Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Too Sensible & Competent

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Oh, ha ha, so now we are being told that there IS a note of Keith Skinner's 2004 meeting with Colin Rhodes are we? Yesterday, it was "Note? What note?" Today, it's: Yes there is a note but there's also a recording!!!! Unbelievable. How disingenuous can one get?

    Clearly, knowing how meticulous Keith Skinner is, I figured there must be a note. So where is it? Why has it not been produced?

    I just don't understand.

    And the idea that someone is "repeating herself" when that person is actually giving different answers to the same question - one day attempting to deny the existence of a note, the next day admitting it exists - is extraordinary.

    Comment


    • #77
      I need to wrap my head around Diary Defender logic. Asking for a note to be produced means that I don't want it to be produced. And doing so in some way is supposed to be "pissing people" off (according to the person who is, apparently, the official spokesperson of those who donít post or produce information). So in order to get a note produced I am not supposed to ask for it to be produced, is that right? Is that how it works?

      So how does one ensure a note is produced? Psychically? Through the power of the mind?

      It gets even harder to ask for a note to be produced when the response is "Note? What note?" because that would be the response when such a note doesn't exist. Now that this feeble attempt at evasion has been exposed the usual nastiness emerges.

      Comment


      • #78
        There appears to be some sort of misapprehension that I actually care, for myself, whether documents are produced or not. Like I'm sitting here eagerly waiting for them like an excited schoolboy. But if we are genuinely trying to get to the truth of this matter then it's perfectly obvious that documents should be produced when available. Or how else are we going to make progress, as opposed to going round and round in circles with endless speculation (which some people obviously enjoy)?

        If someone of Keith Skinner's stature says that a document is going to be produced in "a few weeks" then that is what I would expect to happen and it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask why this promise hasn't been kept. How long am I supposed to wait before asking? A year? Ten years? Twenty?

        No answer has been provided as to why the Diary transcript prepared by the Barretts hasn't been produced, as it was promised it would be, just speculation that Keith or James might be "busy". Well if that's the case why is it not possible for Keith or someone else (if Keith is too busy) to say that he's too busy now but will do it at the first opportunity? I had thought that Keith Skinner joined this forum specifically for the purpose of answering questions and providing information. He's yet to make a single post on his own account!

        And if Keith Skinner has a problem with any of my posts (which would greatly surprise me) he can presumably say so himself rather than have dark hints dropped via his official or unofficial spokesperson, the same person who tries to turn everything I say into an attack on him and has, for reasons best known to herself, been doing this at every possible opportunity for the past two years.

        Comment


        • #79
          Just to make a post that's actually on the topic of this thread, here is the image of Anne's famous "bloody gaul" slip in a typed letter to Mike dated 1 February 1995:
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #80
            And no apostrophe in "fathers", a little quirk of not using them shared by the Diary's author.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              So I post a snippet of factual information from Devereux's will and am asked how "low" I can go? It's bizarre. I have seen a theory (not mine) that Devereux was the driving force behind the Diary and was transferring his own feelings about his wife onto the Diary's author. That's a theory and, given what Mike says in his affidavit, it has to be worth considering. I appreciate that some people don't like it when facts are posted and would prefer to engage in full rampant speculation (something I deliberately avoided in my post about Devereux's will) but I prefer to post the facts, not hide them, thank you very much.
              I've found the reference I was thinking of to the theory that Devereux's relationship with his wife was a driving force behind the way the Diary was written. It is one of Melvin Harris's private letters in which he wrote:

              "Incidentally, if I have not told you before, Devereux used to call his ex-wife an whoring bitch or the whore, because she betrayed him."

              If that is true I would think it is extremely important information given the way the author of the Diary refers to his wife.

              Comment

              Working...
              X