New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

But hold on Caz. If Eddie was actually going to "run past" Brian the discovery of the diary you say he'd made in Battlecrease in March, he was going to have to tell Brian he'd stolen it, wasn't he? What else could he have said about it? You can't seriously be saying that all he was intending to say to Brian was that he'd found something without telling him what it was or giving him any further information. So what I'm saying is that it would have been very odd for him to have approached Brian to tell him this important but otherwise secret information as Brian was collecting the firm's van and was about to back down the drive to go to another job. Certainly at least as odd, if not odder, as him mentioning to Brian that he'd seen a lot of old books in the house.

Whatever. We can only go by what Brian has said about the conversation, and how Eddie responded when asked about it. We can't invent what wasn't said, or wish they had said something else. The whole incident may look 'odd', but Brian had nothing to gain by going on record with it, while Eddie had everything to gain by playing it down. He didn't deny having any conversation with Brian at all on the one occasion when he was working in the house and Brian came to pick up the van.

If you're denying that no identifiable witness has referred to the diary as an "old book" why haven't you identified him, her or them? it doesn't bother me at all if anyone has spoken of "an old book", "the old book", "Uncle Tom Cobbley's old book" etc., I just want to know who has done it. And the only reason I want to know is because you keep saying it! But now you've gone all secret squirrel and won't tell me who that person or persons is/are. I also don't care if it's an electrician or not an electrician. I just want to know who it is. Your refusal to tell me leads me to think that there isn't anyone and you realize you're mistaken.

I'm not mistaken, and your suggestion that I realised I was mistaken and was too cowardly to say so is frankly offensive and beneath you. If you were given all the information you claim to want, you would then demand to listen to the interviews for yourself, because you evidently don't trust me [and Keith and Coral] not to have misheard what was said.

As for commenting on whether you want to keep evidence hidden and secret, I do feel fully informed about that because you've basically told me that this is what you are doing. Remember when I asked you for the evidence of Mike telling Scotland Yard about his journalistic background? You refused to provide it and it remains hidden and secret to this day. I've literally no idea why. And why haven't the recorded and transcribed interviews been made available to everyone? Don't you think that's a shameful state of affairs?

I had to check it was your name at the top of the post for a minute there, because we've heard this all before, many times over, and the answer will be the same as it was on all those other occasions:

Any material not already in the public domain, either in the books or on the websites or message boards, will not be mine to share - with you, or with whoever else may be hiding behind the scenes, willing you on to keep asking for information until you are blue in the face.

Do yourself a favour, Herlock, and make a note for future reference: if the information you want is not currently available, it's because it hasn't yet been made available by others. There is literally nothing you or I can do about that.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What I note you didn't do is answer my question: "If we assume that the ticket had been destroyed in 1992 (or in 1993, along with the other physical evidence of the diary's creation) how do you say Mike could have proved to your or anyone else's satisfaction that he was the forger?" Or do you accept that proving authorship in the absence of physical evidence would have been a difficult thing for Barrett to do, if he'd been the forger?

Oh, I'm sure you will tell me that it would have been 'impossible' for Mike to have proven his [or Anne's?] authorship of the diary - whether or not he was involved in its creation. And this is somewhat supported by the fact that he had to resort to an affidavit, which would not have been needed if he had the evidence to prove his claims.

The little problem for you here is that you have to imagine Mike had that evidence at one time, but it no longer existed by June 1994. I have been given no reason to believe it ever did exist, and my imagination doesn't extend to seeing fairies at the bottom of the garden either.

It's like Auction Theory in reverse, where the diary's existence has to be wished away until just a day or two before Mike took it to London for the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I couldn’t help a smile, Caz, by your framing of the murdering and mutilation of women in London as something James Maybrick might have done in his spare time.

Just a little side hobby, eh?

I'd say that the difference between Monty and Maybrick is that Monty was an actual Scotland Yard suspect in the case, whereas Maybrick's possible involvement was the invention of a modern forger, but please yourself if you think he might have been Jack the Ripper, that's entirely your prerogative. I was just having a little chat with Abby who I knew would understand what I'm saying.

I said nothing about what Maybrick may or may not have done in his spare time, Herlock. That was my point. A fake diary wouldn't tell you that. I have always said there is no evidence that he ever murdered anyone, but I can forgive you for not being here long enough to know that.

For your information, Keith Skinner's suspect of choice is still Druitt, so you are not alone if you think his little side hobby was the murdering and mutilation of women in London - when he wasn't down to play cricket.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So the reason you mentioned a Battlecrease witness supposedly talking (vaguely) about "an old book" but didn't mention a Battlecrease witness supposedly talking (specifically) about a "leather-bound diary" is because you'd still be here at Christmas 2030 if you'd done so? Seriously?

No, the reason I haven't mentioned all kinds of things that have been spoken about over the years by a number of interviewees in the context of a Battlecrease find is that I'd be here doing so full-time, and that's if I had the permission of all those involved in gathering the material.

But now I think we're getting to the meat of the matter. You say "Tim Martin-Wright was told about Jack the Ripper's diary before Feldman arrived to muddy the waters." Can you please provide the evidence to support this claim?

Tim Martin-Wright gave his initial account of what he was told before Feldman knew of his existence - unless you know different. Judging from the stupid JFK thread, I thought conspiracy theories weren't your bag, but if there was any earlier contact between Tim and Feldman, they must have conspired together to keep it a closely guarded secret.

I note that we've miraculously now transmogrified from a leather-bound diary to Jack the Ripper's diary - another thing that I guess you didn't have time to mention previously (and something I don't find at all in Robert Smith's book) - but I'll let that pass.

How is that 'miraculously'? You seem to think that all the interviewees would have conspired together to speak with one voice and only ever describe the diary in the same way. I've got news for you. They didn't. They all had/have their own perspective, but their collective consistency speaks for itself.

Then, in respect of the Alan Davies story you've told me, about which you say: "All this happened before Feldman's involvement...". Is there any available evidence to support this claim?

Feldman didn't contact all the individuals who claimed inside knowledge of what was happening with the diary in 1992. He had no contact with Brian Rawes, for example, and I don't recall any with Alan Davies either, so I did a quick search but nothing came up. The focus of Feldman's investigation in 1993 was on the electricians who had worked in Dodd's house, so that's not surprising.

For what it's worth, Keith Skinner observed, just as I have, that the physical diary looks much more like a book than an actual diary, and in fact it's just an old scrap book with writing in it. Keith said that was precisely the way it was 'consistently described' to himself and Coral by the people they saw in Liverpool: "That old book". Coral quickly picked up on this and they used to chant it to each other using a Liverpool accent whenever they discussed the diary - which was often. I picked up on this independently when listening to the interviews. This has all been posted about before, so while it's not new, it's real.

I'm certainly not accusing you of lying Caz but am I to take from your reference to "the supporting evidence currently in Keith's possession" that this will turn out to be more "evidence" you're sadly unable to share with me to support what you're claiming?

Everyone who has been paying attention since 2007 will already know that not every scrap of material in existence, that is connected with this saga, has been posted here. I have given you nothing that has not previously been posted at some point, but you are entirely free to make up your mind based on what is currently available, or wait until there is more for you to consider.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

What's the difference in your mind between saying an "old book" and the "old book"? And isn't me saying an "old book" the same as you saying the "old book"? Our use of quotation marks is identical after all.

As to that, I'm just following your quotation marks when you wrote earlier in this thread that "...Mike first clapped eyes on the "old book", as it has been referred to by Battlecrease witnesses."

But I note that on 19 January 2021 you posted this sentence:

"But exactly the same would apply if Mike had no idea what he had, but only knew how he had obtained it and from whom. He'd have been even more ignorant about literary hoaxes and what lay ahead in that case, but understandably wary of it all coming out in Liverpool if he, Michael Barrett, was on the verge of becoming a rich man off the back of an "old book"he had bought from an unsuspecting Saddle regular for a paltry sum."

So correcting me now in the way you are doing for writing the same thing seems a bit strange.

You speak of this being said in recordings "of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses." An investigation into a witness? What does that mean? Are you saying that a witness was interviewed and referred to "the old book". If that's the case, why can't you identify the so-called witness? Why can't you tell us what they witnessed and why they spoke of "the old book"? Who told them about it? Did they see it? The absence of this information is extraordinary.

You do understand what I'm suggesting don't you? It's not that anyone was "got at". It's that someone like Feldman innocently told at least one electrician about his theory that Eddie Lyons found an old book, or the old book (I can't see what difference it makes), being the diary, and this story then circulated amongst the other electricians, and this was then the term used by those same electricians as shorthand for the diary when speaking to Keith and Coral. As such, it's of no value. So I'm just not sure why you keep repeating it as if it has any meaning.

I remind you that you told me that the diary has been referred to as an "old book" by Battlecrease witnesses. I can only repeat my request for you to identify those witnesses and tell me what they witnessed at Battlecrease. Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that they are as imaginary as Scott’s 1992 Korsakoff syndrome.

What I can't understand is that if you're not at liberty to share the fruits of Keith and Coral's labour why you've been doing it by revealing that some of the people they interviewed spoke of an "old book", or "the old book" if you prefer. Are you saying they gave you permission to reveal this particular fruit of their labour but specifically told you that you weren't allowed to mention anything else? I also don't understand what Keith and Coral can possibly be waiting for. Can you enlighten us? Do they have a plan to reveal their findings in the near future? I remember reading that Melvin Harris was accused of suppressing information in the case. How would you describe what is happening now?

hi herlock
perhaps they are waiting to reveal the names and details surrounding the discovery of "the old book" in yet another "new book".

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's "the old book", Herlock, and I use speech marks because that description can be heard on the recordings of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses. Maybe all three of us imagined it.



Maybe I should have called it 'inside' knowledge, that has been claimed by the various witnesses. They were interviewed separately, but their individual accounts add up to a consistent whole, which found totally unexpected support in the form of the double event of 9th March 1992, which nobody could have guessed had been sitting there on record all along, just waiting for Keith to stumble upon in 2004. By rights, the documentation should have been able to rule out those early rumours of the diary being found in Dodd's house if they had been false.



Not 'secret', just the fruits of someone else's labour, research and expense, which I am not at liberty to share until they are ready to do so.



Just as I thought. You don't think it matters whether the diary was referred to as "the old book", or "an old book", or anything else, because you have been led to believe that all the interviewees had been 'got at' by Feldman - which is simply not the case.



I doubt anyone could prove it to your satisfaction, but the evidence indicates that Eddie was known by certain individuals, and presumed by others, to have found "the old book" while working in Battlecrease, and this was back in 1992 before Feldman was involved.

Take it or leave it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

What's the difference in your mind between saying an "old book" and the "old book"? And isn't me saying an "old book" the same as you saying the "old book"? Our use of quotation marks is identical after all.

As to that, I'm just following your quotation marks when you wrote earlier in this thread that "...Mike first clapped eyes on the "old book", as it has been referred to by Battlecrease witnesses."

But I note that on 19 January 2021 you posted this sentence:

"But exactly the same would apply if Mike had no idea what he had, but only knew how he had obtained it and from whom. He'd have been even more ignorant about literary hoaxes and what lay ahead in that case, but understandably wary of it all coming out in Liverpool if he, Michael Barrett, was on the verge of becoming a rich man off the back of an "old book"he had bought from an unsuspecting Saddle regular for a paltry sum."

So correcting me now in the way you are doing for writing the same thing seems a bit strange.

You speak of this being said in recordings "of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses." An investigation into a witness? What does that mean? Are you saying that a witness was interviewed and referred to "the old book". If that's the case, why can't you identify the so-called witness? Why can't you tell us what they witnessed and why they spoke of "the old book"? Who told them about it? Did they see it? The absence of this information is extraordinary.

You do understand what I'm suggesting don't you? It's not that anyone was "got at". It's that someone like Feldman innocently told at least one electrician about his theory that Eddie Lyons found an old book, or the old book (I can't see what difference it makes), being the diary, and this story then circulated amongst the other electricians, and this was then the term used by those same electricians as shorthand for the diary when speaking to Keith and Coral. As such, it's of no value. So I'm just not sure why you keep repeating it as if it has any meaning.

I remind you that you told me that the diary has been referred to as an "old book" by Battlecrease witnesses. I can only repeat my request for you to identify those witnesses and tell me what they witnessed at Battlecrease. Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that they are as imaginary as Scott’s 1992 Korsakoff syndrome.

What I can't understand is that if you're not at liberty to share the fruits of Keith and Coral's labour why you've been doing it by revealing that some of the people they interviewed spoke of an "old book", or "the old book" if you prefer. Are you saying they gave you permission to reveal this particular fruit of their labour but specifically told you that you weren't allowed to mention anything else? I also don't understand what Keith and Coral can possibly be waiting for. Can you enlighten us? Do they have a plan to reveal their findings in the near future? I remember reading that Melvin Harris was accused of suppressing information in the case. How would you describe what is happening now?

[caz]

Its not that I don't like it being called an "old book" Caz, it's just that I can't understand why you keep calling it that in quotation marks. I'm trying to work out who called it that. So far, you've not identified a single person who described the diary in that way, let alone someone who can be described as a witness.

It's "the old book", Herlock, and I use speech marks because that description can be heard on the recordings of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses. Maybe all three of us imagined it.

What you've said in your post could be extremely important so I find it hard believe that you're not prepared to expand on it. Which of those interviewed claimed to have personal knowledge of an old book? And what do you mean by "personal knowledge"? I wasn't aware of anyone claiming to have personal knowledge of anything relating to the discovery of the diary. So how they name something is less important than the fact that they claim to have had personal knowledge of something. What is it?

Maybe I should have called it 'inside' knowledge, that has been claimed by the various witnesses. They were interviewed separately, but their individual accounts add up to a consistent whole, which found totally unexpected support in the form of the double event of 9th March 1992, which nobody could have guessed had been sitting there on record all along, just waiting for Keith to stumble upon in 2004. By rights, the documentation should have been able to rule out those early rumours of the diary being found in Dodd's house if they had been false.

Is it possible to find out more about the witness accounts gathered by Keith and Coral? Or is this something else which is secret?

Not 'secret', just the fruits of someone else's labour, research and expense, which I am not at liberty to share until they are ready to do so.

The reason I press the point is because I have a suspicion that all the interviewees were doing was passing on to Keith and Coral second hand rumours which had been started by Feldman and his investigation, so that they weren't witnesses in any true sense of the word. Just electricians who had heard the famous story of Eddie's discovery of Jack the Ripper's diary. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what they called the diary, does it?

Just as I thought. You don't think it matters whether the diary was referred to as "the old book", or "an old book", or anything else, because you have been led to believe that all the interviewees had been 'got at' by Feldman - which is simply not the case.

But, truly, if there was someone who in 1992 had personal knowledge of the discovery of an "old book" in Battlecrease, please do tell us who that was and how they knew about it. It seems pretty important to me.

I doubt anyone could prove it to your satisfaction, but the evidence indicates that Eddie was known by certain individuals, and presumed by others, to have found "the old book" while working in Battlecrease, and this was back in 1992 before Feldman was involved.

Take it or leave it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

whats the name of the donkey?

[Pcdunn]

Tracing the photograph or photo album after all these years is wildly improbable, but the headstone reads "Chubby, the Dear & Affectionate Little Friend of H & M Pennell."

The 1921 UK Census lists Harriett & Mary Pennell, two spinster sisters, living at 9 Brougham Terrace, Everton, Liverpool.

Mary was a member of the Royal Human Society and ran a cat shelter in Brougham Terrace.

Excellent point. We do not know if the donkey in the scrapbook photo was standing beside a human-sized grave or a pet-sized one.

This doesn't matter, really, as the scrapbook "diary" is supposed to have a much earlier vintage than the photo of the donkey at the grave of the affectionate (cat?) "Chubby" (a name which could well be applied to either of my felines).

[John Wheat]

I know, Herlock just can't stay away, despite having no new ideas or new research to post. Just question after question about the same old, same old, that has been answered, addressed, debated, discussed and argued about time and time again.

If he stops asking ancient questions, and raking over old ideas, I'll stop responding to him on this thread.

Fair enough?

Love,

Caz
X

To be fair though there's nothing new being brought forward by those who believe the Diary wasn't written by the Barretts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strange post, Herlock.

If Mike didn't mention that anyone else was involved, when he made his original claim to have written the diary, how does that become evidence that others were involved, but for some reason he chose not to say so?

What was the date of the first time Mike told Alan Gray on tape that he wrote the diary, but Anne wrote the manuscript? Was it before or after Mike was sent his author copies of Shirley's paperback, which was on 15th September 1994? I ask because on 16th August, while in Alan Gray's company, Mike's phone rings and he tells the person on the other end that the diary is genuine and the British Museum also passed it as genuinely Victorian. He says he'll have a word with his solicitors because he can't turn round and say Anne forged it - that takes time, it won't happen overnight, but that diary is one hundred percent genuine.

No wonder Alan Gray found Mike hard work!

I noted on my timeline, that when I first listened to their conversation dated 31st August, I found it largely unintelligible, but maybe you had better luck with it here on the casebook?

Then I have nothing until late October 1994, so I'm struggling to find when Mike first told Alan Gray to his face that Anne had written the manuscript, and how he managed to square that with what he was telling someone on the phone in Alan's presence back in August.

Clearly, RJ Palmer doesn't believe Mike 'falsely' claimed that Anne was involved, and I don't believe she was ever 'terrified' - except perhaps in those very early days, when Mike wanted to take the diary to London, if he was lying to Doreen about where he got it from and when. So I don't know what point you are making here. The evidence shows that Anne wasn't affected by Mike's claim that her handwriting was in the diary. She knew it was rubbish, and only threatened to retaliate if he had been able to carry out his own threat to go public - which didn't happen this time. Nobody would like to be publicly accused of forgery by their estranged partner, true or false.

I can't explain Anne's reaction back in June 1994, when Mike went to Harold Brough with his first forgery claim, but that's a separate issue from his later claims, accusing Anne of forgery. I don't imagine I would have taken it well, if the husband I had left went to the newspapers to claim he had committed forgery in the marital home while I was under the same roof, regardless of whether it was true or not, but maybe that's just me. It must have been a huge embarrassment for someone who always came across as a very private person, who had been deeply affected by having to admit that her long marriage was over. One might think Anne would have taken it far more personally when Mike involved her in his forgery claims, along with her late father and Caroline, to rub extra salt in the wounds, but the difference was that Mike hadn't gone public with it, and couldn't do so without losing the affidavit as his bargaining tool to make her speak to him.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry Caz, this question doesn't make any sense to me:

"If Mike didn't mention that anyone else was involved, when he made his original claim to have written the diary, how does that become evidence that others were involved, but for some reason he chose not to say so?"

Where did I say anything of the sort that causes you to ask me that?

All I did was ask you for a quote from June 1994 where Mike said he wrote the diary, including the manuscript, on his own. Can I take it from your failure to provide such a quote that he never said this?

Instead, you've moved to a different subject about something Mike said on a tape in August 1994. From what you say, and this isn't a tape I've listened to, it sounds like Mike was promoting Shirley's paperback in the hope of making money from it. I'm afraid I don't understand what "he can't turn round and say Anne forged it - that takes time" could have meant. It's kind of ambiguous. It's a shame you've written that in the third person instead of reproducing what Mike said in his actual words. But I suspect we'll need to know what the other person on the phone was saying to him before we can work it out.

I don't know the first time Mike told Gray on tape that he'd forged the diary because I've only listened to four of them from November 1994 but if it was October then great. Was Mike asked by Gray who forged the diary any earlier than this? If not, it probably explains why Mike said it at that time.

When you say "The evidence shows that Anne wasn't affected by Mike's claim that her handwriting was in the diary" what evidence are you talking about which shows that Anne wasn't affected by it? When you say "She knew it was rubbish" how are you possibly able to say this? Or is this something you are saying on the basis she wasn't one of the forgers? It may be that "Nobody would like to be publicly accused of forgery by their estranged partner, true or false" but, as I have been saying, it strikes me as odd to regard the threat of such an accusation as blackmail as opposed to a silly annoyance.

Thank you for conceding that you can't explain Anne's reaction in June 1994. It's not just that she didn't take it well but she regarded it as an attack on her personally, even though she wasn't mentioned. That's the strange bit. But I would suggest that it's consistent with her being one of the forgers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eddie didn't tell Brian he had stolen anything. It was a find he had made in the house, which he thought could be "important" and he ran it past Brian as he didn't know what to do about it. Brian assumed he had just found it, and was in a hurry to get away as it was a Friday afternoon, so he advised Eddie to tell the boss. Obviously, Eddie didn't do that, and was never going to do that if he had found the diary on his first visit, back on 9th March 1992, and had subsequently heard that it had attracted a London publisher. One can surely imagine what would have been going round and round in Eddie's head when he was sent back to the house in the July.



No - but you are free to make up your own answers, and you clearly have some kind of aversion to anyone directly connected with the Battlecrease evidence referring to the diary as "the old book" [as opposed to "an old book", which you seem to prefer for some reason]. For future reference, the Battlecrease 'witnesses' are not confined to the four electricians who were present on 9th March 1992, and why would you want them to be, if you don't accept that date has any particular significance?

The witness testimony has come from a variety of sources over the years, all connected with this diary that was allegedly found in Battlecrease. Goodness knows how many friends, relatives and associates of the main witnesses must also have been told about it and may still be around. Even if you try to reduce it all to a conspiracy consisting of rumour, hearsay and lies, where nobody stands to gain anything from believing it or repeating it, the Battlecrease evidence collectively stands in stark contrast to the vacuum that is Auction Theory. Not a single witness after all these years has been found to support any of Mike's forgery stories, from personal observation or knowledge, not even in the form of rumour or hearsay. If you are happy with that, I'm happy for you, but it's not for me.



That suits me, Herlock. Please don't comment in future on anything you are not fully informed about - including your suggestion that I might want to keep evidence secret and hidden. If it's not my evidence, what do you expect me to do? All I can say is that I have seen no evidence yet that the double event of 9th March 1992 was a coincidence, and nothing yet that could support Mike's auction claim. And no, I don't believe Robert has made his notes on the meeting with Eddie 'available' for you to see. That would be his call. Same with all the recorded and transcribed interviews, which have yet to be made available to everyone, and which are not mine to share. How many times do I need to repeat this?



Hardly surprising, Herlock. There's an awful lot you 'really don't see', and I'm talking about all the stuff that has already been made available.

Love,

Caz
X

But hold on Caz. If Eddie was actually going to "run past" Brian the discovery of the diary you say he'd made in Battlecrease in March, he was going to have to tell Brian he'd stolen it, wasn't he? What else could he have said about it? You can't seriously be saying that all he was intending to say to Brian was that he'd found something without telling him what it was or giving him any further information. So what I'm saying is that it would have been very odd for him to have approached Brian to tell him this important but otherwise secret information as Brian was collecting the firm's van and was about to back down the drive to go to another job. Certainly at least as odd, if not odder, as him mentioning to Brian that he'd seen a lot of old books in the house.

If you're denying that no identifiable witness has referred to the diary as an "old book" why haven't you identified him, her or them? it doesn't bother me at all if anyone has spoken of "an old book", "the old book", "Uncle Tom Cobbley's old book" etc., I just want to know who has done it. And the only reason I want to know is because you keep saying it! But now you've gone all secret squirrel and won't tell me who that person or persons is/are. I also don't care if it's an electrician or not an electrician. I just want to know who it is. Your refusal to tell me leads me to think that there isn't anyone and you realize you're mistaken.

As for commenting on whether you want to keep evidence hidden and secret, I do feel fully informed about that because you've basically told me that this is what you are doing. Remember when I asked you for the evidence of Mike telling Scotland Yard about his journalistic background? You refused to provide it and it remains hidden and secret to this day. I've literally no idea why. And why haven't the recorded and transcribed interviews been made available to everyone? Don't you think that's a shameful state of affairs?

