Yes, I think even a small child with a reading age of six could have spotted the differences between Shirley's account and RJ's retelling of it. And I don't just mean the red letters and purple prose.
But I'm the one RJ accused of being 'a terrible revisionist', without a trace of irony or self-awareness. According to RJ, he had 'merely recounted' a story he had been 'led to believe by Shirley Harrison' was true and accurate.
Well I guess there's a first time for anything - like RJ recounting a story he had been led to believe by Paul Feldman [you could not make it up] was true and accurate, that Albert Johnson had told him 'fibs'. No doubt it was Albert's bemused denial that the watch had come down through his family, which convinced Feldy that he was fibbing.
It's just a pity RJ failed to reproduce a true and accurate version of what Shirley actually wrote. He must be busy repairing his glass house after throwing all those stones at everyone else.
The truth is still unclear because--with all thing diary---we are so often given conflicting accounts by the early diary researchers.
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment: