The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm really not sure what you mean by questioning my claim that 'one-off' was a term used in the LVP, Herlock? Bizarrely (and it really is bizarre) you then immediately answer your own question in the very next sentence! It is the same as claiming, "There are no blue balls other than that blue ball over there."

I said, "I don't think there is much debate about the use of 'one-off' in the LVP". Seemed pretty clear-cut when I typed it. Anyone else struggling with it, I wonder? Anyway, Lord Orsam wasn't struggling with it. In his 'One Off Article', he cited those cases he had found where the author had used the term 'one-off' or 'one off':



So why did you say "I'm really not sure what you mean by "the use of "one off" in the LVP"? Which bit of that did you not understand?

I definitely didn't make any other claim. Let's just run the one through again. I said "I don't think there is much debate about the use of 'one-off' in the LVP" and you said you didn't know what I meant by that and then immediately told everyone what it was I meant. There are no blue balls in the world and never have been, other than that one over there, and what have you.

Now, on to your attempt to "help me out".



The journalist in the 1980s who claimed 'one off' was a contemporary expression - did he say 'one off instance' (or any 'one off' event) was contemporary? The way you have typed it, you make it sound as though he or she was claiming 'one off' - an expression found by Lord Orsam in 1884 - was contemporary. To truly "help me out", I think you'll need to explain your claim a little further, don't you?

And why would a journalist in the 1980s be any kind of judge and jury over anything? They (some) are wordsmiths not etymologists - why would a journalist have any greater insight than anyone else?

And then we have your 1946 'one off job' example in which the author felt the need to explain that this was an engineering term. Hey, it's a bit like a BBC journalist in December 2024 feeling the need to clarify what 'in absentia' means, isn't it? Now, if we asked our December 2024 BBC journalist, "Did you clarify it because you thought absolutely no-one - other than you obviously - could possibly know what it meant or because you thought some people would not know what it meant?", which answer do you think you'd get?



Lord Orsam has his 'one off instance' argument and that is problematic but not conclusive. He has his 'Bunny's Aunt' argument and - frankly - I haven't stopped laughing at it yet. Then he has Mike Barrett's attempt to buy a Victorian diary in March 1992 which he uses to 'prove' that the scrapbook did not exist in its current form before March 31, 1992, and that Mike must have created it in 11 of the 12 days between then and April 13, 1992 when Mike took the scrapbook to London. And that's all he's got in his stable, Herlock. Everything else is bluff and bluster and twisting and turning and re-shaping of claims, comments, and even facts until they fit his narrative. What exactly is there to rebut other than 'one off instance' and the Victorian diary request? I've got all of his articles in my database of 800 folders and I've yet to see anything he has produced which required any serious rebutting other than those two things.

When you bought into the Lord Orsam 'legend', you really went in deep, didn't you?

I do so hope that has helped you out, Herlock.

Ike

The reason I said I wasn't sure what you meant was because I wasn't sure if you understood that in the LVP "one off" meant something very different to what it does today and very different to how it's used in the diary. In fact, I'm still not quite sure you understand this. To refer to the use of one-off in the LVP without making clear that it was only really used as a notation to signify a number in manufacturing/engineering gives an extremely misleading impression in the context of this discussion.

One thing Lord Orsam does very impressively, I think, is to demonstrate that between the first known use of the expression "one off job" in 1912 and 1945, the phrase "one off" was only ever used in respect of the manufacturing process to refer to a unique job, pattern or product. There are zero instances of it being used as in the diary to describe an event, occasion or instance (such as hitting ones' wife). You've rather missed the point of the 1946 occurrence. It's not just that the author had to explain it. It's that he didn't refer to the unique Scotsman as a one off. What he said was that the Scotsman was like a "one off job", which he made clear was a term used by engineers. That is the clearest possible demonstration that "one off" was not a stand alone expression in the English language as late as the end of the Second World War but only known with the suffix of "job" which was only really familiar to engineers. This is more than 55 years after Maybrick is supposed to have used it in the diary.

This is entirely corroborated by the Herald journalist Jack Webster who grew up in the 1930s, 40s and 50s and had obviously never heard of people being described one offs until he was at least aged 30, which knocks the idea on the head that it was a term used in conversation which simply hadn't been recorded.

