New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

Hi Caz

I would suggest that the way the Diary is written it's rather simplicstic might suggest that the Barretts wrote the diary. Some go on as though the Diary is a literary masterpiece. It really isn't.

Cheers John

Who are these people, John, who 'go on' as though the diary [I prefer a small d] were a literary masterpiece?

Mike Barrett seemed to think it was, but I don't know of anyone else offhand. It was presumably intended to read like the private ravings of an arsenic eating tradesman, whose poetry and prose were of little merit; not the sort of thing that Dickens would have been proud of.

But may I warmly congratulate you for observing that it is written in rather a simplistic style - yes I agree - and that this 'might suggest' that the Barretts were responsible. I consider this a giant leap in the right direction on your part. It can't reasonably be put any more strongly than that, when none of us actually knew these people, as a couple or as individuals, back in the early 1990s when the story began. Not one person has come forward in all that time to say that they knew or associated with the Barretts during that period and were persuaded by Mike's later forgery claims.

Love,

Caz
X

[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?

Going back to this one, Herlock, before I catch up with the latest posts, could you just clarify what you meant, when you claimed 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'?

Have you been able to date any of these 'multiple occasions' where you were able to hear Mike specifically telling Alan Gray that Anne wrote "the manuscript"?

If, as you later admitted, you didn't actually listen to any of the tapes dating back to before November 1994, how many occasions would 'multiple' be, and were they all before 5th January 1995, when Mike was meant to have got all his forgery ducks in a row concerning who did what, when and how?

Any clarification you can give would be helpful, particularly regarding where you heard Mike claiming, on multiple occasions, that Anne wrote the manuscript. It would be equally helpful to know how Alan Gray responded on each of these occasions - if only for the laugh. Did he eventually say: "Yes, Mike, you've told me the same thing on multiple occasions. Change the record - er, wait, no - I don't mean that literally!"

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

True enough, John.

But I don't have to prove it was. That would take something completely new - and Herlock for one appears to have conceded the likelihood that no evidence existed for it when Mike was making his forgery claims thirty years ago, so I don't suppose any will suddenly materialise in 2025.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I would suggest that the way the Diary is written it's rather simplicstic might suggest that the Barretts wrote the diary. Some go on as though the Diary is a literary masterpiece. It really isn't.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

True enough, John.

But I don't have to prove it was. That would take something completely new - and Herlock for one appears to have conceded the likelihood that no evidence existed for it when Mike was making his forgery claims thirty years ago, so I don't suppose any will suddenly materialise in 2025.

Love,

Caz
X

But, Caz, surely you're making a positive claim that the Barretts didn't write the diary. In which case, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim.

If you were willing to concede that they might have done it but that you personally don't think they did, and that in your view the arguments are strongly against it, that would be fine. It's the fact that you deny the very validity of the suggestion that the Barretts could have forged it, without explaining why such a suggestion is invalid, which is the problem here.

And just to correct you, if I may. I did not say that it is likely that no evidence existed in 1995 that Mike forged the diary. I said that it's likely that no physical evidence of the forgery existed, as, if the Barretts were the forgers, it had probably all been destroyed. That's very different from saying there was no evidence at all that they wrote it.

But I don't have to prove that the Barretts forged the diary because I'm not saying they did. I'm saying that I can't see how we can rule out the possibility that they did. I just can't see why they couldn't have done it. You seem to have given it your best shot but the position remains that they are obvious candidates for having forged a diary that was obviously created after 1945 and probably after 1972 and which is not known to have been owned or seen by anyone before

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Liverpool Daily Post first reported the story on 25th June 1994. In a signed statement to the newspaper, Mike claimed that he had compiled the diary material himself. The report quoted Mike saying he had forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant. But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.

On 27th June, again in the Liverpool Daily Post, Harold Brough wrote more about Mike's claims to be the greatest forger in history, having worked on the diary for five years. The previous night Mike had said his doctor had given him only days to live and that Tony Devereux had nothing to do with the diary. Mike also told of his visits to auctioneers, Outhwaite and Litherland and a shop at Bluecoat Chambers, to buy the photo album and ink respectively. He said he had ripped out the used pages in the album and typed the diary on a word processor at his Liverpool home.

I'm sure if you asked nicely, RJ Palmer would be able to post the actual articles, to see if I'm concealing anything that would suggest Mike was involving anyone else at that stage. Claiming to have been the forger would imply that it was all his own handiwork, and that's what everyone at the time assumed he was trying to claim. I am not aware that he took any steps to correct that impression using the same medium, although he admitted in the January 1995 affidavit that his handwriting was too distinctive, but by then he was involving Tony Devereux in his funny little forgery conspiracy.



The tape is available here if you really wanted to listen to Mike's actual words to check that I didn't imagine anything. I too don't understand why Mike thought he couldn't turn round and say Anne forged it - if that was the truth - in the same breath as saying it was 100% genuine [!!], which must have made about as much sense to Alan Gray, or to whoever was at the other end of the phone, as it makes to us today.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. We were discussing when Mike first told Gray that Anne had forged the diary, and you had previously said there were two occasions before the January 1995 affidavit when he did so, one of which was in October 1994, which is what I was querying. But now you say you haven't listened to any of the tapes from before November, so what - or who - was your source for the October revelation? I can only find one instance on record from before the affidavit where Mike claimed Anne wrote 'the actual manuscript'. This was on 5th November 1994. He also claimed on that occasion that he had 'stated this for some considerable time', so anything you have that could substantiate this would help. It's very similar to what he stated in his affidavit about having tried to expose the diary as a fraud since late 1993.



It was Mike who was trying to use the affidavit to blackmail Anne into contacting him, and it didn't work. Right there is the evidence that she wasn't affected by the claims Mike had made about her in that document. You said previously that Mike couldn't have proved anything if no evidence existed in June 1994 when he went to the papers. Have you ever even considered that Anne 'knew it was rubbish' because no evidence existed? There has never been any evidence that she held the pen, and no evidence that she had anything to fear from the diary handwriting possibly being identified in the future, so yes, I think she did regard Mike's efforts to blackmail her with the affidavit as pathetic and more of 'a silly annoyance' than a serious threat to go public with his accusations, which he didn't do. He couldn't 'expose' her as a forger if he couldn't prove it, and without proof there could have been libel implications for anyone running the story with nothing but the word of a drunkard who had lost his family and was so obviously out for revenge. I suspect this might be why Mike said to someone back in August 1994 that he couldn't just turn round and say Anne forged it, but it would take time. He knew he couldn't go back to Harold Brough with a new and improved version of the story, so he had to come up with a different plan of action.



You might find it 'consistent' in isolation, and I can't read Anne's mind, but speaking as a woman who left two husbands because of their controlling or abusive behaviour, I know I would consider it an attack on me personally if one of them had come out with a story like that in the months after I had left the marital home. By definition it would have implied that I was married to a forger, and had stayed with him throughout the process, until after his forgery was published and the book became a bestseller. There is no way anyone would believe I had no idea what was going on all that time, if the man I was living with had supposedly worked on it for five years. I've been called many things, but 'a mental vegetable' is not one of them as far as I know, and I doubt even RJ Palmer would think it of Anne.

On 27th June 1994 Anne asked her solicitor to start divorce proceedings. She recalled Mike's family being "very distressed" by the newspaper articles and young Caroline being in "a terrible state". Mike wasn't attacking them personally, but it didn't stop them taking it personally, to see his name splashed across the papers, as a self-confessed fraudster. Anne was the worst affected, for obvious reasons. She also said her father, Billy, was so furious that he advised her to start divorce proceedings immediately.

Billy apparently wasn't bothered that Mike could turn round at any time and reveal that he had paid for the scrapbook. That would also take time - Mike waited until his father-in-law was dead. Perhaps Caroline was only in a terrible state in the June because she remembered her Mum letting her watch while she was busy forging the diary to her Dad's dictation. Have you ever wondered what the Barretts must have been thinking, when they left their daughter alone with Feldman in early 1993, if you believe Mike was telling the truth in his affidavit, that she was a witness to the forgery being created?

