Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
If I have declined to explain Anne's behaviour - because only Anne knows why she did what she did - how is Palmer able to read my mind and come up with how I would have explained it?

He's totally wrong, of course, because Anne didn't need to say - or admit - anything at all, did she? It wasn't a case of having to choose between claiming the diary had been in her family along with the financial reward promised by Feldman or having to admit that it had probably been stolen. Where does Palmer get such ideas from? If he sees only a binary choice for Anne between lying to Feldman or confessing to a hoax, that's his problem. Why can't he see that lying to Feldman would have done Anne no earthly good if Mike could simply have proved she had hoaxed the diary and not inherited it?
If Palmer thinks he can see inside Anne's head, good for him, but judging by his efforts to rummage around inside mine, I'm not optimistic that it'll do him a bit of good.
Leave a comment: