One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

apart from a long blip from mid-1994 to around 2000

By the way, Ike, in one of his articles, your friend David Barrat disputes this is an accurate assessment.

He points out that the idea that Barrett was involved in a relentless campaign to prove the diary was a fake is a myth. Through his lawyer, Mike almost immediately retracted his initial confession to Brough. He also kept the sworn January 5th affidavit from the public, and even from Feldman's team; it was only forwarded to Anne Graham. Mike also went on Radio Merseyside to retract his confessions in two long interviews. Mike was very much in a rhythm of confess/retract/confess/retract and it very much depended on who his audience was.

Through this whole span, Mike's public face was that of a man who insisted the diary was genuine. It was only his private face that shows he believed otherwise. A rather rare exception was Keith' interview with Mike at the Smoke and Stagger.

[erobitha]

P.S. (later) Does Ero's suggestion even make sense from a legal standpoint, Ike? If Barrett had bought stolen goods off of Eddie, he would still have committed a crime and his royalties would have gone to Dodd. He could have been prosecuted and Dodd himself could have complained and demanded prosecution. This is a different situation than Barrett giving away a hoax that he himself had created in a 'Spanish Prisoner'/Gold Brick scheme.

You are correct. Mike was no criminal genius. He just knew handling stolen stuff would be bad for him. I doubt he actually thought through the full consequences of it all. He was not one for thorough reflection and measured contemplation. He reacted on emotion constantly. He talked himself into some absolute nonsense at times, but that is who he was. A man who's world was crumbling before him and he did not have the tools required to navigate himself through it adequately.

There is still much to lose RJ. If the scrapbook is proven to be stolen from Battlecrease, Robert Smith and Ann Barrett might well have to forfeit their royalty earnings to Paul Dodd, who as you rightly say, in the eyes of the law, is the rightful owner.

[rjpalmer]

There is still much to lose RJ. If the scrapbook is proven to be stolen from Battlecrease, Robert Smith and Ann Barrett might well have to forfeit their royalty earnings to Paul Dodd, who as you rightly say, in the eyes of the law, is the rightful owner.

Thanks, Ero, but this wouldn't explain Anne Graham's behavior; Caz has been telling us for years that Anne refused her royalty checks and Doreen Montgomery had to practically twist her arm to accept them--which sounds more like the behavior of a woman who fears possible legal repercussions than a woman scared of 'forfeiting' her payments.

But of course, it's possibly that you don't agree with Caz's assessment of the situation, and Anne was simply acting?

[erobitha]

Thanks, Ero, but this wouldn't explain Anne Graham's behavior; Caz has been telling us for years that Anne refused her royalty checks and Doreen Montgomery had to practically twist her arm to accept them--which sounds more like the behavior of a woman who fears possible legal repercussions than a woman scared of 'forfeiting' her payments.

But of course, it's possibly that you don't agree with Caz's assessment of the situation, and Anne was simply acting?

Yeah it sounds almost like she couldn’t trust Mike as far as she could throw him. Doesn’t mean she had any knowledge of theft or forgery - she had knowledge of Mike. She knew when he was lying and clearly she did not buy the Devereux story either having came up with her own provenance after.

Like all of us Anne, knew that Mike had a flexible relationship with the truth. She might have had concerns he was dropping her right in it, so she tried to take control of the narrative herself. Doesn’t mean she knew anything of any forgery or theft. I think the fact she crafted her own provenance was more about not allowing Mike to control the narrative. She didn’t know what nonsense he would spout next.

Who wants to the risk of being accused of theft or forgery? But if theft is what happened then that is what happened. I find it far more likely than the pair of them concocting and executing the whole thing in just 11/12 days.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do not forget that she kept Mike's sworn affidavit from Keith's probing eyes for over two full years.

And therfore Anne was aware of the content allegedly implicating her in forging the diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That being said she had ample opportunity to distance herself from that affadavit and her alleged involvement by making her own affadavit negating her involvement. Did she take any steps to distance herself. it seems not.