Love,

Caz
X

So the answer to my question, based on the information you've provided, is that Mike did notsay in June 1994 that he wrote the diary, including the manuscript, on his own. Why not just say that Caz?

Hence he can't be said to have changed his story, only augmented it.

I thought you confirmed in #208 that Mike told Alan Gray in "late October 1994" that Anne wrote the manuscript. Have I got that wrong? If so, what did you mean by saying "Then I have nothing until late October 1994"? And what's the purpose of reminding me that I haven't listened to any of the tapes before November 1994? You've listened to them all, right? Does Mike say on one of the tapes from October 1994 that Anne wrote the manuscript or not? If not, why even mention the fact that I haven't listed to the tapes? If he does, why are you giving the impression that he doesn't? Never mind the exact words, "the actual manuscript", did he make clear to Gray in October 1994 that Anne wrote the manuscript? I need to check if you are asking me questions in good faith.

Your question, "Have you ever even considered that Anne 'knew it was rubbish' because no evidence existed?" strikes me as bizarre. If she wasn't involved in the forgery, she would have known by virtue of that fact alone that the affidavit was rubbish. It wouldn't have had anything to do with the lack of evidence.

As the conversation on 31st August seems to be important to you, I've had a listen to the recording myself. The result of the exercise is that I don't believe your summary of it is correct or anything near to being correct. Let's remind ourselves how you summarised it:

"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. "

Here's my very best transcription of what Mike can be heard saying:

“Hello….super….100% genuine…misquotes….the Sunday Times, the Sunday Times just, shall we say, attacked me…yeah, yeah…they attacked me for want of a better word…yeah, yeah… several… I’ve got to get permission as well before I can ….getting a Victorian…I’ll send it up to me solicitors… I’ll send it to me solicitors.…I can’t turn round and say yes [I have]…if you understand what I mean, you know....that’s slowly but surely, you know, and that takes time as you can well imagine, these things don’t happen overnight….but that diary is 100% genuine…so… I hope you understand…sensible….the diary….none whatsoever…it’s entirely up to you…as I say it’s 100% genuine….I mean, all they have to do is read the book themselves…100% genuine…there’s no problem.....absolutely incredible…put it that way...just the way they reacted…totally ridiculous....publishers…got nervous…ridiculous...when the paperback comes out surely….no….anyway can we talk about it tomorrow because it’s too long and complicated a story.…Yeah, it’s number 12, 12 Goldie Street, Anfield, Liverpool, L4….okay then…thank you, bye, bye.”

It's not a good quality recording but I'm confident that he never once mentions Anne during the call. It seems to me that you've imagined it. I also don't hear him mentioning the British Museum. But please feel free to provide an alternative transcript if you think your hearing is better than mine.

For the moment though, we can, I think, safely ignore your speculations as to why Mike said what you think he did in August 1994 about slowly revealing that Anne wrote the diary.

Your attempts to conjure up an explanation for Anne viewing Mike's confession, in which he didn't once mention her name, as an attack on her are wholly unconvincing in my view. I don't believe you would have regarded it as an attack on yourself either. if you were in her shoes. But it doesn't much matter. The point is that her behaviour is obviously consistent with her having helped her husband forge the diary.

The question you asked me about the Barretts leaving their daughter alone with Feldman in early 1993 applies equally to you as to me. Why weren't they worried Caroline was going to blurt out that daddy bought the diary home in the spring of last year? How could they be sure that Caroline was going to say that her daddy got the diary off Tony and that he pestered Tony with questions, even though, according to you, the diary didn't emerge until long after Tony's death? Perhaps the Barretts were supremely confident their daughter would stick to the pre-arranged story, as she appears to have done.

[caz]

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

True enough, John.

But I don't have to prove it was. That would take something completely new - and Herlock for one appears to have conceded the likelihood that no evidence existed for it when Mike was making his forgery claims thirty years ago, so I don't suppose any will suddenly materialise in 2025.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

The Liverpool Daily Post first reported the story on 25th June 1994. In a signed statement to the newspaper, Mike claimed that he had compiled the diary material himself. The report quoted Mike saying he had forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant. But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.

On 27th June, again in the Liverpool Daily Post, Harold Brough wrote more about Mike's claims to be the greatest forger in history, having worked on the diary for five years. The previous night Mike had said his doctor had given him only days to live and that Tony Devereux had nothing to do with the diary. Mike also told of his visits to auctioneers, Outhwaite and Litherland and a shop at Bluecoat Chambers, to buy the photo album and ink respectively. He said he had ripped out the used pages in the album and typed the diary on a word processor at his Liverpool home.

I'm sure if you asked nicely, RJ Palmer would be able to post the actual articles, to see if I'm concealing anything that would suggest Mike was involving anyone else at that stage. Claiming to have been the forger would imply that it was all his own handiwork, and that's what everyone at the time assumed he was trying to claim. I am not aware that he took any steps to correct that impression using the same medium, although he admitted in the January 1995 affidavit that his handwriting was too distinctive, but by then he was involving Tony Devereux in his funny little forgery conspiracy.

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.

The tape is available here if you really wanted to listen to Mike's actual words to check that I didn't imagine anything. I too don't understand why Mike thought he couldn't turn round and say Anne forged it - if that was the truth - in the same breath as saying it was 100% genuine [!!], which must have made about as much sense to Alan Gray, or to whoever was at the other end of the phone, as it makes to us today.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We were discussing when Mike first told Gray that Anne had forged the diary, and you had previously said there were two occasions before the January 1995 affidavit when he did so, one of which was in October 1994, which is what I was querying. But now you say you haven't listened to any of the tapes from before November, so what - or who - was your source for the October revelation? I can only find one instance on record from before the affidavit where Mike claimed Anne wrote 'the actual manuscript'. This was on 5th November 1994. He also claimed on that occasion that he had 'stated this for some considerable time', so anything you have that could substantiate this would help. It's very similar to what he stated in his affidavit about having tried to expose the diary as a fraud since late 1993.

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.

It was Mike who was trying to use the affidavit to blackmail Anne into contacting him, and it didn't work. Right there is the evidence that she wasn't affected by the claims Mike had made about her in that document. You said previously that Mike couldn't have proved anything if no evidence existed in June 1994 when he went to the papers. Have you ever even considered that Anne 'knew it was rubbish' because no evidence existed? There has never been any evidence that she held the pen, and no evidence that she had anything to fear from the diary handwriting possibly being identified in the future, so yes, I think she did regard Mike's efforts to blackmail her with the affidavit as pathetic and more of 'a silly annoyance' than a serious threat to go public with his accusations, which he didn't do. He couldn't 'expose' her as a forger if he couldn't prove it, and without proof there could have been libel implications for anyone running the story with nothing but the word of a drunkard who had lost his family and was so obviously out for revenge. I suspect this might be why Mike said to someone back in August 1994 that he couldn't just turn round and say Anne forged it, but it would take time. He knew he couldn't go back to Harold Brough with a new and improved version of the story, so he had to come up with a different plan of action.

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.

You might find it 'consistent' in isolation, and I can't read Anne's mind, but speaking as a woman who left two husbands because of their controlling or abusive behaviour, I know I would consider it an attack on me personally if one of them had come out with a story like that in the months after I had left the marital home. By definition it would have implied that I was married to a forger, and had stayed with him throughout the process, until after his forgery was published and the book became a bestseller. There is no way anyone would believe I had no idea what was going on all that time, if the man I was living with had supposedly worked on it for five years. I've been called many things, but 'a mental vegetable' is not one of them as far as I know, and I doubt even RJ Palmer would think it of Anne.

On 27th June 1994 Anne asked her solicitor to start divorce proceedings. She recalled Mike's family being "very distressed" by the newspaper articles and young Caroline being in "a terrible state". Mike wasn't attacking them personally, but it didn't stop them taking it personally, to see his name splashed across the papers, as a self-confessed fraudster. Anne was the worst affected, for obvious reasons. She also said her father, Billy, was so furious that he advised her to start divorce proceedings immediately.

Billy apparently wasn't bothered that Mike could turn round at any time and reveal that he had paid for the scrapbook. That would also take time - Mike waited until his father-in-law was dead. Perhaps Caroline was only in a terrible state in the June because she remembered her Mum letting her watch while she was busy forging the diary to her Dad's dictation. Have you ever wondered what the Barretts must have been thinking, when they left their daughter alone with Feldman in early 1993, if you believe Mike was telling the truth in his affidavit, that she was a witness to the forgery being created?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.



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.



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

When you say "We can only go by what Brian has said about the conversation, and how Eddie responded when asked about it" that's exactly my point. I can't do this because I don't know what Eddie has said and you're refusing to provide any quotes. As for Brian, he seems to have said different things at different times but I've never seen a transcript of any interview with him so how am I supposed to "go on" anything?

With the "old book" issue you again misunderstand. I'm not denying that someone during a taped interview might have referred to the diary as an "old book". What I am challenging is that anyone who can properly he described as a "Battlecrease witness" said this. I feel absolutely 100% confident that if there was even a single Battlecrease witness who used this expression we would have been told about it a long time ago. So yes, Caz, I do happen to think you realized that you made a mistake in referring to "Battlecrease witnesses" which explains your evasive answers but feel free to go ahead and prove me wrong.

While you were busy checking to see if my name was at the top of my post, you somehow forgot to answer my question which was: Don't you think it's a shameful state of affairs that the recorded and transcribed interviews have not been made available to everyone? Or perhaps your failure to answer tells it's own story.

[rjpalmer]

And it's "that old book" is it now? I thought it was "the old book". It seems to change like the weather!

Hi Herlock.

It's vitally important, for the sake of the theory, to call it 'that old book' or 'the old book' or 'an old book'---anything other than THE SECRET DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER FOUND UNDER JAMES MAYBRICK'S FLOORBOARDS.

Why? Because if one actually calls it by what it was, the secret diary of Jack the Ripper, it becomes embarrassingly obvious that no one would have immediately sold it in a pub to a stranger for five pounds or twenty-five pounds or whatever other imaginary figure one wants to dream up.

Calling it 'the old book,' and painting Ed Lyons as an ignoramus as well as a thief, makes the theory go down. It's like Mary Poppins using a teaspoon of sugar, except that no one in their right mind is swallowing it.

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Cancelled post

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Why would it a problem for me in any way that Mike or Anne might have sensibly destroyed the physical evidence of the forgery, either immediately in April 1992 or when Scotland Yard got involved in 1993? What would be odd, surely, is if they had decided to keep it.

I note that you've side-stepped my question, presumably because you are unable to tell me how Mike could have proved to your satisfaction that he was the forger in the absence of any physical evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that this was the precise problem he was struggling with in 1994 and 1995 when no one seemed to believe him?

And I thought you told me recently that Mike was an impulsive person who didn't like to hang around. Isn't that personality characteristic entirely consistent with him showing the diary to someone just a day or two after its creation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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

You keep misunderstanding me, Caz. I'm not suggesting for one second that there's any kind of conspiracy. Nor am I suggesting that Martin-Wright got his information from Feldman (although I thought Martin-Wright gave his initial account to Feldman, so I've no idea what you mean when you say he gave his initial account before Feldman knew of his existence). No, what I'm suggesting is what seems obvious. Feldman told his theory about the diary origin to at least one electrician, who told someone else, passing around the story like Chinese Whispers, until one electrician mistakenly told Martin-Wright that Jack the Ripper's diary was available. This, of course, would have been at a time when the existence of the diary wasn't public knowledge. Much later, when he read Shirley's book, Martin-Wright thought he must have been told secret information but misdated it to 1992 when it actually occurred in 1993. Is there any actual evidence to contradict this?

And it's "that old book" is it now? I thought it was "the old book". It seems to change like the weather!

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[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