The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.



It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.



No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.



I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.



What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?



Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?

Gray typing up what he believed should be said while Barratt sits there agreeing with him is not dictation. Can we at least agree that much?

I haven't ignored how the November 5 statement was created. You have ignored the fact that there is no equivalent recording for the typing of the affidavit. Why not? It suggests to me that Barrett wasn"t present while it was being typed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's desperately more complicated than Gray typing on Barrett's word processor with Barrett sitting there agreeing to whatever Gray was typing - as happened on the only occasion we have any evidence for this process occurring (November 5, 1994).

It seems to require Gray to be making notes from one or more conversations with Barrett, going away, typing up his best recollections of his terribly disorganised note-taking, getting pretty much everything wrong (apart from some truly irrelevant 'confirmed' stuff), going back to Barrett, presenting him with the printed-out document and getting him to sign it without reading it out to him or letting him read it.

When you say "I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer" I genuinely was wondering if you were laughing as you typed it.

It's possible, I'll give you that much. Like Billy the white horse trotting through our garden at 4am today.

But does anyone actually find your imagination on this point plausible?

Are you quite sure it was typed on Barrett's word processor, Ike? It sounded very much like a manual typewriter on the tape.

I agree with everything you said about how Gray must have prepared the affidavit (which all seems straightforward to me) except for the bit where you say it wasn't read out to him. I already accepted it would have been read to him but he was likely either drunk or not listening properly.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have agreed with most of it. Like I said, he appears to have believed at the time that he brought the diary down to London in April 1990, later correcting that, still wrongly, to April 1991. Once you start from April 1990 as your reference point for the diary being first shown to Doreen, no wonder everything else about the chronology is wrong.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, now you've introduced the concept of dictation.

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.

Perhaps that's the image you have in your head.

It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.

Perhaps because you think that's how it should have been done.

No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.

Or perhaps because that's how Mike said the diary was written.

I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.

I've explained what undoubtedly occurred.

What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?

Whether you accept that or reject it is up to you.

Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?

[Iconoclast]

I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer.

It's desperately more complicated than Gray typing on Barrett's word processor with Barrett sitting there agreeing to whatever Gray was typing - as happened on the only occasion we have any evidence for this process occurring (November 5, 1994).

It seems to require Gray to be making notes from one or more conversations with Barrett, going away, typing up his best recollections of his terribly disorganised note-taking, getting pretty much everything wrong (apart from some truly irrelevant 'confirmed' stuff), going back to Barrett, presenting him with the printed-out document and getting him to sign it without reading it out to him or letting him read it.

When you say "I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer" I genuinely was wondering if you were laughing as you typed it.

It's possible, I'll give you that much. Like Billy the white horse trotting through our garden at 4am today.

But does anyone actually find your imagination on this point plausible?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gray - in this scenario - could not be muddled up. He was just typing-up what Barrett had told him was true. You can't dictate an incorrect letter to your secretary and then accuse him or her of being confused over the details!

Okay, now you've introduced the concept of dictation.

Perhaps that's the image you have in your head. Perhaps because you think that's how it should have been done. Or perhaps because that's how Mike said the diary was written.

I've explained what undoubtedly occurred. Whether you accept that or reject it is up to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Barrett told Gray Devereux died in 1990 and it was Gray who was muddled over dates? He was just typing-up when Barrett had told him, for goodness sake!

He was typing up what Barrett had told him, sure, but not, I'm certain, what Barrett was dictating.

In other words, Gray had to take all the bits of information that Barrett had given him, perhaps at different times, and type the story up into some sort of coherent narrative.

So, in the first place, everything had to fit around Devereux's death. Barrett must have said Devereux had helped with the diary but, as Gary would have been well aware, he couldn't have done so after his death. So he couldn't have been involved in 1991.

Gray obviously didn't know when the April 1891 diary was received. He must have thought it was in 1990 because otherwise it didn't fit the narrative.

If Gray started off believing, from Barrett's misdating, that the diary was written in 1990 then everything else that followed in the story that he drafted was going to be wrong in terms of the chronology.

I don't think this is rocket science, Ike. I'm suggesting Gray's job was to frame a coherent story around the bare facts he'd been given by Barrett. And of course he messed it up, that's for sure, because Barrett gave him faulty information.

I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer.

[Iconoclast]

If you thought anyone was "crowing" you must have mistaken crowing for laughter at such an own goal.

You're right there - I've definitely been laughing a lot recently ...

[Iconoclast]

To be clear, I'm suggesting what is perfectly obvious. Alan Gray wrote Barrett's affidavit based on what Barret told him during their conversations. So Barrett being muddled up meant Gray got muddled up. It can’t be unrealistic for a guy who was almost permanently p***ed.

