New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Scott Nelson]

And so we're back to the heart of the issue. What is it that makes you think he couldn't have done it?

He could have done it. I never said he couldn't have.

[Scott Nelson]

It's not just my opinion, Scott, a lot of people have commented on the curious similarities. I think everyone can see it, even you. As for the left v. right handed issue, have you never heard of people with the ability to write with both hands, doing so with their other hand to disguise their handwriting?

No I really can't. Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me.

[Scott Nelson]

They've convinced themselves that the Johnsons' watch is old--possibly genuine--and thus the diary must be old, too--despite overwhelming evidence that it isn't.

In my opinion, they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

[rjpalmer]

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

I think you're selling Anne Graham short, Scott.

All that Formby/Yapp 'oral tradition' stuff with the diary smuggled out of Battlecrease in a laundry basket shows Anne had the creative skill to execute the diary. And the bit about visiting the shipbuilder's grave as a child, etc. It doesn't take a Sigmund Freud to realize she was projecting her own literary ambitions onto her far less talented husband.

We are scolded about "not knowing Anne from soap" but we merely need to read her long prepared speech in Shirley's second edition or the preface to Anne's own book to see that she had literary skill. Feldman thought so highly of Anne that he suggested she write a biography of Florence (which she did) and admitted that he had "underestimated her literary ability." (Inside Story, p. 262) Are the contributors here doing the same? Does anyone posting here want to claim they know Anne better than Feldman did?

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

No I really can't. Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me.

Surely you think that because you can't successfully disguise your handwriting with your other hand, no-one else can possibly do it?

[rjpalmer]

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

Hi Scott, well, to each his own.

I agree that the diary dates to after 1988, but I don't agree that 9 March 1992 is a magical cutoff date. I doubt that the physical diary even existed when Barrett made that phone call, and I also doubt that Doreen was the first literary agent that Mike called. How may anonymous would-be writers hit paydirt on their very first phone call?

Back in the day, even the diary's supporters were bothered by the five-week delay between the excited call from "Mr. Williams," claiming he had The Diary of Jack the Ripper, and Barrett showing up in London fully five weeks later.

And by all appearances Barrett fobbed off an immediate meeting with the claim that he needed to 'go to York.' We've seen no evidence that Barrett went to York. I think he was mucking around for a suitable blank diary as evidenced by Martin Earl's advertisement.

Cheers.

[Scott Nelson]

Surely you think that because you can't successfully disguise your handwriting with your other hand, no-one else can possibly do it?

Did I say that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did I say that?

What you said was: "Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me."

What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

[Scott Nelson]

Did I say no-one else could possibly do it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did I say no-one else could possibly do it?

Would you mind focusing on my question? What I asked you was: What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

[Scott Nelson]

Would you mind focusing on my question? What I asked you was: What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

Obviously to suggest that it wasn't the sort of thing just anybody could do 'successfully'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Obviously to suggest that it wasn't the sort of thing just anybody could do 'successfully'.

Have you ever considered the possibility that some people, such as Anne Barrett, for example, might be a lot better at something than you are Scott? People are capable of disguising their handwriting. Surely we can’t class it as a unique skill.

[caz]

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

No, Herlock.

When there is no proof, you are not entitled to state, as if it's a definitely ascertained fact, that someone 'owned up to' forging the diary.

Factually, the most you can say is that Mike Barrett, a compulsive liar, claimed, in the same year that his wife had left him, taking their only child with her, that he and his wife had jointly forged the diary.

When you choose to leave out those life-changing circumstances, you lose any claim to balance or objectivity.

I just don't know why there is such a resistance to the suggestion that Mike's forgery claims may have been false and motivated by grief, emotional pain and abandonment issues, fuelled by alcohol. They were ultimately self-destructive, gaining him nothing but more misery.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

Obviously, Ike, I disagree with this. It's not a 'fact' that anyone 'owned up to' forging the diary. It's only a fact that Mike Barrett claimed that he and his wife had done so. If he was lying, it wasn't a true admission or confession.

In the same vein, according to at least three witnesses, Eddie Lyons claimed to have found something while working in Paul Dodd's house: Brian Rawes, as early as Friday 17th July 1992, in the drive of Battlecrease; Feldman, in the spring of 1993, when Eddie asked over the phone how much his "confession" was worth; and Robert Smith, on Saturday 26th June 1993 in the Saddle, when Eddie added a non-existent skip just for jolly, wouldn't you, presumably to soften the rumours of a theft.

I can safely state that Eddie 'admitted' to working in the house on 9th March 1992, because his personal recollections of that occasion are consistent with the known circumstances of that day and don't apply to any other.

But if you catch me stating for a fact that Eddie 'owned up to' finding anything in the house, just because he had some unexplained psychological need to claim it on not one, but at least three separate occasions, when talking to three individuals, then you have my permission to give me a stiff talking to, before I slope off to do the same to myself.

If you catch me stating: Someone found it; someone owned up to it, I fully expect to be sent to the naughty step with no Singapore Sling come cocktail hour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, Herlock.

When there is no proof, you are not entitled to state, as if it's a definitely ascertained fact, that someone 'owned up to' forging the diary.

Factually, the most you can say is that Mike Barrett, a compulsive liar, claimed, in the same year that his wife had left him, taking their only child with her, that he and his wife had jointly forged the diary.

When you choose to leave out those life-changing circumstances, you lose any claim to balance or objectivity.

I just don't know why there is such a resistance to the suggestion that Mike's forgery claims may have been false and motivated by grief, emotional pain and abandonment issues, fuelled by alcohol. They were ultimately self-destructive, gaining him nothing but more misery.

Love,

Caz
X

This is literally just semantics now, Caz. Whether he stated, claimed, admitted, owned-up or confessed, it all amounts to the same thing. A confession can be true or false, so just because I say that someone confessed or owned-up I'm not necessarily saying saying it's true. Just that Mike Barrett, and Mike Barrett alone, owned up to doing it. The fact that it was in the year his wife left him is something you may feel is significant but it might not have had anything to do with it. It would be like me demanding that each time you mention his confession you say it was in the same year he was exposed as having been a journalist and then saying that when you leave out such a life-changing circumstance you lose any claim to balance or objectivity.

I certainly don't know why there is such resistance to the suggestion that Mike's forgery claims may have been true and motivated by his imminent exposure as a former professional journalist, which would certainly have changed everything had he not already confessed.