One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

To Roger Palmer from Keith Skinner:

I intend asking permission to return to these boards. The reason I left before was because my mother died. In the meantime I want you to know this. For the last 20 years I have shared with Caroline every scrap of information I have come across. Our thinking is the same. Where we differ is that Caroline speculates as to the author of the diary and I cannot get that far. We both however are 99% certain that the creation of the diary had nothing to do with Mike Barrett or Anne Graham. The remaining 1% is because we keep an open mind and acknowledge we may be wrong. But nothing you or David Orsam has written has given me pause to reassess my position, because I am constantly doing this anyway as new information continues to emerge and has been gathered since the publication of Ripper Diary: The Inside Story in 2003. You claim to be merely investigating Barrett's affidavit to determine whether it is a believable document and you conclude it is plausible and parts of it are even confirmable. Where it is factually incorrect and implausible, you state that is because of Barrett's alcoholism. I believe I'm correct in saying that you have no interest in the relationship between Mike and Anne nor the circumstances which led up to that second affidavit of January 5th 1995. Thus the possibility that Mike's motive for swearing that affidavit might have something to do with the acrimonious situation between him and Anne - and therefore he may be deliberately lying - understandably forms no part of your thinking.

Concerning Eddie Lyons - in spite of his denials, Caroline and I are both comfortable - more than comfortable - in our strong suspicion against him. Incidentally, Lyons also twice denied meeting Robert Smith with Mike Barrett in The Saddle on the night of June 26th 1993 - in spite of Robert's published account of what occurred at that meeting.

Keith adds (in a separate email):

The date of the all day recorded session with Mike Barrett was on July 20th 1995 - seven months after Mike's affidavit of January 5th 1995 which, incidentally, Mike did not mention once. The only affidavit he brought with him was the first one he made in April 1993.

My interview at the C&D was with Mike in April 1999 by which time I knew of the January 5th 1995 affidavit.

I'm curious where Roger may have got the idea that Mike went to a police station in November 1994 and claimed that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's - if that is what Roger is suggesting?

Keith adds further (in a separate email):

Feel free to tell Roger that he could not be more wrong about the reason the New Line Cinema deal fell through - unless William Friedkin gave Roger a different story to the one he gave me.

[rjpalmer]

Keith adds (in a separate email):

The date of the all day recorded session with Mike Barrett was on July 20th 1995 - seven months after Mike's affidavit of January 5th 1995 which, incidentally, Mike did not mention once. The only affidavit he brought with him was the first one he made in April 1993.

Thanks, Ike, but at the risk of being blunt, Keith is just rather mechanically repeating facts that we have already established and for which there is no disagreement. We know the date of the meeting and we know that Barrett didn't produce his affidavit at that meeting and we know that Keith wasn't aware of the affidavit until 1997.

Did Keith also acknowledge in his email that Barrett didn't need to be 'reminded' at this meeting that he had previously accused his wife of writing the diary?

Either way, I think that's enough. I am going to move forward under the assumption that Caz left a false impression, perhaps inadvertently, and that Barrett consistently reported that his wife 'wrote' the diary over a period of many years and never needed to be 'reminded' of this claim.

All the best,

RP

[rjpalmer]

I believe I'm correct in saying that you have no interest in the relationship between Mike and Anne nor the circumstances which led up to that second affidavit of January 5th 1995. Thus the possibility that Mike's motive for swearing that affidavit might have something to do with the acrimonious situation between him and Anne - and therefore he may be deliberately lying - understandably forms no part of your thinking.

Hi Keith--

First off, Happy Holidays.

Second, you would be wrong, Keith.

I do have an abiding interest in the 'why.' My point is that the truth of Mike's affidavit is an independent question and that you and I arguing and speculating about what motivated Mike would tell us nothing about the affidavit's veracity.

I would remind you that blackmail and 'leverage'--if I am correct in my assumption about the 'whys' of Mike's affidavit--is generally ineffective if what the blackmailer is saying is false. I would also ask you why a person would write a false confession and then not broadcast it. Wouldn't that be entirely strange and counterproductive if his aim was to derail someone or something?

