One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

I wasn't directing my comments to you, Ike, so much as to those who blanket everyone who questions the modern fake argument as "diary believers". Not accepting assertions such as Trevor's that the "diary" is a modern fake, does not mean it is believed to be genuine. As I have said many times, I think the polarization between believer (Feldman) and non-believer (Harris) split resources and damned a proper investigation of the "diary".

Yes, I knew they weren't directed at me, Paul, but I have so few friends I thought I'd pretend they sort of were (plus Mrs Iconoclast is harping on about helping her with the decorations so any distraction is worth its weight in gold - plus I've just emptied the dishwasher so I am genuinely a bit knackered).

Even I with my 99.9% confidence accept that there is therefore a 0.1% chance the diary might not be authentic. Of that 0.1%, I would say my brain has allocated around 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% confidence that Bongo Barrett had any hand whatsoever in its creation. All I will say is that if it ever transpires that Mike Barrett contributed a single syllable to the Victorian scrapbook, I will be first on the edge of the Tyne Bridge and there will be no talking me down (if you could even get past the queue which will swiftly form behind me).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

... before you make an even bigger tit of yourself - if that's possible?

Caz
X

And there it is! Not gore as such this time but just as piercing a retort as any switchblade could muster!

She's back and no-one is safe!

[Iconoclast]

... you seem to think there is a whole army to defeat.

Love,

Caz
X

I do have a rather large mallet, mind, Caz.

[caz]

I'm going to get in quick here before Caz beats me to it (where is she, by the way? I'm quite missing the gore):

Question: How fast are you able to drive, Trevor?

Answer: As fast as the power of my cargument.

Da-dum!

I'm here! For a little while.

If and when RJ returns, what's the betting he'll bring his dis-tractor manual with him?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I'm here! For a little while.

If and when RJ returns, what's the betting he'll bring his dis-tractor manual with him?

Love,

Caz
X

I love it!

I'm thinking ...

Ooh, one will come to me soon ...

No, it's no use, I'm going to have to Google 'Great vehicle puns'.

Ike

[caz]

Hi Ike,

May I kindly suggest you get back to the Christmas decs pronto. You don't want Mrs Iconoclast to take her rolling pin to you, if she finds you showing me your 'rather large' weapon.

Meanwhile, we are waiting for the council and the scaffolders to show up to begin work on external wall repairs to Brown Towers. Why the council, you ask? Because we live right on a busy crossroads with narrow pavements, so traffic control measures will shortly make us even more unpopular in Sid Valley than a diary defender on the most popular thread of all.

Love,

Switchy
X

[caz]

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

No, Trev, I don't. The 'first' affidavit, from April 1993, was to my mind just as phoney as the second and third, from January 1995.

But you wouldn't know that if you haven't the first idea what Mike put in the first one or what was happening at the time with the electricians, which threatened his Devereux provenance.

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.

Is that the royal 'we' Trev, or are you now just taking the piss?

You'd have had some answers if you had read our book! Mind you, it was only published eighteen years ago, so I'm happy to cut you some slack if you are still trying to get through Janet and John.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

… so I'm happy to cut you some slack if you are still trying to get through Janet and John.

Love,

Caz
X

OMG, dear readers, when she says “cut you some slack” she literally means it.

Stay well clear, is my advice.

And, yes, absolutely I’m helping Mrs I with the Christmas decs even though I’m a pagan and honestly can’t be arsed. Whatever you say Caz!

IKE
NERVOUS
(Genuine)

[erobitha]

I wasn't directing my comments to you, Ike, so much as to those who blanket everyone who questions the modern fake argument as "diary believers". Not accepting assertions such as Trevor's that the "diary" is a modern fake, does not mean it is believed to be genuine. As I have said many times, I think the polarization between believer (Feldman) and non-believer (Harris) split resources and damned a proper investigation of the "diary".

Trust you Paul to probably post one of, if the not the most sanest post yet on this thread.

I am exactly that person you describe, yet I’m apparently a rabid diary defender. I refuse to write the diary or watch off (for that matter) until I know or have been shown compelling and clear evidence either were faked. I have yet to reach that place. As time progresses more circumstantial quirks and tit bits of coincidence emerge in favour of the book and watch. That is odd for things that are meant to be fake.

The irony is as polarised as this has been, most of us involved in the debate just would just like to know the actual truth and for it to be conclusive. Neither pro Barretts or diary defenders have yet to fully convince the opposing tribe.

