The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not all the recordings were inaudible back when I listened to the copies I received from Keith Skinner. RJ Palmer had some of the tapes at one time, and I don't recall him being unable to hear anything on them. I'm still very unclear what he did with the copies he managed to obtain, and I don't know who sent them to him, but there would have been little point if everything on them had been totally inaudible.



It's not that I don't care, Herlock, but I can't do anything about it as I don't own any of the recordings and Keith received his copies from two separate sources at different times - before and after publication of our book, published in 2003. Our co-author Seth Linder was naturally only able to make use of the audible conversations he had on tape prior to that. None of us was involved in the sound quality of any of the tapes before they were made available on casebook. I'm not ducking this because I have anything to hide; I'm just not Superwoman, as I'm sure you already knew from reading RJ's classy assessment of my very limited attributes.

As for the 50-50 nonsense spouted by Mike, it was all there again with knobs on down in Baker Street in July 1995, when one minute he got the diary from Devereux; the next he was saying Devereux never knew it existed because he was dead; the next minute he had Anne doing the handwriting; and the next he was asking Feldman to fetch him a suitable ink pen and nibs, so he could demonstrate how he had penned the diary.

I'll leave you to work out how well that went and whether Mike's 50-50 fantasy was not infinitely more likely to translate as 0-0 down here on planet earth.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that I can't listen to the portion of the tapes to which Ike drew my attention nor to the portion to which you drew my attention in order to check for accuracy and content. I'd like to. But no one can tell me where to find these presumably important exchanges. So I have to reluctantly discard them as if they didn't occur.

Regarding the Baker Street exchange in July 1995, is there a tape recording of it that I can listen to?

From searching Casebook, I managed to find a transcript of the meeting which you posted in January 2022 here:

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Dia... Discussion of James Maybrick and the alleged "Diary of Jack the Ripper"

It doesn't quite seem to reflect your summary of it.

Nowhere do I see Barrett "asking Feldman to fetch him a suitable ink pen and nibs, so he could demonstrate how he had penned the diary."

I do see him asking for what he refers to as a "proper nib" with ink but the only reason he gives for asking for this is "Just for the record". Where does he say he was asking for it so that he could demonstrate how he had penned the diary? Might he not have been wanting to demonstrate how Anne penned the diary?

After all, the very next thing that happens is that Feldman asks him how actually wrote it, and whose handwriting it was, to which Barrett immediately replies "Anne's". Unless they were speaking very slowly, it's not "the next minute", it's the very next second!

So it's by no means clear that Mike was ever claiming to have written the diary, or part of it, in the sense of penning the manuscript.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon Lombro2,

It becomes increasingly clear, from everything we have on record, that Mike was confusing, by accident or design - and I'm not sure it matters much which - the writing of the physical diary [by God alone knows who] with the typing up of the diary transcript by the Barretts, in the run up to both documents being taken to London on Monday 13th April 1992. It was what Mike consistently claimed to be most proud of, right up to writing his Will in 2015, and he described the process as 'translating' the handwritten contents of the diary.

That guff in the papers about Mike 'tapping' out the diary text on his word processor over ten days unwittingly reveals the sad truth of the matter. This is not a reference to the story being composed over that brief time, either by Mike or Anne, but a reference to the transcript typed up for Doreen's benefit after she had expressed interest in seeing the diary itself.

My hunch is that when it became clear to Anne that Mike was not going to heed her advice, not to show anyone the actual diary if he didn't know and couldn't explain where he got it from, she suggested a plan B, in which he could post a typed transcript of the contents to Doreen instead, thus avoiding a wasted journey and return train fare to London if she wasn't impressed - not to mention the trouble he could be in if the old book was recently 'liberated' from someone's private collection. It would be a neat compromise, saving the time and effort, and ultimate futility, of anyone without a decent track record for writing fiction, attempting to write a publishable story based on the diary's contents. An accurate transcript would give Doreen the clearest idea of what the diary was all about and it would also buy them time if she still wanted to see the original. But Mike was having none of it, and Anne's attempt to destroy the original didn't work out either, so both documents landed together on Doreen's desk and the rest is his story.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

What is it that you say is making it increasingly clear that Mike was confusing Anne writing the diary manuscript with her typing the transcript?

I didn't pick that up at all when I was listening to the November 1994 tapes of Barrett speaking to Gray.

As I mentioned to Ike a few weeks ago, on November 4th 1994, after confirming to Gray that it was Anne's handwriting, Mike said in answer to Gray's question, "How did she do the handwriting?" that this was easy, "She just wrote very slow on some occasions".

Then, the next day, Mike says to Gray "Anne Barrett wrote the diary, that’s the whole point” and then he helps Gray prepare a statement in which it is said, "My wife Anne wrote the Jack the Ripper diary, the actual manuscript”.


Then the day after that we had the following exchange (as best as I could transcribe it):

GRAY: “Have you got samples of your handwriting that you can give me?”

BARRETT: “Anne wrote it”

GRAY “Most of it”?

BARRETT: “Anne wrote the diary”.

Then in the next tape, this exchange (as best as I could transcribe it):

BARRETT: “Anne actually wrote the manuscript”,

GRAY “Your writing on the manuscript as well”,

BARRETT: “Anne wrote the f*cking diary, the manuscript”,

So I'm not seeing any confusion there at all. Mike was being crystal clear over multiple days that Anne wrote the manuscript.

I also posted an extract from what he said in 1999 when he was insistent that the diary was in Anne's handwriting.

Where are you seeing confusion?

Also, isn't it eleven days that Mike said it took to write the diary, not ten? What are the eleven days over which you saying the transcript was typed? From when to when?

[caz]

If the recordings are inaudible, Lombro, how did Caz manage to hear the conversation that she told me about, and why did she ask me if I'd heard it on the tapes? Are you saying she's lying about it being there?

Not all the recordings were inaudible back when I listened to the copies I received from Keith Skinner. RJ Palmer had some of the tapes at one time, and I don't recall him being unable to hear anything on them. I'm still very unclear what he did with the copies he managed to obtain, and I don't know who sent them to him, but there would have been little point if everything on them had been totally inaudible.

It's Ike, not me, who cares about the supposed 50/50 comment and thinks it's important, which is no doubt why he raised it. I can't say what it means because I haven't heard it. There's obviously a missing tape. Something you don't seem to care about.

It's not that I don't care, Herlock, but I can't do anything about it as I don't own any of the recordings and Keith received his copies from two separate sources at different times - before and after publication of our book, published in 2003. Our co-author Seth Linder was naturally only able to make use of the audible conversations he had on tape prior to that. None of us was involved in the sound quality of any of the tapes before they were made available on casebook. I'm not ducking this because I have anything to hide; I'm just not Superwoman, as I'm sure you already knew from reading RJ's classy assessment of my very limited attributes.

As for the 50-50 nonsense spouted by Mike, it was all there again with knobs on down in Baker Street in July 1995, when one minute he got the diary from Devereux; the next he was saying Devereux never knew it existed because he was dead; the next minute he had Anne doing the handwriting; and the next he was asking Feldman to fetch him a suitable ink pen and nibs, so he could demonstrate how he had penned the diary.

I'll leave you to work out how well that went and whether Mike's 50-50 fantasy was not infinitely more likely to translate as 0-0 down here on planet earth.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The recordings, as posted, are inaudible.

You're the only one who wanted to cherry pick what you think is a singular consistency in Michael's statements. You're the only one who cares.

One side says he said 50-50 they both manually wrote down the diary which we all know is crap. You say he said 50-50 he dictated and she wrote it. Who cares besides you?

When a boss dictates a 63 page letter and the secretary writes it down, it's not a 50-50 effort anyway you look at it. So either way, it's nothing but another example of Bongo's Consistent Nonsense.

Afternoon Lombro2,

It becomes increasingly clear, from everything we have on record, that Mike was confusing, by accident or design - and I'm not sure it matters much which - the writing of the physical diary [by God alone knows who] with the typing up of the diary transcript by the Barretts, in the run up to both documents being taken to London on Monday 13th April 1992. It was what Mike consistently claimed to be most proud of, right up to writing his Will in 2015, and he described the process as 'translating' the handwritten contents of the diary.

That guff in the papers about Mike 'tapping' out the diary text on his word processor over ten days unwittingly reveals the sad truth of the matter. This is not a reference to the story being composed over that brief time, either by Mike or Anne, but a reference to the transcript typed up for Doreen's benefit after she had expressed interest in seeing the diary itself.

My hunch is that when it became clear to Anne that Mike was not going to heed her advice, not to show anyone the actual diary if he didn't know and couldn't explain where he got it from, she suggested a plan B, in which he could post a typed transcript of the contents to Doreen instead, thus avoiding a wasted journey and return train fare to London if she wasn't impressed - not to mention the trouble he could be in if the old book was recently 'liberated' from someone's private collection. It would be a neat compromise, saving the time and effort, and ultimate futility, of anyone without a decent track record for writing fiction, attempting to write a publishable story based on the diary's contents. An accurate transcript would give Doreen the clearest idea of what the diary was all about and it would also buy them time if she still wanted to see the original. But Mike was having none of it, and Anne's attempt to destroy the original didn't work out either, so both documents landed together on Doreen's desk and the rest is his story.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There's nothing quite as convenient as moving the goalposts, is there?

I never suggested there was evidence of Anne being writer of fiction (although, by her own admission she 'tidied up' Mike's freelance efforts in the mid-1980s and we know Barrett did try to write fiction).

What I was challenging was your absurd belief that Anne couldn't write a fictional diary about Jack the Ripper because the subject matter would be 'too close for comfort."

Yet clearly--undeniably---here is Anne admitting her willingness to help Mike write a fictional story based on the idea that Maybrick was Jack. She even claims it was HER idea.

Faced with this, are you still going to cling to this charade?

Of course, the bit about Anne pre-owning the diary of Jack the Ripper is bollocks--we both agree on that. I think she's basically admitting what happened but then disguising it with the false claim that the diary had been around since the 1930s.

The fundamental absurdity of your argument is that you think Anne would help Mike fence stolen goods--even type up bogus research notes and go along with his phony provenance (not to mention afterwards spending years lying to Keith and Shirley and Paul and Carol).

But help hoax a diary, even if she assumed Dorreen would just 'send Mike packing'? Heaven forbid! That's insanity! She was too moral and rational and timid for that.

A child of eight could see the contradiction.

Cheers. I now have the intellect of a child of seven, according to Palmer.

What he avoids addressing is what we know happened with the diary after Doreen [the literary agent] failed to "send Mike packing" on 13th April 1992.

If Anne was 'terrified' [Palmer's word] at the prospect of Mike getting the diary published [Palmer's argument], because it was a fictional story, which she had mostly composed and then handwritten into an album Mike had picked up in a local auction sale, then why the hell did she pay for him to take the offending article back to London in early June 1992 - this time with Caroline - to try and tempt a publisher?

What did Anne think Mike was going to do with the old book, while she was supposedly in the process of filling 63 pages of it with her own handwriting? Did she not have the intellect of a child of six? If she was so terrified of Mike trying to publish the result that she would try and destroy it in his presence, why do it in the first place?

Anne didn't know where Mike got the old book from in March 1992, nor the nature of the transaction, nor who else was involved or in the know. She wasn't there, was she? She had to depend entirely on whatever Mike was willing or able to tell her [good luck with that one!], and nobody would have told him if the old book had come from some dodgy source, regardless of how it had physically passed into his hands, would they? Even if he had got it from an auction sale, sans the handwriting, Anne would have been none the wiser about its previous owner or provenance.

The risk involved to Anne and her immediate family in either scenario can at least be compared and assessed to a degree:

1) Mike brings the diary home one day in March 1992 and she knows nothing, but she does know Mike, and nothing about it smells right. She sensibly advises him not to show it to anyone in those early days, but suggests he could try and write a story around it instead. But Mike has already acted on impulse by inviting Doreen to see the actual diary, and he is determined to go down the publishing route, with or without Anne's blessing. She makes one attempt to destroy the diary before giving up and resigning herself to knowing it will be on Mike's head if it all goes tits up and he can't say she didn't do her best to protect him from himself.

2) Mike arrives home on 31st March 1992 with a photo album he tells Anne he bought at a local auction. Relying on his account, and not knowing if anyone might recognise it again, Anne then proceeds to transfer the diary text into it by hand from the word processor, and then checks over and adapts the original typescript to make it read like a genuine transcript taken from the handwritten version, in time for Mike to take both documents to London 13 days later.

I would humbly suggest that the risk in the first scenario would have diminished significantly between the April and the June, and Anne's resignation reflects an awareness of this. In the second scenario, however, the risk would have increased exponentially as the diary made its onward journey towards publication day.

[Mike J. G.]

If you're reading this, Ike, have a jar on me. Newcastle were the better team by far. Well deserved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The recordings, as posted, are inaudible.

You're the only one who wanted to cherry pick what you think is a singular consistency in Michael's statements. You're the only one who cares.

One side says he said 50-50 they both manually wrote down the diary which we all know is crap. You say he said 50-50 he dictated and she wrote it. Who cares besides you?

When a boss dictates a 63 page letter and the secretary writes it down, it's not a 50-50 effort anyway you look at it. So either way, it's nothing but another example of Bongo's Consistent Nonsense.

If the recordings are inaudible, Lombro, how did Caz manage to hear the conversation that she told me about, and why did she ask me if I'd heard it on the tapes? Are you saying she's lying about it being there?

It's Ike, not me, who cares about the supposed 50/50 comment and thinks it's important, which is no doubt why he raised it. I can't say what it means because I haven't heard it. There's obviously a missing tape. Something you don't seem to care about.

Your comparison of Anne's assumed role to that of a secretary is ridiculous. If she was helping Mike with the forgery, her role as the scribe, skilfully writing out the text in a disguised hand with a fountain pen to make it look vaguely Victorian, was utterly crucial. The forgery simply couldn't have been done without it. There's no comparison with a secretary dictating a letter. Even if she hadn't helped Mike with parts of the text, that alone would have meant she was jointly responsible for the forged diary, so that calling it a 50/50 effort would have made perfect sense.

To be quite frank with you, I don't think you're in any kind of position to criticise Michael Barrett, or anyone else, for talking nonsense.

[Lombro2]

The recordings, as posted, are inaudible.

You're the only one who wanted to cherry pick what you think is a singular consistency in Michael's statements. You're the only one who cares.

One side says he said 50-50 they both manually wrote down the diary which we all know is crap. You say he said 50-50 he dictated and she wrote it. Who cares besides you?

When a boss dictates a 63 page letter and the secretary writes it down, it's not a 50-50 effort anyway you look at it. So either way, it's nothing but another example of Bongo's Consistent Nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then perhaps I just don't have the patience of a saint after all, Herlock. Could we leave it there?



But that's exactly what you are asking me to do, Herlock, because the tapes were provided here for people who had not heard them before, so they would have a better knowledge and understanding of the twisty-turny relationship between Barrett and Gray, and what the former was trying to get the latter to believe, which could change from one day to the next, or even within the space of a ten-minute conversation.

How would you be 'reluctantly forced' to conclude that the hilarious Ryan exchange between Gray and Barrett either doesn't exist or has been inaccurately summarised, if I don't go through all the tapes again myself to tell you precisely where to find it?

You are not 'forced' to listen to them all, to see if you may be barking up the wrong tree, but if you can't be arsed to do so, when the material has been generously handed to you on a plate, you will be choosing to believe I'm either lying or misleading you, which is entirely your prerogative. But I'd then be reluctantly forced to conclude that for you, ignorance is bliss.

Love,

Caz
X

Right, okay, you don't know which tape the exchange in question is on. Why couldn't you have just said this in the first instance?

But it leaves us with a problem. You haven't provided a transcript or any quotes of what was said so does that mean you're relying on your memory? You obviously can't go back and check because you don't know where it is. I've already had one bad experience with the tapes. Ike categorically told me that he'd heard Mike saying that he and Anne had written the diary "fifty/fifty" but, upon checking, it turned out that he'd imagined this. It was impossible for him to have heard it because the tape on which this was said, if it ever existed, is missing and not available. He even admitted his mistake. Memory can play tricks so, with respect to the conversation that you told me about, it surely wasn't unreasonable for me to ask to listen to the tape myself. After all, you started this discussion by asking if I'd heard it. I'm certainly not going to listen to all 15 tapes just to find something which may not even be there. I'm happy to leave it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't actually recall the argument that Mike would have been too drunk to help with creating the diary in 1992. Maybe my own memory is playing tricks, as I'm apparently a frail old bird these days, easily intimidated and prone to hysteria.

Anne had clearly trusted Mike to do all the school runs with young Caroline after they moved to Anfield and before the whole diary thing kicked off with his impulsive call to Doreen on 9th March 1992. I'm not sure how he could have afforded to get sozzled every night during that period anyway.

It's more a case of whether Mike ever had what it took to create the diary, and whether Anne would have collaborated with him on writing it while holding down a full-time job, knowing she'd have been left to do almost all of the work herself - as Shirley found out when the simple research tasks she gave him while preparing her book proved to be beyond his capabilities.

This would have been a far cry from Anne simply leaving Mike to try and write his own funny little yarn based on the diary's contents, if he'd taken her advice in the first place and thought though the consequences of handling and placing something that didn't belong to him, while having to lie about where and when he got it.

Love,

Caz
X

The argument which has been made is that Mike was suffering from Korsakoff Syndrome in March 1992. But, as I've said, the usual cause of this syndrome is alcohol abuse. If he wasn't drinking heavily at the time, like he did later, we can safely conclude that it's unlikely that as suffering from Korsakoff Syndrome in March 1992. He certainly wasn't diagnosed with it and there's no evidence he had it.

[rjpalmer]

She wanted them to write a story around another story which she didn't want published? What kind of drivel is that?? It doesn't even make sense the way Palmer is desperately seeking to make Anne say what he wants her to say.

There's nothing quite as convenient as moving the goalposts, is there?

I never suggested there was evidence of Anne being writer of fiction (although, by her own admission she 'tidied up' Mike's freelance efforts in the mid-1980s and we know Barrett did try to write fiction).

What I was challenging was your absurd belief that Anne couldn't write a fictional diary about Jack the Ripper because the subject matter would be 'too close for comfort."

Yet clearly--undeniably---here is Anne admitting her willingness to help Mike write a fictional story based on the idea that Maybrick was Jack. She even claims it was HER idea.

Faced with this, are you still going to cling to this charade?

Of course, the bit about Anne pre-owning the diary of Jack the Ripper is bollocks--we both agree on that. I think she's basically admitting what happened but then disguising it with the false claim that the diary had been around since the 1930s.

The fundamental absurdity of your argument is that you think Anne would help Mike fence stolen goods--even type up bogus research notes and go along with his phony provenance (not to mention afterwards spending years lying to Keith and Shirley and Paul and Carol).

But help hoax a diary, even if she assumed Dorreen would just 'send Mike packing'? Heaven forbid! That's insanity! She was too moral and rational and timid for that.

A child of eight could see the contradiction.

[caz]

C.A.M. is once again confused.

Her contention was that Anne couldn't have written or assisted in writing the diary (which is a work of fiction unless C.A.B. now believes it is authentic) because writing a fictional diary about Jack the Ripper would supposedly be 'too close for comfort' since she was married to an alcoholic.

This is ridiculous of course, but let's go ahead and compare C.A.M.'s attempt at reading Anne's innermost thoughts with what Anne Graham herself described in January 1995:

AG: You see, I had to be very subtle in my approach in as much that I couldn’t say to him, we don’t get it published, we write a story around it. I just sort of give it to him bit by bit to try and make him understand it’s come from his idea, it was his idea. But I couldn’t do it! I had managed to manipulate him every, years, so many things, I just [inaudible] this one [laughs ruefully]

WE WRITE A STORY.

WE.

And with that, C.A.M.'s attempt at mind reading is delegated to the rubbish bin.

I'm sorry, I must be missing the bit where Palmer provides his evidence for Anne being a writer of fiction before the diary came into Mike's life.

It seems I was right that he was using a circular argument: the diary is a fictional story written by Anne, ergo she is a writer of fiction.

What does Palmer think Anne meant by not getting 'it' published, but writing a story 'around it'? What is 'it' in this context, if not the diary - which Mike nevertheless did get published?

She wanted them to write a story around another story which she didn't want published? What kind of drivel is that?? It doesn't even make sense the way Palmer is desperately seeking to make Anne say what he wants her to say.

[caz]

Caz, I really don’t know why my posts appear to be annoying/irritating you because that’s not my intention.

Then perhaps I just don't have the patience of a saint after all, Herlock. Could we leave it there?

