Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Do you not see the significance of 'August 1991'?
    Yes, dear--that's why I posted it!

    Really Caz, you can be amazingly confused. Of course, it is a reference to Tony Devereux. And why? Because Devereux was the Barrett's provenance. If John F. Kennedy had been the Barretts' provenance the notes would have been subtitled since ' November 1963.'

    And if this is a deception--which you are implying that it is--then why in the name of Hades would I accept anything that this deceptive document has to say?

    Yet --almost in the same breath-- you turn around and use these bogus notes as if they are a truthful rendition of what Barrett really thought and felt about the diary's text.

    It's like I've drifted into a scene from Through the Looking-Glass.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Which, RJ? You scoffed at my speculation that there were two Tales of Liverpool in this story, but you now want two typescripts: one that was supposedly completed by early 1990
      Honestly, all I can conclude is that the diary has finally driven you barking mad. Where have I ever suggested there were two typescripts?

      A manuscript on a computer can be an on-going, evolving document. It doesn't just magically appear at one moment in time.

      There was never any evidence that the typescript found on the Barrett's computer was created in March 1992--that's you unwarranted assumption and I don't accept it.

      The typescript could have been started at any time between when the word processor was first purchased (which the Barretts lied about, by the way) and when Doreen first laid eyes on it.

      It could also have been worked on, off and on, during Devereux's lifetime, but completed or revised after his death. It's still the same bloody document and there is no reason to refer to it as two different texts.

      No hard feelings, Caz, but I give up. I really have no more time for your bizarre logic and endless musings about what is really a very obvious solution.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Bloody hell, Ike. How have you not lost the will to live, with The Baron and Trevor giving such a good impression of not knowing what the hell is going on?

        I tell you, it's comedy gold when they are active at the same time, even funnier than the double act Barrett and Gray, or Orsam and RJ.

        I doubt RJ can see the joke though. He'll be the one looking like he's sucking on a lemon.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I do know what is going on but do you?

        You seem to constantly want to put people down for expressing valid explantions which you try to negate, you clerly have a vested interest in a book on this topic where you and others have set out what you believe to be all the right answers.

        So it comes as no surprise when you contiunally try to shoot down in flames what others postulate which flies in the face of what you and you fellow writers have written.

        Of course you and your fellow writers have set your stall out in no uncertain terms with the book, but as you know the passage of time has resulted in more new stuff being uneartherd, so the problem you now have is that further research others have done which would appear to fly in the face of much of the content of your book, and your explanations. and so you have to fight your corner, to admit you got it wrong in the book is clearly not an option for you.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          Yes, dear--that's why I posted it!

          Really Caz, you can be amazingly confused. Of course, it is a reference to Tony Devereux. And why? Because Devereux was the Barrett's provenance. If John F. Kennedy had been the Barretts' provenance the notes would have been subtitled since ' November 1963.'
          Gosh, I never thought of that, RJ. How clever of you to appreciate that the Devereux provenance was a lie, to cover up for the fact that Mike only had a diary to interest Doreen in, in March 1992.

          And if this is a deception--which you are implying that it is--then why in the name of Hades would I accept anything that this deceptive document has to say?

          Yet --almost in the same breath-- you turn around and use these bogus notes as if they are a truthful rendition of what Barrett really thought and felt about the diary's text.

          It's like I've drifted into a scene from Through the Looking-Glass.
          If only you'd remove the Barrett hoax conspiracy goggles for a moment, RJ, you might just appreciate how this would all make perfect sense if Mike couldn't admit to anyone how he had really come by the diary or when, because it was nicked.

          And don't call me 'dear'. Mister Brown calls me that because I'm so expensive to run.

          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Honestly, all I can conclude is that the diary has finally driven you barking mad. Where have I ever suggested there were two typescripts?

            A manuscript on a computer can be an on-going, evolving document. It doesn't just magically appear at one moment in time.

            There was never any evidence that the typescript found on the Barrett's computer was created in March 1992--that's you unwarranted assumption and I don't accept it.

            The typescript could have been started at any time between when the word processor was first purchased (which the Barretts lied about, by the way) and when Doreen first laid eyes on it.

            It could also have been worked on, off and on, during Devereux's lifetime, but completed or revised after his death. It's still the same bloody document and there is no reason to refer to it as two different texts.

            No hard feelings, Caz, but I give up. I really have no more time for your bizarre logic and endless musings about what is really a very obvious solution.
            Where did Anne lie about when the word processor was first purchased? Mike lied about it to Doreen, saying it was bought specifically for the transcript he and Anne were working on, probably in the forlorn hope that he might be reimbursed for the machine.

            It could only have been worked on while Devereux was alive, if the diary wasn't living in Paul Dodd's house at the time. You would have to prove it was waiting to be snapped up in an auction sale instead.

            Good luck! You will need it.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              I do know what is going on but do you?

              You seem to constantly want to put people down for expressing valid explantions which you try to negate, you clerly have a vested interest in a book on this topic where you and others have set out what you believe to be all the right answers.

              So it comes as no surprise when you contiunally try to shoot down in flames what others postulate which flies in the face of what you and you fellow writers have written.

              Of course you and your fellow writers have set your stall out in no uncertain terms with the book, but as you know the passage of time has resulted in more new stuff being uneartherd, so the problem you now have is that further research others have done which would appear to fly in the face of much of the content of your book, and your explanations. and so you have to fight your corner, to admit you got it wrong in the book is clearly not an option for you.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Have you read the book, Trev?

              Serious question.

              It even has pictures!

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                Hi Trevor,

                No one else has a mind to do so--the ostrich strategy is big in these parts---but if you're interested, you might read David Barrat's two articles on 'Blackmail or Mrs. Barrett' at the Orsam Books website.

                He argues, persuasively in my opinion, that the attended audience of this affidavit was none other than Mike's estranged wife, Anne, who was suing him for divorce. Sounds strange, no? But Barrett immediately gave Anne a copy of the affidavit, and it was not otherwise made public. It was an audience of one, though there is evidence that Anne leaked it to Shirley Harrison, but even she didn't share it with anyone else.
                So this has now become an established fact, has it RJ? How would Mike's solicitor have come by the information that Mike had hand delivered a copy to Anne, unless that's what Mike told him and he simply accepted it as fact, as you are doing now?

                Barrett, the argument runs, intended to use this detailed confession as 'leverage' against his soon-to-be ex-wife for denying him visitation rights, etc. 'Let me see the kid or I'm going to confess, and here's the proof.' The fact that she responded by writing 'I will not be blackmailed,' and that she kept this affidavit secret from the Diary team for two years is highly suggestive. Why didn't she write 'This is bollocks. Confess and be damned! I'll prove you are lying"?
                Whose 'argument' runs like this? Barrat's or Barrett's? And it's another 'fact', that Anne was responding directly to having seen Mike's 'proof'? And yet another 'fact' that she kept the affidavit 'secret' from the 'Diary team' for two years? If these were all definitely ascertained facts then yes, her secrecy could appear 'highly suggestive' to you.

                Of course, some here have dismissed Anne's subsequent secrecy with a wave of the hand. But again, if this affidavit was pure garbage--as the Diary supporters want us to believe--why wouldn't Anne have alerted the team? She was working directly with Keith Skinner at time, yet she didn't tell him about it.
                Perhaps you could explain why Anne should have mentioned it to Keith, assuming Mike did hand deliver a copy to her and she didn't chuck it in the bin unopened. What is your evidence that she was working directly with Keith in January 1995? Who do you think made up the 'Diary team' at that time? Who was financing them and who were they reporting back to? Do you know? Keith knows precisely how and when, and over what period of time, his professional relationship with Anne developed. But no doubt David Barrat is your preferred source for knowing all Keith's business.

