The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.