One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

The other objection will be that the diary shows forensic skill beyond the ability of the Barretts. Yet two independent teams of forensic examiners quicky dismissed the diary as an amateurish hoax.

Q.E.D.

Do you share David Barrat's opinion, based on the advert for the red diary together with Mike's claim that Anne purchased it for their joint hoax, that the ink was applied to the scrapbook between 31st March and 13th April 1992?

I don't recall Baxendale saying that the writing could have been no more than a few weeks old when he examined it, due to the ink's solubility?

What I do recall, however, were various arguments made by others, that once the ink had been on paper for a certain amount of time - was it couple of years? a year? six months? - it would behave like that on older documents, and give an inconclusive result. I don't understand the reason for such arguments, if Baxendale's findings were considered conclusive? And why was Baxendale himself not confident enough in his own expertise to report that the ink was too soluble to have been on the paper long enough to give an inconclusive result, meaning that it must have been applied very recently indeed?

David Barrat needs a Barrett hoax to have been penned in early April 1992, yet I don't recall a single expert, forensic or otherwise - not even Melvin Harris - trying to suggest it could have been as recent as that, and be able to resist being immediately exposed as such, under one or more of the earliest examinations. Did anyone claim the results could become inconclusive that quickly? Would the Barretts have been aware that a diary penned in April might resist any attempts to date it by June? Or would they not have given it a second thought?

I suspect even Mike was canny enough by January 1995 to appreciate that more credence would be given to his affidavit at the time if he dated the physical creation to early 1990, a couple of years before it was first subjected to examination, and hoped nobody would think to query this as a reasonable possibility. He craftily 'forgot' that the red diary he was using as supporting evidence had arrived in March 1992, just a few days before the scrapbook was first seen in London. With any luck, nobody would be able to trace the purchase from the bare details he provided, to prove he had been creative with the creation date.

But of course, he didn't forget it was March 1992 when JtR's diary made such a huge impact on his life. Within a few days of the affidavit he reeled off the exact date he took it to London, so he knew damn well the red diary had not been received and rejected more than two years earlier.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is your opinion, and David Barrat's [not David Barrett, as RJ spelled it in the post before yours], that there are 'many similarities' between Anne's handwriting [normal, disguised or partly disguised? I'm never sure what the argument is these days] and the handwriting found in the diary.

But two amateur opinions, not based on direct comparisons between original documents, are not good enough and do not make it a fact - as we have been assured often enough by Barrat and Barrett believers alike.

If you are genuinely unable to see any similarity between the 'Maybrick' signature in the watch and JM's authenticated signature on his marriage licence, or unwilling to give an opinion because the actual watch and original document should be put in the hands of the experts to make that comparison, why does that not apply to Anne's private letters and the diary?

And what do you mean by 'consistently'? This is Mike you are assessing, and the word was not in his dictionary. In fact, as I keep having to repeat, it would appear that no dictionary was consulted by whoever wrote the diary. And during a long day's recorded interview on July 20th 1995, as Keith Skinner reminds us, in one comedy gold moment Mike asked for a pen and ink to demonstrate that the handwriting was his, and when reminded that his claim was that Anne wrote it, he moved swiftly on to other important evidence he had brought with him from Liverpool to London to prove the diary was a fake, consisting of his affidavit of April 1993, in which he swore Tony Devereux gave him the diary, and a bottle of Diamine ink.

If Mike couldn't even be consistent over whose handwriting was in the diary, and what evidence he needed to bring to the party to support the 'his and hers' claim to have faked it, shouldn't that be a warning sign that he just might have been fibbing?

Love,

Caz
X

Has the handwriting of all those named been subjected to a full handwriting analysis by experts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

This will be my last post of the day, but I find your outrage at my suggestion exceedingly curious. Feldman said Anne was 'with him,' and I took Feldman at his word, but it hardly matters, does it?

Anne had two years to say something other than that the diary came from Devereux. She didn't. And in the summer of 1994, when Harold Brough asked her about it, she still insisted that the diary came from Devereux---something that you now believe to have been a lie, though this was not always the case.

Yet you are somehow outraged at the idea that she would sit idly by when Barrett signed an affidavit, stating that he received the diary from Devereux? Why the hair splitting? She told Brough the same thing.

Your relationship to Anne Graham (I speak only metaphorically) is a strange one, and it is not hard to understand why. A strange juggling act has to be maintained--she's a deceitful liar, but just not enough of a deceitful liar to have helped Barrett.

RP

Correction: prior to 2004, I didn't know whether to believe the diary came from Devereux or not. It had to get into Mike's hands somehow.

Since then, I have seen enough evidence to make me doubt it came from Devereux.

My relationship is not to Anne Graham, but to the evidence.

I don't need a juggling act concerning her honesty or lack of it. I leave that to you. I only go as far as the evidence can take me, and the evidence makes me doubt that Mike was 'helped' by Anne or anyone else, to create a literary hoax in the early 1990s.

You believe Mike's evidence was sufficient to make the case for Anne having helped him with such an enterprise, and that then informs you what kind of deceitful liar she has been since 1992.

Did you ever wonder why Mike wanted to paint Anne as a deceitful liar in January 1995, if she had helped him to fake the diary that made him a best-selling author, and provided him with more beer tokens than he had ever seen in his life?

[Scott Nelson]

Barrat's samples of Anne's handwriting show a left-handed writer (letters slanted left). I couldn't see any obvious similarities in the formation of individual letters in the Diary and her writing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Barrat's samples of Anne's handwriting show a left-handed writer (letters slanted left). I couldn't see any obvious similarities in the formation of individual letters in the Diary and her writing.

Unless you are a handrwiting expert what you have suggested is a personal uncorrborrated opinion, that is why I asked the original question as to whether or not handwriting experts have compared the main protagonists handwriting with the diary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

I know Trevor, thanks. I gave only my opinion as a lay person. As I recall, Barrat requested that posters offer their opinions as well.

[caz]

I have said all along that there were other persons beside Mike involved in this conspiracy, the problem is positively identifying them, and that could be the answer to the handwriting conflict. I bet no one has checked the handwriting of all the other protagonists.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Keith responded:

'As well as Mike Barrett's handwriting, we included [in our book] Anne Barrett's and William Graham (both named by Mike as co-conspirators. We do not have a sample of Caroline Barrett's (11 in 1992) and named by Mike as a witness to the events in Goldie Street. Also named by Mike Barrett was Tony Devereux, whose handwriting we have but did not publish - only the signature on his Will. We published Gerard Kane's (suspected by Melvin Harris).

All of this is in Inside Story.

Which other protagonists does Marriott have in mind?'

Back to me:

Clearly, we and 99.99% of our readers are not forensic handwriting experts, but a couple of amateurs - namely Kattrup [real identity unknown] and Orsam [aka David Barrat] - think they have detected similarities between the diary facsimile and a private letter from Anne to Mike, written after their separation in 1994, which presumably ended up with Orsam via a tortuous route from Mike to Alan Gray, and from thence into Melvin Harris's private collection and out again.

If the letter in Orsam's possession is an original, and not a photocopy, it could in theory be subjected to a full forensic comparison with the actual diary, but I don't think Robert Smith has ever been approached by anyone for permission to release it for this purpose. Those who suspect Anne of writing it might argue that it is not up to them to test their suspicions in this way, which is fair enough if they are happy to leave the possibility open that they are wrong, but then they would be just as guilty of keeping the debate alive as any diary 'defender'. We all seek the truth, don't we?

Another problem, if Anne's letter was once among Melvin Harris's material, is that he evidently saw no potential match, because his verdict was that neither Anne nor Mike wrote the diary, but were merely 'handlers and places' of a fake created by others. Similarly, the Sunday Times or Nick Warren, or anyone else with a genuine interest in proving themselves right about the diary's modernity, could have taken this up and had Mike's claim tested forensically.

However, I'm sure I have also seen it argued, somewhat conveniently, that if Anne disguised her handwriting for the diary, even a forensic analyst could not prove conclusively that it was hers. You might like to check that with Kattrup, for clarification.

I had always assumed that forgers were identified from certain characteristics in the disputed handwriting which they failed to disguise well enough. The bonus would be if the forger were also the suspect, albeit only accused by a vengeful ex husband. If amateurs like Kattrup can detect such characteristics, merely from images on the internet, it's a mystery to me why a direct comparison by the professionals could not have put this to bed years ago.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So why is it that no one really believes Barrett and his wife couldn't have faked this?

I don't know, Columbo. You'd have to ask them all! Personally I find it very hard to believe they did, although I guess it would only be a physical impossibility if it came into Goldie Street already fully formed.

Or did you mean that no one really believes the Barretts could have faked it? I think you'll find most posters who never knew them prior to 1992 do believe they could have done it. I never knew either of them on a personal level, so my views are based more on the quality of the evidence gathered since 1992 to put them in the frame.