I am confident you are familiar with the salient facts of the Lambeth Poisonings case, and that the victims of Cream's intended extortion invariably and immediately contacted the police, obviously having no fear of exposure due to the simple fact that they knew Cream's accusations were poppycock.

It does not bother you in the least that Anne Graham never similarly alerted you--nor the police-- to this supposedly false threat coming from Barrett in January 1995? Why is that?

It is clear from the scolding letter from Mike's solicitor that Anne Graham had received the affidavit in early January 1995, and it is also clear that she alluded to blackmail in a letter penned to Barrett around this same time. Despite Caz Brown's attempt to dismiss Barrett's blackmail attempt as ludicrous, her own feelings are utterly irrelevant, and she obviously misses the point. Thomas Neill Cream's extortion attempts were similarly ludicrous but that didn't prevent him from making them! It is Anne Graham herself that refers to blackmail--not Caz Brown.

If Mike's affidavit was poppycock, why didn't Graham alert you or alert the police, but instead seems to have remained strangely silent about the matter, all the while attempting to undermine the affidavit by leaving false impressions? What is the source of your mistaken belief that Barrett had sought a blank diary in May rather than March 1995? I imagine you don't care to answer, Keith, nor need you answer. It is merely something you may wish to contemplate in the 1% of you mind that still ponders whether Barrett's confession might be true.

Meanwhile, rather than continue to argue about what I mean by Barrett's "mental fog," perhaps we can reach some clarity and progress if you would simply state what provable falsehoods are in Mike's affidavit?

Beyond the dates, I mean.

It is unclear if you are aware of this, but in the rough notes leading up to the affidavit, Barrett evidently dated his attempts to buy the raw material of his hoax to 1991, and this was later 'corrected' (by Gray?) to 1990. David Barrat posted something along these lines. Further, as we have previously established, Mike dated these events to 1992 at the Cloak & Dagger Meeting in 1999. So no, I don't think Mike being in a muddle over the dates is particularly relevant or helpful to our discussion. Rather, it seems like a rather cheap way of casting doubt on the whole of an otherwise coherent and consistent account of how the Maybrick Hoax came to be.


What facts in Barrett's affidavit do you feel you have disproved? Are you willing to say?

If not, is there any point in discussing the matter, knowing it will only lead to unwelcome stress that we can both live without?

Thanks, Keith.

With all good wishes,

RP

[rjpalmer]

Incidentally, Lyons also twice denied meeting Robert Smith with Mike Barrett in The Saddle on the night of June 26th 1993 - in spite of Robert's published account of what occurred at that meeting.

This will perhaps amuse you Keith, but I think my questions are entirely appropriate in light of the mood of paranoia that Paul Feldman injected into his research of the Maybrick Hoax.

Do you happen to know if Robert Smith asked this man that he met in a pub on June 26th, 1993 for photo identification? How does he know the man was Eddie Lyons beyond taking the man's word for it? For the record, how does he know Barrett wasn't taking the easy way out, and was simply scamming him with a stand-in?

I mean, after all, Eddie Lyons is denying it, isn't he? Why should I immediate assume Lyons is lying?

Further, at any time during the intervening twenty-eight years, did Smith again meet Eddie Lyons to confirm whether he was the man from the pub? I suppose only Robert can answer this question, but perhaps you should pose it to him.

And who knows? Can Smith even hope to identify a man he briefly met in a pub 28 years ago?

And perhaps these events meant so little to Eddie Lyons--having never found the Diary of Jack the Ripper under someone's floorboards--that he doesn't even remember the night in question?

You seem prepared to read more meaning into this denial than I would.

Have a good day.

[rjpalmer]

that Barrett consistently reported that his wife 'wrote' the diary over a period of many years and never needed to be 'reminded' of this claim.

Apologies, this was ambiguously written, but you know what I mean. Barrett consistently reported--over a period of many years--that Anne 'wrote' the diary.

[Iconoclast]

This will perhaps amuse you Keith, but I think my questions are entirely appropriate in light of the mood of paranoia that Paul Feldman injected into his research of the Maybrick Hoax.

Do you happen to know if Robert Smith asked this man that he met in a pub on June 26th, 1993 for photo identification? How does he know the man was Eddie Lyons beyond taking the man's word for it? For the record, how does he know Barrett wasn't taking the easy way out, and was simply scamming him with a stand-in?

I mean, after all, Eddie Lyons is denying it, isn't he? Why should I immediate assume Lyons is lying?

Further, at any time during the intervening twenty-eight years, did Smith again meet Eddie Lyons to confirm whether he was the man from the pub? I suppose only Robert can answer this question, but perhaps you should pose it to him.

And who knows? Can Smith even hope to identify a man he briefly met in a pub 28 years ago?

And perhaps these events meant so little to Eddie Lyons--having never found the Diary of Jack the Ripper under someone's floorboards--that he doesn't even remember the night in question?

You seem prepared to read more meaning into this denial than I would.

Have a good day.

From Keith Skinner (Keith's emphasis in bold in the above quotation):

I suggest Roger ask Robert Smith these questions himself. They have, of course, already been asked but he will need corroboration. Plus - I did not assume anything of Roger Palmer. He is quite capable of doing that for himself as well as telling me that I am meant to be reading something into Eddie Lyons denial. I am offering information which Roger may not know or have forgotten or has chosen to ignore.

I want to see if I am understanding Roger correctly. His suggestion is that Mike asked another person to pose as Eddie Lyons and then to meet with Mike and Robert in The Saddle which was a pub frequented by Eddie Lyons and only two minutes away from where he lived. Presumably part of Mike's scam would have involved using somebody not known in The Saddle to avoid the possibility of a local coming up to Mike's imposter and greeting him by his real name? Quite what would have happened if the real Eddie Lyons walked in I don't know, but I guess Mike was confident enough that Eddie would not have gone over to join him, Robert and the person who was impersonating him?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Keith--

First off, Happy Holidays.

Second, you would be wrong, Keith.

I do have an abiding interest in the 'why.' My point is that the truth of Mike's affidavit is an independent question and that you and I arguing and speculating about what motivated Mike would tell us nothing about the affidavit's veracity.

I would remind you that blackmail and 'leverage'--if I am correct in my assumption about the 'whys' of Mike's affidavit--is generally ineffective if what the blackmailer is saying is false. I would also ask you why a person would write a false confession and then not broadcast it. Wouldn't that be entirely strange and counterproductive if his aim was to derail someone or something?

I am confident you are familiar with the salient facts of the Lambeth Poisonings case, and that the victims of Cream's intended extortion invariably and immediately contacted the police, obviously having no fear of exposure due to the simple fact that they knew Cream's accusations were poppycock.

It does not bother you in the least that Anne Graham never similarly alerted you--nor the police-- to this supposedly false threat coming from Barrett in January 1995? Why is that?

It is clear from the scolding letter from Mike's solicitor that Anne Graham had received the affidavit in early January 1995, and it is also clear that she alluded to blackmail in a letter penned to Barrett around this same time. Despite Caz Brown's attempt to dismiss Barrett's blackmail attempt as ludicrous, her own feelings are utterly irrelevant, and she obviously misses the point. Thomas Neill Cream's extortion attempts were similarly ludicrous but that didn't prevent him from making them! It is Anne Graham herself that refers to blackmail--not Caz Brown.

If Mike's affidavit was poppycock, why didn't Graham alert you or alert the police, but instead seems to have remained strangely silent about the matter, all the while attempting to undermine the affidavit by leaving false impressions? What is the source of your mistaken belief that Barrett had sought a blank diary in May rather than March 1995? I imagine you don't care to answer, Keith, nor need you answer. It is merely something you may wish to contemplate in the 1% of you mind that still ponders whether Barrett's confession might be true.

Meanwhile, rather than continue to argue about what I mean by Barrett's "mental fog," perhaps we can reach some clarity and progress if you would simply state what provable falsehoods are in Mike's affidavit?

Beyond the dates, I mean.

