Special Announcement

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[Iconoclast]

No offense taken

We read you the first time.

[Columbo]

No offense taken

[Columbo]

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

[Iconoclast]

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

[caz]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

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.

[caz]

Yep, that's the response I expected.

So why ask?

[Don't tell him, Ike.]

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Two things:

1) Bizarre coincidence. Your cat is called Monty. My car is called Monty (no word of a lie).
2) Do you think James Maybrick would have passed the Premier League's Fit and Proper Person's Test to own Newcastle United? I only ask because I'm starting to give up hope on the Saudi prince thing and sort of casting around for other potential owners. I'd rather have a dead serial killer than My Cashley.

Cheers,

Ike

Ah, but does your Monty talk to you in your dreams, or just go honk, vroom?

My Monty regularly talks to me in my dreams and is a natural comedian. I wake up laughing every time at what he comes out with.

We returned from holiday in one dream, and Monty said in a Welsh accent: "Ah, so you're back then, are you?"

Another time I tried to stop him jumping from a high window, but he took no notice and went for it. Fearing the worst, I looked down and he was picking himself up, saying: "Phew, that was a close one!"

More recently someone wanted to know if Monty could type, and he piped up: "Yes, I can type."

[This is all to distract Ike from my total inability to answer his question related to the Toon Army. Don't tell Ike.]

Love,

Caz
X

[Columbo]

Of course I care who wrote it, Columbo. This isn't an effing game of Cluedo.

You would actually lock someone up and throw away the key on Bongo's say-so - Bongo the Biggest Liar in the World - presumably because you don't care who actually wrote it?

The real Columbo would be scratching his head in despair.

Love,

Caz
X

Yep, that's the response I expected.

[Iconoclast]

FOR ALL I KNOW, GIVEN THE UNIDENTIFIED HANDWRITING AND THE INCONSISTENT AND INCONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESULTS, PEN COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO PAPER AT ANY TIME BETWEEN LATE 1889 AND 8TH MARCH 1992, THE DAY BEFORE I BELIEVE BONGO SAW IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. [/B]

Or EARLY 1888?

Just putting it out there. I still have three days left of doing so ...

Cheers,

ike

[Iconoclast]

Keith feels Monty makes the best ripper suspect. [Just as ridiculous. Monty is my cat and swears he isn't old enough. I believe him.]
I feel all ripper suspects lack the proper substance.

Hi Caz,

Two things:

1) Bizarre coincidence. Your cat is called Monty. My car is called Monty (no word of a lie).
2) Do you think James Maybrick would have passed the Premier League's Fit and Proper Person's Test to own Newcastle United? I only ask because I'm starting to give up hope on the Saudi prince thing and sort of casting around for other potential owners. I'd rather have a dead serial killer than My Cashley.

Cheers,

Ike