Gray - in this scenario - could not be muddled up. He was just typing-up what Barrett had told him was true. You can't dictate an incorrect letter to your secretary and then accuse him or her of being confused over the details!

[Iconoclast]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Gray "simply punted some dates into the affidavit". He was obviously told by Barrett that Devereux died in 1990 and put that in the affidavit. So we do know for a fact that Gray got muddled over dates.

Barrett told Gray Devereux died in 1990 and it was Gray who was muddled over dates? He was just typing-up when Barrett had told him, for goodness sake!

[Iconoclast]

Other threads are quiet so over the last few days ...

People finally bored of discussing the colour of Mrs Puddleduck's socks, are they?

[Iconoclast]

That's bizarrely led me on to having to discuss the affidavit, the 1999 meeting, the tape recordings, Melvin Harris, the 1891 diary etc. etc. Not subjects I wanted to talk about at all. I’ve ended up being sucked into this. No one is pulling my strings, thank you.

Stick at it for nigh on twenty years in the face of almost universal opprobrium, hostility, and insults and I might buy you a pint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you know this how? It's Mike Barrett's affidavit, it's in his name, and the evidence of November 5 1994 is that Gray was a willing typist for him, but that doesn't mean he wrote the affidavit (although he almost certainly guided its contents), he typed it almost certainly but almost certainly with Mike's agreement. Any errors - dates or details - were Barrett's to own not Gray's.



And if I find you those occasions where Barrett - if he did - contradicted what he said in 1999 (apart from his affidavit of January 5, 1995, of course!) and if Barrett spoke the words, which would you align yourself to?



Do you think Barrett only spoke in April 1999? What is so precious about the C&D Club meeting that Barrett's other spoken claims don't have the benefit of?



We know no such thing! For that to be true, you would have to prove conclusively that Gray wrote the affidavit rather than simply typed it and/or guided it. There is no way I am accepting your suggestion that Gray simply punted some dates into the affidavit and got them so badly wrong. You are not meeting your own standards now, never mind mine.



Yes, it totally buggered up the chronology but that was Barrett's crappy memory not Gray's attempts at being psychic.



I do not know of which you speak. I would need to research this one. As Caz has pointed-out many many times, Barrett never got the April 13, 1992 wrong, but I for one am willing to be corrected on her behalf.



Steady on, Tiger. Let's check your story first.



A small hint re your source would make the world of difference to me and my dear readers here ...



For once, I couldn't agree more.



Was Barrett feeding this guy information or not? At the very start of this fantasy, you said:



Who is getting muddled up - Gray or Barrett or both?

It's not two minutes ago that you were crowing at how much of the affidavit has been confirmed (RJ's word, as I recall). "Care to revise your bullshit story?" [thank you Sam Gerard [Mrs Iconoclast thinks it was the woman detective but I could be wrong!!!!]].

Ike, one minute you're telling me that Barrett's affidavit was created like the November 5th statement which involved Gray simultaneously writing and typing it out while Barrett stood and watched. Now you're saying it was done differently. Make your mind up!

And you just posted a letter from Gray in which he wanted to make clear that the affidavit had been read out loud to Barrett. Why would he have needed to say and do that if Barrett had written it himself?

Let's be real. Barrett was too drunk during this period to speak properly, let alone write an affidavit. It's obvious that Gray drafted it based on his conversations with Barrett and then typed it out. Any other suggestion is away with the fairies.

Don't ask me hypotheticals about what I would "align myself to". If you're finding contradictions between the affidavit and 1999 account identify them. The only question is surely…can we see a coherent story amongst Barrett's accounts that makes sense. Because, once again, I'm not trying to prove that Barrett was the forger. Only that it can't be ruled out and that there may be a credible story of how he did it in there somewhere.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Gray "simply punted some dates into the affidavit". He was obviously told by Barrett that Devereux died in 1990 and put that in the affidavit. So we do know for a fact that Gray got muddled over dates.

Yes, of course it was Barrett's crappy memory that buggered up Gray's understanding of what happened. What else did you think I was suggesting? But I'm glad you've finally accepted it was a "crappy memory" on Barrett's part, not necessarily lies.

I don't think it's correct that Barrett "never got the April 13 1992 [date] wrong". Surely he thought he came to London in April 1991 and confused Gray in the process. But this was after the affidavit. Beforehand he must have thought he came down in April 1990.

Please do go ahead and check this Ike.

To be clear, I'm suggesting what is perfectly obvious. Alan Gray wrote Barrett's affidavit based on what Barret told him during their conversations. So Barrett being muddled up meant Gray got muddled up. It can’t be unrealistic for a guy who was almost permanently p***ed.