It is unclear if you are aware of this, but in the rough notes leading up to the affidavit, Barrett evidently dated his attempts to buy the raw material of his hoax to 1991, and this was later 'corrected' (by Gray?) to 1990. David Barrat posted something along these lines. Further, as we have previously established, Mike dated these events to 1992 at the Cloak & Dagger Meeting in 1999. So no, I don't think Mike being in a muddle over the dates is particularly relevant or helpful to our discussion. Rather, it seems like a rather cheap way of casting doubt on the whole of an otherwise coherent and consistent account of how the Maybrick Hoax came to be.

What facts in Barrett's affidavit do you feel you have disproved? Are you willing to say?

If not, is there any point in discussing the matter, knowing it will only lead to unwelcome stress that we can both live without?

Thanks, Keith.

With all good wishes,

RP

From Keith Skinner:

You ask the source for my mistaken belief that Mike had sought a blank diary in May rather than March 1995. It would help if you get your facts right as well as the year. Take a look at the article I wrote on 27th April 1999 which was printed in Ripperologist June 1999. Then once you have closely examined that to see where else you can undermine me, remind yourself of the date I learned that Mike had been sent the diary on March 26th 1992. To help you, take a look at the very detailed email I sent to to you on July 30th 2004 giving you a breakdown of my research to date since June 3rd 1999.

[Iconoclast]

That seems a very idealistic view of how things ought to work, would you not agree? I mean, we know the handwriting does not match yet the diary did not actually "fall". It still got published and generated income and status for people, some of whom continue to participate in propagating the charade to this day.

That is not the only inference to draw: the fact that no effort was made to imitate Maybrick's handwriting suggests that the faker did not expect a handwriting comparison to be conclusive or even important for the scam to pay off. And in fact that is exactly what has happened, is it not? The handwriting does not match, but we still have people unwilling to accept that it is a modern fake, or even that it is a fake.

As mentioned there's at least a third choice: the faker did not think the handwriting comparison would mean much. And I'm unsure how you can say that Mike not attempting to fake Maybrick's handwriting would indicate that Ann did not attempt it? Keeping in mind, of course, that Mike consistently claimed that it's her handwriting and indeed there are many similarities between her handwriting and the handwriting found in the diary.

But given that there's no particular reason why Mike and Anne could not have penned it, and given that nobody can detect anyone else who could have done so without resorting to exceptionally silly arguments with no factual basis, why should this theoretical line of reasoning be explored or given any creedence?

From Keith Skinner (to Kattrup and Roger Palmer) - by the way, I thought it was in reply to #7947 which the above is when you quote it but I can't see the line that Keith highlighted in his email to me so I hope that ends up being immaterial. Mrs I is waiting for me to help her wrap Christmas presents so I'm going to have to leave you to work it out for yourselves.

So - to address both Kattrup and Roger Palmer...by July 20th 1995, I was aware that Mike was claiming the handwriting in the diary was Anne's because I asked her for a specimen in January 1995 - which surprised Shirley and Sally who were with me. I had not seen Mike's affidavit - nor had any contact with Alan Gray or heard the tapes. But I knew Mike had been phoning Feldman and Feldman had been phoning Mike (and seen him in Liverpool) since July 1994 - so it is more than likely Feldman told me that Mike had claimed the handwriting in the diary was Anne's. Indeed I cannot think of any other reason why I would have asked Anne in January 1995. When Mike came to London on July 20th 1995, I still had not seen Mike's affidavit and - as in January 1995 - was not aware of its existence. Mike asked for pen
and paper to prove the handwriting in the diary was his. At which point Feldman reminded Mike his story was that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's. This is explained on page 202 of Inside Story which I suggest Kattrup read for himself to check for the accuracy of Roger's representation of what we wrote.

From memory, in April 1999, Mike explained to the C&D audience that the reason Anne's handwriting bore no resemblance to the handwriting in the diary was because Anne had a multi personality disorder. In spite of Roger appearing to want to undermine Caroline's understanding of events, I can assure him that Caroline's grasp of the chronology of this investigation since 1992 far outstrips his own and that of David Orsam.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for the quick response, Keith. I must soon be heading out for a few days, so I'll be brief.

No, that's not my suggestion; for all I know Robert Smith really did meet Eddie Lyons in 1993. I just wondered if you have considered the possibility that it wasn't Eddie, since I find it rather strange that Eddie would deny going to the Saddle, unless he simply doesn't remember an insignificant event in his life?

I mean, what would be the point of lying about it? The person who showed up at that meeting denied finding the diary, didn't he? And Eddie denies it now and has done so in four different interviews, hasn't he? So what could Eddie Lyons possibly hope to gain from lying about a meeting where he denied what he is still denying? I don't think most people would find that a bizarre thing to wonder about.

If it wasn't a scam by Barrett--and I am merely bouncing around an idea--couldn't there be some other innocent explanation? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that Mr. Smith was the only fish-out-water in a working-class pub in Liverpool on a Saturday night, so I wouldn't necessarily dismiss out of hand that one or two Scousers might be willing to play a trick on a London publisher who thinks he has the Diary of Jack the Ripper. I admit I could be wrong, but Feldman himself seems to have concluded that the whole electrician story was some attempt at a scam, and, though I think Paul Feldman was a poor historian, I think his business instinct were very likely to have been sound.


For all I know, Lyons simply doesn't recall an insignificant meeting that took place 28 years ago and this is indeed the same Eddie Lyons.

All the best.

[rjpalmer]

From memory, in April 1999, Mike explained to the C&D audience that the reason Anne's handwriting bore no resemblance to the handwriting in the diary was because Anne had a multi personality disorder. In spite of Roger appearing to want to undermine Caroline's understanding of events, I can assure him that Caroline's grasp of the chronology of this investigation since 1992 far outstrips his own and that of David Orsam.

For the record, Keith, I have recently re-read David Barrat's article on this subject, and he maintains that you are still misstating and misinterpreting what Mike said at that meeting, re: Anne's handwriting. I can't speak on Barrat's behalf, however, and you'll have to take up the subject with him.

Here's a link to his article if you care to read it, though I warn that you might find it upsetting. He states that you misrepresented Mike's exchange with you in a letter to The Ripperologist dated 27 April 1999, and that, in fact, you never directly asked Mike why Anne's handwriting didn't resemble the writing in the diary, nor did Mike ever directly answer it.

A Man in a Pub - Orsam Books

As I understand it, what Mike really said is that Anna Koren's handwriting analysis showed that whoever wrote the diary may have suffered from multi-personality disorder. That's all Mike said. It appears as if Mike was taunting you with Koren's ridiculous analysis. Mike made no claim about his wife having MPD, beyond the 'evidence' of Feldman's alleged authority, Anna Koren. It was simply the natural implication of Koren's analysis!

If you are implying that Mike's statement was ridiculous, you must also be implying that Feldman's expert was ridiculous.

Anyway, that's a battle for you and Barrat to fight. I'm more interested in finding out the veracity of Mike's claims, which, by the way, are not only contingent on his affidavit of January 5, 1995--not by a long whistle.

Perhaps more later, but I have to run. You seem to be quite upset about mixing up the purchase date of the red diary, but I am not trying to 'undermine' you. As I have said many times, I am trying to discover the source of this error.

Happy Holidays once again,

R P

[rjpalmer]

But nothing you or David Orsam has written has given me pause to reassess my position

One last thing, Keith,

is it possible that you haven't read everything that 'David Orsam' has written?

I ask because you also write, "I'm curious where Roger may have got the idea that Mike went to a police station in November 1994 and claimed that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's - if that is what Roger is suggesting?"

No Keith, not the handwriting in this instance. I acknowledge that Barrett was sometimes ambiguous by what he meant. He stated that Anne wrote the manuscript


The source is one of Orsam's posts:


https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...his-is-factual

He tells the forums:

"5 November 1994 - Mike signs a statement taken by Alan Gray and lodged with Detective Constable Abram at Walton Lane Police Station (complaining about threats supposedly made by Feldman on 3 and 4 November) in which he says: "My wife Anne Barrett wrote the ‘Jack the Ripper Diary’ the actual manuscript. I have stated this for some considerable time’ and he says the Diary is 'a fraud'."

Since Orsam was kind enough to upload this information to this site, will you reciprocate by uploading Mike's affidavit of April 1993, currently under discussion, where he presumably swore that he was given the diary by Tony Devereux? The full contents of this affidavit have never been released, to my knowledge, and the circumstances under which it was written remain uncertain.

More to the point...

Since we are constantly informed by Caroline Brown that Mike Barrett, the published journalist, was at best semi-literate, and I have been scolded for suggesting that Anne Graham was "with" Mike on this occasion (despite that being what Feldman wrote), can you offer any insight as to the author of this affidavit, or are we to believe that Barrett wrote it himself, unaided by anyone?

Thanks.

[Iconoclast]

For the record, Keith, I have recently re-read David Barrat's article on this subject, and he maintains that you are still misstating and misinterpreting what Mike said at that meeting, re: Anne's handwriting. I can't speak on Barrat's behalf, however, and you'll have to take up the subject with him.

Here's a link to his article if you care to read it, though I warn that you might find it upsetting. He states that you misrepresented Mike's exchange with you in a letter to The Ripperologist dated 27 April 1999, and that, in fact, you never directly asked Mike why Anne's handwriting didn't resemble the writing in the diary, nor did Mike ever directly answer it.

A Man in a Pub - Orsam Books

As I understand it, what Mike really said is that Anna Koren's handwriting analysis showed that whoever wrote the diary may have suffered from multi-personality disorder. That's all Mike said. It appears as if Mike was taunting you with Koren's ridiculous analysis. Mike made no claim about his wife having MPD, beyond the 'evidence' of Feldman's alleged authority, Anna Koren. It was simply the natural implication of Koren's analysis!

From Keith Skinner:

Have you listened to the interview for yourself?

Mike had stated in his January 1995 affidavit that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's. Why then would he say in April 1999 - (the occasion he had been invited to be the C&D's guest for the weekend in London so he could finally conclusively prove that he and Anne wrote the diary and produce the auction ticket as evidence) - why would he say that whoever wrote the diary may have suffered from multi-personality disorder?

[rjpalmer]

From Keith Skinner:

Have you listened to the interview for yourself?

why would he say that whoever wrote the diary may have suffered from multi-personality disorder?

Have I listened to it? Of course.

Mike told you the source of this reasoning: Anna Koren.

KS: Let’s go to the wicked witch. She is the person.
MB: Let’s go to the proof, let’s go to the heart of the story.
KS That’s her. Without any redemption. The woman without any redemption, the diary is in her handwriting, is it?
MB: Oh the way - it’s in her handwriting - Anna Koren-
KS Bring her in later.
MB No, I want to bring her in now. Anna Koren... The person who wrote this diary, according to Anna Koren, the world’s [greatest] handwriting expert and what have you, has got a multiple, and I mean multiple, because I’m quoting,-
KS A multiple personality.
MB Thank you.
KS That’s Anne?
MB: That’s Anne.

* * *
[Later--an unidentified member of the audience returns to the subject; I'll call the audience member XY]

XY: Just a small point. You’ve said that your wife actually -
MB: Ex-wife.
XY: Ex-wife, beg your pardon, actually wrote the diary and because she has psychological problems, this came through on the actual writing, this fed through into the writing?
MB: No, I didn’t say that. Anna Koren said that.
XY: Oh I beg your pardon. Well it was said, it was said, it was said by somebody.
MB: It wasn’t said by me.
XY: No.

It seems to be clear enough, Keith. There seems to be a disconnect between you and Barrett.

Mike is denying that this is his opinion--it was Anna Koren's opinion--and you don't actually present any evidence that the diary isn't in Anne Graham's handwriting, only your opinion that the sample she gave you doesn't resemble the diarist's handwriting. Others note that the sample she supplied to you looks different from the samples of Anne's handwriting obtained by David B.