I fail to see why there is all this constant arguing over the diary authenticity

The diary has been proved to be a fake
Barrett admits to being involved in the faking of the diary

End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

I find it far more likely than the pair of them concocting and executing the whole thing in just 11/12 days.

Barrett never claimed he & Anne 'concocted' the diary in 11 days. In fact, he states that Tony Devereux helped with the inception, and since Devereux died in August 1991 (and still had one of the books Mike mentions in his research notes in the possession of his estate) the typescript was evidently created over a period of months or weeks.

Barrett only said the physical diary was created once he had a fish (a literary agent) on the line. How long does it take to write out 29 pages of typescript in cursive? Three pages a night would take about 10 days, no? And one of the document examiners said that the angle of the diary's writing, as well as its consistency, strongly suggest that multiple passages were written in single sittings, which alone show that it is a bogus diary, and is consistent with Barrett's account.

[rjpalmer]

And therfore Anne was aware of the content allegedly implicating her in forging the diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed, Trevor. She most certainly was.

[Iconoclast]

And therfore Anne was aware of the content allegedly implicating her in forging the diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That being said she had ample opportunity to distance herself from that affadavit and her alleged involvement by making her own affadavit negating her involvement. Did she take any steps to distance herself. it seems not.

I fail to see why there is all this constant arguing over the diary authenticity

The diary has been proved to be a fake
Barrett admits to being involved in the faking of the diary

End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Please.

The diary has been proved to be a fake

The diary has been claimed to be a fake. You do realise the difference, yes?

Barrett admits to being involved in the faking of the diary

I hope - deeply hope - this isn't your 'proof'.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

How long does it take to write out 29 pages of typescript in cursive?

We don't know because to date there is no evidence it has ever happened that way. On the contrary, and as I illustrated the other day, the transcript has internal errors which show that it came after the diary.

Do keep up, Old Boy.

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Please.



The diary has been claimed to be a fake. You do realise the difference, yes?



I hope - deeply hope - this isn't your 'proof'.

Cheers,

Ike

What you and the other diary supporters have claimed and what is good evidence to support Barretts claim are two diffferent issues

Of course its proof, Barrett signed a legal document in the affadavit, unless the affadavit can be conclusively proven to be totally incorrcet then it must stand as prime evidence to support the fact that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

What you and the other diary supporters have claimed and what is good evidence to support Barretts claim are two diffferent issues

Of course its proof, Barrett signed a legal document in the affadavit, unless the affadavit can be conclusively proven to be totally incorrcet then it must stand as prime evidence to support the fact that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I'm confused - which "Of course it's proof, Barrett signed a legal document in the affidavit" are you referring to?

I assume you mean the first one which he signed - on April 26, 1993 - when his life was 'on the up' and in which he swore in an affidavit (which - as you say - is a legal document) that he got the scrapbook from Tony Devereux in approximately July 1991? Now, that one has obviously never been "conclusively proven to be totally incorrect" so I'm assuming that's the one you are referring to? Here's my confusion: I'm not sure how that affidavit would "stand as prime evidence to support the fact that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary".

This makes me wonder. Surely you aren't referring to the second affidavit he signed - on January 5, 1995 - written by the craven and desperate private detective Alan Gray under the direction of the wicked Melvin Harris (he of the "Committee of Rank Hypocrisy") when his life was out of control and he was knee deep in whisky bottles, his beloved wife having left him a year earlier taking his equally-beloved daughter with her?

Could you clarify which of the two affidavits you are placing such remarkable faith in, please, Trevor, as our dear readers must be equally confused?

Are you going for the first one, which has never been "conclusively proven to be totally incorrect" or the second one which is so full of holes you could drive an HS2 through it?

Please clarify urgently as we need to understand why you have preferred one over the other (whichever that may prove to be).

Cheers,

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I'm confused - which "Of course it's proof, Barrett signed a legal document in the affidavit" are you referring to?

I assume you mean the first one which he signed - on April 26, 1993 - when his life was 'on the up' and in which he swore in an affidavit (which - as you say - is a legal document) that he got the scrapbook from Tony Devereux in approximately July 1991? Now, that one has obviously never been "conclusively proven to be totally incorrect" so I'm assuming that's the one you are referring to? Here's my confusion: I'm not sure how that affidavit would "stand as prime evidence to support the fact that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary".

This makes me wonder. Surely you aren't referring to the second affidavit he signed - on January 5, 1995 - written by the craven and desperate private detective Alan Gray under the direction of the wicked Melvin Harris (he of the "Committee of Rank Hypocrisy") when his life was out of control and he was knee deep in whisky bottles, his beloved wife having left him a year earlier taking his equally-beloved daughter with her?

Could you clarify which of the two affidavits you are placing such remarkable faith in, please, Trevor, as our dear readers must be equally confused?

Are you going for the first one, which has never been "conclusively proven to be totally incorrect" or the second one which is so full of holes you could drive an HS2 through it?

Please clarify urgently as we need to understand why you have preferred one over the other (whichever that may prove to be).

Cheers,

Ike

The first affadavit is the one I refer to and the one that is most damaging to Barret and the other co conspirators mentioned in the affadavit.

The second affadavit can be looked at in a number of different ways, the main one being that having sworn out the first he then came to his senses realising that what he had set out in the first affadavit could have criminal reprecussions against him and the others mentioned in the first affadavit, and he was forced to do some quick back pedalling which he did by making the second affadavit and what was set out in that second affadavit.

It strikes me that in the second affadavit knowing the police have become involved he is trying to create a defence of acting under duress or being coerced. But it should be noted in that second affadavit he never detracts away from the fact that he states that he and Anne faked the diary.

The diary is a fake and has proved to be a fake accept it and move on!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Surely you aren't referring to the second affidavit he signed - on January 5, 1995 - written by the craven and desperate private detective Alan Gray under the direction of the wicked Melvin Harris (he of the "Committee of Rank Hypocrisy") when his life was out of control and he was knee deep in whisky bottles, his beloved wife having left him a year earlier taking his equally-beloved daughter with her?

This is the first time we’ve learned that the ‘craven and desperate’ Alan Gray was an alcoholic whose wife had recently left him. Sloppy syntax reveals sloppy thinking.

The only thing craven and desperate, Ike, is your muddled and inaccurate interpretations of these events. Why do you still allow a team of researchers who couldn’t solve the case of the bogus diary (Feldman & Co) to be your interpreters? That was your first mistake and it will forever remain your last mistake.

[rjpalmer]

We don't know because to date there is no evidence it has ever happened that way. On the contrary, and as I illustrated the other day, the transcript has internal errors which show that it came after the diary.

Do keep up, Old Boy.

Ike

This is a transparently ridiculous claim, Ike. The penwoman could have corrected errors and made minor (or major?) adjustments when writing out the pre-existing text into the ledger. It’s obviously a two-way street.

And, of course, despite the passing of over 25 years, the public is still not allowed to see the typescript and thus has had no opportunity to form their own opinions. It must be quite the doozy.

[Iconoclast]

The first affadavit is the one I refer to and the one that is most damaging to Barret and the other co conspirators mentioned in the affadavit.

Before I come back to you on this point, can you just be 100% clear about how you conclude the below, please?

The diary is a fake and has proved to be a fake ...

You have now stated it twice in two days so you must have evidence which is absolutely incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable which proves the diary to be a fake otherwise you wouldn't - in all seriousness - simply type it in a post on a website and think that that is sufficient to make the case?

To be clear, 'incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable' means absolutely beyond any form of dispute or counter-argument, Trevor.

As a retired murder squad detective, Trevor, I trust your standard of proof is impeccable here.

Ike