Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:03:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Compoccias@aol.com
Subject: Re: A further interview with Barry
In a message dated 11/3/2012 5:01:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
myka@qdots.net writes:
>Anyway, the thing that struck me most about this new interview
>is that here Barry said Robin had been ill for about five years.
>He said with Tim that when he (Barry) learned that Robin was ill,
>he had already been ill for two and a half years. This time
>Barry said he learned Robin was seriously ill about two years
>ago.
It would be helpful if Barry said how he came to know that Robin was ill
for 2 1/2, and now 5 years.
>This is very different from what we had heard, but not
>totally incredible. I guess we all knew Robin looked very ill
>for the last five years or so. Still, this makes the timeline of
>Robin's illness even more confusing. Didn't Dwina say that he
>was diagnosed in April 2011 after delaying the scan for several
>months following the intestinal/bowel operation in August
>2010?
>Best,
>Kate
It's tough to sort it out. Not sure if Dwina or Barry's recent statements
have made it any easier.
Sal
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:25:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Compoccias@aol.com
Subject: Re: A further interview with Barry
>In a message dated 11/3/2012 5:28:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
anngrootjans@me.com writes:
>Maybe next interview it'll be 10 years?Really!
I agree Ann that doubling the time frame from one interview to the next
doesn't do much for Barry's credibility. That aside, why do you think Barry
made such a statement and provided seemingly incorrect information? Is it
deliberate?
>Robin was more or less diagnosed in April 2011 with suspected liver
cancer. The proper diagnose colon cancer which had spread to the liver wasn't
until summer 2011 and his chemo >treatment started September 2011, just days
after he finished recording the requiem. Nobody realised there was
something seriously wrong before spring 2011. For good order, Robins >treatment
worked really well and by January 2012 his prognosis was excellent. We didn't
expect him to die anytime soon. By February he was well enough to resume
work and there >was even tv planned in the USA for April. If he'd not had
the twisted intestine and operation which set off a series of complications
in motion that his body ravaged by chemo eventually >couldn't take anymore
he'd been back on stage by now. It's really truly awfully tragic what
happened. :(
So what to make of Dwina's assertion that Robin could not be pulled away
from work and as a result did not get the necessary medical scans? Also, did
Robin delay treatment after his cancer diagnosis to finish Titanic Requiem?
Your timeline hints at that, but I could be reading into it.
>I totally appreciate Barry is upset and he will have his reasons and he
is free to say what he thinks and feels so I don't have issues with that at
all, but Sal and Paul have raised some >valid points too as there are
things that have been said of which I know Robin thought and felt differently.
Which is normal as there are always two sides to a story.
>The above are my own personal observations.
>A.
But, I assume from a better vantage point than the rest of us.
Sal
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:18:12 +0900
From: Kate <myka@qdots.net>
Subject: Re: A further interview with Barry
Hi,
> >Maybe next interview it'll be 10 years?Really!
>
> I agree Ann that doubling the time frame from one interview to the next
> doesn't do much for Barry's credibility.
I don't think Barry doubled the time frame.
In an earlier interview with Tim, Barry said when he found out
about Robin's illness, he had already been ill for two and a
half years. But he (Barry) didn't say when exactly he found out.
In the new interview with Kim, Barry said he found out two years
ago. So it's two years plus two and a half years, which
approximately adds up to four and a half, or five years, as
Barry himself put it.
When he said he found out "two years ago," Barry could be
referring to the suspicion of cancer, which according to Dwina
became an issue in August 2010 when Robin had the intestinal
operation.
> That aside, why do you think Barry
> made such a statement and provided seemingly incorrect information? Is it
> deliberate?
What I found confusing is Barry said in the new Kim interview
that he thought Robin had been told at that point (autumn 2010).
But from what we had heard from other sources including Ann and
Dwina, it was in spring 2011 that Robin was diagnosed. Dwina
said she and RJ had been begging Robin to go for a scan all that
time (for seven or eight months following the August 2010
operation).
I wonder if Barry was only speculating here that Robin did know.
To me it seems unlikely that Robin did know at that point--that
is, two years ago.
Maybe Barry is trying to console himself with the thought that
it was Robin's deliberate choice and he was doing "his bucket
list" by delaying the scan (and also the treatment?).
Kate
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 23:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Compoccias@aol.com
Subject: Re: Excellent new interview
>In a message dated 11/3/2012 10:29:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
per.bausager@gmail.com writes:
>For years he's been accused of not saying anything. Now he says
something,
>and is accused of lying. I know you call it spin, but I guess that means
>not telling the truth.
I'm glad he's talking and opening up about things. I'm not accusing Barry
of lying, but I'm not prepared to accept whatever he says at face value.
Also, Barry spinning things is nothing new.
>It's not easy....
I guess it could be if you accept Barry's version of things as gospel. I'm
sorry, but there is very little in these latest interviews he gave to give
me that confidence. The truth is often a long and hard thing to get to.
Sal
End words@brothersgibb.com message digest 11/04/2012 00:01 (#2012-3755)