                Wouldn't a normal, innocent person have said something along the lines of, "Keith, there is something you need to know. Mike is going to claim he bought the scrapbook at O & L auction house. He is going to reveal that we bought a blank Victorian Diary, too. He pointed out the Blue Coats Art Shop, etc., but I can explain all this. Will you help me disprove these things? This could blow up whatever film deal Feldman might land. I think you should be aware of this and should investigate it to be on the safe side."

                Instead, she stayed silent and remained so until Keith found out about the affidavit two years later, when someone (I think it was Melvin) made it public.

                To me, her silence is highly suggestive. She was hoping to keep Barrett in line and she didn't want Keith Skinner to investigate these claims while the trail was still warm. It also gave her time to plan her defense when he did find out.
                You think, but you do not know, RJ. If it all hangs on whether Mike told the truth to his solicitor about hand delivering Anne a copy of that affidavit, you might be alone on quicksand with David Barrat, left to pull one another off.

                What this really boils down to is your subjective opinion of Anne, and how you think she would have reacted to Mike's affidavit when she first read it if she knew it was 'pure garbage'.

                You have often claimed to have no interest in the woman herself, her character and interests, or her relationship with her former husband, before and after leaving him. So I'm wondering how you manage to gain such insight into what she'd have done about Mike's claims if she had been a normal, innocent person.

                Clearly you believe you know this woman to be guilty as charged, and you judge her in that light, in which case you see an obvious ulterior motive for not drawing attention to the affidavit - assuming she knew all about it herself, or had any say over who else Mike could have delivered copies to. But it's a circular argument which takes you nowhere. Whether you are right or wrong about the affidavit, Mike was accusing Anne of fraud. Would she have wanted to advertise the fact and give him the satisfaction? If she was quietly confident there was nothing damning in Mike's latest statement, and knew it would not lead anywhere, she might reasonably have dismissed it as yet another of his desperate and childlike attempts to make waves. I could ask why would she have wasted the diary people's time with a statement she knew damned well to be 'pure garbage'? But in fact, I'm pretty sure I did ask that question when you last went down this same road of speculation - and here we are again.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  Even though Mike's own wife was apparently angry about the proposed deal, and that Mike was already out at least 50 pounds due to his purchase of the maroon diary and his payment (cough, cough) to Eddie Lyons?

                  It's just a matter of stupidity plain and simple, by a former scrap metal dealer--a profession known for 'wheeling and dealing'?
                  You might actually be onto something here, RJ.

                  Your A.N.N.E. Other was totally opposed to the transaction which transferred the diary into Robert Smith's custody for 1. She was 'out' by the 25 she ended up paying for the maroon diary. I don't believe Mike ever had the least intention of returning it or paying for it himself. He tried to con Martin Earl, and ended up conning his own wife, so why not Eddie too?

                  I mean, who could Eddie have complained to, if Mike conned him out of an old book Eddie himself had nicked? It's beautiful. Mike says he'd like to take a closer look because he thinks he can get a good price for it without involving Eddie. Empty promises follow, that Mike will soon make them both rich and will never split on a mate. But Eddie never sees the book again, and the next thing he knows is that Mike has got a publishing contract for it. Time goes on and the diary is eventually on the shelves of all good book shops, while Eddie still waits in vain for his payday, just like Alan Gray will do when the time comes for Mike's next con.

                  "Did you nick it, Mike?", asked A.N.N.E. Other in early 1993.

                  Yes, I rather think he might have done.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    And therfore Anne was aware of the content allegedly implicating her in forging the diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    That being said she had ample opportunity to distance herself from that affadavit and her alleged involvement by making her own affadavit negating her involvement. Did she take any steps to distance herself. it seems not.

                    I fail to see why there is all this constant arguing over the diary authenticity

                    The diary has been proved to be a fake
                    Barrett admits to being involved in the faking of the diary

                    End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    If and when Anne read Mike's affidavit, accusing her of fraud and implicating her father, who had died two months before it was sworn, she might well have made an affidavit of her own had Mike's ever been taken further.

                    As it was, she was probably wise to go down the 'never complain, never explain' route, and let everyone get on with it, assuming nobody wanted to touch Mike's new and improved claims with the proverbial - not Melvin Harris, and not apparently the press or the police.

                    If you agree that a sworn affidavit should be as factually accurate as possible if it is going to be used in evidence, might this not explain why Mike's never was used against him?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The first affadavit is the one I refer to and the one that is most damaging to Barret and the other co conspirators mentioned in the affadavit.
                      As Ike mentioned, Mike swore an affidavit back in April 1993, six months before Shirley's first book was published, to the effect that Tony Devereux had given him the diary and insisted that no one else alive knew about it. Although I don't believe Mike was telling the truth, this has not been disproved. For all you know, Devereux could have been the faker, and gave it to Mike to take to market.

                      If you stand by your belief that a first affidavit, if not disproved, should take precedence over any subsequent affidavit by the same person, where they are incompatible, then it's the April 1993 affidavit you should be considering more reliable than either of the two Mike swore in January 1995, when he had strong personal motives to claim that he and Anne faked the diary, and was being encouraged by Alan Gray to make that statement, who was in turn being encouraged by Melvin Harris to make it happen.

                      The second affadavit can be looked at in a number of different ways, the main one being that having sworn out the first he then came to his senses realising that what he had set out in the first affadavit could have criminal reprecussions against him and the others mentioned in the first affadavit, and he was forced to do some quick back pedalling which he did by making the second affadavit and what was set out in that second affadavit.

                      It strikes me that in the second affadavit knowing the police have become involved he is trying to create a defence of acting under duress or being coerced. But it should be noted in that second affadavit he never detracts away from the fact that he states that he and Anne faked the diary.

                      The diary is a fake and has proved to be a fake accept it and move on!!!!!!!!
                      You need to get all your ducks in a row now, Trev, and stop referring to first and second, if you are actually describing second and third.

                      Little wonder you get yourself and others confused.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Mike did claim later that he'd been highly sceptical when he first saw the old book signed Jack the Ripper, and thought someone was having a laugh, so he may have tried to find out how easy it would have been for some joker - or indeed a con artist - to obtain a book of the right age [1880s] with enough unused pages for the purpose. That could help explain why he still wanted to see the 1891 diary when it was located and described to him.
                        .
                        .
                        .
                        When he had time to think, and in light of his conversation with Doreen, he decided to request an 1880s diary with unused pages, just to see how easy it would have been for someone faking this thing in 1992.
                        Caroline, is it possible Mike was attempting to write his own version of a "Maybrick Diary", before giving up and handing over what he already had?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Have you read the book, Trev?

                          Serious question.

                          It even has pictures!

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          No I havent read the book I like to do my own research and investigate the true facts, and the independent evidence available to me, and then draw my own conclusions based on my investigation.

                          That investigation to me shows that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy and that the diary is a modern day fake, and thats the most important part of this whole shooting match all the muddying of the waters surrounding that is not going to detract away from that. Its is quite clear that after the diary was faked some of those involved lost their bottle and they then started to fall out and blame one another

                          The diary is a fake and that the passage of time has not been kind to being able to conclusively prove all of those who were involved and what roles each took

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            No I havent read the book I like to do my own research and investigate the true facts, and the independent evidence available to me, and then draw my own conclusions based on my investigation.
                            To my knowledge we have never seen your own research into the Maybrick diary nor have you published the independent evidence which you claim is available to you, so any conclusions you say you have drawn based on your 'investigation' are meaningless and little more than showboating without the requisite skills.

                            Put up or shut up, Trevor. If you have done the research and gathered fresh evidence which is compelling enough to be classed as proof then you clearly need to inform us all of it. And now, not at some fanciful future time unless you're just another Mike Barrett.

