New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

I think we both agree that once Mike swore his affidavit he put it through Anne's letterbox, and then did nothing else with it.

What I'm saying, however, is that this doesn't necessarily tell us why he agreed to do the affidavit in the first place.

But even if showing it to Anne was prominent in his mind, and he was hell bent on revenge for Anne wanting to divorce him, it doesn't necessarily mean that he had a motive to lie about having done the forgery with Anne. To my mind, the fact that he only sent it to Anne as a form of blackmail is more consistent with Anne having been involved the forgery.

You might have had a point if only Mike had not made such a thorough mess of that affidavit, regarding dates, details and order of events. Anne wasn't the heavy drinker, so if she had been involved in forging the diary with Mike, she'd have known precisely which claims were outright lies, or contained provable errors, that collectively would have rendered his account impossible.

I appreciate that you disagree with me but that's because you don't think that Mike was involved in the forgery. What you're not giving me are reasons why what I'm saying can't be true.

One more time - I don't need to do that. The onus is on you to prove he was involved in creating the diary, if that's what you have actually been led to believe - not by any real evidence, which doesn't exist, but by the arguments you have read.

Just to add that my source for the newspapers not being sufficiently interested in Mike's story is in the Alan Gray tapes where Gray was obviously trying to get newspapers interested in the story but none of them were biting. I'm not saying that they were offered the affidavit, only that if they weren't interested in the story in the first place, the affidavit, which could only ever have been supporting evidence for the story, was of no practical use for that purpose

Ah, that makes sense. Why do you suppose the newspapers were not biting again in January 1995? Was it because Mike's forgery claims from the previous June were immediately retracted on his behalf by his solicitor? Or perhaps because they were now hearing a complete change of story from Mike's new spokesperson, Alan Gray, and they didn't want to touch this one with a barge pole, not least because of the libel implications?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You might have had a point if only Mike had not made such a thorough mess of that affidavit, regarding dates, details and order of events. Anne wasn't the heavy drinker, so if she had been involved in forging the diary with Mike, she'd have known precisely which claims were outright lies, or contained provable errors, that collectively would have rendered his account impossible.



One more time - I don't need to do that. The onus is on you to prove he was involved in creating the diary, if that's what you have actually been led to believe - not by any real evidence, which doesn't exist, but by the arguments you have read.



Ah, that makes sense. Why do you suppose the newspapers were not biting again in January 1995? Was it because Mike's forgery claims from the previous June were immediately retracted on his behalf by his solicitor? Or perhaps because they were now hearing a complete change of story from Mike's new spokesperson, Alan Gray, and they didn't want to touch this one with a barge pole, not least because of the libel implications?

Love,

Caz
X

I’m sorry Caz, but there's no onus on me to say that Mike Barrett was involved in creating the diary because I'm not saying this. I'm saying I don't know of any reason why he couldn't have done it. I thought you, on the other hand, are positively saying that he definitely didn't do it. So surely the onus is on you to explain why not.

I don't really understand your point about the affidavit. Sure, if there were mistakes in it Anne would have realized that immediately but, if she had assisted her husband in the forgery, wouldn't there have been a danger to her in him announcing this to the world? After all, didn't she get extremely upset and defensive when Mike said in June 1994 that he had created the diary, without even mentioning Anne? Didn't she regard his confession as an attack on her personally even though she hadn't been mentioned in it?

In any case, what Anne did or did not think when reading the affidavit isn't the relevant point here. Surely, the relevant point is what was in Mike's mind at the time. He, presumably, wouldn't have known about the mistakes in the affidavit. What I'm saying is that if the whole thing was a tissue of lies, he would have known that and Anne would have known that and he would have known that Anne knew that, which makes his attempt to use the affidavit for the purposes of blackmail very odd. You surely must agree with that at least?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Anne would not have put anything of an incriminating nature in her private letters to Mike, then she presumably didn't consider anything she wrote was potentially incriminating, so I'm glad if we have now got that one sorted out. Previously, the very mention of the word 'blackmail' had Barrett theorists all excited that they had found evidence against her.

I think I would have been just a little bit upset at the prospect of my ex circulating an affidavit containing lies about me and accusing me of fraud. I might even have promised to retaliate if he did anything of the sort. Maybe I'm funny that way. But Anne didn't actually need to tell Mike that his affidavit was a pack of lies, because they would both have known it.

I'm still waiting to be told why the Barretts were capable, physically, mentally or psychologically, of creating the diary - by someone who would actually know.