I'm not asking you to do my research or spoon feed me. I'm asking for a reference so that I can check your research. Surely that’s how it works, isn't it Caz? But if you refuse to provide a reference, isn’t it the case that I'd be reluctantly forced to conclude that the exchange between Gray and Barrett that you mentioned either doesn't exist or has been inaccurately summarised?

But that's exactly what you are asking me to do, Herlock, because the tapes were provided here for people who had not heard them before, so they would have a better knowledge and understanding of the twisty-turny relationship between Barrett and Gray, and what the former was trying to get the latter to believe, which could change from one day to the next, or even within the space of a ten-minute conversation.

How would you be 'reluctantly forced' to conclude that the hilarious Ryan exchange between Gray and Barrett either doesn't exist or has been inaccurately summarised, if I don't go through all the tapes again myself to tell you precisely where to find it?

You are not 'forced' to listen to them all, to see if you may be barking up the wrong tree, but if you can't be arsed to do so, when the material has been generously handed to you on a plate, you will be choosing to believe I'm either lying or misleading you, which is entirely your prerogative. But I'd then be reluctantly forced to conclude that for you, ignorance is bliss.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hang on a minute. I must have missed the evidence that Anne was a fictional writer. I do hope Palmer isn't using the diary as his only example, because that would be as circular as one of his tours round the moon. He don't 'alf get carried away by his flights of fancy.

C.A.M. is once again confused.

Her contention was that Anne couldn't have written or assisted in writing the diary (which is a work of fiction unless C.A.B. now believes it is authentic) because writing a fictional diary about Jack the Ripper would supposedly be 'too close for comfort' since she was married to an alcoholic.

This is ridiculous of course, but let's go ahead and compare C.A.M.'s attempt at reading Anne's innermost thoughts with what Anne Graham herself described in January 1995:

AG: You see, I had to be very subtle in my approach in as much that I couldn’t say to him, we don’t get it published, we write a story around it. I just sort of give it to him bit by bit to try and make him understand it’s come from his idea, it was his idea. But I couldn’t do it! I had managed to manipulate him every, years, so many things, I just [inaudible] this one [laughs ruefully]

WE WRITE A STORY.

WE.

And with that, C.A.M.'s attempt at mind reading is delegated to the rubbish bin.

[caz]

Hi Roger,

A friend of mine does have the Blake edition and he has just emailed me back to tell me that on page 286, after she quotes Barrett's solicitor as saying in June 1994 that his client was receiving treatment in the Windsor Clinic, Harrison says: "The drinking had led to a condition known as 'confabulation' where the individual fills in memory gaps with fictitious stories that appear completely real to them". She doesn't mention Korsakoff's syndrome but I note that the Alzheimer's Association says that, "Korsakoff syndrome is a chronic memory disorder caused by severe deficiency of thiamine (vitamin B-1). Korsakoff syndrome is most commonly caused by alcohol misuse, but certain other conditions also can cause the syndrome."

This all seems to confirm what I thought which is that to the extent there was an actual diagnosis by a doctor, which seems to me to be uncertain in the absence of seeing the letter that Shirley Harrison claims to possess, it was following many months of excessive alcohol intake by Mike Barrett and that there is no warrant to suggest that he was similarly affected in March 1992. It cannot, therefore, be put forward as a reason why Mike would have been incapable, with the assistance of his wife, of forging the diary.

I don't actually recall the argument that Mike would have been too drunk to help with creating the diary in 1992. Maybe my own memory is playing tricks, as I'm apparently a frail old bird these days, easily intimidated and prone to hysteria.

Anne had clearly trusted Mike to do all the school runs with young Caroline after they moved to Anfield and before the whole diary thing kicked off with his impulsive call to Doreen on 9th March 1992. I'm not sure how he could have afforded to get sozzled every night during that period anyway.

It's more a case of whether Mike ever had what it took to create the diary, and whether Anne would have collaborated with him on writing it while holding down a full-time job, knowing she'd have been left to do almost all of the work herself - as Shirley found out when the simple research tasks she gave him while preparing her book proved to be beyond his capabilities.

This would have been a far cry from Anne simply leaving Mike to try and write his own funny little yarn based on the diary's contents, if he'd taken her advice in the first place and thought though the consequences of handling and placing something that didn't belong to him, while having to lie about where and when he got it.

Love,

Caz
X