                            That investigation to me shows that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy and that the diary is a modern day fake ...
                            Instead of repeating these asinine platitudes, show your hand, reveal what you've got. No argument is worth a jot unless you can demonstrate it.

                            and thats the most important part of this whole shooting match
                            No it is not. The moment you make claims such as this, a burden of proof falls upon you. That's the most important part of this whole shooting match. Do it. Back up your claims right now or else sit back down and haud yer wheesht, man.

                            Its is quite clear that after the diary was faked some of those involved lost their bottle and they then started to fall out and blame one another.
                            Just prove it. If you don't, you're just going to look like yet another Mike Barrett making claims you can't back up.

                            The diary is a fake and that the passage of time has not been kind to being able to conclusively prove all of those who were involved and what roles each took
                            But the same passage of time has clearly revealed the truth to you, Trevor. So reveal it to us and we're all out of here at last.

                            Don't worry, dear readers, I don't think any of us are going anywhere very soon ...
                            Iconoclast
                            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              No I havent read the book I like to do my own research and investigate the true facts, and the independent evidence available to me, and then draw my own conclusions based on my investigation.

                              That investigation to me shows that Barrett and others were involved in a conspiracy and that the diary is a modern day fake, and thats the most important part of this whole shooting match all the muddying of the waters surrounding that is not going to detract away from that. Its is quite clear that after the diary was faked some of those involved lost their bottle and they then started to fall out and blame one another

                              The diary is a fake and that the passage of time has not been kind to being able to conclusively prove all of those who were involved and what roles each took

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              I find this thread fascinating. The amount of times the same people keep coming on and declaring time of death of the scrapbook / watch / candidacy of James Maybrick with nothing to support it.

                              Yet here we are again. Try as you might, you fail each time to kill it stone dead. This fallacy that time is somehow not kind is rather absolutely the opposite.

                              Cut to five years time when Trev and RJ are still replying to posts on this thread trying to strangle the whole thing dead and trying to convince readers with half-baked arguments and grand declarations.

                              Perhaps for all of our sakes we collectively focus on how both the watch and scrapbook ACTUALLY came to be. Give up the Barretts and Johnson forgery angles. Perhaps let's work together to get the actual truth?

                              I imagine we won't. We will be back here again.

                              It really is a mad world.

                              Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                              JayHartley.com

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                If and when Anne read Mike's affidavit, accusing her of fraud and implicating her father, who had died two months before it was sworn, she might well have made an affidavit of her own had Mike's ever been taken further.

                                As it was, she was probably wise to go down the 'never complain, never explain' route, and let everyone get on with it, assuming nobody wanted to touch Mike's new and improved claims with the proverbial - not Melvin Harris, and not apparently the press or the police.

                                If you agree that a sworn affidavit should be as factually accurate as possible if it is going to be used in evidence, might this not explain why Mike's never was used against him?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                This is the problem the first affadvit is accurate to a greater extent, even you have to accept that!!!!!!

                                It was never used against him because the initial criminal investigation involved Robert Smith and The Sunday times. Smiths defence was that he acquired the diary in good faith and in the belief that it was the real deal.

                                As part of that investigation I am sure the police would have spoken to all those involved in presenting it to Smith via Barrett, and this where we are in difficulty because we can only Barrett told the police his initial account as to how he acquired it. Obviouly that could not be corroborated due to that person being deceased. So the police would have had no choice at that time other than to accept his account, which had little bearing on the investigation into Robert Smith, an investigation that petered out when Smith repayed the upfront royalties he had been paid, the Sunday times then dropped the complaint.

                                Now I posted in a previous post when discussing the first affadavit which surfaced in 1995. If Barrett was officially interviewed by the police and he made a witness statement. He would have been liable in 1995 when the affadvit was made public to prosecution for making a false statement. But of course we dont know if he did ever make a witness statement, or the police simply travelled to Liverpool and simply questioned him without taking a proper statement.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X