Barrett and the Diary.

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Thank you once again for your testament of faith in Mike Barrett's amazing and incredible story.

It's good to know who you believe.

I'm completely comfortable in saying that I believe Mike lied.

And I believe I have plenty of established precedent to support this conclusion.

I'm glad the difference between us here is so clearly and precisely drawn.

--John

[Graham]

Caroline,

Thank you once again for your testament of faith in Mike Barrett's amazing and incredible story.

It's good to know who you believe.

I'm completely comfortable in saying that I believe Mike lied.

And I believe I have plenty of established precedent to support this conclusion.

I'm glad the difference between us here is so clearly and precisely drawn.

--John

And your established precedent is...?

Graham

[Omlor]

Graham,

Are you seriously asking for a list of Mike Barrett's lies. He's dying of some mysterious illness? There are secret agents out to kill him (or was it he works as a secret agent)? And then, of course, since he said he wrote the diary and he said that he didn't write the diary, we know for an absolute certainty that he's an established liar, don't we?

Yes, Mike is a liar. There is plenty of established precedent. And I'm very content in saying that I do not believe his most incredible and amazing story -- that he simply walked into a library with only five words (two of which were O of of), words he'd never seen before, allegedly knowing nothing about them, and just happened to find the only book ever published that had those very same five words from the whole history of writing in English excerpted and cited amidst prose as it is in the diary (the diary that he gave to everyone).

Yes, I'm happy being the one who does NOT believe Mike's incredible tale (one among many). I'd hate to be the one relying on Mike telling the truth when he recited this miraculous tale of research and discovery to make my case. Fortunately, that's Caroline's position, not mine.

I also love the twisted logic that describes Keith Skinner blabbing in a public forum about alleged evidence that he claimed to have and then refusing to show the public that evidence and refusing even to explain why he won't show anyone the evidence as "a straight answer."

Only in Diary World could such an obviously mysterious, corkscrewed response and dance of hinting and evasion be considered "straight."

Of course, that's how things have gone here for years and years and years, whether it's the question of getting these things thoroughly and properly tested or the question of hiding secret squirrel evidence and not even offering a reason why it must be hidden or the charming faith in the words of Mike Barrett only when it is convenient -- it's always the dance of the delay, the excuse, the evasion, the game playing, the temporarily expedient when it comes to this hoax.

And that's why the debate goes on, and that's why new editions of the nonsense can still come out and the game can continue.

Here comes July.

--John

[Graham]

Thank you.

I only asked.

Graham

[caz]

Omlor,

Unfortunately for you, I don't need to believe anything that Mike said, but you do. I'm not the one who needs Crashaw to have found his way into the diary from Mike's copy of the Sphere book.

If he lied about obtaining his copy before the diary emerged (and there is plenty of evidence as well as your 'established precedent' to suggest that he did lie, and nothing at all to support your belief that he didn't), then you are up Crashaw creek without a paddle.

Mike saw you coming in September 1994.

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Unfortunately for you, you do need to believe Mike's miracle-research amazing library tale (just one among his many obvious lies).

If you don't, then you have absolutely no explanation for how Mike knew the same five word line that was excerpted amidst prose in his diary was also excerpted amidst prose in only one other book in human history, a book which only Mike was able to identify.

Of course, there's always the obvious explanation.

--John

[fido]

I was horrified to see the suggestion early in these posts that Robert Smith might have colluded in the diary hoax. While I think he and Feldy pushed the property unconscionably, I was the second Ripper expert he consulted (after Keith), and when I asked him what the diary's provenance was, he said sadly, "It's about as bad as it could be." Not the remark of a hoaxer! The advice Keith and I gave him at that time was that we didn't think it was genuine, but we were sure that some publisher would take it up, as there were probable sales in it. And there was no piece of such manifest twaddle that it could be blown out of the water with a single quotation.
I don't myself believe that Keith's new evidence is going to be convincing. I am absolutely positive that it exists and that Keith genuinely believes it has some merit and has totally honest and honourable reasons for respecting the confidence of whoever has put it in his hands. I've known him for 20 years and collaborated with him on books and radio programmes, and say without fear of contradiction that his integrity is irreproachable and compares very favourably with that of anyone who has ever criticized him.
The last time I saw Mike Barrett I told him of my belief that Anne planned and plotted the diary (she has the ingenuity) and he made the copy (he is capable of the spelling mistakes anad solecisms). He just gave me a crafty smile suggesting I was possibly right. Unfortunately, confirmation of anything by Mike Barrett is about as much value as a small envelope of rat's droppings.
All the best,
Martin F

[Maria]

Cui Bono ?

Martin:

Who can blame them. In the end, like Cicero said: Cui Bono ?

Who profits ? Maybe they have not overlooked that fact.

Maria

[Graham]

Hi Martin,

What took you so long to 'find' this site???

In your honest opinion, do you think there is anything in the Australian connection re: the 'Diary'?

Cheers

Grahan

[Maria]

I

I don't myself believe that Keith's new evidence is going to be convincing. I am absolutely positive that it exists and that Keith genuinely believes it has some merit and has totally honest and honourable reasons for respecting the confidence of whoever has put it in his hands.
Martin F

Martin:

It would have been convincing if he had produced the so call evidence at the Maybrick Trial, which was on May last year, so now we are looking at a year and five months since he claimed to have " evidence which would convince a court of law which proves the diary came from Battlecrease " such evidence never materialized, so there is every reason to believe,
IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Regards,

Maria

[Steve Powell]

Fido's nose to the ground.

Well, well well, Martin Fido...
Interesting to see you here.
I'd like to hear you answer Graham's question
about the 'Australian connection' if you would.
I for one would love to hear it.

[Graham]

Well, well well, Martin Fido...
Interesting to see you here.
I'd like to hear you answer Graham's question
about the 'Australian connection' if you would.
I for one would love to hear it.

So would I.

Cheers,

Graham

PS: nice to hear from you again, squire. How's the bookie-wook?

[Graham]

Hey, Steve.

We never did get a reply from Mr Fido, did we? Wonder why?

Cheers,

Graham

[Bailey]

Hey, Steve.

We never did get a reply from Mr Fido, did we? Wonder why?

Cheers,

Graham

He did mention elsewhere during his time on the casebook recently that he was just coming in to catch up before the conference. And then no doubt he's busy right now AT the conference.

But I'm sure it's nothing to do with any of that, but is in fact that he knows the diary is genuine and you guys have proved it, and he's scared to show himself here for fear of embarrassment.

Cheers,
B

[Graham]

Hi Bailey,

He did mention elsewhere during his time on the casebook recently that he was just coming in to catch up before the conference. And then no doubt he's busy right now AT the conference

But he's posting on the JTR Forums...

Yes, as you rightly say, M Fido is the world's leading protagonist of the veracity of the Diary, and I am Brad Pitt.

Even so, I really would like to know his views, if he has any, on the famous Australian Connection.

Cheers,

Graham