One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

What might qualify as an opportunity for an unproven provenance story to emerge? Exterminators? Visitors to the house? Plumbers? A house inspector? A rummage sale? A break-in during the night? The diarist doesn’t even state that he planned to leave the diary at Battlecrease. There were other buildings associated with James Maybrick.

Lots of random events would qualify.

Unless it can be proven that something genuinely occurred on 9 March 1992 that links to a phone call to a literary agent—all we are really attempting to calculate is the opportunity for human suspicions to develop when someone notices two events coincided during the same general timeframe.

How does one calculate such a thing?

It can’t be done, but I suspect that 18 to 1 is closer to the mark than 37,577 to 1.

Thanks.

The only point I would make here is that what genuinely occurred on 9 March 1992: Eddie was sent to work in Maybrick's house over in Aigburth, before returning to where he was living in Fountains Rd - can be linked to what Mike would claim for the diary he called the agent about on that day: that it came from someone who had lived on the same road.

How probable is it that Mike made that claim in total ignorance of where Eddie was living, or even that Eddie existed?

How probable is it that someone working in Maybrick's house on the day of Mike's call would be living, by sheer chance, on the very road Mike chose for the diary's provenance?

How lucky - or unlucky - would Mike have had to be, for that to happen?

On its own, the double event of 9 March can be made to seem probable, if not likely, just by looking at an old house having improvements done.

On its own, two men living on the same road would be totally unremarkable, whether Mike knew one or both of them before the diary was known to exist.

But together, it certainly looks from where I'm sitting that Mike only gave the diary's provenance to Tony because he couldn't give it to the other Fountains Rd resident.

[caz]

Hi Abe,

Good to hear from you old friend! Yes, we are leaving coin tossing and fruit alone for now - along with fireworks - until such time, of course, that we feel the need to correct more wrongs, whatever they are, and whenever they appear. All those dreadful, turgid, boring, drawn-out posts are gone - hopefully never to be repeated. Maybe we should even instigate a Twitteresque limited-character rule to save our dear readers from this sort of unnecessary obfuscation, bluff, and dreary bluster? I make this pledge to you all, no more lengthy posts from Ike Iconoclast, New Man of (Few) Letters!

We finally agreed (by dint of examples being given) that we had established that the principle of numerator over denominator was indeed the appropriate route to answering the simple probability question we had asked, just as I have argued all along. It then became a reasonably simple issue of what to include in the numerator (I'm still open to accepting more than one if reasonable grounds can be given for it, but it doesn't matter because you have to define the terms of your question and hope that others don't get distracted, introduce questionable variables, or even reframe the terms of the question entirely) and how to define the denominator. If you want to calculate the denominator based upon the whole of 1992 then, of course, you get a different probability to the one we were asking ourselves (because you are asking a different question of known events). You should really clarify while you're at it why you would choose to start your denominator on a completely arbitrary day (January 1, 1992), excluding every day which passed before it; and why you would end your denominator on December 31, 1992 and not go beyond it, nor indeed stop on March 9, 1992 when the event in question had occurred (the 13 subsequent occasions work was done in Maybrick's house in 1992 immediately becoming irrelevant because the other event - the 'phonecall - had been made on the same day the first occasion of work was done and therefore the question we were asking ourselves by implication stopped at March 9, 1992). So we have agreed that the principle is numerator over denominator and two posters have claimed that must be no more than 14/252 or 14/366 (1992 was a leap year) which implies that we should only consider days in the magic year of 1992. As it happens, 1992 was a very magic year for Ol' Ike himself (our beloved Queen did not concur, of course), but I assume we haven't factored that in so I am at a loss as to what else made it such an exclusively magical annum.

I think, in retrospect, we might have made more progress had we turned the question around and asked what was the probability that 1) someone would contact a literary agent with Jack's diary written by James Maybrick on the same day 2) that Maybrick's floorboards were known to be raised for the first time on the record? The former is a hugely unlikely event (surely by anyone's definition) so the chances of extraneous variables affecting its otherwise flat distribution would be slender at best and perhaps therefore something we could ignore for the purposes of our present question. If only four days had passed since Maybrick's death and those two events had definitely occurred then the probability that they happened on the same day was indeed 1-in-4. It is true that it doesn't mean that we have identified evidence of a link between the two events - 1-in-4 is no biggee - so no-one would raise their eyebrows and say "Wow, I wouldn't have expected that outcome" and therefore contact the cwoffee and donut gang to investigate further. Nor does it mean that there was a 1-in-4 chance that either or both would indeed happen at all but simply that once we knew that they had happened, then it's really easy to calculate how likely it is that they occurred on the same day. Really, really easy. And that easiness didn't magically stop on Day 4 but carried on potentially indefinitely getting less and less likely until eventually it happened (if it ever did).

As I suggested above, I think someone contacting a literary agent with Jack's diary written by James Maybrick is about as flat a distribution as one could hope to get - I don't think it increases in any meaningful way (if indeed at all) with time passing with the possible caveat - which a good detective would bear in mind - that the 1988 and 1989 centenaries of the crimes and Maybrick's death may very well have temporarily increased the likelihood of someone contacting a literary agent with Jack's diary written by James Maybrick and if we wanted we could have calculated only from that point and missed out the first century altogether but that, of course, would pose an entirely different question because our timeframes would have changed and most definitely would not justify us arbitrarily skipping the whole of the rest of 1989, and the whole of 1990 and 1991 so that we only start counting on the perfectly arbitrary January 1, 1992. In that event, however, we would still stop calculating on the day it happened and certainly not have continued onwards until we reached the equally arbitrary December 31, 1992. So we definitely would not have got 1/37,557, but equally we would definitely not have got 1/18 or 1/26.13. I'm resolutely happy that we should start when the possibilities first started, and for that we can argue the toss but I'll happily plump for May 12, 1889. Others may potentially disagree, but that does not mean that they have necessarily made a convincing argument, nor indeed that those who disagree with their calculations are thereby 'unconvincable', regardless of how unimpeachable the former’s credentials may appear to be.

But the principle has rather obviously now been agreed by all parties - it's now just about what you choose to include in your numerator and how you choose to define your denominator which is really where we were at weeks ago. And if you can make a properly convincing argument, you might be justified in expecting even the 'unconvincable' to yield a little or indeed a lot. I think that cuts both ways though and is not simply the preserve of what appears to be the majority view?

But yes (I should have added) from my perspective this debate is done (for now).

Cheers,

Ike

Being generous, Ike, I might put the concept of such a diary back, even to before Mike obtained his word processor [1986 wasn't it?] and fancied using it to become a famous writer. He might have been expected to know that the two centenaries were coming up, and planned to write a timely best seller, based on a handwritten confession by the 1889 murder victim in Liverpool, to the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888 in London.

But anyone looking at the work done on Maybrick's old home would then need to factor in every normal working day from 1986 to 9 March 1992, when Mike could reasonably have tried to interest someone in the basic concept of having JtR's diary [no identity given at that initial stage], and then see how many of those days saw any workmen at the house. That would seem to be a more realistic way of looking at the numbers, than to allow for the possibility that creating a fake JtR confession only occurred to Mike in 1992, shortly before he attracted Doreen's attention to the idea. I don't think one can have it both ways, by only using the days in 1992 when work was done, but at the same time wanting Mike's diary to have been in the planning stage for considerably longer than that.

But maybe I've got this all wrong. Maybe the theory was that the diary was not even a twinkle in Mike's eye until early 1992, explaining why only 1992 was used for the 1 in 18 exercise. But if so, why was it okay to base this on a theory at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Being generous, Ike, I might put the concept of such a diary back, even to before Mike obtained his word processor [1986 wasn't it?] and fancied using it to become a famous writer. He might have been expected to know that the two centenaries were coming up, and planned to write a timely best seller, based on a handwritten confession by the 1889 murder victim in Liverpool, to the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888 in London.

But anyone looking at the work done on Maybrick's old home would then need to factor in every normal working day from 1986 to 9 March 1992, when Mike could reasonably have tried to interest someone in the basic concept of having JtR's diary [no identity given at that initial stage], and then see how many of those days saw any workmen at the house. That would seem to be a more realistic way of looking at the numbers, than to allow for the possibility that creating a fake JtR confession only occurred to Mike in 1992, shortly before he attracted Doreen's attention to the idea. I don't think one can have it both ways, by only using the days in 1992 when work was done, but at the same time wanting Mike's diary to have been in the planning stage for considerably longer than that.

But maybe I've got this all wrong. Maybe the theory was that the diary was not even a twinkle in Mike's eye until early 1992, explaining why only 1992 was used for the 1 in 18 exercise. But if so, why was it okay to base this on a theory at all?

Love,

Caz
X

I think you make some excellent points there, Caz - maybe 1986 and the acquisition of the word prosser was indeed a strong candidate for the modern version of the 'first possible day'. I am confident that - if nothing else - we have collectively highlighted the utterly risible 18-to-1 odds of our aristocratic friend. What does tickle me somewhat is that if you are allowed to be as arbitrary as we have seen attempted then you could just start on the first day the floorboards came up. As that was also the day the 'phonecall was made, that was a 1/1 probability - or certainty! So one could twist the stats so that The Miraculous Day was guaranteed to happen on March 9, 1992 on the grounds that it did happen the first opportunity it had to happen on the record (RJ). That's obviously not what that event tells you about probability, but it would be oh-so tempting to shift attention away from the utterly risible by focusing on the hopelessly inappropriate?

Ike

[caz]

I think it's also worth reminding ourselves, Ike, that 9th March was the first date on the record that Mike mentioned JtR's diary to anyone.

If he had made any previous attempts to 'sell' the diary or the concept, we have no independent evidence of the fact, which is slightly odd when you think about it. The fact that a journalist claimed that Mike had been doing the rounds for weeks before getting Doreen's attention is neither here nor there, if he gave no sources. I wouldn't mind putting money on it that the only source was Mike himself, as he was also claiming the diary had been a big part of his life since that late Fountains Rd resident gave it to him back in 1991, and he had to be doing something with it in all that time.

Yet we have nothing. No friends or relations; no Saddle or British Legion regulars; no Devereux daughters; no other agent or publisher; not a solitary sausage to suggest that Mike had let slip a single whisper about any such diary about to rear its unsavoury head - until floorboards day.

What makes me think Mike knew Tony was as safe as houses to use for the provenance, in the absence of an infinitely better one, is that he had died without knowing anything about JtR's diary, and couldn't therefore have talked to anyone else about it. It could be a secret kept forever.

If it was dangerous to name a living person, who would inevitably be questioned and might spill the beans if the money was right, it would have been equally dangerous to name a deceased friend, if that friend could have confided in his daughters, for example, about Mike's plans to make JtR a Scouser. How could Mike have guaranteed Tony's silence, unless he had died with nothing to talk about?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ike,

As much as I don't wish to prolong your agony...

Before abandoning this drivel once and for all—now that our Dear Readers have had the opportunity to judge the merits of your analysis--it might be worthwhile, for the sake of completeness, to briefly touch on the second “double event” of 9 March 1992. (Not the death of Prime Minister Menachem Begin---I refer to the alleged events in The Saddle).

I don’t plan on debating it; I’m just going to make a brief observation and leave it at that. I wouldn’t even go that far, but you seem to think that the rationalists are cheating you out of a second ‘coincidence.’

For, as you rightly note, it wasn’t merely a matter of a man having work done on his old house, which we have now established is entirely commonplace and can be shown to have been at the most a 1 in 18 shot-in-the-dark in 1992 —we are also confronted with the supposed ‘coincidence’ that one of the men hired by the homeowner (or allegedly hired, since the man's name isn’t on the timesheets) had an alleged link to Mike Barrett, the man who called the literary agent.

A double, double-event, as you call it. Or a double, double unconfirmed ‘story’ as others call it.

I do appreciate your willingness to acknowledge in an earlier post that this alleged electrician/thief was not an individual, per se, but a ‘member of the P & R team.’

There has been some confusion on this point.

When the Battlecrease provenance theory first hit the fan, I was under the wrong impression that Electrical Eddie had been identified as the alleged electrician/thief, and only later was it discovered that he drank at Barrett’s pub, The Saddle.

It was then pointed out to me by your aristocratic mind-tenant that this was not necessarily the case. Indeed, it appears to have been the other way around. It was first discovered that Eddie drank at the Saddle, and only then did he become the ‘target’ of suspicion. Thus, we are again face-to-face with that bugbear that has haunted you these past weeks: ex post facto misdirection.

Being more objective, we have 9 electricians, and we should probably also toss in the business owner, Mr. R., so we begin with 10 possible suspects as middlemen in the Battlecrease heist/Mike Barrett caper. And this gives us 10 different possibilities for finding (or constructing) a weak social link between the P & R team and Barrett, and once we find that link, we can then accuse that individual of having sold the diary to Mike.

With me so far?

Nor does it need to involve a pub. That’s more ex post facto reasoning. Ultimately, a pub was used to make the alleged connection to Barrett, but it could just as easily have been a church, a school, etc. I believe Barrett once mentioned belonging to a Catholic social club of some sort, where he first met AG. Was that still in operation? He also drank with Billy at a veteran’s centre, and Shirley Harrison mentions Mike being part of a writer’s circle (Oops! Sorry to bring that one up!) There may have been other groups or organizations that would qualify, or maybe some connection through his wife.

Some of these social groups/institutions would have had many members—pubs have dozens and dozens of patrons on a revolving basis, in addition to a smaller group of ‘regulars.’

I wouldn’t care to make any estimation of probabilities, for the reasons Jeff has already discussed on this thread, but it doesn’t seem all that startling that at least one member of a ten-man group in Central Liverpool would have had a weak link to one of the several social organizations associated with Barrett. Humans interact, and there will be overlap between different social groups. Some of these units may have been quite large. Again, a pub alone might have a thousand ‘occasional’ patrons or more in any given year. I mean, hell, some blokes might occasionally use a dozen different pubs in an 8-mile radius. That doesn’t mean much, except to their livers.

What think, ye? If we were to toss around wild theories, what are the odds of this second coincidence in your “double, double event” occurring by chance?” 1 in 3? 1 in 99? 1 in 37,000?

Or is it 100% again, provided we look hard enough?

Ultimately, the most impressive part of the Battlecrease provenance might be what it tells us about human ingenuity.

There is nothing strange about a man having work done on his house, and there is nothing particularly strange about two men who don’t know each other frequenting the same pub. What is startling is that someone was able to eventually piece together all these details into a ‘story,’ and do so with sufficient art that some are now convinced this story is true, despite the lack of the necessary connective tissue. Thus, your fanciful foray into probability theory becomes a substitute for actual evidence, and, with the encouragement of others, you seem happy to keep it that way.

We’ve had fun with your statistical analysis; it is a gem worthy to be set alongside Diego Laurenz and a woman falling into a creek near Manchester.

So thanks for that.

RP

And thanks for this, RJ. Sincerely.

You have managed to conjure up the most splendid image of Bongo Motormouth Barrett, interacting with potentially thousands of his fellow Scousers, in the weeks, months and years leading up to 9th March 1992, and not once over all that time, letting slip the merest hint to a living soul about what the public were about to receive, for which Lord Orsam has been truly ungrateful ever since.

[caz]

Hi Ike.

Thanks for the splendid map. You've been a busy beaver!

The map also perfectly demonstrates what I mean by "ex post facto reasoning."

The electricians are scattered over Greater Merseyside. They cover a wide swatch of real estate. Your map makes that clear.

You then pick the bloke that happens to live near Mike Barrett, and accuse him of being the thief/fence. It is his proximity to Barrett in this relatively random distribution than makes you single him out.

In truth, you could just as easily have created a story accusing Coufopoulos or anyone one else, had they lived close to Barrett.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there is no evidence that the color push-pin you decided to accuse of a crime was even in Battlecrease on the miraculous day. It is his proximity to Barrett's push-pin that is setting off your alarm bells.

If memory serves, it was actually the Rigby chap who spent 8 hours in Battlecrease, but since he lives half-way to Widnes, he is released from suspicion, and you cleverly switch him out for Electrical Eddy.

See how it works? You're back to cooking the books.

Unfortunately, I must now bid you adieu. Respond in anyway you see fit.

I have places to go and people to meet--some of them living clear across town. In this age of the automobile, our social circles are not determined by geography alone. Isn't the 21st Century amazing?

Ciao.

Hmmm, it's mighty convenient for you to pretend there's no connective tissue to see anywhere, RJ.

Did the electricians collectively play pin the tail on the donkey back in April 1993? Or did they individually name Eddie Lyons, as one of the electricians who knew about the old book being found in Battlecrease? Was this all part and parcel of a group fantasy, or conspiracy? Or did psychic powers prevail, when they picked on the one P&R employee who lived on the same road as the person Mike Barrett would be claiming he got the diary from, when the book finally hit the shops in the October?

