One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by caz

Well yes, it was 'supposed' to be, but only according to Mike, because his first attempt, in June 1994, to claim the diary as his own work went down so well that he knew he had to come up with something just a tad more credible next time.

Yes, I'm aware he has said different things at other times but I'm concentrating on what he said in his affidavit.

If you can demonstrate to me untruths in his affidavit then that's great - please go ahead - but let's stick to his affidavit and not worry about what he has said at times other than when swearing his affidavit.

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by caz

I readily agreed that most of the definitions imply knowingly stating an untruth. That's just one more definition. Errors and delusions are hardly in the same category as deliberate deceptions, are they?

As I said earlier, you are confusing definitions with synonyms.

And if all you have been intending to show is that Barrett made an error of dating in his affidavit then that was precisely what I said before we even started this discussion.

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by caz

We don't need to know if he was in error, deluded, confused or lying about every tiny detail of his supposed involvement, to know that he got stuff wrong at the time of his most formally made 'confession'. This was his best shot and he fluffed it.

Yes, but one of the things he said in his affidavit was that the 1891 diary was purchased before the attempt at forging the Diary.

Now that we know that 1891 diary was acquired on 26 March 1992, we cannot ignore this fact which suggests that, had Barrett been aware it when drafting his affidavit, he would presumably have been able to state that the Maybrick Diary was forged at some point between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

As I have already said to you (but you have ignored), Barrett also told us that it took only 11 days for the Diary's text to be written out. He could have said two months, or six months but he just happened to give us a time period which fits in perfectly with the time period between acquiring the 1891 diary and presenting the Maybrick Diary to Doreen.

Bear in mind that some people in this forum couldn't believe that the Diary could possibly have been written out in only 11 days. So why didn't Barrett select a much longer period of time?

I also have to bear in mind that Barrett's plan with the 1891 diary would have necessarily involved him in ripping out the early pages of that diary with writing on, in circumstances where a few days later he presented Doreen with a diary that had its first 64 pages ripped out.

I also cannot ignore the fact that there is no sensible or rational reason why Mike Barrett would have attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages other than to create a forged Victorian diary.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by GUT

What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.

To protect his daughter, GUT.

[GUT]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

To protect his daughter, GUT.

How? Does it protect her.

[StevenOwl]

Originally Posted by GUT

What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.

Mike already explained that himself in a taped meeting with Harrison, Skinner and others. It was to get back at Anne for leaving him and denying him access to his daughter for a year.

[GUT]

Originally Posted by StevenOwl

Mike already explained that himself in a taped meeting with Harrison, Skinner and others. It was to get back at Anne for leaving him and denying him access to his daughter for a year.

Two questions

1. How did that get back at Anne?

2. How come so many believe some things he says and not others, and how do they decide which is which.

[John G]

Originally Posted by David Orsam

Yes, but one of the things he said in his affidavit was that the 1891 diary was purchased before the attempt at forging the Diary.

Now that we know that 1891 diary was acquired on 26 March 1992, we cannot ignore this fact which suggests that, had Barrett been aware it when drafting his affidavit, he would presumably have been able to state that the Maybrick Diary was forged at some point between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

As I have already said to you (but you have ignored), Barrett also told us that it took only 11 days for the Diary's text to be written out. He could have said two months, or six months but he just happened to give us a time period which fits in perfectly with the time period between acquiring the 1891 diary and presenting the Maybrick Diary to Doreen.

Bear in mind that some people in this forum couldn't believe that the Diary could possibly have been written out in only 11 days. So why didn't Barrett select a much longer period of time?

I also have to bear in mind that Barrett's plan with the 1891 diary would have necessarily involved him in ripping out the early pages of that diary with writing on, in circumstances where a few days later he presented Doreen with a diary that had its first 64 pages ripped out.

I also cannot ignore the fact that there is no sensible or rational reason why Mike Barrett would have attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages other than to create a forged Victorian diary.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility that Barrett acquired the diary on behalf of somebody else, i.e. as part of a conspiracy in which his role was fairly minor.

[StevenOwl]

Originally Posted by GUT

Two questions

1. How did that get back at Anne?

Only Mike could possibly answer that one, alas...

Originally Posted by GUT

2. How come so many believe some things he says and not others, and how do they decide which is which.

That's a very good question. Personally, I tend to believe that a relatively sober Mike Barrett, whilst living with Anne and Caroline, was for the most part an honest man. However, once his wife had left him, he was denied access to his daughter, he was knocking back a bottle of Scotch a day, and whiling away the small hours filling up the answer machine tapes of everyone he knew who was connected to the Diary with incoherent drivel and bile - well let's just say that I put far less stock in anything he said during that period.

From what I can gather, during the taped meeting I referred to (where he says he made up for the forgery story to get back at Anne) Mike was sober and relatively together. I believe during that meeting he tried to bargain for a bottle of Scotch at one point, which certainly suggests he hadn't had a drink for a day. Because I never knew Mike I listen very closely to the opinions of those who did; if they say they believed he was being truthful or not with any given statement, then I think it's very hard for those of us who didn't know Mike to argue.

I believe 100% that Tony Devereaux gave the Diary to Mike and told him to "do something with it", as told by sober Mike. I also believe 100% that all of drunk Mike's claims of forgery are untrue, although the affidavit of Jan 1995 possibly contains some true facts.

[caz]

Originally Posted by David Orsam

No, of course I don't think it was "a little bit insane".

People confess to crimes all the time, for various reasons which have nothing to do with insanity.

Fair enough, so you don't think Mike was in a disturbed state of mind whenever he confessed. His solicitor did after his first attempt, and the police were never willing or able to charge him with fraud even after he made substantial sums of money from the book buying public. What made Mike and Anne immune, when Kujau had been quickly convicted and slung in jail for what you believe was much the same crime?

Love,

Caz
X