One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Here's my call to the rest of you - log in, offer an opinion, obviously grow a very thick skin, but be part of the debate. Don't let it pass you by.

Ike

Been there and done it Ike. We'll never agree on the subject, and yes it's trench warfare, probably for the wrong reasons. Snipers on both sides looking to shoot our collective heads off. But a truce time game of footy? I'll see you there. Although as a Newcastle fan, loosing is expected, and the cabbage saying 'wor lads played well'
Part of the debate? Part of the fight mate, that's what it is, or so it seems. Gets a bit personal at times. Hence few want to join the 'debate'. And hell, I get it from you and Lord O, but neutrality is my game, or even handedness.

"Offer an opinion"? Can it disagree with yours? Without ridicule?

I reckon so Ike. I reckon so

[Iconoclast]

Been there and done it Ike. We'll never agree on the subject, and yes it's trench warfare, probably for the wrong reasons. Snipers on both sides looking to shoot our collective heads off. But a truce time game of footy? I'll see you there. Although as a Newcastle fan, loosing is expected, and the cabbage saying 'wor lads played well'
Part of the debate? Part of the fight mate, that's what it is, or so it seems. Gets a bit personal at times. Hence few want to join the 'debate'. And hell, I get it from you and Lord O, but neutrality is my game, or even handedness.

"Offer an opinion"? Can it disagree with yours? Without ridicule?

I reckon so Ike. I reckon so

Hi Abe,

I wasn't aiming my volley at the likes of you - you're what one would call a regular here (and a most welcome one despite the fact you seem resolutely unable to see that James Maybrick was Jack the Spratt McVitie ).

No, I was calling to all those who read this stuff, have an opinion, don't post, and then click on some utter mince thread about whether Mrs Mortimer was tying her shoelaces at 11.30 on the night Stride died.

Although as a Newcastle fan, loosing is expected, and the cabbage saying 'wor lads played well'.

Get some new valves from Amazon and tune that old wireless radiogram of yours to 693 or 909 AM, Abe - there's a new sheriff a-riding into toon. The 'loosing' you've got used to may well now be shifting to the purse strings instead of the results. The Cabbage is surely gone too soon enough along with the 10-men backlines the moment we go a goal up, etc..

Let me share a wee gem I got from a mate the other day:



Guffaw!

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

For those who queued up to swallow Mike's phoney confessions:

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Well Caroline, Mike could have gotten the Diary from Tony Devereux like he said.

[Scott Nelson]

Ike, another 30 pages or so on this thread and you'll have yourself a decent-sized book.

[The Baron]

Or that Anne made the kidney shaped stain in the diary by dropping a real kidney on it?

Let's see your source for the above.


From Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995:


"I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.

I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."




The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Ike, another 30 pages or so on this thread and you'll have yourself a decent-sized book.

Good point Scott!

My brilliant Society's Pillar is the equivalent of about a 300-side, page-turning juggernaut of webs, lies, deceit, and corruption - and that's just the chapter on Mike Ashley!

But you make a good point - perhaps I could publish this thread as a best-seller and then see if it best-sells?

But what would I call it?

Ike
Author and Word Magician

[Iconoclast]

Let's see your source for the above.

From Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995:

"I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.

I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."

The Baron

I have absolutely no doubt that Caz will have a source tucked away somewhere - after all, as a published author on the subject, it would be reasonable to assume that she has access to more references than the general we.

Obviously you have cited Bongo's affy David, but quite honestly if you think Mike stuck religiously to the (or indeed any) script, you really don't know your onions from your freshly-picked carrots.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well Caroline, Mike could have gotten the Diary from Tony Devereux like he said.

Word to the wise, Scotty. 'Caroline' is the Sunday name, the parents' name, the godmother/aunt name. Use it carefully else you know what's coming!

Ike

[caz]

Well Caroline, Mike could have gotten the Diary from Tony Devereux like he said.

Well Scotty, Tony Devereux could have died knowing nothing of the diary's existence - like Mike also said, in July 1995.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Dead men who never knew the diary existed are a 100% safe bet to use, because they could have said nothing about it while alive.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Let's see your source for the above.


From Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995:


"I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.

I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."




The Baron

Easy peasy, Baron.

From Michael Barrett's recorded conversations with private investigator, Alan Gray
November 6 1994:

Barrett tells Gray that the kidney shaped stain was his work, to signify his own kidney problems.

November 7 1994:

Barrett, forgetting his explanation of the previous day, tells Gray that the kidney shape is actually a stain from a real kidney dropped on it by Anne.


At that point, in Gray's shoes, I think I would have suspected that Barrett was Aldridge Prior the Hopeless Liar in disguise, and any hope of being paid by this moron was a forlorn one.

But as RJ keeps pointing out, hope springs eternal, and it took a while longer for Gray to see the light.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As it was Alan Gray who typed up Mike's 'confession' of January 5 1995, I suspect he urged Mike, for both their sakes, to drop the dead kidney story and revert to the one where it was all his own work.

Regarding the photos, I'd have advised him to drop the dead donkey too. The beast was only good for the old glue Alec Voller observed on top of a dot of the diary ink.

Funny, Mike didn't mention where he managed to obtain this old glue. An inspired idea, but an opportunity missed to show how he'd thought of everything.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

Easy peasy, Baron.


From Michael Barrett's recorded conversations with private investigator, Alan Gray
November 6 1994:

Barrett tells Gray that the kidney shaped stain was his work, to signify his own kidney problems.

November 7 1994:

Barrett, forgetting his explanation of the previous day, tells Gray that the kidney shape is actually a stain from a real kidney dropped on it by Anne.


At that point, in Gray's shoes, I think I would have suspected that Barrett was Aldridge Prior the Hopeless Liar in disguise, and any hope of being paid by this moron was a forlorn one.

But as RJ keeps pointing out, hope springs eternal, and it took a while longer for Gray to see the light.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Love,

Caz
X

The first quote you cited from 6 November 1994 may very well be a reference to the kidney shaped mark he confessed on January 5 1995 he made.

Have you yet presented all the recorded conversations between Barrett and Gray or we will always need to have your word on only some parts of it?!


We come to the next quote from 7 November 1994, and now you have to explain to me why it is impossible for Anne to drop a Kidney on the diary, whether it was the real thing or just a hoax!


Ahh and to give you a head up, I will quote no other than Keith Skinner himself from february 5, 2018:


I don't think the diary has been forensically tested or analysed for either linseed oil or the stain left by Anne allegedly dropping a kidney on one of the pages.


Do you again want us to take your word on this without any forensical test Caz?!


You must be dreaming.




The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Easy peasy, Baron.

From Michael Barrett's recorded conversations with private investigator, Alan Gray
November 6 1994:

Barrett tells Gray that the kidney shaped stain was his work, to signify his own kidney problems.

November 7 1994:

Barrett, forgetting his explanation of the previous day, tells Gray that the kidney shape is actually a stain from a real kidney dropped on it by Anne.


At that point, in Gray's shoes, I think I would have suspected that Barrett was Aldridge Prior the Hopeless Liar in disguise, and any hope of being paid by this moron was a forlorn one.

But as RJ keeps pointing out, hope springs eternal, and it took a while longer for Gray to see the light.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Love,

Caz
X

Correct me if I'm wrong, Caz, but what you seem to have pointed-out is that Mike Barrett managed to give two entirely conflicting accounts of the same outcome in the space of just twenty-four short hours? And I believe he did this quite often ('quite often' as in pretty much always)?

Personally, I take the view that if someone so central to the scrapbook's provenance fabricates, confabulates (the kindest interpretation), tells lies, tells more lies, and possibly tells some truths then attempts to make a believable affidavit but corrodes each line of it with inaccuracies then that person should never expect to be taken seriously on any level.

Further, if anyone - hell bent on selling a highly-suspect version of events - chooses only those parts of the whole sorry mess of notions and claims which either appear to support that highly-suspect version of events or which can be reimagined as doing so (if one ignores other claims such as dates, authorship, involvement, etc.) then they should never expect to be taken seriously on any level either.

The fact that the former did and the latter still do is a testament to the apparently unlimited depths to which the human mind will persuade itself of what is likely to be true and what is almost certainly not.

Ike

[caz]

The first quote you cited from 6 November 1994 may very well be a reference to the kidney shaped mark he confessed on January 5 1995 he made.

Have you yet presented all the recorded conversations between Barrett and Gray or we will always need to have your word on only some parts of it?!


We come to the next quote from 7 November 1994, and now you have to explain to me why it is impossible for Anne to drop a Kidney on the diary, whether it was the real thing or just a hoax!


Ahh and to give you a head up, I will quote no other than Keith Skinner himself from february 5, 2018:


I don't think the diary has been forensically tested or analysed for either linseed oil or the stain left by Anne allegedly dropping a kidney on one of the pages.


Do you again want us to take your word on this without any forensical test Caz?!


You must be dreaming.




The Baron

I don't give a rat's arse what the stain is, Baron. My point was that Mike told different stories to explain how it got there, even from one day to the next, so he lied about it. If you are claiming that one of his stories was true, it's up to you to support it with evidence.

RJ Palmer had the recorded conversations, so assuming he made notes before losing interest in the subject [for the millionth time and counting] and returning the tapes to whoever supplied them to him, I suggest you ask him to confirm what was on them. They are not mine to present. You could send RJ a private message if he has done yet another disappearing trick.

And don't just accept RJ's word for it that he tried to retrieve the tapes but couldn't track down his source. Ask him who this person was and how they obtained the tapes in the first place. You might have better luck than I did. He was very mysterious about it all, while claiming there was material on the tapes that would provide evidential support for Mike's sworn affidavit. I haven't made that claim myself and I don't know what RJ's evidence might be.

Best of luck!

Come back when you've made some progress and have an exclusive kidney report for us.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Caz, but what you seem to have pointed-out is that Mike Barrett managed to give two entirely conflicting accounts of the same outcome in the space of just twenty-four short hours? And I believe he did this quite often ('quite often' as in pretty much always)?

Personally, I take the view that if someone so central to the scrapbook's provenance fabricates, confabulates (the kindest interpretation), tells lies, tells more lies, and possibly tells some truths then attempts to make a believable affidavit but corrodes each line of it with inaccuracies then that person should never expect to be taken seriously on any level.

Further, if anyone - hell bent on selling a highly-suspect version of events - chooses only those parts of the whole sorry mess of notions and claims which either appear to support that highly-suspect version of events or which can be reimagined as doing so (if one ignores other claims such as dates, authorship, involvement, etc.) then they should never expect to be taken seriously on any level either.

The fact that the former did and the latter still do is a testament to the apparently unlimited depths to which the human mind will persuade itself of what is likely to be true and what is almost certainly not.

Ike

A fair summary, Ike, of the insurmountable problems facing anyone who relies on the truth coming from a man who couldn't lie straight in bed.

Keith and I are asked time and time again to support every little morsel of information we share, by the very same people who fall over backwards to believe the unsupported, often unsupportable, retracted or even disproven claims of Mike Barrett, concerning how the diary entered this world - and now stubbornly refuses to leave it.

I think in the end it may be pointless to try and help such people to help themselves. They don't seem to want to do their own research, and whatever is presented to them is never enough to make them question their faith in Mike's various 'confessions'.

Love,

Caz
X