The risk is (as it always has been) if we dismiss both the scrapbook and watch without that overwhelming evidence of how they came to be - then we risk turning our backs on significantly important artefacts relating to history’s most enduring unknown serial killer.

So I will rumble on until that day (if it ever comes).

[PaulB]

Yes, I knew they weren't directed at me, Paul, but I have so few friends I thought I'd pretend they sort of were (plus Mrs Iconoclast is harping on about helping her with the decorations so any distraction is worth its weight in gold - plus I've just emptied the dishwasher so I am genuinely a bit knackered).

Even I with my 99.9% confidence accept that there is therefore a 0.1% chance the diary might not be authentic. Of that 0.1%, I would say my brain has allocated around 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% confidence that Bongo Barrett had any hand whatsoever in its creation. All I will say is that if it ever transpires that Mike Barrett contributed a single syllable to the Victorian scrapbook, I will be first on the edge of the Tyne Bridge and there will be no talking me down (if you could even get past the queue which will swiftly form behind me).

Ike

Delighted to have saved you from decoration duty, which was always a detestable part of Christmas for me - not the decorations; I like those, I just dislike putting them up and the tedium of taking them down again.

[Iconoclast]

Delighted to have saved you from decoration duty, which was always a detestable part of Christmas for me - not the decorations; I like those, I just dislike putting them up and the tedium of taking them down again.

Well I can't think what the common link is between us here, Paul. I can only think it must be a Ripperology thing to hate putting any effort whatsoever into the annual decorations???

[PaulB]

Trust you Paul to probably post one of, if the not the most sanest post yet on this thread.

I am exactly that person you describe, yet I’m apparently a rabid diary defender. I refuse to write the diary or watch off (for that matter) until I know or have been shown compelling and clear evidence either were faked. I have yet to reach that place. As time progresses more circumstantial quirks and tit bits of coincidence emerge in favour of the book and watch. That is odd for things that are meant to be fake.

The irony is as polarised as this has been, most of us involved in the debate just would just like to know the actual truth and for it to be conclusive. Neither pro Barretts or diary defenders have yet to fully convince the opposing tribe.

The risk is (as it always has been) if we dismiss both the scrapbook and watch without that overwhelming evidence of how they came to be - then we risk turning our backs on significantly important artefacts relating to history’s most enduring unknown serial killer.

So I will rumble on until that day (if it ever comes).

Right from the begining Keith Skinner and I said that the "diary" was a tangible thing, it existed, and it had come from somewhere. The important thing was to establish where it had come from. As far as I am aware, that hasn't happened yet.

[caz]

Where have you been, Paul? Apparently, it came from Lord Orsam's awesome auction sale, held on March 31st 1992, just 13 days before Mike took it, still wet behind the ears, smearing ink and pungent linseed oil onto the British Rail upholstery, down to London to show whoever Shirley decided should give it the smell test first.

And if you believe that, young man, you can apply for your very own Clever Trevor badge.

I was never much of a fan of putting up the Christmas decorations until I met Mister Brown, who LOVES it! We have Champagne as we deck the halls, and he puts on festive music with tunes you can whistle, before making his own sausage rolls, which smell and taste divine.

Can't wait for Saturday!

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trev, I don't. The 'first' affidavit, from April 1993, was to my mind just as phoney as the second and third, from January 1995.

But you wouldn't know that if you haven't the first idea what Mike put in the first one or what was happening at the time with the electricians, which threatened his Devereux provenance.



Is that the royal 'we' Trev, or are you now just taking the piss?

You'd have had some answers if you had read our book! Mind you, it was only published eighteen years ago, so I'm happy to cut you some slack if you are still trying to get through Janet and John.

Love,

Caz
X

Perhaps I would have answers if I read the book, but the question I would then ask myself is why should i believe what the writers have written in the book ?

and can you hand on heart still say that what is written in the book has stood the test of time, and that no one has been able to negate what is contained in the book?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Perhaps I would have answers if I read the book, but the question I would then ask myself is why should i believe what the writers have written in the book ?

and can you hand on heart still say that what is written in the book has stood the test of time, and that no one has been able to negate what is contained in the book?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If the book contains information you don't have, and if you check it out and it proves correct, who can say how it might alter your thinking on the "diary"? Maybe it won't change your thinking at all, but you won't know until you read the book.