I don't think this exchange has any bearing on the identity of the actual pen person, whomever it may be. It doesn't interest me.

The rest of the argument I will leave between you and David Barrat.

I am late now and must run.

RP

P.S. To very quickly clarify why this exchange doesn't interest me, Keith. I think you were quite right to tell Mike Barrett not to bring Anna Koren into the conversation--he should have discussed the alleged differences in AG's handwriting without resorting to psychology. Unfortunately, he didn't do so, and we have no opportunity to quiz Barrett further on this point. It would have been interesting for Barrett to have given a straight answer. Unfortunately, you also challenged Mike about the 'wicked witch,' and as this was a sore point with Barrett, instead of giving a coherent response, he used the opportunity to use Ann Koren's analysis to publicly ridicule his ex-wife and imply she was crazy. Thus, no good whatsoever came from this exchange, and it is still a bitter and needless controversy, but ultimately it tells us nothing whatsoever about the identity of the penman or penwoman. I think it is a waste of time.

[rjpalmer]

. At which point Feldman reminded Mike his story was that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's. This is explained on page 202 of Inside Story which I suggest Kattrup read for himself to check for the accuracy of Roger's representation of what we wrote.

This should help, Kattrup.

Here's the appropriate section from page 202 of Inside Story. If you can find any indication that Feldman "reminding Mike" of anything, you have better eyesight than I do. Note the first section in bold--I'll come back to it in a moment.


"Initially Barrett announces to Feldman, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, who are also present, that he has come to prove how he forged the Diary. Furthermore, there is an envelope in Richard Bark-Jones's office, which can only be opened on Barrett's instructions, which will prove this. He has bought a bottle of the same Diamine ink he used and now he needs a nib to show how he wrote the Diary. He solemnly swears on a Bible that he and Anne forged the Diary together and that Anne told him she has both Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner 'by the balls'. Paul Feldman then agrees to go and get a nib and blotting paper for Barrett to prove how he wrote the Diary. Barrett says Anne's story is wrong; she wrote the Diary. Why then, Feldman enquires, does Barrett want a pen, if he did not write the Diary. Barrett evades the question, saying he created the Diary on the word processor and Anne wrote it. The demonstration is called off."

Please note that Feldman's account, given in The Final Chapter, page 218, is materially different that the summarization we are given by Keith and Caz.

Feldman writes: Mike came to his office "to prove that he and Anne forged the diary together" and that "I asked him to re-create the handwriting of the diary".

Keith and Caz's summary states that Mike 'has come to prove how he forged the Diary." They say nothing about Anne, and they imply that it was Barrett's suggestion to conduct this bizarre, pointless exercise, whereas Feldman states that he was the one who asked.



Ground zero:

PHF: Which one actually wrote it? Whose handwriting is it - yours or Anne's?

MB: Anne's.

PHF: Oh, it's Anne's writing? Why do you want a fountain pen here?


Despite being told that Mike and Anne had forged the diary together (and, according to Keith's new revelation, despite being told by Mike in a series of phone calls that Anne was the penman) Feldman makes the bizarre suggestion that Barrett show how he wrote it. Mike plays along momentarily, and then Feldman pops the question: Whose handwriting is it? Yours or Anne's?

Mike responds: Anne's.

To me, Feldman's question is a question. Perhaps a confused question. Perhaps a question designed to trick Barrett. If so, it didn't work.

If I understand Keith, Feldman's question was not a question--it was a reminder.

We clearly disagree in how this event should be interpreted, but I think it is time to move on.

If any good has come out of this argument, it is Keith's revelation that Mike continued to state Anne was the penman in a series of unrecorded phone calls to Feldman. Along with Mike's Nov 1993 statement at the police station, and his uncirculated affidavit of 5 January 1995, and Mike's confirmation of this allegation during the above meeting, it shows that Mike held to this version of events for many years, and indeed repeated it many times between 1993-1999.

That's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned, and I don't intend to discuss it further.

[rjpalmer]

Correction of typo in the above: Nov 1994, nor Nov 1993. 1994-1999.