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

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Apologies for the slow reply I’ve been having fun in Tesco.

Apologies for all my slow replies, if and when one is warranted. I shall be having my fun in Tesco tomorrow - more fun now we are in February, and 'dry' January is but a bitter memory.

The inability of an expert to identify a forgery created yesterday, or a few days earlier, meant that it was obviously beneficial for Mike, as the forger, for the diary to see the light immediately rather than being hidden pointlessly for a year. I therefore have to disagree with you when you say "there'd have been no benefit to him whatsoever". There was surely a clear benefit, enabling him to make money faster.

In that case, why do you suppose Mike stated in his confessional affidavit that the red diary was purchased and rejected in January 1990, quickly followed by the purchase of the photo album and the eleven-day diary creation, but the finished forgery was effectively 'hidden pointlessly' for over two years, because Tony Devereux, who was a party to the whole project, became severely ill. Mike doesn't explain why this was a reason to put it on hold for so long, if his motive was to make money fast and use it to pay the mortgage - unless they had to wait for their partner in crime to snuff it so they could use him for the provenance. But it was rubbish in any case because Tony died unexpectedly in August 1991 - over a year after Mike claimed the diary was done and dusted, but many months before he did anything with it. Tony was dead long before the stupid red diary affair and Mike knew it. He was using his dead friend as the provenance when he put in the request, for God's sake.

You now raise a completely different argument, unrelated to what I wrote, which is that Barrett couldn't have known whether or not an expert would be able to detect that the diary wasn't written in 1888. The problem is that you could apply this logic to every single forger of historical artefacts in the entire world. In which case, no forger would ever attempt a forgery, on the basis that an expert might be able to detect the forgery. To me, that doesn't make sense because experience shows that forgers tend to produce forgeries regardless.

I hear you, but that still means Mike Barrett would have been taking one hell of a risk to present his wife's handiwork to anyone as Jack the Ripper's diary. If he had forged it himself, he would presumably have made some attempt to make it look like it could be genuine and be satisfied with the result. The risk would have been a calculated one. But it's Anne who stands accused here, so how was Mike meant to judge whether the result would look clean as a whistle to anyone else, or reveal itself sooner or later for what it was - creative fiction, which is what she supposedly set out to write, and which Mike supposedly encouraged her to believe? The risk, from Anne's point of view, would have been massive in those circumstances, and yet after failing to destroy her own work when she finally twigged Mike's true intentions for it, she didn't have the three brain cells required to come up with a Plan B that would stop it getting into expert hands? Really? Is this what you believe, Herlock? Or do you have doubts about the only Barrett theory currently under discussion?

For me, you are looking at this the wrong way round. You seem to consider only the risk, even though the risk to the Barretts was minimal on the basis that Mike's story was that he'd been given the diary by his dead friend, so there was no peril to him or his wife if an expert declared it to be a forgery. He could have said “well how was I to know it was a forgery? I’m not an expert.” I think you need to look more at the possible reward. Surely that's what all criminals think of when they plan a crime. The risks are ignored. I can't see any problem in Mike, as the forger, confidently thinking in his own mind that he could make a lot of money from a diary of Jack the Ripper written in a Victorian looking old book in Victorian style ink with (attempted) Victorian style handwriting. Perhaps his confidence was misplaced - I don't know - but he did, in fact, make money from it, didn't he? People committing crimes often think that they are cleverer than they actually are…I’d apply this to a certain Mr. Wallace.

Try looking at it from the point of view of a man who doesn't know if it's a forgery when he takes it to London, but hopes it isn't. No harm, no foul, if the worst happens, because he didn't forge it and nor did his wife, his dead friend or the cat. If he makes money out of the story when it becomes a bestseller, it's not his fault if the diary itself is proven to be by someone other than James Maybrick. He has committed no crime - unless of course he makes money by knowingly selling something that belongs to someone else, forgery or not.

There is a whole world of difference between this and knowing his wife wrote the diary - in which case he didn't think he was cleverer than he actually was; he was a bloody genius for predicting that nobody else would ever - and I do mean ever - be clever enough to prove it.

As for your final sentence, where have I ever dismissed the views of people who knew the Barretts?

Forgive me, but I thought you were doing it, every time you insisted that the Barretts would have been capable, and were two 'obvious candidates' - unless you had others in mind?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

We appear to be at cross purposes I wrote: "The diary is presented as a text written by James Maybrick". You seem to agree with me. So it's a forgery. I thought you were disputing that in an earlier post but it's good that we both now agree it's a forgery. Obviously, the diary is not an art forgery, so different principles apply in terms of style.

As for Baxendale's opinion, you've repeated the very thing I was attempting to correct! He didn't say that the earliest date of origin was 1945. He said that the diary ink had originated "since 1945" which, to my understanding, rules out a 1945 creation

It was presented by Mike Barrett, as a text purportedly written by James Maybrick. I don't believe the handwriting is Maybrick's, but I don't believe it's Anne's either, in which case Mike would not have known if it was or wasn't written by James Maybrick when he presented it. That is what he would have been expecting to learn, but he had no money for any tests, so he had to leave that side of things to others, if they were prepared to invest theirs.

Oh my goodness, how hard can this be? I quoted Baxendale's actual words! In his 'opinion', he only considered it 'likely' that it originated since 1945. If you are picking me up because I should have given his earliest date of origin as 1946, and not 1945, then I stand corrected. Put me on the naughty step and dock my pocket money.

Apparently, in Mike Barrett's affidavit, a year or three either way for the creation of his diary is absolutely fine and only to be expected. Give that man a bonus for trying to get it right through Scotch mist.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock.

If you don't mind, let me turn your attention for a brief second to Martin Fido: Oxford graduate, Oxford don, successful broadcaster, prolific author of books on subjects ranging from Chaucer to the Kray Twins, lecturer at Michigan State University and Boston College, writing teacher, one of the earliest researchers of the Maybrick Hoax and a man who had full access to Feldman's research and communications, as well as a man who had the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

He sounds like someone we might want to listen to...

What was Fido's theory of the Maybrick Hoax?

Martin's theory was the diary was a modern fake, written primarily or entirely by Anne Graham, possibly as piece of fiction, and it was afterwards turned into a hoax by Mike Barrett.

In short, he had the same general theory as I do, independently conceived, with a few minor variations. If my ideas are incoherent and insane, as has been suggested, I'm happy that I am in same padded cell as someone as accomplished as Martin.






I can't agree with Martin's last idea that Barrett was the penman (although in theory Mike could have sought out a helper), but I know why Martin suggested this

Based on remarks made elsewhere, Martin believed Anne was too literate to have been the pen person--that she wouldn't have made the spelling and grammatical errors we see in the diary. But Martin based this assumption on one single, solitary document: the "professional" research paper on Liverpool laundries that Anne had written for Feldman.

If Martin had had access to the same personal writings of Anne's obtained by David Barrat, would he have made the same assumption? I doubt it. They show the identical careless errors and mistaken homophones as we can see in the diary. Thus, there was no need for Martin to substitute Mike as the penman.

Other diary theorist weave speculations about Mike and Anne out of thin air and also operate from the mistaken principle that Anne, if involved, wanted the diary to succeed.

This is one of their primary errors and they repeat it again & again in their objections.

I don't see it that way. Anne constantly said she didn't want the diary published, and in this instance, I believe her. Anne also believed--based on her own testimony-- that once Mike brought the diary to London, the literary agent would 'just send Mike packing.'

I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??

It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

And if I'm wrong, and I doubt that I am, it only means Anne was a willing accomplice rather than the unwilling one theorized by Martin.

Martin also understood that because Anne was a sympathetic person, a single mother, she avoided the skepticism and scrutiny that was aimed at Barrett. That's still the case. Even now, all the diary debaters can talk about is Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett. The low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

So no, there is no contradiction in the idea that Anne was both a collaborator and a woman who was terrified when she realized the diary was going to be published.

Did she try to burn it? I have no idea. It could be a pork pie, certainly. But Caroline Barrett remembers her parents fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, and that's an odd thing to 'coach' a child. Why would they have coached her about a fight behind the scenes? It would have only raised red flags.

Here's to the memory of Martin Fido. I don't think he was entirely correct--but he was very close.

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock.
I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??
It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

Just for completeness, RJ, which facts does your theory fit which are not otherwise accommodated easily by other theories? You write as though we are all sitting on the edge of our seats awaiting the moment when a theory comes along which is able to account for the very small amount of what we know went on in 12 Goldie Street between March 9, 1992 and April 13, 1992 (and before then and after then), but the reality is that no-one is sitting on the edge of any seat awaiting the solution to some conundrum which your theory magically resolves. We all just resolve any quandaries we may have by fitting them into our own theories which only get holes punched in them when commentators desire to operate to different values for themselves than they apply to others.

"I like that theory because it fits how I want the truth to be. I don't like that theory because it does not fit how I want the truth to be."

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

Martin Fido addressed this in a companion piece to his above "scenario"; it's in the second and third paragraphs below, while his first paragraph was addressed to Caroline's single question about Mike's handwriting.

It seems strange that you would question the validity of forming a hypothesis but, then again, considering that Diary Belief a Faith-Based Religion, that demands that it be DISPROVED, by one, single solitary fact, perhaps I do understand it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that's not what he actually asked for, or went on to order and receive, was it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, to answer the first part of your question, a diary containing authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders was precisely what Barrett asked for.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that it wasn’t?

My understanding of events was that Barrett didn't "order" the 1891 diary. Rather it was offered to him, sight unseen, because the supplier couldn't source one from the 1880s and it was the only one available. So it was the 1891 diary or nothing.

When he saw it - assuming he was the forger - he must then have realized that the paper couldn't be made scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders but only because it had printed dates on it.

Absent that, it seems to me, and I'm not sure how you can possibly dispute it, the wording of the request for a diary from the decade of the Ripper murders containing blank pages is consistent with an attempt to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders.

Surely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available.

Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

Love,

Caz
X

You'll have to forgive me Caz for holding view that questions of mine which aren't answered are not answered because there is no answer to them or because to answer them honestly would involve an admission of error or uncertainty. On any other thread refusal to answer would surely be considered in the same way?

One example of this is a quote showing that Melvin Harris was seeking a copy of Barrett's affidavit, as Ike claimed. I'm still waiting for that quote. His failure to provide it leads me to believe that it doesn't exist. It can hardly be a time consumer just to post a quote?

If you think that any particular question I've asked has been answered before, please feel free to identify that question but do bear in mind that, unless I'm asking for factual information, I want to know what the particular person I'm addressing thinks right now, not what they, or someone else, might have thought many years ago. After all, you did tell Roger only a few days ago not to assume that your own views haven't changed over the years, and you told him that all he needed to do was ask you questions to establish your current views rather than assume what they may be based on what you'd said in the past. If you want me to quote that post, just let me know.

I also find it strange that when John Wheat posts to say that the diary is a fake, Ike often responds to criticize him for not giving reasons, but when I post to say that the diary is a fake and give reasons, Ike seems to be equally unhappy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was presented by Mike Barrett, as a text purportedly written by James Maybrick. I don't believe the handwriting is Maybrick's, but I don't believe it's Anne's either, in which case Mike would not have known if it was or wasn't written by James Maybrick when he presented it. That is what he would have been expecting to learn, but he had no money for any tests, so he had to leave that side of things to others, if they were prepared to invest theirs.

Oh my goodness, how hard can this be? I quoted Baxendale's actual words! In his 'opinion', he only considered it 'likely' that it originated since 1945. If you are picking me up because I should have given his earliest date of origin as 1946, and not 1945, then I stand corrected. Put me on the naughty step and dock my pocket money.

Apparently, in Mike Barrett's affidavit, a year or three either way for the creation of his diary is absolutely fine and only to be expected. Give that man a bonus for trying to get it right through Scotch mist.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, I was trying to get it accurately recorded as to what Baxendale said. On the first occasion, you said his opinion was that the ink could date back to 1945, which error I corrected by drawing your attention to the words "since 1945" and thought you had understood, but then you came back and said that the earliest date was 1945, which is not what he said. I just thought you would want to be accurate rather than inaccurate. But whether a person is out by one year or three, it shows that anyone can get years confused.

Can I ask you to clarify one thing about your post. When you say "I don't believe the handwriting is Maybrick's, but I don't believe it's Anne's either" are you simply saying that you don't believe it's Anne's normal handwriting or are you saying you also don't believe it's Anne's disguised handwriting? If the latter, how can you possibly know what Anne's disguised handwriting would look like? Or are you not actually making a handwriting point at all but just saying that you don't think that Anne would have written it because you don't think she would have got involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

If you don't mind, let me turn your attention for a brief second to Martin Fido: Oxford graduate, Oxford don, successful broadcaster, prolific author of books on subjects ranging from Chaucer to the Kray Twins, lecturer at Michigan State University and Boston College, writing teacher, one of the earliest researchers of the Maybrick Hoax and a man who had full access to Feldman's research and communications, as well as a man who had the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

He sounds like someone we might want to listen to...

What was Fido's theory of the Maybrick Hoax?

Martin's theory was the diary was a modern fake, written primarily or entirely by Anne Graham, possibly as piece of fiction, and it was afterwards turned into a hoax by Mike Barrett.

In short, he had the same general theory as I do, independently conceived, with a few minor variations. If my ideas are incoherent and insane, as has been suggested, I'm happy that I am in same padded cell as someone as accomplished as Martin.






I can't agree with Martin's last idea that Barrett was the penman (although in theory Mike could have sought out a helper), but I know why Martin suggested this

Based on remarks made elsewhere, Martin believed Anne was too literate to have been the pen person--that she wouldn't have made the spelling and grammatical errors we see in the diary. But Martin based this assumption on one single, solitary document: the "professional" research paper on Liverpool laundries that Anne had written for Feldman.

If Martin had had access to the same personal writings of Anne's obtained by David Barrat, would he have made the same assumption? I doubt it. They show the identical careless errors and mistaken homophones as we can see in the diary. Thus, there was no need for Martin to substitute Mike as the penman.

Other diary theorist weave speculations about Mike and Anne out of thin air and also operate from the mistaken principle that Anne, if involved, wanted the diary to succeed.

This is one of their primary errors and they repeat it again & again in their objections.

I don't see it that way. Anne constantly said she didn't want the diary published, and in this instance, I believe her. Anne also believed--based on her own testimony-- that once Mike brought the diary to London, the literary agent would 'just send Mike packing.'

I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??

It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

And if I'm wrong, and I doubt that I am, it only means Anne was a willing accomplice rather than the unwilling one theorized by Martin.

Martin also understood that because Anne was a sympathetic person, a single mother, she avoided the skepticism and scrutiny that was aimed at Barrett. That's still the case. Even now, all the diary debaters can talk about is Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett. The low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

So no, there is no contradiction in the idea that Anne was both a collaborator and a woman who was terrified when she realized the diary was going to be published.

Did she try to burn it? I have no idea. It could be a pork pie, certainly. But Caroline Barrett remembers her parents fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, and that's an odd thing to 'coach' a child. Why would they have coached her about a fight behind the scenes? It would have only raised red flags.

Here's to the memory of Martin Fido. I don't think he was entirely correct--but he was very close.

Cheers.

Thanks for that, Roger.

So Martin Fido was someone who had met Michael Barrett in person and thought him capable of forging the diary on his own?

Interesting.

In fairness to Caz, though, I don't suppose it can be correct to say that Martin Fido "knew" Barrett. I mean, I assume he wasn't his friend and he only met him after the diary emerged. He could only have ever spoken to him for a limited number of hours, at a time when Barrett would have been guarded, knowing that people were investigating the origins of the diary. So I don't suppose she would allow me to rely on his relatively uninformed opinion.

Do you have any idea who the people who actually knew the Barretts personally, presumably prior to 1992, whose views I've supposedly been dismissing, that she keeps talking about, are? It's beyond me.

Your theory about Anne seems to be similar to one she's been attributing to me. I don't suppose it's the only possible theory, though. Dunno why she thinks it's got anything to do with me.

Can I ask you one thing though. Is there a direct quote of Caroline saying that she remembered seeing her parents fighting over the diary? And if that's all she saw, what's that got to do with burning it? I mean, how do we know they weren't fighting over who had control of it, or something like that? Maybe someone's asked this before but I'm hoping you'll be more receptive to a newbie like me asking questions that might already have been answered years ago.

[Mike J. G.]

It was magnificent!

So, it's now 7 finals in my football-following lifetime (5 Newcastle, 2 England) and I've yet to taste victory. Will this 6th for Newcastle finally bring home a trophy? My dad was 25 when he attended the last domestic trophy win (1955). It's got to be a little overdue?

Hope you're ready to face the Redmen, Ike. We won't steal your tyres... We'll steal your soul, lad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for all my slow replies, if and when one is warranted. I shall be having my fun in Tesco tomorrow - more fun now we are in February, and 'dry' January is but a bitter memory.



In that case, why do you suppose Mike stated in his confessional affidavit that the red diary was purchased and rejected in January 1990, quickly followed by the purchase of the photo album and the eleven-day diary creation, but the finished forgery was effectively 'hidden pointlessly' for over two years, because Tony Devereux, who was a party to the whole project, became severely ill. Mike doesn't explain why this was a reason to put it on hold for so long, if his motive was to make money fast and use it to pay the mortgage - unless they had to wait for their partner in crime to snuff it so they could use him for the provenance. But it was rubbish in any case because Tony died unexpectedly in August 1991 - over a year after Mike claimed the diary was done and dusted, but many months before he did anything with it. Tony was dead long before the stupid red diary affair and Mike knew it. He was using his dead friend as the provenance when he put in the request, for God's sake.



I hear you, but that still means Mike Barrett would have been taking one hell of a risk to present his wife's handiwork to anyone as Jack the Ripper's diary. If he had forged it himself, he would presumably have made some attempt to make it look like it could be genuine and be satisfied with the result. The risk would have been a calculated one. But it's Anne who stands accused here, so how was Mike meant to judge whether the result would look clean as a whistle to anyone else, or reveal itself sooner or later for what it was - creative fiction, which is what she supposedly set out to write, and which Mike supposedly encouraged her to believe? The risk, from Anne's point of view, would have been massive in those circumstances, and yet after failing to destroy her own work when she finally twigged Mike's true intentions for it, she didn't have the three brain cells required to come up with a Plan B that would stop it getting into expert hands? Really? Is this what you believe, Herlock? Or do you have doubts about the only Barrett theory currently under discussion?



Try looking at it from the point of view of a man who doesn't know if it's a forgery when he takes it to London, but hopes it isn't. No harm, no foul, if the worst happens, because he didn't forge it and nor did his wife, his dead friend or the cat. If he makes money out of the story when it becomes a bestseller, it's not his fault if the diary itself is proven to be by someone other than James Maybrick. He has committed no crime - unless of course he makes money by knowingly selling something that belongs to someone else, forgery or not.

There is a whole world of difference between this and knowing his wife wrote the diary - in which case he didn't think he was cleverer than he actually was; he was a bloody genius for predicting that nobody else would ever - and I do mean ever - be clever enough to prove it.



Forgive me, but I thought you were doing it, every time you insisted that the Barretts would have been capable, and were two 'obvious candidates' - unless you had others in mind?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don’t know why my answer has come out like this…I typed it on Pages first which is something I regularly do and this has never happened before. Gremlins

The question you've asked me is the easiest one I've had to answer so far. By way of reminder, the question is:

"In that case, why do you suppose Mike stated in his confessional affidavit that the red diary was purchased and rejected in January 1990, quickly followed by the purchase of the photo album and the eleven-day diary creation, but the finished forgery was effectively 'hidden pointlessly' for over two years, because Tony Devereux, who was a party to the whole project, became severely ill."

It's all easily explained by dating errors, failure of memory and by the fact that Michael Barrett didn't, apparently, write the affidavit himself so that the author of it didn't have first hand knowledge of all the facts, and could easily have been confused by the chronology of events.

So I think it's really simple and feel that your focus on the dating issues in the affidavit, and your insistence on reading it like it's the Holy Bible whereby not a single mistake could have been made by its author (presumably Alan Gray), is preventing both you and Ike from getting to the bottom of this issue.

It's also disappointing to find you continuing to say things like "Mike Barrett would have been taking one hell of a risk....". What was the risk? I thought we'd established there was no risk. He had never vouched for its authenticity. Or, if you prefer, all forgers take the risk of exposure. So why should Michael Barrett have been any different?

Your post gets very strange at this point because you then say:

"The risk, from Anne's point of view, would have been massive in those circumstances, and yet after failing to destroy her own work when she finally twigged Mike's true intentions for it, she didn't have the three brain cells required to come up with a Plan B that would stop it getting into expert hands? Really? Is this what you believe, Herlock?"

Where have I ever said I believe this? I have a feeling I asked you if she wanted the diary put into a bank in case of a house fire, to which I'm awaiting an answer, but where I have I ever said anything like "she finally twigged Mike's intentions for it" or that she wanted to stop the diary "getting into expert hands"? I just can't understand it. Are you imagining I've said this or confusing me with another poster, or something like that?

I also don't get your next point which concludes "He has committed no crime". I thought your argument was that he had received stolen goods. So he's taking it to London for it to be published to expose his crime to the unknown owner of the diary? It's not making much sense to me.

You mischaracterize my opinion when you say I think the Barretts were capable of forging the diary. I don't know their capabilities. But I don't know any reason why they wouldn't have been capable. I've asked the question but no-one has told me. Saying they are the obvious candidates has nothing to do with me knowing anything about their capabilities. It's because the diary came from their house in Liverpool and no-one is known to have seen or heard of it before this. Michael Barrett tried to obtain a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages and Anne lied about why he did so, amongst other lies she appears to have told about the diary. But let's just say you made an simple mistake in the way you expressed my views. To that extent, I'm lost as to why you think I've dismissed the views of people who knew the Barretts when I say that I don't know of any reason why they wouldn't have been capable of forging the diary. I'm not aware of the views of anyone who knew the Barretts personally who've said they weren't capable of this. So how can I possibly ever have dismissed those views?

[Iconoclast]

Hope you're ready to face the Redmen, Ike. We won't steal your tyres... We'll steal your soul, lad.

The way LiVARpool are playing this season, it would be the least painful if the FL just give you the trophy in advance and save us all the long long journey south.

Since we last came first in a domestic competition (1955), we have come 2nd what must be a record-shattering 7 times (1974, 1976, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2023). I hate to say it, but unless Salah and co. have a truly 'off afternoon' on March 16, it will soon become 8.

Ike
Depressed at How Rubbish the Spuds Are Right Now

[Mike J. G.]

The way LiVARpool are playing this season, it would be the least painful if the FL just give you the trophy in advance and save us all the long long journey south.

Since we last came first in a domestic competition (1955), we have come 2nd what must be a record-shattering 7 times (1974, 1976, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2023). I hate to say it, but unless Salah and co. have a truly 'off afternoon' on March 16, it will soon become 8.

Ike
Depressed at How Rubbish the Spuds Are Right Now

I'm sorry, mate. It'll get better, maybe.

Funnily enough, I'm in the Sakara on Aigburth road, lovely little place, stones throw away from Riversdale ... Anyway, I'm only posting to say that in the last five momentos, I've heard one-off at least twice.

I'll also say, while I'm here, that y'all are all far too venomous against each other!

Love and hugs,

Mike J. G.

X

[rjpalmer]

Your theory about Anne seems to be similar to one she's been attributing to me. I don't suppose it's the only possible theory, though. Dunno why she thinks it's got anything to do with me.

Can I ask you one thing though. Is there a direct quote of Caroline saying that she remembered seeing her parents fighting over the diary? And if that's all she saw, what's that got to do with burning it? I mean, how do we know they weren't fighting over who had control of it, or something like that? Maybe someone's asked this before but I'm hoping you'll be more receptive to a newbie like me asking questions that might already have been answered years ago.

Hi Herlock -

I'm afraid I can offer no insight into why another poster is attributing beliefs to you that you do not hold; I can only confirm that my own beliefs are often mangled and rephrased into vague parodies of what I actually wrote or believe.

Unless we are being mightily deceived, none of the diary researchers knew Barrett or Graham before Barrett turned up in London, and some didn't meet either of them until some years later.

On page 138 of Feldman's book there is an account of Caroline Barrett telling Paul Begg that her mother tried to burn the diary. This is while she was alone with Begg and away from her parents. I suppose one could argue that she was coached to say this, but it seems a pointless thing to coach her to say, unless you can think of how it would benefit the Barretts. What would be the purpose of it?

I think it only raised questions in the minds of the researchers, for they later asked Mike and Anne about it. I do think I need to correct one point, as I think it was Anne, and not Caroline, who mentioned the struggle taking place on the kitchen floor. But if she was going to burn the diary, wouldn't the kitchen be the logical place to do so? Still, Anne's own daughter would be the only one approaching 'corroboration.'

The reasons I think Graham was a reluctant participant are many, but they are by no mean conclusive. They include her complaint to her friend Audrey; her reluctance to attend the book launch; her behavior during the visit by police; the refusal of her royalty checks after splitting with Barrett. There may be others. Against this, it was Anne Graham who kept the diary afloat after Barrett started spilling the beans, and she did sign the collaboration agreement (though not, I understand, the publishing contract). I fully appreciate that one could argue that she was a full and willing participant. I just don't believe she was. I think Barrett's success in London scared the living hell out of her, and she had previously operated on the principle that nothing would come of the diary anyway.

[rjpalmer]

On reflection, it does sound like Paul or Martin did ask Caroline a leading question (or a series of leading questions): "Do you remember the row when your dad told your mum he was going to get it published?"

What had prompted Paul or Martin to ask that question?

Somehow, an account of the row must have prompted Caroline being asked about it. But if Feldman can be believed (and who knows) it was Caroline who added the detail about an attempt to burn the diary.