He explains it plainly enough yet no one seems he could've concocted this scheme as he says. He says his wife transcribed the diary on his computer/word processor. and probably she or he most likely copied that to the diary. Some say he lied in his confession, etc,. But as far as I know, which is very little, there has not been a 3rd party coming forward. Caz I'm sure will "hand me my arse" but I'm willing to risk it.

Plenty of posters here do believe Mike could have done it as described in his January 5th 1995 affidavit. 'Probably' and 'most likely' are personal opinions, which are not supported by all the evidence. Some of us are of the opinion that they 'probably' didn't 'most likely' copy the text into the scrapbook from the word processor, but probably did most likely type up a transcript on the word processor from what they read in the scrapbook.

Mike either lied in his confession, Columbo, or he was in RJ's 'mental fog' when he made it, and got the dates and order of events arse about face, in which case his solicitor would have had no problem retracting it on his behalf had it ever been taken further.

I won't hand you your arse on this occasion, as you were honest enough to admit that you know very little about the whole story.

I suspect you are probably most likely representative of the majority of those who believe Barrett and his wife could have done it together.

Stay safe and happy holidays.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks, Caz.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Robert Smith was indeed advised by Harbottle to buy Mike's diary for £1 but that really doesn't settle the matter in my mind. It would certainly protect Smith's own financial interests, since Mike selling it to Feldy for £14,000 would complicate matters and potentially place the copyright in Feldy's hands rather than Smith's, but I'm asking why it would have protected, as Smith says, 'the diary.' Nor does it explain why Robert Smith portrayed this transaction as a humanitarian mission, not at the request of Harbottle, but to keep Mike from the bottle. But I'll drop the matter for the time being. The reason I think it is relevant, and why I pursued it in the first place, in part is because Mike refers in the affidavit that we are discussing to his belief that he was "hoodwinked" by Smith, and feeling "hoodwinked" might have some bearing on determining the motive for Mike's affidavit that still seems to be baffling Keith.

Could it not be that Mike felt "hoodwinked" because he was getting royalty statements showing a nil or debit balance, due to all the various expenses, which he and Shirley were liable for under the contract, which ate into their spoils, and he was proving himself utterly incapable - possibly due to that same 'mental fog' of yours - of understanding the financial ins and outs? I don't recall Shirley making an affidavit, confessing to writing a book about a diary she knew damn well to be a modern hoax, on the grounds that she was "hoodwinked" by Robert Smith over the money.

The delicious irony staring you in the face is that Mike was confessing in the same breath to having "hoodwinked" everyone with a fraud he had been trying in vain to expose since December 1993!

AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET

Just a funny little reminder of how he claimed, in 1999, to have the means on his person to expose the 'fraud' and get back at Robert for having "hoodwinked" him. In his final years, Mike maintained a friendly correspondence with Robert, including a request for him to look at a fictional treatment on JtR, with a view to publishing it. What was that old saying about "once bitten..."?

Meanwhile, on the subject of Smith...

Once again, RJ, why not contact Robert directly and ask him? He did go into the subject of Diamine in his 2017 book, so if you want to learn more I suggest you write to him - and post your progress here on the boards.

[caz]

Talk about missing the point indeed.

Try going back through the discussion, reading it and understanding that you have indeed missed the point I was making.

But I didn't miss your point, Kattrup. I merely didn't find it compelling and responded with a point of my own, concerning what the Barretts' expectations of success would have been, if their first port of call was Ryan's book, in which he describes in the early pages Maybrick's constant visits to the chemist and consultations with doctors over the summer and autumn of 1888.

You then introduce a new point that YOU wish to make, which as usual is nonsensical.

I did, which was entirely my prerogative, but it's your opinion that it was 'nonsensical', which is yours. I thought it was an eminently reasonable point to make, because putting myself in the Barretts' shoes, I know I'd have given up at that point and gone for a quiet lie down, thinking of what happened to the Hitler Diaries hoaxer.

The fact that YOU read the passages you quoted as an insurmountable obstacle to casting Maybrick as JtR does not mean that others would. Because, as I think we established, there are no dates mentioned that would decisively clash with the Ripper-timeline.

Jesus, how hard is this one to grasp - that unless the Barretts had 'established' this for themselves, from sources other than Ryan, they would have had no reason to know, and certainly no reason to expect, that would prove to be the case?

So wow, you feel MB&co would be forgiven for feeling intimidated by the mentions of Maybrick going frequently to the chemist or the doctor.

Going 'frequently to the chemist or doctor' is putting it mildly! Maybrick did the former up to five times a day in Liverpool when the Barretts would have needed him free to commit the Whitechapel murders. And yes, if I had been planning to commit fraud by taking my own hoax to market, that would have put a slight damper on my enthusiasm for risking prison food. And that would also be putting it mildly.

In contrast, an anonymous hoaxer with no financial motive or incentive would not have had the same concerns, even if they read Ryan's book and assessed the likelihood of JM having the health and strength, never mind the opportunity, to be Jack. It could also explain why no attempt was made to copy JM's handwriting, if that was never the point of the exercise.

"Eff yeah! We've picked the right man for the job here. How could anyone hope to prove Maybrick as our Jack wrong, with him going out of town often and no dates recorded for his visits to the doctor during the Autumn of Terror?" They'd have had every reason for optimism, wouldn't they?

No, because how would they have known that no dates were recorded anywhere, just because that one author, Ryan, didn't list them?

It's entirely circular to argue that because no dates have been found - yet - to clash, the Barretts would have had 'every reason for optimism' if they had tried their hand at getting such a project off the ground.

And it's a million miles away from demonstrating that they actually did so. If anyone had done that, this entire discussion would have been redundant before it began.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For instance, in one of the magazines that Mike wrote for, there was an article 1986 (the same period as Mike was writing for the magazine) about the Hitler Diaries and how the forger made 3m pounds off them - it was stated in the article that a handwriting comparison had been made but the samples submitted to experts had been too small to enable them to be certain in their analysis.

Which then begs the question why Anne would have handwritten private letters to Mike after their separation, aware that he was bitter and deeply resentful over her desertion and loss of his daughter, and could use them to provide a large enough sample to allow a comparison that could positively identify her as the penwoman.

So a forger, perhaps one who'd read that article because it was from a magazine he submitted articles to, could know that a handwriting comparison was not always conclusive.

Not 'always' conclusive. Yes, that would certainly have put my mind to rest - not. But the Barretts were evidently made of sterner stuff.

If the forger believed that there were very few examples of Maybrick's handwriting available (incidentally, Mike later stated he did not try to copy Maybrick's will because he believed it was not in Maybrick's own hand), he or she might plough on ahead without caring too much about matching the actual handwriting of his or her subject.

'Might', but then again they might not.

I can see only two options if Mike wasn't lying about not copying the Will: he saw it and concluded it was the Will that was a fake because it didn't match the writing in Eddie's old book or - far more likely - he exploited the suspicions expressed by others about the Will to explain, when confessing, why he made no attempt to copy from it.

But when did Mike make this claim, Kattrup? And how does it square with his claim in January 1995 - and your belief - that it was Anne who wrote the diary, which would explain why he did not try to copy a sausage? It would have been Anne's decision to put her own pen to paper and risk it for a biscuit. Or do you accept that Mike lied over who held the pen?

I am becoming more and more convinced that some of us are wasting our time on posters who don't even know what they are supposed to be arguing, and never, ever, ever, acknowledge their own internal inconsistencies. I realise that would be made harder if they were not doing their own thinking, but allowing Orsam to think for them. He has a lot to answer for, for so fooling his own supporters.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Once again, RJ, why not contact Robert directly and ask him? He did go into the subject of Diamine in his 2017 book, so if you want to learn more I suggest you write to him - and post your progress here on the boards.

Hold the phone, Caz.

It's my job to write a chasing letter?

Smith wrote that he would contact these message boards with the results once he found a bottle of pre-1992 (I think it should be pre-1993) Diamine ink. As you allude, Smith's own 2017 book reveals that he did indeed obtain such a bottle over ten years ago, but despite "going into the subject of Diamine ink," as you put it, he oddly makes no mention of the test actually being carried out.

Let me remind you that I never suggested any such test should be conducted--being quite satisfied that the AFI results, coupled with other evidence, prove that the diary is a modern fake--Smith did.

I was justly idly wondering whether he stuck to his plan--and I am missing it--or if there is some other reason why the test was either not carried out as announced, or the results were for some reason not published. I read an article written by Lord Orsam and it piqued my curiosity.

It's no big deal, perhaps. If I was Smith, I think I would want to clarify the point, but maybe that's just me. I'll save the postage stamp for the time being, in hopes he will eventually respond to these message boards. I'm confident there is an entirely rational explanation.