[caz]

Are you sure it's accurate to say that Mike "went from claiming publicly in the June that he had written the diary by himself, to telling Alan Gray several months later that Anne had assisted him." Can you provide a quote from June 1994 in which he said he wrote the diary, including the manuscript, on his own? The reason I ask is that on multiple occasions after June 1994, from what I heard on the tapes, Mike would say "I wrote the diary" but at the same time he would say that he didn't write the manuscript, Anne did. So are you quite sure he ever said that he did it all by himself? Or was that something everyone assumed him to be saying because he didn't mention anyone else?

Clearly, Roger has never said that Anne was terrified about Mike falsely claiming that she was involved in forging the diary. I just don't see how a false claim by Mike that Anne was involved in forging the diary would have affected her in any way. Nor can I believe that Mike would have thought so. That's why I find it so difficult to understand why Anne reacted in June 1994 as if Mike's confession was an attack on her personally. Can you explain it? And it's why I find it so difficult to see why she would have felt blackmailed by any threat by Mike to circulate his affidavit. Yet she said she regarded it as blackmail.

Strange post, Herlock.

If Mike didn't mention that anyone else was involved, when he made his original claim to have written the diary, how does that become evidence that others were involved, but for some reason he chose not to say so?

What was the date of the first time Mike told Alan Gray on tape that he wrote the diary, but Anne wrote the manuscript? Was it before or after Mike was sent his author copies of Shirley's paperback, which was on 15th September 1994? I ask because on 16th August, while in Alan Gray's company, Mike's phone rings and he tells the person on the other end that the diary is genuine and the British Museum also passed it as genuinely Victorian. He says he'll have a word with his solicitors because he can't turn round and say Anne forged it - that takes time, it won't happen overnight, but that diary is one hundred percent genuine.

No wonder Alan Gray found Mike hard work!

I noted on my timeline, that when I first listened to their conversation dated 31st August, I found it largely unintelligible, but maybe you had better luck with it here on the casebook?

Then I have nothing until late October 1994, so I'm struggling to find when Mike first told Alan Gray to his face that Anne had written the manuscript, and how he managed to square that with what he was telling someone on the phone in Alan's presence back in August.

Clearly, RJ Palmer doesn't believe Mike 'falsely' claimed that Anne was involved, and I don't believe she was ever 'terrified' - except perhaps in those very early days, when Mike wanted to take the diary to London, if he was lying to Doreen about where he got it from and when. So I don't know what point you are making here. The evidence shows that Anne wasn't affected by Mike's claim that her handwriting was in the diary. She knew it was rubbish, and only threatened to retaliate if he had been able to carry out his own threat to go public - which didn't happen this time. Nobody would like to be publicly accused of forgery by their estranged partner, true or false.

I can't explain Anne's reaction back in June 1994, when Mike went to Harold Brough with his first forgery claim, but that's a separate issue from his later claims, accusing Anne of forgery. I don't imagine I would have taken it well, if the husband I had left went to the newspapers to claim he had committed forgery in the marital home while I was under the same roof, regardless of whether it was true or not, but maybe that's just me. It must have been a huge embarrassment for someone who always came across as a very private person, who had been deeply affected by having to admit that her long marriage was over. One might think Anne would have taken it far more personally when Mike involved her in his forgery claims, along with her late father and Caroline, to rub extra salt in the wounds, but the difference was that Mike hadn't gone public with it, and couldn't do so without losing the affidavit as his bargaining tool to make her speak to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike had no training - and I challenge anyone to find evidence that he did. He and Anne both admitted - separately - that he couldn't write or spell, and his typing was rubbish, so she had to tidy everything up or it wouldn't have made it into print. Do you know if he even passed the 11-plus?



Maybe I wasn't clear, but the nasty shock I referred to was when Mike first said he had forged the diary. I really don't see Shirley reeling from the shock of learning about his previous writing ventures. Awkward, possibly, because people like Nick Warren were determined to find everything about Mike's activities 'suspicious', but Shirley already had more than enough first-hand knowledge of Mike's limited research and literacy skills, while he was meant to have been helping her write her first diary book, and she never had cause to change her mind on account of anything he managed to get published in the 1980s.



And what, pray, would Mike have been worried about, when his story appeared in the paper, claiming to have written the diary himself? Are you borrowing RJ Palmer's mind-reading skills? He must have realised he was putting any future royalties at risk, at the very least.



Oh come on, Herlock. This is Mike you are talking about. Feldman, Smith and Harrison never thought for a single second that he had written the diary himself, and he could hardly have been 'utterly baffled' by this, considering he was painfully aware of his own appalling and distinctive handwriting, which is precisely why he had to change the story or forget it, and Anne turned out to be the perfect fall girl for him in the circumstances.



Well you'll never know, will you? But I wonder how you think they would have dealt with Warren's not-so-damning revelation, if Mike had not taken things to another level entirely, with his ridiculous forgery claims, which he was never able to substantiate? Melvin Harris, remember, didn't believe Mike or Anne forged the diary, despite everything Mike tried to claim to the contrary, so Warren's 'journalist' revelation would have made no impact on Melvin's thinking regardless, which tells its own story.



If Melvin Harris had still been around, you could have run this past him, because he didn't consider Mike's dabbling with journalism pointed to him as the forger, so was Harris incompetent in your view?



So why not just point to Mike's threat, and leave out your opinion that this showed he was 'extremely agitated'? You might have had a point if it was out of character for Mike to threaten people with legal action, whenever he felt under threat himself.



Both parties admitted to the exchange independently and on the record. It happened on Eddie's doorstep and Mike angrily confronted Eddie. When he mentioned getting his solicitor involved, Eddie took his cue to go inside and shut the door. Eddie claimed this was the only time he ever met Mike, and denied they met again on 26th June 1993, evidently having made up and become friendly enough over the interval to meet up in the Saddle and try to pull a fast one on Robert Smith.



This is not new information, but the source, naturally enough, was always Mike himself. This is why I was careful to say his 'stated' belief, because none of us knows what he did believe, or what he actually knew, and his word could never be relied on. He obviously knew where he got the diary from, in whatever form, but anyone else who knows that, and is still alive, isn't telling. There was a poster called 'pinkmoon' a few years back, who didn't believe the diary was genuine, but happened to meet Mike Barrett one day in a shop in Southport, where he was living when we interviewed him for Inside Story [see page 270]. Mike told 'pinkmoon' - for what it's worth - that he had nicked the diary from a couple of electricians. During the interview for our book, a smartly dressed and sober Mike told us yet another story, that the diary had not come from Anne's family, but from his own. I have seen no evidence that he ever repeated any of his forgery claims in his later years, and the opposite was the case when he tried to impress Robert Smith with his novel, which again showed that he was just not cut out for it.



It was Mike who said he had kept it and claimed to have brought it with him to London in April 1999.

I say he was lying.

I say he never had it in the first place, so he had nothing to keep or destroy.

What say you?

That Mike's failure to produce the auction ticket means that he had it in 1992 but must have destroyed it by June 1994?

Love,

Caz
X

I was saying that the amount of training Mike had - whether highly trained or not trained at all - is irrelevant. He was a journalist in a nationally distributed magazine published by a major and reputable publisher who had his name in the by-line, sometimes accompanied by the word "EXCLUSIVE". . But he had kept it secret. It doesn't matter if he needed Anne's help or not. He would still have had to explain how it had happened and why he'd concealed it.

If Shirley had first hand knowledge of Mike's supposedly rubbish literary skills, wouldn't that have been even more reason for her to have been surprised and shocked that Mike had formerly been a journalist?

I thought I already explained what Mike would have been worried about in June 1994 prior to his confession, but I'll say it again. If the scenario of the Barretts as the forgers is the correct one, Mike had been living a terrible lie for the previous two years, deceiving everyone around him, all the researchers who probably thought of him as a friend and now he was about to be exposed as a former journalist, something he'd deliberately concealed from all of them. In his mind, he knew they were all going to question him about why he hadn't told them but he didn't have any answers and it was, in his mind, going to be obvious for this reason that he was the forger, or at least one of them. So he got ahead of it, owned the story and publicly confessed. I don't think I can make it any clearer.

And if Mike was the forger, which is a premise I thought you'd agreed you could work with, then it would obviously have been baffling to him as to why Feldman, Smith and Harrison didn't believe him. And he didn't change the story after June 1994, he augmented it by revealing Anne's role to Alan Gray.

Again, it doesn't matter how the researchers would, in fact, have dealt with Warren's revelation. It's what Mike feared would happen that is important because we're only discussing why he might have confessed. It doesn't matter what Melvin Harris thought about Warren's revelation, although I note you've provided no evidence as to what Harris actually thought about it.

And you've really misunderstood my reference to incompetence, even though I explained it. You keep thinking I'm saying that the researchers would have been incompetent for not believing Mike wrote the diary knowing him to be a journalist. I'm not saying that. I'm saying they would have been incompetent not to have questioned him about why he hadn't told them about it before. In other words, because they weren't incompetent, we can guarantee that they would have asked him that question. And if Mike knew that he had no good answer for it, that could explain why he gave up the pretence and confessed.

In respect of Mike having threatened Eddie with a solicitor, you're relying on the word two men who you claim were in a conspiracy together and who have lied repeatedly about it for the truth of this private incident. And despite me asking for the "hard evidence", you've once again given me nothing but a vague account which appears to be based on your memory. Why can't you give me the quotes where both Mike and Eddie say that Mike threatened Eddie with a solicitor? Why is it so difficult to provide this?

