Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    No offense taken
    Glad to hear it, because I can assure you, no offence was intended on my part.

    Onwards and downwards?

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • Hi Caz,

      It's a fair point really, if one is to put faith in Mike's original affidavit, or "iffy-davit" as it was, one can't just take it at face value. You'd know better than me, but I seem to recall Barrett's truths were 'I got it from Tony', 'I faked it' as sworn in the affidavit, his solicitor recanted said affidavit because Mike was hospitalised with alcohol issues, Mike recanted the confession stating he 'wanted to hurt Anne', he had the interview at (Goldie St?) where an independent witness was present where he categorically denied the fraud, then immediately after the meeting went back to promoting the fraud, saying he felt 'under pressure' in the meeting, and there's the meeting with Feldman and Skinner where he swore that it came from Tony, and explained how he hoaxed it in the same meeting. He also supported Anne's story, then recanted it, and claimed the diary came from his own family. Is that about the jist of it?

      Point being, if a case for modern forgery is to be made, it really can't rely on Mike's word, at all. That's not to say he wasn't involved, far from it in my opinion, but personally, I'd be wary of falling back on his affidavit, or pretty much anything else he said. So I don't think there's much point trying to prove or disprove it, it's valueless to both camps.
      Thems the Vagaries.....

      Comment


      • For a former actual real life murder squad detective Trevor, I am a little surprised on your approach to this. If Mike Barrett wrote this as a confession to say Murder, would it be enough to convict him of it? Would he not need to provide hard evidence like giving murder details only he would know or even perhaps the lcoation of a body.? When such evidence is then recovered does the CPS not then feel there is a much better chance of a conviction? No court in the land would see this confession as being a safe one. No shred of evidence was provided to substantiate any of his claims - and thereby his confession is worthless.

        If the police felt someone was making a false confession do they then find the hard evidence to prove that it's a false confession? Or look for a alternate suspect?
        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

        Comment


        • Bad news people. 1st August 2020 cannot be named LOBSTER Day as apparently it already exisits in the United States. Apparently the date is 15th June. I wonder if Lord David O'Baron wouldn't mind postponing it until next year to coincide with my mild issues with OCD?
          https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/l...one_offset=nan

          If he is intent on bringing down the world of the DFDL (Diary Freedom Defence League) on his desired date, then perhaps I can offer some tips on how we can all best celebrate this important day:So remember, Lobster day is not just one day in August. It's every day in our hearts.
          Last edited by erobitha; 07-29-2020, 03:14 PM.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
            For a former actual real life murder squad detective Trevor, I am a little surprised on your approach to this. If Mike Barrett wrote this as a confession to say Murder, would it be enough to convict him of it? Would he not need to provide hard evidence like giving murder details only he would know or even perhaps the lcoation of a body.? When such evidence is then recovered does the CPS not then feel there is a much better chance of a conviction? No court in the land would see this confession as being a safe one. No shred of evidence was provided to substantiate any of his claims - and thereby his confession is worthless.

            If the police felt someone was making a false confession do they then find the hard evidence to prove that it's a false confession? Or look for a alternate suspect?
            I too am surprised by Trevor's approach, given his former profession. Why would I, as a lay person with no involvement in this case until nearly four years after Mike's sworn confession to forgery, be expected to try and prove or disprove any aspect of it? The usual explanation for it not being taken further by the police at the time [assuming they were even informed] is that no official complaint was brought against Mike by any of the diary people on either side of the fence - or sitting on it. But when exactly did Robert Smith et al learn about this affidavit? Shirley only found out two years later, in early 1997, when Mike himself sent her a copy! And Keith only found out when Shirley sent a copy to him! Why did Alan Gray, followed by Melvin Harris and all his foot soldiers, keep this legal document under wraps for so long, if it represented a reliable account proving Mike's knowledge and active involvement in a modern fake?

            I think those are the questions Trevor might be better off tackling, and I have no answers for him.