What I find particularly compelling is the way Lord Orsam shows that starting in the late 1950s there is a very clear pattern of slowly increased use of what he refers to as the metaphorical use of the expression "one off". So we find one or two limited examples from the late 1950s, with it growing steadily during the 1960s and what he refers to as an explosion of use during the 1970s. It's really quite stark. What he did was use every searchable database he could find, including those which include texts from both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, to locate the first known examples of all the different metaphorical type "one off" expressions. Not only are there none in the LVP but there are none in the first half of the twentieth century either. One example that particularly struck me was from The Stage, searchable copies of which go back to the nineteenth century. Until the 1960s there is not a single mention of a "one off play" or a "one off drama" but after that time there are loads of examples of it. There cannot be any other explanation for this other than that "one off" was not in use in the English language before the Second World War to describe anything unique outside of a physical item or product or job in the manufacturing world.

I've never seen anyone comment on these findings or provide any other explanation for what strikes me as glaringly obvious. Naturally it's not the only problem. "bumbling buffoon", "top myself" and "spreads mayhem" are all anachronistic expressions which should not be found in an 1888 document. "bumbling buffoon" is almost as impossible as "one off instance" because the word "bumbling" wasn't used this way until Time magazine used it in the 1920s to describe bumbling politicians. Thank you for reminding me of the mistake made by the forger in thinking that Florence had gone to London to see her sick aunt, a mistake made by a barrister in court and reproduced in the secondary literature, but something which Maybrick would have known not to be true. We now know that the key to Miller's court wasn't taken away by the killer because it had gone missing long before Kelly was murdered. The breasts were not placed on the table. These were all mistakes made by the forger, something which probably won't surprise you if the forger was Michael Barrett.

Given all these glaring errors there doesn't seem to be a single reason to think that the diary is or even might be genuine. The use of the impossible "one off instance" is all the proof we need that it's a fake. I'm trying to be helpful to you to stop you wasting your time on something which the evidence demonstrates is obviously a modern creation.

[caz]

Here Ike. Below is the statement by Anne Graham that I find so remarkable but note: its value will be entirely missed unless it is examined in conjunction with other statements she made around the same time.


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].


I already gave my own commentary about it on the 'Old Hoax' thread that you have abandoned.

Could I just ask for some idea of when Anne said the above words and in what context?

If this was following her out-of-the blue claim to have secretly and impulsively given Mike the diary via Tony, when people naturally wanted her to explain why she had done such a thing, and to try and understand her reasoning, I'm really not sure what's going on, because Palmer doesn't believe a word of any of it! The only way she could make this alleged trip down to Fountains Road sound less improbable was to say it was all bound up with the state of their marriage and seemed like a good idea at the time. Warming to that theme, it became a writing project she had in mind for Mike back in 1991, to give him something to do that hadn't originated from her. In the context of having told this big fat lie, concerning a secret she never actually had, which she was supposedly keeping from Mike, she naturally had to keep adding layers, including the one about needing to be "very subtle" in her approach so he wouldn't feel manipulated. But it was all part and parcel of the same tall story she was telling everyone, if the diary didn't come from her father and Mike knew exactly where he'd got it from.

If Anne hoped that Mike would write a nice little story based on the diary Doreen was expecting to see, we know how well that went, don't we? Anne had very little say in the matter, but it wasn't because she was keeping a secret about the diary from Mike; it was because he was keeping a secret from her, and she had sore misgivings about how he had acquired it.

[Iconoclast]

Could I just ask for some idea of when Anne said the above words and in what context?

You are quite right, Caz - this is a quotation from Anne's 'Tea & Cake' January 18, 1995 interview (in truth it was a discussion) so well after she had blabbed all to Feldman back in the day (July 1994).

If Anne hoped that Mike would write a nice little story based on the diary Doreen was expecting to see, we know how well that went, don't we? Anne had very little say in the matter, but it wasn't because she was keeping a secret about the diary from Mike; it was because he was keeping a secret from her, and she had sore misgivings about how he had acquired it.

This bit never fails to cork me, Caz. What on earth did Anne seriously think Mike was going to do with the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer? What would her imaginary book have looked like? Would it be fictional? Would it be fact-based? And did it not occur to her that the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer would generate phenomenal amounts of money if it could be shown to be true (and she could not possibly have known that it wasn't true if she genuinely had used it to prop up Caroline's toy sideboard since receiving it from old Billy when he moved into his new flat)?