Meanwhile I will continue to presume that they were not - not least because the evidence we do have strongly indicates that it already existed before Mike first clapped eyes on the "old book", as it has been referred to by Battlecrease witnesses. The laws of physics would render the Barretts incapable in that respect.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm not aware of anyone having been excited that evidence had been found against Anne in her letter Caz. I only mentioned it to confirm the date of her divorce. It was you who seemed interested in the content of the letter. Anyway, as I said, it seems a bit odd for her to have been describing Mike's threat to release the affidavit as "blackmail". I'm not sure how you've satisfied yourself that Anne wouldn't have put anything incriminating into her private letters with Mike though. She might have been careful not to say anything by which she openly admitted her role in the forgery (if she did indeed have a role in the forgery of course) but that doesn't mean she wouldn't have written something incriminating. Not everyone is a master criminal incapable of slipping up.

It's still odd to me that Anne didn't say something like "what you're proposing is ridiculous because it's all lies". The letter doesn't prove anything but it's still odd in my opinion, and consistent with Anne being one of the forgers.

To repeat, I've never claimed that the Barretts were capable of forging the diary. I don't know their capabilities. But I thought you were claiming they were incapable. Have I got that wrong?

What Battlecrease "witness" has referred to the diary as an "old book", by the way? Could you identify who you are talking about and what they claim to have witnessed please?

[Lombro2]

That’s Eddy with the Old Book story.

It’s hard to keep up, I know, even with Google.

[Lombro2]

That’s a witness, of course, that corroborated other witnesses (the only ones that count) even when he’s the accused.

[Lombro2]

There was a movie deal in the works. William Friedkin was set to direct in 1995 with Anthony Hopkins so it was a real deal. Michael was sabotaging it with "blackmail" or whatever you want to call it.

What's there not to understand?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s Eddy with the Old Book story.

It’s hard to keep up, I know, even with Google.

If you've decided to mangle the English language by describing Eddie Lyons as a witness to his own alleged discovery, could you please provide the quote in which Lyons says he found an "old book"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was a movie deal in the works. William Friedkin was set to direct in 1995 with Anthony Hopkins so it was a real deal. Michael was sabotaging it with "blackmail" or whatever you want to call it.

What's there not to understand?

So you think Anne's concern was ensuring she received the money from the film deal?

[caz]

You seem to be asking me to tell you what was in Mike Barrett's soul, Caz. I can't do that.

I've read your paragraph about what you refer to as "the journalist argument" carefully and I can't see for one second how or why it's absurd. How are you possibly able to say that Mike felt under "no pressure" to confess as a result of Nick Warren's forthcoming exposé? How do you know what he was feeling at the time? Can you provide some evidence if you say this is the case Caz?

Mike didn't have to 'confess' to anything, therefore he was under no pressure to do so. There is no logic behind the argument that he would have felt obliged to throw himself under the bus because he'd neglected to tell the bus company that he once had a dream about being a train driver.

How could Shirley's reaction to discovering in July 1994 that Mike was a former journalist, absent his confession in June, have been anything other than one of complete shock? How could she have not instantly demanded an explanation for this bombshell from Mike? She had told the world that Barrett was only ever a merchant seaman, chef and scrap metal dealer in her book. How was she going to explain the omission of journalist to the world? It would have been a complete disaster, surely.

But it wasn't, was it? It was neither a 'complete shock' or a 'complete disaster' for Shirley. The only thing that could be described as a 'bombshell' was Mike's claim to have forged the diary himself, but that simply wasn't believable. Shirley went on to write and sell more diary books, safe in the knowledge that Mike's former writing ventures did not amount to evidence that he had faked the diary, with or without his wife.

Of course, Mike's confession in June, followed fast by Anne's new story about where the diary came from - which I assume you think is a complete lie but, curiously, aren't too bothered - changed the entire dynamic but it got Mike out of a hole.

Why do you say I'm not 'too bothered' that the Barretts provably lied about the diary? I'm not keen on liars and I don't seek to defend their lies. While all forgers are liars, all liars are not forgers, and it's an important distinction to keep in mind before we start accusing individuals of more wrongdoing than the evidence allows. It's not so much a matter of justice for those individuals; it's about trying to establish the truth about the diary, so its creation doesn't end up attributed to the wrong person or persons by popular demand, or by the sheer force of a theorist's ego.

I'm not sure what you mean by Anne's new story getting Mike out of a hole. He didn't want to get out of a hole, did he? He went and dug himself a deeper one after Shirley's 1994 paperback came out and he wasn't happy with what she'd revealed about him and Anne. If they had written the diary together, Anne's new story, as told to Feldman in the July, was an open invitation to Mike to drag her down into the hole with him, by proving it. I think you've been paying far too much attention to the illogical arguments on that score.

I'm not convinced, incidentally, that Mike "changed his mind like the weather". If you want to make that point good you'll need to set out some evidence for it.

Then don't be 'convinced'. If you prefer to believe Mike didn't change his mind and his story, to suit his audience and the circumstances, I'm not bothered enough to disabuse you by leading you to the evidence that he did. You probably know all about the most major change, when his affidavit of January 1995 gave a totally different account from the one he swore in April 1993. At least one of them, if not both, contained nothing but lies, and the circumstances in which he made each statement were as different as the statements themselves, providing context and plausible motives for the stories he came up with on each occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Devereux could have "created" the diary.

Along with thousands of other Liverpudlians, Scotty. In theory at least, which is all they've got with the Barretts.

Imagine Mike Barrett seeing a little old lady walking down a quiet street carrying a brown paper parcel. He grabs it from her and runs, and this time nobody sees it happen, so he gets away with it.

Who's the forger now? Is it Mike? Or is it the lady whose husband had recently died, leaving her a load of old books to sort through?

How long's a piece of string?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If you've decided to mangle the English language by describing Eddie Lyons as a witness to his own alleged discovery, could you please provide the quote in which Lyons says he found an "old book"?

Towards the end of June 1993, when Eddie agreed to meet Robert Smith and Mike Barrett in the Saddle, he volunteered a story that he had found an old book in Dodd's house, but said he had thrown it in a skip - which wasn't there. It would still have been taken from the house without Dodd's knowledge or permission, but Eddie must have thought the childish lie about the skip would satisfy Robert that he hadn't literally 'stolen' anything and it could not have been the diary in any case.

Perhaps you could explain why Eddie said anything at all. Was he covering his back, or was he an even bigger fantasist than Mike?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I’m sorry Caz, but there's no onus on me to say that Mike Barrett was involved in creating the diary because I'm not saying this. I'm saying I don't know of any reason why he couldn't have done it. I thought you, on the other hand, are positively saying that he definitely didn't do it. So surely the onus is on you to explain why not.

No, I am presuming he didn't do it because the evidence for it has not been forthcoming and the evidence we do have points in another direction entirely, which would make it impossible for him to have done it, even if he might have had the intellect, the patience, the persistence, research skills and the literacy to forge a document of this nature.

I don't really understand your point about the affidavit. Sure, if there were mistakes in it Anne would have realized that immediately but, if she had assisted her husband in the forgery, wouldn't there have been a danger to her in him announcing this to the world? After all, didn't she get extremely upset and defensive when Mike said in June 1994 that he had created the diary, without even mentioning Anne? Didn't she regard his confession as an attack on her personally even though she hadn't been mentioned in it?

'If' there were mistakes in it?? Of course there would have been a danger to Anne in Mike announcing to the world that they had forged the diary 'if' that had been the case, but the degree of danger would have depended on whether Mike would ever be capable of making yet another confession statement, but with all the right notes in the right order. Anne could only have crossed her fingers and hoped that day would never come. She might have guessed he didn't have any physical proof, such as the auction ticket, or a receipt for Diamine ink, or it would have saved him - not to mention Alan Gray - all the time and trouble of making such an error filled statement in the first place. But back in July 1994, when she came out with her new story, she couldn't have known that Mike hadn't managed to gather the hard evidence he needed, following the hasty retraction of his first forgery claim - unless no such evidence ever existed.

In any case, what Anne did or did not think when reading the affidavit isn't the relevant point here. Surely, the relevant point is what was in Mike's mind at the time. He, presumably, wouldn't have known about the mistakes in the affidavit. What I'm saying is that if the whole thing was a tissue of lies, he would have known that and Anne would have known that and he would have known that Anne knew that, which makes his attempt to use the affidavit for the purposes of blackmail very odd. You surely must agree with that at least?

Not if the diary was the only 'weapon' Mike had to use against Anne. She had used it against him the previous July after all, so it would have been natural enough to throw it back in her face. Since the affidavit has managed to convince so many armchair theorists over the years, Mike might well have imagined it would have the power to scare Anne into making contact with him, if she thought enough people would actually believe what was in it.

But it didn't match with Melvin Harris's nest of forgers, and it wasn't made public until it reached the internet two years later, so Anne was right not to be intimidated by Mike's efforts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That’s Eddy with the Old Book story.

It’s hard to keep up, I know, even with Google.

When Keith Skinner and his partner Coral interviewed some of the Battlecrease witnesses, Coral noticed the diary being referred to, quite unprompted, as "the old book". I remarked on the same thing independently to Keith, when listening to the recordings. As far as I'm aware, the diary had been described variously in the available books as a diary, journal, photo album, scrapbook, guard book or ledger, but not as simply an old book, or the old book. It somehow only seems appropriate in conversation, and it is by far the simplest, clearest and most accurate description to use for the physical book which contains the words we all know and love so well.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Let me help with the confusion.