            Love,

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


            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
              For a former actual real life murder squad detective Trevor, I am a little surprised on your approach to this. If Mike Barrett wrote this as a confession to say Murder, would it be enough to convict him of it? Would he not need to provide hard evidence like giving murder details only he would know or even perhaps the lcoation of a body.? When such evidence is then recovered does the CPS not then feel there is a much better chance of a conviction? No court in the land would see this confession as being a safe one. No shred of evidence was provided to substantiate any of his claims - and thereby his confession is worthless.

              If the police felt someone was making a false confession do they then find the hard evidence to prove that it's a false confession? Or look for a alternate suspect?
              Hi erobitha,

              Excellent post and excellent point.

              For the benefit of the criminally-stupid (not you, old chum), Mike did not make a confession. He made an affy David within which there were a bunch of unsubstantiated claims none of which - as you say - have ever been backed-up by any evidence other than the request for a Victorian diary with at least 20 blank pages. Would a jury convict him on the strength of that? I would like to think not (especially once they'd reviewed all of the evidence behind that piece of 'evidence'), though you never quite know.

              I labour the point about his having made a claim not a confession in order to try to drive away the regular demons who come on here with their tasteless, vainglorious, shabby chic "But the guy who wrote it confessed!".

              Excellent post, if I forgot to say, mate.

              PS I wonder what we'll be having for tea? Oh, I know!

              Ike
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • My favourite Lobster joke....

                A Lobster Walks Into a Bar

                He goes up to the barman and says: "Look, before you can serve me, I need to advise you that I'm a lawyer."

                "Blimey... A lobster lawyer? That is impressive," says the barman.

                The Lobster puts his briefcase up on the bar, deftly opens it with his claws, and produces a document that looks to be at least 100 pages. He slides it to the barman.

                "This is a legal contract that covers all the questions usually asked of me whenever I walk into a bar. I've just finished a pretty rough case and would like to get to drinking as soon as possible, so if we could skip over the usual jokes and just get through this without delay I'd be much obliged."

                The barman looks at the lobster carefully, but soon nods in agreement.

                "Fair enough, mate," he says. "Let's work through this."

                The barman flips over the cover page and starts reading aloud.

                "'Point 1: I am a lobster of legal drinking age and you'll find in Annex A a copy of my legally acceptable identification.' Well, okay, no problems there.

                "'Point 2: You can serve me more than water and are absolved of any misfortune that befalls me while drinking at your establishment.' What's your favourite drink?"

                "Vermouth, usually," says The Lobster, "but I'm hoping for a few stiff glasses of whiskey tonight."

                "Okay," the barman continues reading, "'Point 3: We've established I am a lawyer, and therefore reasonably wealthy. This should assuage any fears you might have about my capability to settle my tab, but I am happy to pay up front if you have any concerns.'"

                The Lobster slaps a crisp 50 note onto the bar.

                "Well alright then," says the barman.

                "There's just one more point to read and agree to," says The Lobster.

                The barman raises an eyebrow, seeing that he's still on page one and there are a considerable amount of pages left to read, and quickly flips through a number of the pages to confirm that there is, in fact, writing on every single page.

                "Look," he says, "before I read the rest, I have to ask: why the large clause?"

                "Dunno," he says. "I'm a lobster. I guess I've always had them."
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  Hi Caz,

                  It's a fair point really, if one is to put faith in Mike's original affidavit, or "iffy-davit" as it was, one can't just take it at face value. You'd know better than me, but I seem to recall Barrett's truths were 'I got it from Tony', 'I faked it' as sworn in the affidavit, his solicitor recanted said affidavit because Mike was hospitalised with alcohol issues, Mike recanted the confession stating he 'wanted to hurt Anne', he had the interview at (Goldie St?) where an independent witness was present where he categorically denied the fraud, then immediately after the meeting went back to promoting the fraud, saying he felt 'under pressure' in the meeting, and there's the meeting with Feldman and Skinner where he swore that it came from Tony, and explained how he hoaxed it in the same meeting. He also supported Anne's story, then recanted it, and claimed the diary came from his own family. Is that about the jist of it?

                  Point being, if a case for modern forgery is to be made, it really can't rely on Mike's word, at all. That's not to say he wasn't involved, far from it in my opinion, but personally, I'd be wary of falling back on his affidavit, or pretty much anything else he said. So I don't think there's much point trying to prove or disprove it, it's valueless to both camps.
                  Nice post, Al. You illustrate the difficulty perfectly. I have always said that this can't be solved by relying on anything Mike ever claimed about the diary's origins, unless it can be backed up to the hilt with reliable independent evidence.

                  Here's a little something from the timeline, exactly as it is worded, which I just came across as I was doing some more work on it. Note that the letter was written by Mike a month or so after his initial 'confession' and just days after Anne first came out with her new provenance story. It's not clear that Mike had learned about this yet when writing to Shirley:

                  Tuesday 2nd August 1994
                  MB writes letter to SH:
                  Apologises for any hurt he has caused SH, Anne, daughter Caroline, his family, Doreen M etc.
                  Admits, 'I allways whanted to be a writer, but I never Had iT in me.' (sic)
                  He writes that it was always Anne who had the ideas and ended up writing the articles bearing his name. '(SHE Did NOT However write the DAIRy)' (sic)
                  'ToNy Relly did give me it.' (sic)
                  Declares his continued love for Anne, and how much he misses her and Caroline.
                  'IT BREAKS MY HART KnowiNg ANNe could be with somebody elese.' (sic)
                  Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X






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


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                    Bad news people. 1st August 2020 cannot be named LOBSTER Day as apparently it already exisits in the United States. Apparently the date is 15th June. I wonder if Lord David O'Baron wouldn't mind postponing it until next year to coincide with my mild issues with OCD?
                    https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/l...one_offset=nan

                    If he is intent on bringing down the world of the DFDL (Diary Freedom Defence League) on his desired date, then perhaps I can offer some tips on how we can all best celebrate this important day:So remember, Lobster day is not just one day in August. It's every day in our hearts.
                    Even better post, erobitha!

                    Bloody Post of the Year, mate! (Other than any of mine, obviously.) I loved the pyjamas and Larry the Lobster. I wonder if there's any lobster-flavoured cocoa to go with the pyjamas? (Marketing opportunity alert, there, folks.)

                    And the gags - sublime!

                    I for one will celebrate Lobster Day and keep it in my heart the whole year 'round regardless of the antics of affy David Scrooge from down Diagon Alley. He'd better stay clear of my wand if he's on the butterbeer and looking for trouble this Satdee.

                    Cheers,

                    Ike
                    Fondling the Visacard as I type
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                      Bad news people. 1st August 2020 cannot be named LOBSTER Day as apparently it already exisits in the United States. Apparently the date is 15th June. I wonder if Lord David O'Baron wouldn't mind postponing it until next year to coincide with my mild issues with OCD?
                      https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/l...one_offset=nan

                      If he is intent on bringing down the world of the DFDL (Diary Freedom Defence League) on his desired date, then perhaps I can offer some tips on how we can all best celebrate this important day:So remember, Lobster day is not just one day in August. It's every day in our hearts.
                      This is a bit weird, erobitha, because Ike first called it LOBR, and I had the idea to expand it to LOBSTER, on Monday 27th July, possibly because Mr Brown and I had made our own lobster rolls for lunch two days earlier, on Saturday 25th, washed down with Champagne to celebrate his new job which started on Monday.

                      I want that Larry the Lobster Teddy! But would my cat Monty demolish it? I'll ask him tonight.

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                        The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

                        On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

                        Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



                        The Baron
                        OMG, I don't believe it. My last post on Saturday, before departing to enjoy the rest of the weekend, was at 11.51 am BST, and the above was posted at 1.12 pm - precisely when I was slobbering over my delicious lobster brioche rolls. This place is getting stranger by the day.

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          OMG, I don't believe it. My last post on Saturday, before departing to enjoy the rest of the weekend, was at 11.51 am BST, and the above was posted at 1.12 pm - precisely when I was slobbering over my delicious lobster brioche rolls. This place is getting stranger by the day.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          It's karma, Cazeleon.

                          Small Larry or his big brother Medium Larry? (You'd think Mr and Mrs Lobster would have been a bit more creative?)

