Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • caz
    replied
    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






    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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?
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    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 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

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Caz
    In post 215 I set out the main points from Barrett's first affidavit and suggested that the proving or disproving of these salient points might go along way to proving or disproving the reliability of the affidavit and ultimately Barrett's involvement in any conspiracy, and I asked you, and any of the other diary believers to reply as to whether or not these points have in fact been proved or disproved.

    I hope that your failure to answer by you and any of the others were freudian slips, and not because they can be proved to be correct

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Er, my failure to answer, my dear Trevor, might have something to do with the fact that you define me as a 'diary believer'.

    Why is it not up to one of the host of Bongo believers out there to prove the reliability of his affidavit? Why is it up to me - a Bongo disbeliever - to disprove the reliability of a document positively riddled with proven dating errors and inconsistencies, which is currently held together by a known liar's claims but no actual hard evidence? Even our resident Baron acknowledges the unreliability of its content, or he wouldn't have had to flog Bongo's dead horse into life again by changing it to an affy-David of his own to get the poor dumb beast under starter's orders.

    Why don't you tell the rest of us which 'main points' in that affidavit you accept as reliable and why?

    That might get quicker results in the long run.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-29-2020, 02:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    No offense taken
    We read you the first time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    No offense taken

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Columbo,

    You may be mistaking me for someone else?

    I really am not the surly or angry 'character' you have been told to expect. In my experience, those who are tend to self-destruct in the long run. Life's far too short to punish myself in that way. But if that's what you choose to believe, from reading my posts and making up your own mind, that is entirely your prerogative, and I feel sympathy for anyone living with such negative thoughts about someone they claim to have only just 'met' through these message boards, but don't actually know the first thing about them.

    I'm not exactly sure what I've done to offend you this quickly, apart from having a different opinion from your own [which is par for the course around here], but sincere apologies anyway. Hope you'll get used to it and hang around, so your own sunny disposition will shine through all the doom and gloom.

    Buck up, me dear, it'll be LOBSTER Day before you know it!

    Love,

    Caz
    X



    No offense taken

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Columbo,

    You may be mistaking me for someone else?

    I really am not the surly or angry 'character' you have been told to expect. In my experience, those who are tend to self-destruct in the long run. Life's far too short to punish myself in that way. But if that's what you choose to believe, from reading my posts and making up your own mind, that is entirely your prerogative, and I feel sympathy for anyone living with such negative thoughts about someone they claim to have only just 'met' through these message boards, but don't actually know the first thing about them.

    I'm not exactly sure what I've done to offend you this quickly, apart from having a different opinion from your own [which is par for the course around here], but sincere apologies anyway. Hope you'll get used to it and hang around, so your own sunny disposition will shine through all the doom and gloom.

    Buck up, me dear, it'll be LOBSTER Day before you know it!

    Love,

    Caz
    X



    Calumny,

    Seriously, mate - despite the agreeable tone, she's got a switchblade she sharpens daily on her wit. If I were you ... well, thankfully I'm not, but you get the picture ...

    Ike
    Scarred scared sacred

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    I get it now. You’re the surly, angry character on the boards. Well I would be very interested to know the suspected forger you think is responsible since the man who confessed isn’t on your list.
    Hi Columbo,

    You may be mistaking me for someone else?

    I really am not the surly or angry 'character' you have been told to expect. In my experience, those who are tend to self-destruct in the long run. Life's far too short to punish myself in that way. But if that's what you choose to believe, from reading my posts and making up your own mind, that is entirely your prerogative, and I feel sympathy for anyone living with such negative thoughts about someone they claim to have only just 'met' through these message boards, but don't actually know the first thing about them.

    I'm not exactly sure what I've done to offend you this quickly, apart from having a different opinion from your own [which is par for the course around here], but sincere apologies anyway. Hope you'll get used to it and hang around, so your own sunny disposition will shine through all the doom and gloom.

    Buck up, me dear, it'll be LOBSTER Day before you know it!

    Love,

    Caz
    X




    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    In that same sworn affidavit, erobitha, Mike claimed he had wanted to expose the diary as a fraud as early as December 1993. He failed miserably to achieve this six months later in June 1994, so then came the affidavit seven months later in January 1995. He then had another 21 years to prove his affidavit had been truthful. So who was preventing him from ever doing so? If he didn't want to prove it for fear of getting nicked for fraud, who was forcing him to swear that affidavit in the first place? Who was forcing him to say anything at all, when he went to Harold Brough with his 'hold the front page' story in June 1994?

    I wonder what was happening in December 1993, that made Mike want to expose his own hoaxed diary as a fraud? This was just two months after co-authoring the first diary book with Shirley Harrison, when it was in The Times best seller list.

    Make any sense to you?

    No, nor me.

    But here in DAiry World, even the most arrant nonsense can appear to make sense to the Bongo Believers if they shut their eyes and ears and just believe hard enough.

    Love,

    Caz
    X


    Caz
    In post 215 I set out the main points from Barrett's first affidavit and suggested that the proving or disproving of these salient points might go along way to proving or disproving the reliability of the affidavit and ultimately Barrett's involvement in any conspiracy, and I asked you, and any of the other diary believers to reply as to whether or not these points have in fact been proved or disproved.

    I hope that your failure to answer by you and any of the others were freudian slips, and not because they can be proved to be correct

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X