And, finally, no-one, not one person, was crowing over "how much of the affidavit has been confirmed". It's interesting how you twist these things in your mind because you think Roger and myself are saying things we're not saying. I remember very well that all Roger said was that elements of Mike's affidavit have been confirmed. It should a have been left there but you decided to ask what elements, as if none had been confirmed. Then you posted the entire affidavit in colour coded form which showed that elements of Mike's affidavit have indeed been confirmed. If you thought anyone was "crowing" you must have mistaken crowing for laughter at such an own goal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow, you're really into this diary thing now, aren't you Michael? It's almost as if someone in the background could be pulling your strings.

Scott, before you say insulting things as if I'm not capable of posting without having my strings pulled by some unidentified person, consider that I've had about 100 posts addressed to me by Ike and Caz (and, indirectly, Lombro) on all sorts of matters since I started posting about the dairy even though all I wanted to do when I started posting was inform Ike that if he can see "FM" on the wall in the photograph then surely so could the forger. You hardly need to be a diary expert to express that point. One thing then led to another and post after post is now being addressed to me as if I am some sort of leading Barrett theorist. Other threads are quiet so over the last few days I’ve done a bit of reading up (yes, I’m quite capable of that) and I’ll add that I’m pretty certain that I own all books written on the subject of the diary and I’ve also been reading through some of David Orsam’s articles. I’m still a million miles from being an expert and make no claim to expertise but I’m capable of thought. My only position is that I can't see why the Barretts couldn't have forged the diary. That's bizarrely led me on to having to discuss the affidavit, the 1999 meeting, the tape recordings, Melvin Harris, the 1891 diary etc. etc. Not subjects I wanted to talk about at all. I’ve ended up being sucked into this. No one is pulling my strings, thank you.

[Iconoclast]

For clarity, yes, I am telling you that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details.

And you know this how? It's Mike Barrett's affidavit, it's in his name, and the evidence of November 5 1994 is that Gray was a willing typist for him, but that doesn't mean he wrote the affidavit (although he almost certainly guided its contents), he typed it almost certainly but almost certainly with Mike's agreement. Any errors - dates or details - were Barrett's to own not Gray's.

I'm not saying you should ignore it all, only that it needs to be read in the context of what Barrett said in 1999.

And if I find you those occasions where Barrett - if he did - contradicted what he said in 1999 (apart from his affidavit of January 5, 1995, of course!) and if Barrett spoke the words, which would you align yourself to?

Going on about the affidavit without taking the 1999 meeting into account is a huge mistake, whether Barrett was the forger or not.

Do you think Barrett only spoke in April 1999? What is so precious about the C&D Club meeting that Barrett's other spoken claims don't have the benefit of?

We know for a fact that Gray did get muddled over dates because the date of Devereux's death is wrong for one thing.

We know no such thing! For that to be true, you would have to prove conclusively that Gray wrote the affidavit rather than simply typed it and/or guided it. There is no way I am accepting your suggestion that Gray simply punted some dates into the affidavit and got them so badly wrong. You are not meeting your own standards now, never mind mine.

That messes up the rest of the chronology.

Yes, it totally buggered up the chronology but that was Barrett's crappy memory not Gray's attempts at being psychic.

Wasn't there a discussion between Gray and Barrett shortly after the affidavit when Barrett suddenly works out, or thinks he's worked out, that he first came to London with the diary in April 1991? Gray thinks that is correct.

I do not know of which you speak. I would need to research this one. As Caz has pointed-out many many times, Barrett never got the April 13, 1992 wrong, but I for one am willing to be corrected on her behalf.

So you can tell that the entire sequence of events had become hopelessly muddled up.

Steady on, Tiger. Let's check your story first.

Gray was learning something new after the affidavit had been signed!

A small hint re your source would make the world of difference to me and my dear readers here ...

He shouldn't have been drafting an affidavit for Barrett. He obviously didn't know what he was doing.

For once, I couldn't agree more.

And, of course, I didn't say that anything in the affidavit was "a figment of Gray's imagination". I said he got muddled up with what he was being told due to a wrong chronology of events allied with Barrett's poor memory and inability to communicate

Was Barrett feeding this guy information or not? At the very start of this fantasy, you said:

For clarity, yes, I am telling you that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details.

Who is getting muddled up - Gray or Barrett or both?

It's not two minutes ago that you were crowing at how much of the affidavit has been confirmed (RJ's word, as I recall). "Care to revise your bullshit story?" [thank you Sam Gerard [Mrs Iconoclast thinks it was the woman detective but I could be wrong!!!!]].

[Scott Nelson]

Wow, you're really into this diary thing now, aren't you Michael? It's almost as if someone in the background could be pulling your strings.