With the warmest wishes for this holiday season,

RP

[caz]

In the end, what was the overall risk for the faker? If the diary fell at the first hurdle, Mike would be out what? 50 pounds? and a slightly hurt reputation- since not many people would even know he’d tried.

Also, the faker could expect to bring the diary to people who’d benefit from going along with it without questioning it and who had no professional obligation to ascertain its authenticity.

I'm not sure where you think Mike Barrett would have gained the impression that he could get an outfit like Pan Books - or another publisher via a literary agent - to go along with his own shabby hoax, without them even bothering to question, before parting with a substantial advance, if they were being hoodwinked by an opportunist fraudster. In the Saddle perhaps, over a pint?

Equally, you must have a strange view of the publishing world, and an even stranger one of Robert Smith, if you imagine he would have parted with a brass farthing in advance, on the grounds that he felt 'no professional obligation' to question whether or not Mike was trying to sell him a pup. What about Robert's personal obligations to himself, not to be permanently out of pocket, to the tune of several thousand pounds, if early tests could prove the diary to be a very recent fake, making it worthless as a future publishing proposition?

Have you really thought this one out?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

or he was in RJ's 'mental fog' when he made it

Let me just warn the few readers of this thread that 'mental fog' is simply Caz's mischaracterization, and despite her use of quotation marks, that's her phrase and not mine; that is not what I wrote, nor suggested.

Keith Skinner made a comment alluding to the alleged inaccuracies of Barrett's affidavit and I merely responded that 'alcoholism' is an ample and perfectly rational explanation for why Mike Barrett made a mistake of a wrong date--and wrong dates are given by people who aren't alcoholics, for example, when at the Cloak & Dagger meeting in 1999, we see an entirely sober interviewer imply that Barrett obtained the red diary in May 1992, when he actually obtained it in March 1992---before anyone had laid eyes on the Maybrick Hoax.

I am by no means suggesting that the interviewer was being deliberately deceptive or was in a similar "mental fog"; I am of the opinion that Anne Graham previously and deliberately left a false impression with the interviewer (Keith Skinner), and this is a smoking gun, of sorts, which is why Anne's 'statement' that she 'sent' Keith would be of interest. Since Anne held the Goldie Street purse strings are we to believe that she was not aware that Barrett was down as a late payer and that Martin Earl sent a chasing letter? Personally, I don't believe it. I believe Graham obtained a copy of Mike's sworn affidavit very early in 1995 (as alluded to in a scolding letter from Mike's solicitor) and thus she had several months to come up with an explanation before she was subsequently quizzed by Keith. She then successfully undermined Barrett's affidavit by leaving a false impression that the attempt to buy the raw material for the hoax took place AFTER the Maybrick Diary was in London, when in fact it was before, and that this false impression lasted for many years and was even repeated in a letter to the Ripperologist.

My point is not to embarrass the early diary researchers--it is to explore the truth of this hoax. If this was indeed a deception by Anne Graham--and I am convinced that it was--it goes a long way to explain what was happening in 1994-1999. Let me anticipate the response. We will be told, once again, that Anne muttered something about the red diary being 'pre-Doreen.' This is what is known as an 'escape plan' by someone who is lying. Anne must have known, having several months to think about it, that there was a chance that Keith would find out when Mike's order for raw materials had been placed with Martin Earl, and further discover when Earl sent the raw materials to Goldie Street, so Anne couldn't afford to lie outright. It would paint herself into a corner, and she was too subtle for that. Instead, she simply had to leave the impression that she was genuinely confused about the chronology, while at the same time leaving the obvious impression that the raw materials had been purchased in May--that is, after the diary was in London--and thus Mike's purchase was irrelevant, and thus Keith could ignore the affidavit, if that is indeed what he did. She also left the impression that the attempt to buy the raw materials was for comparison reasons, whereas Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder makes poppycock of that claim. Anne's false impression was repeated in print, and probably still confuses observers to this very day.

No, I do not consider that Barrett was in a "mental fog."

Although it will be painful to some, I consider David Barrat's article "The Man in a Pub," available at the Orsam Books website, to be absolutely required reading for anyone interested in Barrett's confession. Rather than showing Barrett in a "mental fog," it shows that his account of hoaxing the diary has remained consistent over many years, and, indeed, one section is sub-titled “The Coherence of Mike’s Confession.” If I was allowed, I'd download the bloody thing to this thread, but I believe that is not allowed. My understand is that Orsam cannot be quoted on this website, which makes this whole discussion rather moot, since he is now clearly the leading and most credible expert on the Maybrick Hoax of 1991-2. Those interested will have to visit https://www.orsam.co.uk/amaninapub.htm


In case Keith is reading along, let me just point out that Barrett did not always date the most significant events in the affidavit (the purchase of the red diary and the subsequent trip to the auction house) to 1990/1991, and we now know that this was just an innocent mistake from a man going through a particularly savage rough patch, as proved by Martin Earl's paper trail. At the Cloak & Dagger meeting in 1999, a somewhat flaky individual named David Russell tried to trip up Mike, but Barrett dated these events to 1992.

Russell: Can I confirm something about the pens and nibs. Did you say in 1990 that you bought the pens and nibs?

MB: No, I didn’t say 1990. 1992.

Note that Keith: no mental fog by Barrett: 1992, not 1990.

What followed is quite amusing. At this point, Russell tries to catch Barrett in a trap, but his efforts fail utterly. It appears that Barrett, despite being three-sheets-to-the-wind, was in less of a mental fog than his inquisitor, Russell, who left the false impression that he had closed down the shop in Liverpool in 1988 but had to eventually admit he had never been to the shop in question. If he had been, he would have been aware of what subsequent research by Shirley Harrison revealed: that art the shop sign from 1988 was still in place as late as 1997, thus Barrett had Russell BANG TO RIGHTS.

It also left me wondering if David Russell was a "Ripperologist" who just happened to have worked for the same outfit that Barrett had identified--which seems like a remarkable coincidence--or if he was someone specifically brought to the meeting in a failed effort to discredit Barrett. Russell later had to write a rather embarrassing explanation to the Ripperologist, which may mean the former, or may mean he was encourage by a third party whose name we still do not know.

Warmest holiday greetings,

RP

[rjpalmer]

My apologies for the typo near the end of the above screed: to be clear, the 'Medici' art shop sign in Bond Street, Liverpool, was still in place in 1992 (and afterwards) which would suggest that Barrett's account was entirely plausible. It was Russell who was ill-informed.

One final point.

As for Feldman's false claim that Anne never received a farthing off the Diary, and Caz's claim that Anne steadily refused royalty payments from Doreen Montgomery for about a year-and-a-half, let me point out to the readers of this thread that these are half-truths at best. The reality is more complex...and suggestive.

Peter Birchwood posted evidence on this website as early as 2001 that when Anne was still married to Barrett, she received several large royalty payments which she duly cashed. We have no way of knowing how that money was split up, or if it was indeed split up. There is also a letter from Doreen, mentioned in passing in Ripper Diary, and alluded to in one of Barrat's articles, showing that Barrett had requested that payments be made to Anne Graham after she left him, and Doreen acknowledges that these payments were, in fact, made. This doesn't show that AG wasn't refusing royalty payments, but it does show that she had been given some money from the Crew agency by a rather strange and circuitous route.

I think the relevant point is that Anne was accepting royalty payments when she was still married to Barrett, but the moment they split up and Mike started to confess to the hoax, she suddenly stopped taking these payments. Caz suggests Anne had nothing to fear from Mike's confession. I suggest this shows that she was very much afraid. Indeed, she told Harold Brough that it was a "nightmare."

Further, the above puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. To me, it suggests Graham might have refused the payments out of fear of legal jeopardy, based on the knowledge that Barrett was threatening to come clean, and may even have refused the payments on the advice of a solicitor, though this is merely my suspicion and I have no specific knowledge of the matter, nor am I claiming that it was necessarily the case. I am just wondering about the strange timing of her sudden refusals to accept payment, which seem to dovetail with Barrett's threats of exposure.

Meanwhile, considering that the current diary poll shows that the Diary Friendly have failed to move the needle so much as a single millimeter in the past 25+ years, and the informed readers of this forum still overwhelmingly dismiss that the diary as a modern fake--results that are not so much 'Brexit' as they are Waterloo seen from the perspective of the French-- I would pose the question as to whether the prosecution (ie., the diary critics) should not simply now rest their case?

The toothpaste is clearly not ever going to find its way back inside the tube, and when I read the result of the poll yesterday, what I felt most was pity. Pity that people have been sent on a 25+ year wild goose chase by the deceptions of a person living in Liverpool. What a waste.