One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Scott Nelson]

Didn't Robert Anderson (not the MET Police CID guy) have recorded conversations? I seem to remember either he or someone else sending me a CD copy years ago. Damned if I can find it now.

[The Baron]

I don't give a rat's arse what the stain is

Then why are you spreading the claim it was just a glue?! If you don't know and there was no test to show the contrary?! do you want to force your opinion that he was lying using anything that comes to your mind without a proof?!

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.

Then you need another head up here:

Keith Skinner, re the Kidney:

it was a claim alleged by Mike on one of the many tapes I have of recorded discussions with Mike, made by Alan Gray

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

I won't be doing your homework for you, and don't draw Mike's claim that Anne dropped a kidney on the diary to demonstrate that he was just lying if you cannot prove it. You brought this, you couldn't back it up, you lose.




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Then why are you spreading the claim it was just a glue?! If you don't know and there was no test to show the contrary?! do you want to force your opinion that he was lying using anything that comes to your mind without a proof?!





Then you need another head up here:

Keith Skinner, re the Kidney:

it was a claim alleged by Mike on one of the many tapes I have of recorded discussions with Mike, made by Alan Gray






I won't be doing your homework for you, and don't draw Mike's claim that Anne dropped a kidney on the diary to demonstrate that he was just lying if you cannot prove it. You brought this, you couldn't back it up, you lose.




The Baron

“don't draw Mike's claim that Anne dropped a kidney on the diary to demonstrate that he was just lying if you cannot prove it.”

This really is Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable proof of something.

I’m not allowed to use ‘barren’, how about ‘lacking’ or ‘devoid’? Or, a few xxxxs short of something or other?

[caz]

Didn't Robert Anderson (not the MET Police CID guy) have recorded conversations? I seem to remember either he or someone else sending me a CD copy years ago. Damned if I can find it now.

I know nothing about that, Scotty. Robert A hasn't been around in a long while.

But RJ Palmer must remember who sent him copies of the Barrett & Gray tapes, for him to have returned them and later found that this person had since 'fallen off the face of the earth', or some such enigmatic expression. But for some reason he ain't telling.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

“don't draw Mike's claim that Anne dropped a kidney on the diary to demonstrate that he was just lying if you cannot prove it.”

This really is Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable proof of something.

I’m not allowed to use ‘barren’, how about ‘lacking’ or ‘devoid’? Or, a few xxxxs short of something or other?

It's almost unbelievable, isn't it Gary?

The Baron comes here arguing that because Mike Barrett stated in his affidavit of January 5 1995 that he put the kidney shaped stain in the diary himself [which he may well have done - I have no idea and could care less] that is somehow evidence of the diary text being modern. If it is, I must have missed the significance.

When I point out that Mike had also claimed, within 24 hours of saying it was his own work, that the same stain was caused by Anne dropping an actual kidney on it, which means he must have been lying about at least one version of the story, The Baron froths at the mouth and thinks I should be the one to do the donkey work for him to prove which story, if either, might just conceivably have been true.

If he is seriously interested in any of this, he will at least run it past one of his best buddies on this infernal topic, RJ Palmer, who could confirm or deny that Mike gave different versions of the kidney story. The Baron is never, ever, ever, ever, going to accept anything coming from me or Keith Skinner, but the beauty is that the tapes were not given exclusively to Keith, but distributed to others of The Baron's persuasion, who would have listened out carefully for smoking guns. So if The Baron gets no response on this from his 'side' he can draw his own conclusions from their silence.

I think that covers it.

Great weekend all. It's 5 o'clock somewhere!

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

It's almost unbelievable, isn't it Gary?

The Baron comes here arguing that because Mike Barrett stated in his affidavit of January 5 1995 that he put the kidney shaped stain in the diary himself [which he may well have done - I have no idea and could care less] that is somehow evidence of the diary text being modern. If it is, I must have missed the significance.

When I point out that Mike had also claimed, within 24 hours of saying it was his own work, that the same stain was caused by Anne dropping an actual kidney on it, which means he must have been lying about at least one version of the story, The Baron froths at the mouth and thinks I should be the one to do the donkey work for him to prove which story, if either, might just conceivably have been true.

If he is seriously interested in any of this, he will at least run it past one of his best buddies on this infernal topic, RJ Palmer, who could confirm or deny that Mike gave different versions of the kidney story. The Baron is never, ever, ever, ever, going to accept anything coming from me or Keith Skinner, but the beauty is that the tapes were not given exclusively to Keith, but distributed to others of The Baron's persuasion, who would have listened out carefully for smoking guns. So if The Baron gets no response on this from his 'side' he can draw his own conclusions from their silence.

I think that covers it.

Great weekend all. It's 5 o'clock somewhere!

Love,

Caz
X

Then come back Lady when you can support your claims that Mike was merely lying, that the stain caused by Anne dropping a kidney according to Mike was certainly a glue, that the two kidney stains talked about at different occasions must have been one and the same and not two different marks on different pages.


I am not the one who brought those cut stories here to demonstrate Mike was a liar [as if proving him a liar means he cannot be a hoaxer] I didn't published a book with RJ Palmer, I didn't pretend I know the inside story, but I know one who did, and I know his co-author has those tapes.


Don't do the donkey work Caz, just sit down and dream that we will all take your words for everything you through on the way.

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

Wrong, after +20 years you still at the beginning, and you cannot see the information except from your fixed and one sided perspection, that Mike couldn't ever have faked the diary.

He dropped mentioning it because it dosn't prove either way they faked the diary, Anne could have dropped a kidney on the diary whether they faked it or not. whether it was authentic or not.

Regarding the photos, I'd have advised him to drop the dead donkey too.

How about you advice him to tell the truth ?!
It is not always about proving oneself right or defend at any cost, you should remember that.




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Then come back Lady when you can support your claims that Mike was merely lying, that the stain caused by Anne dropping a kidney according to Mike was certainly a glue, that the two kidney stains talked about at different occasions must have been one and the same and not two different marks on different pages.


I am not the one who brought those cut stories here to demonstrate Mike was a liar [as if proving him a liar means he cannot be a hoaxer] I didn't published a book with RJ Palmer, I didn't pretend I know the inside story, but I know one who did, and I know his co-author has those tapes.


Don't do the donkey work Caz, just sit down and dream that we will all take your words for everything you through on the way.






Wrong, after +20 years you still at the beginning, and you cannot see the information except from your fixed and one sided perspection, that Mike couldn't ever have faked the diary.

He dropped mentioning it because it dosn't prove either way they faked the diary, Anne could have dropped a kidney on the diary whether they faked it or not. whether it was authentic or not.






How about you advice him to tell the truth ?!
It is not always about proving oneself right or defend at any cost, you should remember that.




The Baron

There’s something rather unpleasant about Baron’s use of ‘Lady’.

Perhaps he can explain the significance of a capitalised reference to Caz’s gender.

[StevenOwl]

There’s something rather unpleasant about Baron’s use of ‘Lady’.

Perhaps he can explain the significance of a capitalised reference to Caz’s gender.

His nasty tone really reminds me of someone...

[Kaz]

Guys, let this go!

Mainly directed at Caz/Tom/RJ/David, this subject ain't worth your time and energy

listen to this instead


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJeWySiuq1I

[Iconoclast]

From Mike Barret's affidavit, January 5, 1995:

When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.

We have been debating the validity of Barrett's claims regarding the kidney mark on the Victorian scrapbook. It's worth adding here that just two paragraphs earlier in Barrett's 'God's Truth' affidavit, he made the above claim regarding the 'makers stamp mark' which he claimed to have removed with linseed oil in a couple of days.

I don't recall there being too much (if any) debate regarding these specific claims by Barrett, but now a contact of mine (I'll call him 'FDC') has emailed me with the following points (which I have summarised and paraphrased below):

• If you soak the cover of an old book in oil (or water), the cover comes loose from the cardboard and starts to bend.
• Two days to dry a wet book is not enough - it would have to dry very slowly and under pressure. It takes weeks to dry out completely and would inevitably be misshapen.
• The document would have a strong stench of oil.
• If you don’t have the skills, and you never have done this before, it's next to impossible to succeed on your first try.

Now this is about as much as I've got (at present), but I'd love to hear from anyone else who is also an authority on these processes as - if it is wholly misrepresentative of how these processes would work - they need to be be clarified.

If we have anyone with experience in dealing with the restoration and restructuring of - ideally - old documents, I for one would love to hear what they have to say about Barrett's claims.

My thanks to FDC for raising these intriguing points.

Cheers,

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

From Mike Barret's affidavit, January 5, 1995:



We have been debating the validity of Barrett's claims regarding the kidney mark on the Victorian scrapbook. It's worth adding here that just two paragraphs earlier in Barrett's 'God's Truth' affidavit, he made the above claim regarding the 'makers stamp mark' which he claimed to have removed with linseed oil in a couple of days.

I don't recall there being too much (if any) debate regarding these specific claims by Barrett, but now a contact of mine (I'll call him 'FDC') has emailed me with the following points (which I have summarised and paraphrased below):

• If you soak the cover of an old book in oil (or water), the cover comes loose from the cardboard and starts to bend.
• Two days to dry a wet book is not enough - it would have to dry very slowly and under pressure. It takes weeks to dry out completely and would inevitably be misshapen.
• The document would have a strong stench of oil.
• If you don’t have the skills, and you never have done this before, it's next to impossible to succeed on your first try.

Now this is about as much as I've got (at present), but I'd love to hear from anyone else who is also an authority on these processes as - if it is wholly misrepresentative of how these processes would work - they need to be be clarified.

If we have anyone with experience in dealing with the restoration and restructuring of - ideally - old documents, I for one would love to hear what they have to say about Barrett's claims.

My thanks to FDC for raising these intriguing points.

Cheers,

Ike

Interesting points Ike, and para phrased like you say. I appreciate "FDC" wants to remain anonymous, but in the grand scheme of things, can you expect those conclusions to be taken seriously, or respected seriously?

They're good points, (also in the grand scheme of things, Mike talked arse about many things but dropped some massive clues), but those specific points highlighted in blue are solid enough, if FDC is even reasonably well versed in forging documents.

I reiterate, Ike, they are good points, if you can qualify FDC. Otherwise, he's your mate in the pub.

(Just to reiterate, given that this is a Maybrick thread, the points raised by "FDC" are good ones, but without knowing"FDC"s credentials they're open to debate. Regardless, the points raised RE mineral oil etc are valid. Does this apply to MB's affidavit? Well, yes, but he was a drunken liar who said lots of ****?, so FDC's analysis is based on his statement being truthful, which it isn't. It's Mike Barrett. So it's diary QED.)

(And to double reiterate, so I don't get hell for this, it's how others view your post Ike, not me. I personally think Mike talked total arse while pissed up with Gray, but it doesn't mean he wasn't behind it)

Heads up Ike! Snipers on the parapet!

[Iconoclast]

Interesting points Ike, and para phrased like you say. I appreciate "FDC" wants to remain anonymous, but in the grand scheme of things, can you expect those conclusions to be taken seriously, or respected seriously?

They're good points, (also in the grand scheme of things, Mike talked arse about many things but dropped some massive clues), but those specific points highlighted in blue are solid enough, if FDC is even reasonably well versed in forging documents.

I reiterate, Ike, they are good points, if you can qualify FDC. Otherwise, he's your mate in the pub.

(Just to reiterate, given that this is a Maybrick thread, the points raised by "FDC" are good ones, but without knowing"FDC"s credentials they're open to debate. Regardless, the points raised RE mineral oil etc are valid. Does this apply to MB's affidavit? Well, yes, but he was a drunken liar who said lots of ****?, so FDC's analysis is based on his statement being truthful, which it isn't. It's Mike Barrett. So it's diary QED.)

(And to double reiterate, so I don't get hell for this, it's how others view your post Ike, not me. I personally think Mike talked total arse while pissed up with Gray, but it doesn't mean he wasn't behind it)

Heads up Ike! Snipers on the parapet!

Thank you for you advice, Captain Abe. The issue here is that Mike Barrett told countless lies (they were obviously lies - they contradicted each other so they must have been) and yet people come on here defending his affidavit (as if making it 'official' meant anything to him as he went under for the third time) and that that (his affidavit) therefore needs to be properly deconstructed so that it can be properly understood. FDC offered his deconstruction of the linseed oil fantasy which I considered to be more than interesting enough to post. I did not then set his points out as being never so well made that they did not require support, and that therefore was what I requested.

I have no real skin in the oil-on-scrapbook debate. I have nothing to offer there. But if a point is made which points one way or t'other, I will absolutely present it for critique.

If you know that "Mike talked arse about many things but dropped some massive clues" and you are not vocal in your criticism of those who would make a trap for fools by suggesting some of what Barrett claimed was nevertheless believable then you are simply being a de facto mouthpiece for David Barrat who wants us to believe that it is absolutely fine for someone to lie constantly as long as we get to believe the bits which we feel we can massage into an argument we like.

And yet, you evidently disagree with David Barrat as you add "FDC's analysis is based on his statement being truthful, which it isn't". If you know that Mike Barrett's statement is untruthful, I infer that you therefore place no faith in the consequences of it; but others do, and that forces people like me to challenge those positions because they are so groundless. You may have dispensed with them but others have not so perhaps - in my shoes - you wouldn't be dismissive of the need to bury any arguments which are underpinned by anything which came out of Mike Barrett's mouth or pen.

I don't need to qualify my source, Abe (he's not Deep Throat, and this isn't Watergate - we were just exchanging emails when he mentioned this stuff). I had no reason to question his superior knowledge of these things. What I feel is reasonable is to put these ideas out there to see if anyone else can verify them or dispute them.

Just the other day, I asked people to speak up and have a voice. If that's FDC's way (perhaps to avoid the vitriol which inevitably would come his way), it's fine with me. Better that than saying nowt.

It's pointless having a rifle on the parapet if you don't use it.

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

.

It's pointless having a rifle on the parapet if you don't use it.

Ike

Indeed mate, I'm out.

[Scott Nelson]

Just the other day, I asked people to speak up and have a voice.

I did in posts #6941 and #6051.

I think Mike Barrett did everything possible to make Devereux's scrapbook his own. That included rewriting it in other Diaries (Red Diary - abandoned idea) and in the acquisition of other Diaries we're not aware of, before giving up and handing over Devereux's version to the publisher.

[Iconoclast]

I did in posts #6941 and #6051.

I think Mike Barrett did everything possible to make Devereux's scrapbook his own. That included rewriting it in other Diaries (Red Diary - abandoned idea) and in the acquisition of other Diaries we're not aware of, before giving up and handing over Devereux's version to the publisher.

Hi Scott,

My plea of the other day was to those who read but don't post of which there are tens or scores or Lord knows even hundreds, not to the likes of you who do post.

I strongly support your ongoing commitment to posting though I have no great confidence in your Dam theory.

Cheers,

Ike