As for Mike's views after 2003, I cannot believe you're relying on anything the anonymous poster called "pinkmoon" has said. I well remember his various contradictory accounts being exposed by David Orsam in 2018 (see "Acquiring A Victorian Diary" thread, #1069 and #1081). Here is one example of what pinkmon posted:

"Mr Barrett has told lots of far fetched stories about the diary to me and lots of other people over the years.He told me lots of different stories all revolving round him been this master forger the one thing that he always said was all he wanted was to raise a few hundred quid to buy a decent greenhouse he never expected this to become so big.Mr Barrett is a loon he is not capable of forging anything and anyone with any sense would not get him involved with anything at any level"

And here's another classic from pinkmoon:

"I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did."

So I think you'll agree we can and should discount anything "pinkmoon" said.

As for the auction ticket, it doesn't matter if Mike was the forger or not, he could have seen people getting excited about the thought of seeing an auction ticket and led them on, perhaps in the hope of a free trip to London and some food and booze. Mind you, you haven't quoted Mike saying that he'd kept the auction ticket and brought it with him in April 1999 so I will, as usual, reserve judgement until you show me some evidence. I would have thought that the auction ticket, if it existed, would have been destroyed in March 1992. Why would he have kept it? But if not in 1992 then in 1993 when Scotland Yard came poking around. Really the only point here is that your continued claim that "a tiny scrap of paper could have saved Mike all the trouble" is a bit silly because it seems to be based on Mike saying he had the ticket in 1999 which you don't even believe.

What I note you didn't do is answer my question: "If we assume that the ticket had been destroyed in 1992 (or in 1993, along with the other physical evidence of the diary's creation) how do you say Mike could have proved to your or anyone else's satisfaction that he was the forger?" Or do you accept that proving authorship in the absence of physical evidence would have been a difficult thing for Barrett to do, if he'd been the forger?

[caz]

It's interesting that you say that this would have been an odd thing for Eddie to have said to Brian in isolation as Brian was collecting the firm's van and was about to back down the drive to go to another job because it struck me when, I first read Robert Smith's book, that it would have been very odd for him to have told Brian in those circumstances that he'd found (and stolen!) something from the house a few months earlier.

Eddie didn't tell Brian he had stolen anything. It was a find he had made in the house, which he thought could be "important" and he ran it past Brian as he didn't know what to do about it. Brian assumed he had just found it, and was in a hurry to get away as it was a Friday afternoon, so he advised Eddie to tell the boss. Obviously, Eddie didn't do that, and was never going to do that if he had found the diary on his first visit, back on 9th March 1992, and had subsequently heard that it had attracted a London publisher. One can surely imagine what would have been going round and round in Eddie's head when he was sent back to the house in the July.

But anyway back to the point. Is the real answer that no identifiable Battlecrease witness has referred to the diary as an "old book"?

No - but you are free to make up your own answers, and you clearly have some kind of aversion to anyone directly connected with the Battlecrease evidence referring to the diary as "the old book" [as opposed to "an old book", which you seem to prefer for some reason]. For future reference, the Battlecrease 'witnesses' are not confined to the four electricians who were present on 9th March 1992, and why would you want them to be, if you don't accept that date has any particular significance?

The witness testimony has come from a variety of sources over the years, all connected with this diary that was allegedly found in Battlecrease. Goodness knows how many friends, relatives and associates of the main witnesses must also have been told about it and may still be around. Even if you try to reduce it all to a conspiracy consisting of rumour, hearsay and lies, where nobody stands to gain anything from believing it or repeating it, the Battlecrease evidence collectively stands in stark contrast to the vacuum that is Auction Theory. Not a single witness after all these years has been found to support any of Mike's forgery stories, from personal observation or knowledge, not even in the form of rumour or hearsay. If you are happy with that, I'm happy for you, but it's not for me.

As for the record of the conversation between Lyons and Smith, look Caz, let me make one thing clear. I simply don't care if you or anyone else want to keep evidence secret and hidden in this case. All I was asking is if there is a note available of the conversation between Smith and Lyons. That's it. If the answer is no there is not, that's all I needed to know. But please don't expect me to comment on things that I'm not fully informed about.

That suits me, Herlock. Please don't comment in future on anything you are not fully informed about - including your suggestion that I might want to keep evidence secret and hidden. If it's not my evidence, what do you expect me to do? All I can say is that I have seen no evidence yet that the double event of 9th March 1992 was a coincidence, and nothing yet that could support Mike's auction claim. And no, I don't believe Robert has made his notes on the meeting with Eddie 'available' for you to see. That would be his call. Same with all the recorded and transcribed interviews, which have yet to be made available to everyone, and which are not mine to share. How many times do I need to repeat this?

I really don’t see why this subject or these questions/points irritate or annoy Caz but they clearly do for some reason.

Hardly surprising, Herlock. There's an awful lot you 'really don't see', and I'm talking about all the stuff that has already been made available.

Love,

Caz
X