Which of them would have guessed there would turn out to be such a close geographical link between this particular electrician and the dead pal named by the diary's owner?

In 1993, Brian Rawes recalled Eddie mentioning his find to him on 17th July 1992; Arthur Rigby recalled that Eddie and JB knew about it, when he went to see Paul Dodd to deny any personal involvement; Eddie himself insisted he was there on floorboards day, recalling the salient details which date this conclusively to 9th March 1992.

Just three examples taken from the record. There are many more. They said what they said, when they said it. Were they all lying, mistaken or deluded? Why did Eddie's name stick, before the street where he lived was even known to feature in the story, via Tony Devereux? Or was this just one more of those little coincidences that happen all the time?

[caz]

Thanks, Ike.

Keith’s contributions are now so rare it would be rude to disappear without acknowledging his email, but it appears to me that he has somewhat lost the plot. Perhaps you didn’t explain things very clearly?

And you wonder why Keith doesn't contribute more often, when all he gets in return are insults? Lost the plot? Whose plot?

We know what Anne claimed back in 1995—the question is: should believe her?

She stated that she first created a typescript of the diary when she and Mike were in a ‘go’ situation—an unfortunately vague phrase, but presumably meaning it was created when Mike began pitching the diary to publishers or literary agents, which is in itself problematic for Keith’s theory, since Barrett’s call to Doreen was supposedly spontaneous and unplanned, rather than an organized effort.

Maybe I missed it, but I thought Keith made it clear that the "go" situation was his own phrase, when he made notes after seeing Anne. He was not quoting Anne directly. So you are free to put your own spin on what Anne may actually have said and what Keith thought she may have meant by it. Lucky you.

If, on the other hand, Anne only meant that the ‘go’ situation was after Doreen had agreed to meet with Mike in April 1992, then we have to wonder why Anne’s account flies directly in the face of the account given by Doreen herself, as reported in her letter to Nick Warren, dated 8 May 1994:

“Of course we know what the SFS [Serious Fraud Squad] found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”

See the problem now?

I can't speak for Ike, but I can see the problem right there. Who do you suppose was the source of the dubious claim that the word processor was obtained precisely to transcribe the diary - if not Mike himself? Unfortunately for your conspiracy theories involving this wonderfully happy, together couple, they were not joined at the hip and the man of the house had an infuriating and abiding habit of putting his own spin on everything, whenever he perceived it was to his advantage. I'm surprised you don't recognise it.

Of some relevance is that Mike’s agreement with Crew, dated 30 April 1992, seemingly mentions nothing about the Barretts producing a typescript for the benefit of Doreen or Shirley, although it does refer to Mike relinquishing his ‘notes.’

"IT IS AGREED that the Owner will make available to the Author with mutually agreed safeguards for research purposes the Diary and his own research notes...."

Odd that there is no mention of a typescript, had one been requested by Doreen.

But the typescript already existed by 30 April, so the agreement didn't need to mention it, or ask for one along with the research notes, which were only made available later that summer. Doreen mentions having the typescript in a letter dated 22 April, eight days before the agreement was drawn up.

So not only have we been given two different accounts of the typescript’s origins, if we accept Doreen’s statement without question, then the creation of the typescript dates to shortly after Mike’s purchase of the Amstrad word processor.

But why would you accept Doreen's statement without question, when she was merely accepting Mike's claim without question, in the days before she knew any better?

The receipt shows this happened in April 1986—nearly 5 years before the installation of the heating units at ‘Battlecrease.'

As such, I’m a little surprised that Keith finds nothing strange about any of this.

Well unless you believe Mike did buy the word processor in 1986, in order to transcribe the diary, I'm really not sure what your problem is. Mike was strange. He said and did lots of strange things, and could tell many impossible stories before breakfast. If you haven't learned this by now, you haven't been paying attention. Keith was in the middle of it all, like the mayo in a club sandwich between Anne and Mike. Why would he find it strange that what Mike claimed was often very different from what Anne was telling him?

[caz]

Mixing things up? Yeah, your posts do that all the time.

We're talking about how YOU have accused members of the crew of lying, like you do in the paragraph above and in the post I replied to:

I remarked that you must know them well to sling such accusations around. To which you...I don't know, try to pretend that I'm accusing them of something? Let's recap: In your posts you accuse, with no evidence, Eddie Lyons of being a thief and a liar, and his coworkers of being complicit in theft and of lying to cover for him and their own complicity. That's very simple and factual.

Do try and keep your posts focused on the topic at hand.

I do wish you'd put a sock in it and stop telling me what to do. You are not my mother, and frankly that's not an image for the faint-hearted.

I have not 'accused' anyone of anything they have not put on the record all by themselves.

I can't change that record just because it gives you the needle.

If you wait a while longer, it'll be September and Orsam's record will, I have no doubt, give his followers the horn.

[Kattrup]

I have not 'accused' anyone of anything they have not put on the record all by themselves.

Where is it on record that members of the crew have lied and that they would lie to cover theft?

[rjpalmer]

Maybe I missed it, but I thought Keith made it clear that the "go" situation was his own phrase, when he made notes after seeing Anne. He was not quoting Anne directly. So you are free to put your own spin on what Anne may actually have said and what Keith thought she may have meant by it. Lucky you.

If Keith wants to repeat Anne Graham's accounts of when these documents were created, who am I to complain?

Here's some more of her work:




Seven months before Dodd's electrical work.

By all means, let's accept Anne's account. Count me in.

R P

[Iconoclast]

If Keith wants to repeat Anne Graham's accounts of when these documents were created, who am I to complain?

Here's some more of her work:




Seven months before Dodd's electrical work.

By all means, let's accept Anne's account. Count me in.

R P

I think I'm going mad.

The comments circled in red referred to Mike, did they not (not to Anne, who had not claimed to have done any research prior to or indeed after March 9, 1992)?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

The comments circled in red referred to Mike, did they not (not to Anne, who had not claimed to have done any research prior to or indeed after March 9, 1992)?

Ike

Anne's the one who took credit for typing the notes. Are you suggesting that she typed the date August 1991 by accident?




Another gem from this same document:




Tales of Liverpool! The same booklet that police successfully traced to Tony Devereux, who had had it by at least July 1991, now mentioned again in Mike & Anne's notes, dated from August 1991.

My, my. For someone who supposedly just casually flipped through this booklet at W.H. Smith's, Mike sure seems familiar with its contents. And as Caz tells us in Post #6801, this is the same booklet that Anne admitted giving to Mike for Christmas in 1990.

All of this dating to well before Dodd's floorboards were lifted.

But I know, I know. Nothing strange about any of it. ;-)

[Abby Normal]

why are caz keith skinner and paul begg always on the side of those who beleive the diary is authentic? dont they all admit its a hoax? should they not be arguing against the gullible beleivers? all very odd. but i think everyone knows the reason why.

[erobitha]

why are caz keith skinner and paul begg always on the side of those who beleive the diary is authentic? dont they all admit its a hoax? should they not be arguing against the gullible beleivers? all very odd. but i think everyone knows the reason why.

Firstly, I don't know who of that group has ever claimed the scrapbook to be genuine, I have not seen that anywhere. They may be agnostic at best. I am open-minded enough to consider it being genuine and I am interested in discovering the truth one way or another.

Secondly, the insinuation is that the only reason anyone could be "gullible" enough would be because they are financially motivated? I don't know if you have ever written a book or know what goes into it, but very few in the world of literature are multi-millionaires. This genre is not exactly a thriving sub-category with the trends moving rapidly towards wokist-driven, social-justice inspired politically correct hyperbole.

Perhaps, the truth might be more interesting than others may consider.

[caz]

why are caz keith skinner and paul begg always on the side of those who beleive the diary is authentic? dont they all admit its a hoax? should they not be arguing against the gullible beleivers? all very odd. but i think everyone knows the reason why.

I'm on nobody's 'side', Abby. I'm on the side of letting the evidence do the talking, and I am further today from believing the accumulated evidence indicates a Barrett hoax than I have ever been. I still have no idea who authored the diary, and all those on the 'side' of the Barrett hoax believers have done nothing to enlighten me.

I don't wear a football scarf and I don't wave a flag. Maybe you mistook me for someone who does both.

Love,

Caz
X