                          As you'll note from their latest school photo, below, you get an extra 7cm with Medium Larry.

                          Ike




                          PS Turns out you can only get Small Larry. I blame over-fishing. Still, you could get him a mate, Sheldon Shrimp.

                          Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-29-2020, 04:30 PM.
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            I too am surprised by Trevor's approach, given his former profession. Why would I, as a lay person with no involvement in this case until nearly four years after Mike's sworn confession to forgery, be expected to try and prove or disprove any aspect of it? The usual explanation for it not being taken further by the police at the time [assuming they were even informed] is that no official complaint was brought against Mike by any of the diary people on either side of the fence - or sitting on it. But when exactly did Robert Smith et al learn about this affidavit? Shirley only found out two years later, in early 1997, when Mike himself sent her a copy! And Keith only found out when Shirley sent a copy to him! Why did Alan Gray, followed by Melvin Harris and all his foot soldiers, keep this legal document under wraps for so long, if it represented a reliable account proving Mike's knowledge and active involvement in a modern fake?

                            I think those are the questions Trevor might be better off tackling, and I have no answers for him.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Whatever you belief in the diary is, you have gone to great lengths to become involved in the provenance of the diary by writing a book on the diary. So i am sure you would have first looked at the affidavit and set out to prove or disprove it from start to finish.

                            So why not simply answer those salient points from the affadavit, then we will all be a step nearer to seeking the truth, If they are all true then that must show Barretts involment in a conspiracy with others.

                            If you are not a diary believer why not put you cards on the table and say this is the reason Barretts affadavit was false and highlight the point that show it was false

                            The criteria for a police prosecution lies with the crown prosecution service who when coming to a decision they have to be satsified that they have at a 70% chance of securing a conviction. I do not know the result of the police investigation although at the time all of this proverbial hit the fan with the newspapers I can quiet easily see.

                            Barrett telling the police he had it from a friend who was now dead and believed it was genuine
                            he contacted Robert Smith who when interviewed said he acquired it in the belief that it was genuine

                            So no apparent dishonesty from either party

                            What I cant understand is why he wasn't re interviewed after the affidavit surfaced?

                            and now I have no more time to waste on this matter. As I said I have no horse in this race, my personal belief is that the first affidavit is a true reflection of how the diary came to fruition it is too much detail for it to have been dreamed up by anyone who though that by formulatiing it no one would bother to scrutinize it.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              What I cant understand is why he wasn't re interviewed after the affidavit surfaced?
                              You really should wonder a lot harder than that, Trevor.

                              and now I have no more time to waste on this matter.
                              Are you Roger Palmer in disguise? (You're using his material if you aren't.)

                              As I said I have no horse in this race, my personal belief is that the first affidavit is a true reflection of how the diary came to fruition it is too much detail for it to have been dreamed up by anyone who though that by formulatiing it no one would bother to scrutinize it.
                              Yes, I see your point. Barrett would never have dreamed-up two fingers about to be amputated (thank you Caz for that informative aside about the sergeant), his debilitating stroke, his copy of the auction receipt, ad infinitum, if he hadn't been telling the God's honest truth at all times and what have you.

                              And naturally I empathise that.

                              Ike
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Whatever you belief in the diary is, you have gone to great lengths to become involved in the provenance of the diary by writing a book on the diary. So i am sure you would have first looked at the affidavit and set out to prove or disprove it from start to finish.
                                No, Trev, it was not the purpose of our book to 'set out to prove or disprove' anything, but to tell the story of the first ten years since the diary emerged, and what others had claimed about its origins over that period.

                                What I cant understand is why he wasn't re interviewed after the affidavit surfaced?
                                Nor me, Trev. Read my previous post again for the clues. Who else knew about the affidavit when it was first sworn, apart from Mike, Alan Gray, the solicitor concerned, Melvin Harris and maybe some of his cronies? When it finally 'surfaced', Mike had changed his story so many times that perhaps you boys in blue thought it was wasting your valuable time to interview him again. I don't know, I'm only guessing.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X