I find the premise for why Anne gave Mike the scrapbook - frankly - about as believable as the latter (and indeed the former) having anything whatsoever to do with its creation.

But maybe that's just me?

PS Where ya been, kidda?

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

This bit never fails to cork me, Caz. What on earth did Anne seriously think Mike was going to do with the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer? What would her imaginary book have looked like? Would it be fictional? Would it be fact-based? And did it not occur to her that the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer would generate phenomenal amounts of money if it could be shown to be true (and she could not possibly have known that it wasn't true if she genuinely had used it to prop up Caroline's toy sideboard since receiving it from old Billy when he moved into his new flat)?

I find the premise for why Anne gave Mike the scrapbook - frankly - about as believable as the latter (and indeed the former) having anything whatsoever to do with its creation.

Where were you 25 years ago, Ike?

I, Peter Birchwood, Karoline Leech, and others were trying to tell this to Caz, Keith, and Shirley and they wouldn't hear of it.

As you now admit, Anne's story was utterly unbelievable, yet three books were written in defense of it. The best anyone could suggest was that Anne's story made sense on an "emotional level," which is how I remember Keith describing it.

Once Caz even suggested that Anne would have been "absolutely petrified and shaking like a leaf" if what she was saying on the Bob Azurdia Show was not the truth.

My how times have changed.

And yet Caz has the audacity to point out to me that Anne was lying when she was saying all this. I tried to tell her that for years.

Of course, she was lying, but that misses the point. Liars will very often bend actual events into a deceptive approximation of what really happened.

Anne does it again & again, in my opinion. That's how I see it.

[Iconoclast]

.. if she genuinely had used it to prop up Caroline's toy sideboard since receiving it from old Billy when he moved into his new flat)?

Small correction as I didn't intend to convey the wrong impression - Anne said the scrapbook was wedged behind the sideboard and the wall in a recess area (which can be seen in Inside Story, pp88-89) not literally propping up one of the legs of it or whatever (which would have damaged the scrapbook, presumably).

Ike

[caz]

You are quite right, Caz - this is a quotation from Anne's 'Tea & Cake' January 18, 1995 interview (in truth it was a discussion) so well after she had blabbed all to Feldman back in the day (July 1994).



This bit never fails to cork me, Caz. What on earth did Anne seriously think Mike was going to do with the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer? What would her imaginary book have looked like? Would it be fictional? Would it be fact-based? And did it not occur to her that the possible journal of the world's most infamous serial killer would generate phenomenal amounts of money if it could be shown to be true (and she could not possibly have known that it wasn't true if she genuinely had used it to prop up Caroline's toy sideboard since receiving it from old Billy when he moved into his new flat)?

I find the premise for why Anne gave Mike the scrapbook - frankly - about as believable as the latter (and indeed the former) having anything whatsoever to do with its creation.

But maybe that's just me?

PS Where ya been, kidda?

Cheers,

Ike

Hi Ike,

I've been quite poorly with a nasty cough and cold virus, but I think I'm finally kicking it into touch - in good time for Christmas I hope. Chelsea have been doing their best to cheer me up!

If Mike brought the diary home one day in March 1992 and Anne was unhappy about how and where he may have got it, I would suggest that her first thoughts were not how many squillions it might fetch, but how much trouble her husband may have fetched back to their humble abode. And this would apply equally to a book stolen from Maybrick's old abode or one obtained in an auction sale for the purposes of fakery. Let's explore the former scenario:

"You can't possibly go public with this, Michael. Use some common sense. Why not just try to write a story based on it? You wouldn't need to show the actual book to anyone."

"But you know I can't write, girl. You'd have to help me like you did before."

"Well okay, I could give you some ideas, but it has to be your story. Just don't do anything stupid with that book! It's bound to end badly if you do."

One word from Anne and Mike goes and does the opposite. For once, she can't manipulate the situation because it's his baby and what Mike wants is what Mike's gonna get.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Where were you 25 years ago, Ike?

For the record (I appreciate that this was a rhetorical question, RJ), I first became aware of the story back in 1997 when I happened upon the Feldman video on Channel 4 (IIRC) late one evening.

I didn't start visiting Casebook until about a decade later so sadly I missed all of the vitriol from the key players. One of my great regrets in life.

I, Peter Birchwood, Karoline Leech, and others were trying to tell this to Caz, Keith, and Shirley and they wouldn't hear of it.

I obviously wasn't privy to these debates but is it not fair to say that peoples' views can evolve and change over the years as information is revealed?

As you now admit, Anne's story was utterly unbelievable

I think Anne's story is the less likely of the two to be correct but I can't say it is actually impossible or even unbelievable because none of us know for certain how that scrapbook got into Mike Barrett's hands and there is no specific evidence that it is untrue. It feels untrue for a number of reasons, but - having said that - it also feels true given Anne's unwavering commitment to it (and Mike's unwavering commitment to his Tony D provenance when he was in that mood).

yet three books were written in defense of it.

As I wasn't 'there', can you just be explicit about which three books you're referring to, please? Is it one of the Harrison editions plus Feldman plus something else? Maybe Inside Story?

The best anyone could suggest was that Anne's story made sense on an "emotional level," which is how I remember Keith describing it.

I wouldn't say that Keith was wrong though it's hard for me to agree because he was there and the context is therefore very powerful for him. We weren't so we have to surmise from what is said and done 'afterwards'. What I do know is that Anne has written and said enough in support of her provenance story to make me feel she wasn't exactly shying away from it.

Once Caz even suggested that Anne would have been "absolutely petrified and shaking like a leaf" if what she was saying on the Bob Azurdia Show was not the truth.

But that's just Caz's opinion, RJ, and over time that opinion might even change based upon what emerges from the evidence. I don't know Anne's inner psyche so I can't say whether her apparent lack of fear when re-teling her story reflects the fact she knows she's telling the truth or whether her confidence comes from knowing that Mike Barrett could never disprove her provenance. As we don't know how Barrett got that scrapbook, it's impossible for us to know with any certainty what Anne knew before she came out with her In-the-Family story and then repeated it fairly often with apparent certitude.

My how times have changed.

That's what often happens when time passes, but after changes upon changes we are more or less the same [thank you, Paul Simon].

And yet Caz has the audacity to point out to me that Anne was lying when she was saying all this. I tried to tell her that for years. Of course, she was lying, but that misses the point. Liars will very often bend actual events into a deceptive approximation of what really happened.

You're confusing Caz's opinion with hard fact. I think there's a very good chance that Anne was telling a constructive, useful lie to stop her errant husband from making an even bigger pantomime out of the scrapbook, but ultimately neither you nor I nor Caz nor anyone else bar Anne herself knows the truth (unless someone else created - or found - the scrapbook and is still alive to tell the tale).

Anne does it again & again, in my opinion. That's how I see it.

But you have not closed your mind to the possible, presumably, RJ? You retain curiosity to get to the bottom of the truth of the matter, yes? You have not simply taken many aspects of the scrapbook which can be bent to make an argument for inauthenticity and drawn a red line which you now refuse to cross?

My expectation is that we do not simply conclude the story when we find something which is merely problematic but - rather - that we draw the line when we find the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which conclusively refutes the authenticity of James Maybrick's scrapbook.

Ike

[caz]

Where were you 25 years ago, Ike?

I, Peter Birchwood, Karoline Leech, and others were trying to tell this to Caz, Keith, and Shirley and they wouldn't hear of it.

As you now admit, Anne's story was utterly unbelievable, yet three books were written in defense of it. The best anyone could suggest was that Anne's story made sense on an "emotional level," which is how I remember Keith describing it.

Once Caz even suggested that Anne would have been "absolutely petrified and shaking like a leaf" if what she was saying on the Bob Azurdia Show was not the truth.

My how times have changed.

And yet Caz has the audacity to point out to me that Anne was lying when she was saying all this. I tried to tell her that for years.

Er, no. I merely pointed out to Palmer that his own belief that Anne was lying to Feldman in July 1994 means that looking for confirmation of his own theory in anything she said subsequently, in support of the story she told, is a fool's errand. If Palmer believes the entire story of giving the diary to Mike via Tony was a lie, then everything she later claimed, about having to be secretive and subtle for several months, between August 1991 and March 1992, while drip feeding him ideas for a writing project that would avoid going public with the actual diary, can be seen in that light and need have little or no connection with the truth.

Of course, she was lying, but that misses the point. Liars will very often bend actual events into a deceptive approximation of what really happened.

Anne does it again & again, in my opinion. That's how I see it.

I just don't see why Anne would be hinting - by accident or design - at having created the diary herself, for Palmer's or anyone else's benefit. It makes no sense.

If what really happened was that Mike brought the diary home in March 1992, not knowing what the hell he had, it can easily be imagined what went through Anne's mind, and how she tried - and failed - to manage the situation, between then and Mike's trip to London on 13th April. With Mike's provenance story going back to the summer of 1991, the activity of a few weeks had to be expanded - permanently - to fill several months, with every subsequent statement made reflecting this as the reality. Everything works in that context; nothing works with Anne as the diary's creator.

Palmer wouldn't need to look for hints of a confession in Anne's words if Mike had made a credible one in his.

[rjpalmer]

Goodness me, the things you teach me about this case! When did Anne claim to be a member of MI-5?

Anyway, you really mustn't claim that Anne did this or Anne did that simply because you think no-one will notice it isn't actually correct.

You see, Old Bean, this is why our pleasant conversation must come to an end.

You obviously take great joy in implying that I'm peddling misinformation when I come up with the goods time and time again.

By now, you will have seen that Anne did indeed say that 'we' would write a story. A collaborative effort between herself and Barrett. She is couching this admission in a clumsy lie about having had the diary in the family for decades, but that’s what liars do: they bend actual events into a distorted approximation of the truth. The physical diary she describes did not exist. She had not seen it in the 1960s and there was no oral tradition of Formby knowing Yapp. She’s lying. What she is really alluding to is the genesis of the hoax and the resulting typescript (though not necessarily the typescript turned in the Crew). A collaborative effort between herself and Barrett and that's why she had to lead Feldy and his team on a wild Turgoose chase. That she told those lies for the benefit of Mike and Eddie is utter nonsense.

I, of course, immediately accept your apology.

As for her MI-5 claim, I am glad you asked, for it is illustrative of something that I've been meaning to express.

In Shirley's "Blake" edition, the MI-5 lie (as well as a lie involving the IRA) is attributed to our old friend, Michael John Barrett.

Anne, of course, is given a far more accommodating portrayal throughout the book, and throughout Feldman’s book, and—let’s be blunt---in Inside Story.

But let's take a closer look, for something odd was going on.

Here is Anne speaking on pg. 106 of 'Inside Story':

"His [Feldman's] air of mystery and the ridiculous conclusions he had drawn affected my rather macabre sense of humour and at one time I think I convinced him I was working for MI-5!"

I wasn’t there and can only speculate as to the context of Anne’s startling admission of having blown smoke up Feldman’s backside, but it could be one of those moments, described by Martin Fido, where Anne tries to wriggle her way out of an unpleasant situation with peels of girlish laughter and an unconvincing attempt to make it all sound like a joke.

At another time, as you have already mentioned, Anne tried to convince Feldman that she had had a boyfriend in the SAS and who was shot and nearly killed in Ireland, but even Feldman doubted her, and she burst out laughing.

She then claimed it was 'basically true' but couldn't expand on it because she feared for this person's safety at the hands of the I.R.A. Whether you want to believe it is your own choice.

Let me ask you this.

Is it mere coincidence that (according to Shirley) Barrett allegedly spread these stories about MI-5 and the IRA, but Anne had also tried to convince Feldman of something suspiciously similar?

That doesn’t strike me as very plausible.

Or did Harrison accidentally attribute Anne's lies to Barrett, or (perhaps more likely) is Barrett being blamed (but not Anne) for simply going along with fantasies that originated with Feldman? Or did Feldman ask Barrett about this MI-5 and I.R.A. codswallop after he had already heard the same from Anne?

It's hard saying, but I feel justified----based on what is available in the public record---that all those years ago AEG was just as much of a fantasist and dissembler as MJB, yet all the scrutiny was on Mike.

With that in mind, I would encourage you to stop picking the low-hanging fruit. Ignore Barrett and concentrate your efforts on Anne Graham.

She’s the one who gives the game away.

[caz]

Just to hammer the point home...

Anne's new provenance story, told in July 1994, would have been a fatal error on her part had the diary been filled with her own words in her own handwriting.

Mike was still reeling from the separation from his wife and only child and he had just tried to claim sole responsibility for writing the diary.

Anne then effectively cut him out of the story and made it her own.

If anything could have been better designed to get Mike 'spilling the beans' about what really happened back in 1992, I'd love to know what that would have looked like.

Anne only played her joker because she knew that Mike had nothing up his sleeve that could beat it: no clue who might have penned the diary; no proof of where it had come from.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I just don't see why Anne would be hinting - by accident or design - at having created the diary herself, for Palmer's or anyone else's benefit. It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. It's what liars do: they incorporate an approximation of the truth in the tall tales they weave.

But she's not "hinting"--she has slipped up and has forgotten her other lies. Previously she had said that it was Mike who was going to write the story.

And at another point--it is either in Inside Story or in one of Shirley's editions--she was asked pointblank if she had helped Mike hoax the diary. She denies this, claiming that the idea of her collaborating with Mike on anything was ridiculous due to the breakdown of their marriage.

Yet here she obviously contradicts herself and describes a collaborative project.

She was always a poor liar, Caz. Melvin had tried to warn Feldman and Harrison, but would they listen?

The idea that Anne spent years lying to Keith and Carol and Shirley and Feldy to protect Mike and Eddie is nonsense of the highest order. Why can't you see that?

Signed,

Cruel to be kind.

[caz]

Feldman believed, without any help from the Barretts, that their true identities had been changed by the Government to cover up a connection back to Jack the Ripper. If that didn't tempt them to string him along a bit, they weren't human either.

If he'd tried anything like that out on me, I'd have been strongly tempted to have a little fun with the notion myself, before letting him down gently.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The idea that Anne spent years lying to Keith and Carol and Shirley and Feldy to protect Mike and Eddie is nonsense of the highest order. Why can't you see that?

Signed,

Cruel to be kind.

I've seen Palmer refer to this 'idea' a couple of times now, but I can't recall whose idea it is meant to be, nor the reasoning behind it.

I do hope it wasn't my idea, as I've had better.

[caz]

It makes perfect sense. It's what liars do: they incorporate an approximation of the truth in the tall tales they weave.

But she's not "hinting"--she has slipped up and has forgotten her other lies. Previously she had said that it was Mike who was going to write the story.

And at another point--it is either in Inside Story or in one of Shirley's editions--she was asked pointblank if she had helped Mike hoax the diary. She denies this, claiming that the idea of her collaborating with Mike on anything was ridiculous due to the breakdown of their marriage.

Yet here she obviously contradicts herself and describes a collaborative project.

She was always a poor liar, Caz. Melvin had tried to warn Feldman and Harrison, but would they listen?

The idea that Anne spent years lying to Keith and Carol and Shirley and Feldy to protect Mike and Eddie is nonsense of the highest order. Why can't you see that?

Signed,

Cruel to be kind.

Anne could have lied and contradicted herself a thousand times over the wretched diary, but it isn't evidence that she created it. Not even close.

If I can think of other reasons she'd have had for lying about a dodgy diary brought home by her lying husband, then I'm pretty sure Palmer can too.

[rjpalmer]

I've seen Palmer refer to this 'idea' a couple of times now, but I can't recall whose idea it is meant to be, nor the reasoning behind it.

I do hope it wasn't my idea, as I've had better.

It's implicit in your daft theories.

I've asked you to explain Anne's bizarre behavior for coming forward and deceiving Feldy and Keith and Carol and you declined for the obvious reason that you have no credible explanation for her charade---a charade she kept up for years.

According to your theory, the diary is just something Mike brought home from the pub one day in April 1992. Indeed, when Anne was confronted by Harold Brough, Anne went on record reiterating this.

If that was the case, there is no reason that Anne--over a period of many years--wouldn't have told this to Feldman, Keith, Carol, etc. at some point, instead of leading them on an expensive and time-wasting and (ultimately) embarrassing wild goose chase.

She had left Barrett at the beginning of 1994, not long after a book launch that she did not want to attend. From what I read, she had signed the collaboration agreement, but not the publishing contract. She had mitigated any liability by staying behind-the-scenes while Mike pimped the diary, by leaving him, and by refusing all royalty checks after her departure. No Crown Prosecutor in the world would have held her responsible for Barrett's drunken act--provided she was not involved in the diary's creation.

In brief, if the diary was something Mike had simply brought home in April 1992, she would have told Feldman this. She would have gladly hung Mike out to dry and washed her hands of it. She certainly wouldn't have dug herself in even deeper.

Instead, you have somehow convinced yourself that she coached her dying rather to go along with her "in the family" story in order not to have to admit that the husband she was divorcing had brought home stolen goods???

Get real. Make it make sense.