One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Well put it this way, David. If either of the Barretts could disguise their handwriting well enough to have penned that diary, what does that do to the argument that James Maybrick could not possibly have done an equally good job of disguising his own?

I'm not sure one can have it both ways. Also, since the onus is on anyone proposing James as its author to provide the evidence, the same applies to anyone proposing that either Mike or Anne's creative writing skills and/or handwriting could appear in the document.

It's not really my job to provide you with the evidence against that possibility, is it?

For starters, have you ever seen a single example of Mike's handwriting that has the upper and lower case letters all in the right places? All the examples I have seen strongly suggest he doesn't know his upper from his lower and mixes them up at random. If you - or anyone else - can provide one example that differs from this, or an example that shows Anne's writing skills, or disguising ability, perhaps 'we' could look at that? Endless examples of 'negative' evidence wouldn't help as they could have been bluffing all this time, but good positive evidence that they had what it took could not so easily be dismissed.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I'm quite sure I have never said that Maybrick couldn't have disguised his own handwriting and he may well have been able to. Why he would have wanted to have done so in a private diary, which he signed, is another matter but no doubt it's a possibility.

I have also never said it is your job to do anything but you have made clear that you don't believe that the Barretts could have forged the diary while saying that much of what Mike has claimed is "demonstrably untrue". I'm only asking you to explain to me the basis of those views.

Mike says in his affidavit that his wife actually wrote the words in the diary so his own handwriting skills are not that important. I have no idea whether Ann Graham could have disguised her handwriting or not. But if she could then it is perhaps not significant that her handwriting might be different to that in the diary.

I'm really only trying to get to the bottom of why people like yourself are so convinced that the diary could not have been forged by the Barretts. I'm not asking any trick questions!

[David Orsam]

Keith spoke publicly about this in 2007 in Liverpool in response to a question - or observation - from Jeremy Beadle. I expect someone recorded it at the time, but I don't have that information. He did make it obvious to the entire audience on that occasion that he finds the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling.

Well perhaps some people in the audience came away with the impression that he found the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling but did he actually say that?

Even if he did say it in 2007, I am unconvinced that he still holds this view (and you did use the present tense when you said in #2042, "I completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.")

[David Orsam]

I will just say again, that if anyone wants to propose that Mike did tell the truth in his 'confession' statements, in that he was guilty of having a hand in the diary's creation, or at least of knowing who did, I'd be very happy for them to demonstrate that truth. Isn't the onus on them to do that or am I missing something?

I don't know if there is an onus on anyone to do anything. I can only say that you stated that much of what Mike Barrett has claimed is "demonstrably untrue" so I was rather hoping that you could demonstrate it.

[paul g]

Just a thought but could Maybrick have disquised his writing just in case the diary was discovered while he was still alive ?
He would then be in a position to deny he wrote it.

[David Orsam]

Just a thought but could Maybrick have disquised his writing just in case the diary was discovered while he was still alive ?
He would then be in a position to deny he wrote it.

You mean the diary which would have been found in a drawer in his house or office in which he included details of his life and family which clearly identified him?

[paul g]

I'll get me coat

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi David,

I have yet to catch up with the whole thread, and have not yet read the posts from #1541 to #1994 inclusive. I will try to do so soon, for my own enlightenment, but for now I will just say again, that if anyone wants to propose that Mike did tell the truth in his 'confession' statements, in that he was guilty of having a hand in the diary's creation, or at least of knowing who did, I'd be very happy for them to demonstrate that truth. Isn't the onus on them to do that or am I missing something?

Love,

Caz
X

For those who may not know. Dennis Hardy the solicitor who took the sworn affidavits of Barrett was struck off in 2003 for malpractice. It appears that he had been continuing to act improperly as far back as 1986. It seemed he had a liking for money and not all his own, and there was a lot of money being thrown around at that time of the diary was there not?

As to who may have written the affidavit for him, well there were a number of persons who were in close contact with him at the time who were more than capable of formulating the affadavit, because the first one reads like a story out of a book do you not think?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

If it was a lie then it was a well thought out lie, certainly not devised by Barratt. Any suggestions as to who might have done that and why if that were the case?

More than one person amounts to a conspiracy to defraud

Not with you, Trevor. As far as I am aware, Mike Barrett took it upon himself to 'confess' that the diary was faked - changing his mind at various times over who composed the text, who actually penned it and who else knew about it. If he was encouraged to do all that by anyone else, your guess is as good as mine as to who that was and the motivation behind it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...I'm really only trying to get to the bottom of why people like yourself are so convinced that the diary could not have been forged by the Barretts. I'm not asking any trick questions!

That's fine, David. It's no skin off my nose whether you understand why I hold certain convictions or not. It's just rather difficult to demonstrate a negative isn't it, and pretty much anything is possible, especially if one has the desire to believe. All I have done over the years is to find out as much as I can about the Barretts and the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the diary (and watch of course) and to keep testing and questioning what my eyes and ears tell me. If there is evidence out there for the Barretts - or in fact any named individual - to have created the diary, I have yet to come across it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well perhaps some people in the audience came away with the impression that he found the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling but did he actually say that?

What Keith said was that if the documents in his possession were put before a jury (and he clarified later that he meant this in the same context as the event where he made the statement - the 2007 Trial of James Maybrick in Liverpool - a court of history, not of law) he believed the verdict would be that the diary came out of Battlecrease House.

You may interpret that how you wish. Fill your boots.

Even if he did say it in 2007, I am unconvinced that he still holds this view (and you did use the present tense when you said in #2042, "I completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.")

Well now, just how am I meant to convince you that he does indeed still hold this view? He doesn't post on the boards and if he asked me to post a message to that effect on his behalf, how could I convince you I hadn't made it up, just for jolly?

Once again, I don't expect anyone to accept what Keith or I have said at face value, but I would find it deliciously ironic if you were more open to the possibility of Mike's various 'confession' statements reflecting the truth, or partial truth, without having seen a jot of evidence for it, than you are to Keith Skinner holding a very different position that is backed up to the hilt. Demand evidence by all means before you take anything said about Keith's long and painstaking research seriously, but where are your demands to see evidence for any of Mike's claims? Your demands have been for evidence that he lied, which does suggest a predisposition to favour Mike's claims over Keith's. If I'm getting the wrong impression I'm sure you'll put me straight.

While I'm here may I offer the friendly advice not to give your bank details to a stranger over the phone if he says you are due a tax rebate, on the grounds that you would like to believe him and I have not successfully demonstrated to you that he's a lying bastard who will empty your account.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For those who may not know. Dennis Hardy the solicitor who took the sworn affidavits of Barrett was struck off in 2003 for malpractice. It appears that he had been continuing to act improperly as far back as 1986. It seemed he had a liking for money and not all his own, and there was a lot of money being thrown around at that time of the diary was there not?

As to who may have written the affidavit for him, well there were a number of persons who were in close contact with him at the time who were more than capable of formulating the affadavit, because the first one reads like a story out of a book do you not think?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trev,

You may know more about this than I do. But money had only been thrown Mike's way, in the form of book royalties, until the day he chose to claim he forged the diary. As a result his cash cow dried up almost overnight, and what he had previously earned had already been splashed out or pissed up the wall.

If the solicitor was dodgy it doesn't help make any of Mike's claims true, does it? And you may know the names of other dodgy customers who helped Mike 'formulate' those claims, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Trev,

You may know more about this than I do. But money had only been thrown Mike's way, in the form of book royalties, until the day he chose to claim he forged the diary. As a result his cash cow dried up almost overnight, and what he had previously earned had already been splashed out or pissed up the wall.

In fact, if I recall correctly, Mike ended up owing money to people he engaged, such as solicitors and private investigators (one of whom he hired to 'prove' he had forged the diary himself - work that one out ), and I'm not sure the bills were ever paid.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

In fact, if I recall correctly, Mike ended up owing money to people he engaged, such as solicitors and private investigators (one of whom he hired to 'prove' he had forged the diary himself - work that one out ), and I'm not sure the bills were ever paid.

Love,

Caz
X

Barrett clearly went to the solicitors with a prepared statement, which was transferred into the first affidavit. I am sure the readers on here would love to know the names of the small minority who had direct contact with him at that time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

That's fine, David. It's no skin off my nose whether you understand why I hold certain convictions or not. It's just rather difficult to demonstrate a negative isn't it, and pretty much anything is possible, especially if one has the desire to believe.

Sure, but I haven't been asking you to demonstrate a negative, only to explain why you think that the Barretts could not have forged the diary. If you can't say any more than you have already said then that's fine, no problem.

Separately, of course, I was also asking you to demonstrate something you described as "demonstrably untrue" but if it can't be demonstrated then no problem as well.

[David Orsam]

All I have done over the years is to find out as much as I can about the Barretts and the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the diary (and watch of course) and to keep testing and questioning what my eyes and ears tell me. If there is evidence out there for the Barretts - or in fact any named individual - to have created the diary, I have yet to come across it.

I don't think you quite mean to put it like that because Barrett's affidavit of 5 January 1995 is, by definition, evidence of him and his wife having created the diary. I assume you mean that you have not come across any evidence which has persuaded you that they did so.