrease in March 1992, it all starts to make sense.

But I disagree, and I think Keith's suggestion falls flat on its face when it comes to Anne Graham. The word processor lie is an example.

Had the Barretts been involved in the creation of the Diary, then lying about when the word processor was purchased makes perfect sense. It was an attempt to disguise Mike's earlier career as a would-be (and partially successful) freelance writer. Had they stolen the Diary from Fast Eddy, this lie about when they purchased the word processor would have been pointless and unnecessary. Much the same can be said about the purchase of the red diary.

[David Orsam]

Here's a direct quote:

"I'd be surprised if Tony would ever have used the f word in front of young Caroline, assuming they ever met, as he had three daughters of his own and Liverpudlians in my experience [don't groan at the back there] may swear in the company of other men, but are quite puritanical when it comes to hearing or using bad language when women or children are present."

Like I said, absurdly stereotypical and clearly just someone making up something ridiculous to support a particular argument. It's irrelevant whether the conversation happened or not (although what was being said, as I understand it, was that the conversation DID happen but that it was with Eddie Lyons not Tony Devereux), it's the nature of the argument I'm talking about, especially coming from someone who appears to have no problem in using bad language "when women or children are present".

[caz]

So we are being told that Alan Gray is responsible for the contents of Mike's affidavit based on what Mike had told him. This is quite possible, in which case perhaps it was Gray who muddled up the dates, misunderstanding what Mike had told him and Mike did not read the affidavit properly before he signed it.

Not 'told', David. It was 'suggested' as a possibility, that's all. And you agree, in which case the whole affidavit, its validity and veracity, is thrown into question if there is even the slightest doubt that it was in Mike's own words and that he was aware of what he was signing.

And of course, with all that mucking fuddle over the dates and timings, you'd better hope that Alan Gray/Mike got the acquisition of the guardbook and red diary in the right chronological order. Having Tony Devereux severely ill but still breathing when the final words were written in the guardbook doesn't exactly give the whole yarn a ring of confidence.

'Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story [??] and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

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 being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My only point has been that it is utterly ridiculous, not mention absurdly stereotypical, to say that a man from Liverpool would never swear in front of a young girl.

Direct quote please David! I qualified this by saying that if and when a swear word does slip out in mixed company [women and/or children], in my experience the chap in question generally apologises profusely. I don't see why that is so controversial. If you really can't see the difference between this and cursing in frustration in the privacy of one's own home, not realising it has been overheard and absorbed by one's three year-old, I can't help you.

I maintain that it simply doesn't ring true that Tony Devereux would have used the f word in front of a friend's ten year-old daughter [actually still nine in the Spring/Summer of 1991] and that she would quote verbatim the words Tony had used when recalling the conversation a couple of years later.

But then we both believe it never happened, and that Mike the liar was up to his tricks again, so the whole argument was doomed to be pointless from the moment you posted Shirley's words on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You see no relevance in the fact that Mike and Anne lied about when and why they bought the word processor? I thought it was in order to "tidy up" Mike's 1991 research notes? In 1986?

Prove Mike was making research notes back in 1991, rj. If you can't I shall continue to presume that was a lie too. The Barretts both lied. So again, what's new?

When this receipt was obtained by Feldman's team in the mid-90s it should have sent off alarm bells about Anne Graham's credibility. Was she even asked about the contradiction?

Search me. I wasn't around in the mid-90s, rj. Shirley wasn't on Feldman's 'team' and was presumably sent a copy of the receipt by a gloating Melvin Harris, who had obtained his from Alan Gray?

If the word processor was bought in 1986 to type up Mike's freelance articles for submission, it would also have been used to produce the transcript of the diary and the typed up research notes, which were handed over to Doreen and co between the Spring and Summer of 1992.

Nothing about the word processor and what it was used for rings 'alarm bells' for me. The one thing that does ring true is the strong likelihood that no transcript or research notes existed in any form in the Barrett home before mid-March 1992 at the earliest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A fellow student and friend of mine at UCL, a linguistics student, was related to Sir James Whitehead, whose inaugural Lord Mayor's Parade was rained upon by the murder of Mary Kelly. Small world!

Blimey, Gareth. Small world indeed.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

I know nothing about Dixon’s but I certainly know of companies where just that could, would, and did happen.

Sure but what I'm getting at is that even in those examples you mention, the customer, through paying full retail price, presumably thinks he is being sold a brand new model and has no reason to think otherwise, and therefore wouldn't describe it as "second hand".

[GUT]

Sadly, I missed that classic post, Lord Orsam. I have no doubt that whatever it was, it would be cogent, impassioned, and its points well made and I genuinely regret it not making it as far as my attention.

You're still wrong about the journal, of course, though I suspect I'm on the wrong thread to be reminding you of that.

I trust you are not suggesting that the certificate of purchase that I posted from Dixons showing the sale of an Amstrad at full retail price in 1986 reflects anything other than the sale and purchase of a new word processor, one which could never be described as "second hand".

I know nothing about Dixon’s but I certainly know of companies where just that could, would, and did happen.