Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I'm willing to have a crack at this Trevor, but I doubt I'll do as good a job as others would do.

    I can't do it right now - but signalling that it's on my list.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    thanks perhaps those who oppose the conspiracy might like to contribute? After all it’s a simple yes or no answers

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

    proved to be correct in their entirety
    proved to be correct in some form
    proved to be false
    or unproven

    Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

    I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I'm willing to have a crack at this Trevor, but I doubt I'll do as good a job as others would do.

    I can't do it right now - but signalling that it's on my list.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Trevor,

    The points which point towards Barratt having completely confabulated his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and also in most of the scrapbook's published works.

    The points which point towards Barratt having written the scrapbook but 'confused' the specific details in his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and on Lord Orsam's blog.

    In sum, the former camp point out that none of the specific details Barratt gave were correct or verifiable, whilst the latter camp point out that - if you assume that Barratt got his dates wrong and the processes wrong, then the timeline at least still allows for him (or someone in his 'group') to have written the scrapbook in as little as eleven days in March and April 1992 as he claimed. I would personally go further and say that - if it already existed on his PC - it could have been transcribed into the scrapbook in as little as one or two days, but for some reason it took the Barratt 'group' a whopping eleven days to do so. Proponents of this theory (quite understandably) refer to Barratt's request for a Victorian diary from 1880-1890 which had at least twenty blank pages in it as clear evidence that the latter theory is the correct one. Proponents of the former theory highlight the fact that this request included an impossible year (1890) and that the eventual diary procured was from 1891, extremely small, covered in dates on each diary page, and only having around 3-5 truly blank pages to write in, all of which Barratt knew before he authorised Martin Earl to acquire it for him and yet he still chose to go ahead with the purchase.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2020 04 12 Maroon Diary 1891.JPG
Views:	220
Size:	131.5 KB
ID:	738625 Click image for larger version

Name:	Red_Diary_1.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	118.3 KB
ID:	738626

    I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

    I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

    proved to be correct in their entirety
    proved to be correct in some form
    proved to be false
    or unproven

    Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

    I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Now nobody seems to want to answer my question I posted previous on proving or disproving what Barrett put in his first affidavit, surely someone must have bothered to check all of these points out?
    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor,

    The points which point towards Barratt having completely confabulated his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and also in most of the scrapbook's published works.

    The points which point towards Barratt having written the scrapbook but 'confused' the specific details in his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and on Lord Orsam's blog.

    In sum, the former camp point out that none of the specific details Barratt gave were correct or verifiable, whilst the latter camp point out that - if you assume that Barratt got his dates wrong and the processes wrong, then the timeline at least still allows for him (or someone in his 'group') to have written the scrapbook in as little as eleven days in March and April 1992 as he claimed. I would personally go further and say that - if it already existed on his PC - it could have been transcribed into the scrapbook in as little as one or two days, but for some reason it took the Barratt 'group' a whopping eleven days to do so. Proponents of this theory (quite understandably) refer to Barratt's request for a Victorian diary from 1880-1890 which had at least twenty blank pages in it as clear evidence that the latter theory is the correct one. Proponents of the former theory highlight the fact that this request included an impossible year (1890) and that the eventual diary procured was from 1891, extremely small, covered in dates on each diary page, and only having around 3-5 truly blank pages to write in, all of which Barratt knew before he authorised Martin Earl to acquire it for him and yet he still chose to go ahead with the purchase.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2020 04 12 Maroon Diary 1891.JPG
Views:	220
Size:	131.5 KB
ID:	738625 Click image for larger version

Name:	Red_Diary_1.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	118.3 KB
ID:	738626

    I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

    I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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 can tell you that in the past written and signed confessions are admissible even when the police have no other evidence other than mere suspicion.

    In the interests of justice though anyone making a confession would be asked probing questions around the commission of the crime to satisfy the police that the confession was the truth and the admission not given under any duress, threats, or favors.

    The question would be why would Barrett make a false affidavit so that it would perhaps incriminate him to the extent he might be facing a prison sentence. Of course if it were the case that Barrett having mentioned a number of potential co conspirators in that first affidavit and then was forced to make the second affidavit as a result of duress and threats being made against him or his family by the other co conspirators he had named in the first affidavit.

    Now nobody seems to want to answer my question I posted previous on proving or disproving what Barrett put in his first affidavit, surely someone must have bothered to check all of these points out?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT.

    NOBODY KNOWS.

    IF THEY DID WE WOULDN'T STILL BE HERE - NOW WOULD WE?


    Good grief, how hard can this be, people???

    If The Baron has cracked it and will be identifying the diary's handwriting in three days from now, I will be full of admiration and looking forward to reading more of those unread books on the shelf, finally sort out the mess of old family photos and what have you currently under the bed, and even start a new hobby. Lobster extraction is looking like a definite possibility.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Sheesh. Take a chill pill, lady.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    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?
    I noticed some time ago David Barrat’s comment to your claim that the affidavit remained unknown for a long time. It would seem that on page 170 of Inside Story a meeting is mentioned during which Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison discuss it in January 1995.

    I don’t have the book at hand but given that he quotes the passage, it seems relevant. Perhaps you could read it and comment?

    It’s this page, section “Shock fake (?) news”

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Glad to hear it, because I can assure you, no offence was intended on my part.

    Onwards and downwards?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Absolutely! this will be very interesting I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X