The blog at Orsam Books directly quotes Robert Smith's own account, and Smith reported that Eddie described a 'book,' not an 'old book.'

What was being disputed is Lombro and C.A.M. putting 'old' into the horse's mouth, which disagrees with what Smith wrote in 2017.

--for those interested in the minutia being strictly accurate.

Of course, calling it an 'old book' is somewhat more suggestive than calling it a 'book,' which could have been a water damaged romance paperback by Danielle Steel circa 1984, which in Wonderland at least, is more likely to be tossed into a non-existent skip than an oversize photo album with a confession of Jack the Ripper inside.

Meanwhile, I'm still puzzled why Paul Dodd never pursued the lawsuit in light of Eddie's alleged "confession," since he had sought legal advice on the matter.

But now it seems that it wasn't Eddie who called it an old book, but people who had never even seen the book, but were passing along second and third hand accounts in interviews that have not been made public.

Okay, got it.

Thanks. I guess that's progress.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike didn't have to 'confess' to anything, therefore he was under no pressure to do so. There is no logic behind the argument that he would have felt obliged to throw himself under the bus because he'd neglected to tell the bus company that he once had a dream about being a train driver.



But it wasn't, was it? It was neither a 'complete shock' or a 'complete disaster' for Shirley. The only thing that could be described as a 'bombshell' was Mike's claim to have forged the diary himself, but that simply wasn't believable. Shirley went on to write and sell more diary books, safe in the knowledge that Mike's former writing ventures did not amount to evidence that he had faked the diary, with or without his wife.



Why do you say I'm not 'too bothered' that the Barretts provably lied about the diary? I'm not keen on liars and I don't seek to defend their lies. While all forgers are liars, all liars are not forgers, and it's an important distinction to keep in mind before we start accusing individuals of more wrongdoing than the evidence allows. It's not so much a matter of justice for those individuals; it's about trying to establish the truth about the diary, so its creation doesn't end up attributed to the wrong person or persons by popular demand, or by the sheer force of a theorist's ego.

I'm not sure what you mean by Anne's new story getting Mike out of a hole. He didn't want to get out of a hole, did he? He went and dug himself a deeper one after Shirley's 1994 paperback came out and he wasn't happy with what she'd revealed about him and Anne. If they had written the diary together, Anne's new story, as told to Feldman in the July, was an open invitation to Mike to drag her down into the hole with him, by proving it. I think you've been paying far too much attention to the illogical arguments on that score.



Then don't be 'convinced'. If you prefer to believe Mike didn't change his mind and his story, to suit his audience and the circumstances, I'm not bothered enough to disabuse you by leading you to the evidence that he did. You probably know all about the most major change, when his affidavit of January 1995 gave a totally different account from the one he swore in April 1993. At least one of them, if not both, contained nothing but lies, and the circumstances in which he made each statement were as different as the statements themselves, providing context and plausible motives for the stories he came up with on each occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear, Caz. If Mike was the forger, he must have been under immense pressure due to the imminent exposure by Nick Warren of him having been a journalist. Indeed, assuming he was the forger, there is a very good chance that he realized that the game was up because he would inevitably be exposed as a liar and a scam artist who must have created the diary. For that reason, he could very well have decided to own it, get ahead of it, and tell the world about how he was a master forger who fooled everyone. That seems to fit perfectly with human behaviour as I understand it.

I note that you didn't quote (and respond to) the part of my post which said "And we certainly know that Mike was extremely agitated by Warren's forthcoming article in May 1994, don't we? He even threatened to sue him for libel if he went ahead with publication?" Was that a problem for you to deal with?

If the surprising news of Mike having been a journalist didn't come as a complete shock or disaster when it was revealed in July 1994, that can only be because there had been an even bigger shock and disaster of Mike having confessed to having forged the diary. So, of course, the journalism issue paled by comparison. Absent the confession, though, surely it would have led to some very uncomfortable questions for Mike, unless the researchers at the time were completely incompetent or, worse, unwilling to consider any evidence which pointed towards him being the forger.

As for Mike allegedly "changing his mind like the weather" I'm well aware that he told two different stories about where the diary came from. One was that he was given it by Tony Devereux, the other that he (and his wife) had forged it. But when saying that a person changes their mind like the weather it implies constant, irrational changes doesn't it? Yes, we can see that when Mike saw an opportunity from making money from the diary he would say he got it from Tony Devereux. But on other occasions - and I would suggest all other occasions - he said it was a forgery. I think it just paints a false picture to suggest he kept changing his mind like the weather as if he couldn't work out what story he liked best.