"He lied. He lied. He lied." (Jeffrey Archer: Stranger Than Fiction - Michael Crick)

Member Name: MykReeve

Product:	Jeffrey Archer: Stranger Than Fiction - Michael Crick
Date:	29/07/01 (190 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Exceptionally well researched, Hilariously funny at times, merely unbelievable at others, Extremely fair in its portrayal

Disadvantages: May not be of interest to all

In all honesty. I don't read many biographies. In fact, in the last ten years, I think this is the only biography I've actually read. Why did I choose it? Well, it can only be curiosity. Curiosity about how Jeffrey Archer, one of the most prominent and successful compulsive liars in the country, has reached such heights in the face of almost constant criticism and damnation in the press. Ask almost anyone their opinion of Jeffrey Archer, and they are likely to give a negative response – and not just since his recent conviction for perjury and obstructing the course of justice.

But how has Archer achieved such notoriety? Well, in this book by Michael Crick, we are treated to rollercoaster ride through the highs and lows of Archer's career, from his election to government as one of the youngest MPs, though his work for numerous charities and his brief stints in the police and in the military, to his involvement in Anglia share dealing and peculiar decision to help the prostitute Monica Coghlan. There can be no denying that Archer's career is a fascinating one, made all the more interesting by the differing accounts of it that the man gives whenever he asked about his past.

Crick explains that his interest in the man Archer began when his father pointed out an article to him in a newspaper highlighting Archer as a potential future highflier. Since then, Crick has followed Archer's career earnestly, interviewing people connected with Archer's past, and compiling information about the man's involvement in various scandals and dubious dealings.

Crick's writing reflects his initial admiration for Archer's success, in that it is entirely fair in its accounts of the man's life. It would be all to easy in a biography of such a widely-disliked figure to demonise him, and simply stick to events in the man's past that put him in a negative light. However, Crick is astonishingly fair and objective in his
biography – at every stage, we are presented with both sides of a story, so that the reader can make up his or her own mind.

The edition of the biography which I read, the third edition, was published following Archer's decision to withdraw from the London Mayoral election, following the revelation that he had asked his friend Ted Francis to provide a false alibi in his 1987 libel trial against the Star newspaper. Crick has amended the text of his book in light of revelations from Archer himself, or from those involved in the stories surrounding the man's life.

A prime example of this is provided by the alleged incident in which Archer was detained by a Canadian department store for attempting to steal three suits. This was back in 1975, when Archer was in Canada to attend a trial against Aquablast, the bogus company which Archer invested in, very nearly leading to his bankruptcy. Archer visited the Simpson's department store in Toronto to buy some suits, and left the department store with three suits draped over his arm. In the 1995 first edition of Crick's book, he suggested that Archer might have walked through a walkway connecting the department store to a neighbouring one, without realising that by doing so, he was actually leaving the first department store. Such walkways are typical in northerly shopping centres in the U.S. and Canada, allowing shoppers to pass between stores without having to go out in the cold weather. Archer agreed that this was what had happened, and said as much in a 1998 interview. However, a Toronto journalist investigated the story and told Crick that the walkway in question hadn't actually been built in 1975, so Archer could not have walked through such a walkway. This revelation came in time to be incorporated into the 1996 edition of Crick's biography, though obviously Archer didn't read this version of the event. All of this is beautifully detailed in the 2000 edition of Crick&#
39;s biography, highlighting Archer's desperate attempts to justify the dubious incidents in his past.

THE BOOK

The first few chapters of the book detail the lives of Jeffrey's parents – William Robert Archer, a shyster as corrupt as his son, and his third wife, Lola Howard Cook. We also hear about Jeffrey's brother, also originally named Jeffrey Archer, who was put up for adoption by his parents at an early age and changed his name to David Brown. Brown only discovered the identity of his parents, and that his brother was Jeffrey Archer, in 1980, when he was 46 years old.

From there we follow Jeffrey's scholastic career, his abortive attempts to join the police force and the military, and his enrolment at Oxford University using bogus claims of a degree from a Californian institution, and his membership of the International Federation of Physical Culture. Archer's time at Oxford is indicative of the route he wanted his career to take from the start – largely eschewing his studies for a DipEd qualification, he assisted the charity Oxfam with a campaign to raise one million pounds, and was a keen athlete representing the University at athletics. In fact, one of Archer's most dubious-sounding claims – the he represented the United Kingdom at athletics – is actually true!

From Oxford, Archer went on to work for the United Nations Association, carrying out charity work promoting the role of the international organisation. Despite major efforts on Archer's part, however, he failed to raise the charity's income, and after his dismissal from the company, there were some allegations made about dubious expense claims on his part. Archer also gained himself a position in the Greater London Council, where he supplemented his income by filling out expense claims for his fellow workers – for a modest fee of course.

Despite the chairman of the UNA's efforts to prevent it
, Archer became the MP for Louth in a by-election in 1969, though he was forced to give up his seat in 1974, when he was almost driven to bankruptcy following his catastrophic decision to invest virtually all his money in the bogus Aquablast company.

To regain his losses, Archer turned to writing, producing his first novel – 'Not A Penny More, Not A Penny Less' – in a matter of weeks. The novel proved phenomenally popular, once it had received considerable editing from some of the finest literary editors in the profession. Crick is extremely fair in his judgement on Archer's writing ability, and although he frequently refers to Archer's "childlike" scrawl is quick to defend the original ideas in some of Archer's writing...

Not all of it, of course, is original. It is well known that one of the short stories in his book 'A Twist in the Tale', was heavily influenced by the work of the author of a winning short story in a competition judged by one Jeffrey Archer!

We learn of Archer's rise back to power, his famous parties in his flat overlooking the river Thames, and his appointment as Deputy Conservative Party Chairman. We learn that time and again, Archer can't resist the temptation to lie – he overstates his success on numerous occasions, and (presumably out of some misguided sense of bravado) he bought shares on behalf of a friend in Anglia Television, which his wife Mary was on the board of governors of, shortly before the company was bought out.

THE LIBEL TRIAL

The story of Archer's 1987 libel trial, and the events surrounding it are the stuff of Fleet Street legend, and I dare say that quite a few drinks were downed by journalists upon the news of Archer's recent incarceration. Several chapters of the book are devoted to this story alone, and the events surrounding it, and describe the events in meticulous detail. Crick has interviewed many of the
major players – from the newspaper editors, to the main witnesses. He has also studied the court transcripts carefully, and provides well-selected quotes to explain exactly what happened. The events of surrounding the trial itself are truly unbelievable, and Crick's account of the way in which the trial actually proceeded make fascinating reading.

What did happen, it is alleged, is that in early September 1986, Archer met with a prostitute, Monica Coghlan. The prostitute was put in touch with the News of the World newspaper by another of her clients, Aziz Kurtha, and she made several phone calls to Archer over the course of the next few weeks asking him for money so that she could escape the press and leave the country. However, these phone calls were made in the offices of the News of the World, and were recorded. Archer eventually agreed to give the woman, whom he claimed not to have ever met on the phone, sufficient funds to leave the country for a while. Archer asked his friend Michael Stacpoole to hand over the money to Monica Coghlan at Victoria Station – little realising that not only did Monica carry a concealed tape recorder, but that numerous journalists were there in the station to document the occasion.

Unfortunately for the News of the World, at the same time as they ran their story, detailing Archer's decision to donate money to a prostitute seeking to leave the country – an article carefully worded not to imply that Archer slept with the woman – the Star newspaper also ran a story, featuring an interview with a distant relative of Coghlan's claiming that he had slept with her. Inevitably, Archer sued the Star for libel, rather than the News of the World – unfortunately implying that should the Star lose that the News of the World would also be implicated in the allegations besmirching his name.

The Star had little evidence to defend their claims other than the dubious testimony of a
n obscure relative of the prostitute, and in a virtually unheard of move, the News of the World offered to help them in their legal battle. One of the major issues focused on in the case was the claim that Archer consorted with the prostitute in September 1986. Unfortunately, the only evidence against Archer was provided by a prostitute herself, and Aziz Kurtha, whom was unenthusiastic about actually coming to trial in the first place, and had had to be subpoenaed.

Also, Archer was able to provide a witness, explaining why he could not have been with Coghlan at the time that both she and Kurtha claimed – Terence Baker, who gave evidence claiming that he had met with Archer on the night of the 8th September. Interestingly, Baker revealed to fellow producer Nick Elliott in the early 1990s, shortly before his death, that he had perjured himself – there had been no such meeting with Archer, leaving Archer without an alibi again.

Additionally, due to the Star's clumsy reportage of Archers alleged meeting with the prostitute, it continually shifted date from day to day in the newspaper – from the 8th to the 9th and back again. Consequently, Archer needed to ensure before his 1987 trial that he had an alibi for the 9th too – Ted Francis. Francis only admitted recently that he had been approached by Archer to provide this alibi, and it was mainly his revelation about these facts that led to Archer being forced to pull out of the London Mayoral race, and led to the 2001 perjury and perversion of the course of justice trial. Francis's evidence was not actually needed in the 1987 trail after all, since the case revolved around the events of the night of the 8th September.

So, Archer was the proud recipient of the largest pay out in British libel history - £500,000 – and the Express Newspaper group was also forced to pay both sides' legal costs, totalling £700,000. Note, however, that the result of the 2001 tr
ial does not overturn the result of the 1987 libel trial – it only implies that Archer used inappropriate means to defend his name in that trial. The Express Newspapers will no doubt be applying for an appeal against the 1987 libel trial ruling in due course, however the sheer level of inaccuracy in the Star's early 1987 stories about Archer, mean that their appeal is still unlikely to be approved.

CONCLUSIONS

'Jeffrey Archer: Stranger Than Fiction' is a meticulously researched book. Every aspect of Archer's past has been researched through conversations with those involved in the events, and events are reported very fairly, giving both Archer's account of events, and those of his accusers. Crick is an accomplished broadcast journalist (he made the recent BBC 'Panorama' programme about Archer's life, aired after his 2001 conviction), and the high standard of his writing reflects his career.

Reading the book, you do learn of Archer's good points – the man has raised a large amount of money for charities over the years, even if his desire to take a cut of the money raised for himself is considered by many to be somewhat unethical. Archer has produced some commercially successful books, many of which have been produced as films or television programmes, despite the author's prurient attitude towards sex in his novels.

However, the bad does vastly overwhelm the good – time and again throughout the novel, the reader is shocked by the bare-faced cheek of the man, and the absurd number of half-truths and inaccuracies that the man has perpetuated in order to reach positions of power. In the words of Jeffrey's wife, Mary, he has a "gift for inaccurate precis". Quite. I think there can be few books which have made me laugh quite as much as this biography of Jeffrey Archer – the story is, as the title of the book itself says, stranger than fiction.

I think
the final word about the biography should really go to Jeffrey himself. While the journalists quoted inside the front cover, and on the cover of the book exclaim that the book is "Hilarious", "Magnificent", "Superb" and "Brilliant", Archer simply had four words to say – "I hate this book."

Summary: