Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    Seems pretty clear cut to me. He faked it.
    Yes, Columbo, I agree.

    It's pretty clear to me too. Mike faked that affidavit.

    Nice raincoat.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Billy, where Bob had had "had had", had had "had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval. Bish bosh!
    That's the one, although Pedantic Polly here would observe that you haven't made it a single sentence. You need to write it like so:

    Billy, where Bob had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval. Bish bosh bash!

    I love it - the big lobster!



    Although we remember events but not when they occurred, who amongst us is likely to ever forget 2pm on August 1, 2020 and what we are doing when the lobster news breaks?

    I imagine that I'll be rather crabby for for the rest of the day ...

    Ike
    I am never glued to the screen at that time on a Saturday, Ike, and will be having enough butterflies in my tummy over Chelsea's fate in the FA Cup.

    I'll no doubt return on Monday to see if LOBSTER Day rocked or was much ado about FA.

    Let's rock!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4QSYx4wVQg

    Love,

    Caz
    X


    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Astonishingly unlikely indeed, erobitha. Like massively implausible.

    Context: If you had £1million in the bank, would you bet £1million on Crawley Town winning the Premiership within five years?

    I assume the answer is No. Well, the odds of the double event occurring on the same day are probably about as unlikely as Crawley Town winning the Premiership within five years (worse still if we allow the double event to possibly have occurred on a weekend or Bank Holiday).

    And yet the double event appears to have happened. Only one interpretation is possible - the two events were causally linked.

    Ike
    Hate to curb your enthusiasm, old darling, but while the Portus & Rhodes crew did work on Saturdays throughout the sewerage contract at Skem, I doubt Paul Dodd would have wanted them around the house while he was enjoying a kiddy free weekend away from his school. And I'm not sure Doreen would have been at her desk anyway. Sundays and Bank Holidays, usually being double and treble bubble for electricians, or days off in lieu, would likewise have been hors de question when there wasn't much work to go round during the week.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I don't think anyone is doubting that workmen spent some considerable time at the house, the issue is did they find the diary hidden as has been suggested and if they did what did they actually do with it? The truth is out there

    I note you have as yet not answered the questions I posed regarding proving or disproving the content of the affidavit, as to what Barrett says he and his wife did to write the diary. Perhaps you would be so kind as to at your earliest convenience.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The workmen didn't spend that much time at the house, Trev. Yes, the truth is most definitely out there, which is why we had to try to winkle it out before all those in the know have shuffled off this mortal coil.

    Remind me what questions you posed, which you think I am qualified to answer, and I'll do me best, ociffer. I promise not to fall back on "no comment", although the duty solicitor is looking daggers at me.

    Love,

    Caz, posting from Sidmouth Police Station [or I would be if I knew where it was]
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Has anyone checked the Book of Revelation? I'm sure it predicts Orsam Day.

    Life in a post diary world. I can just imagine the giant posters of David Barats head everywhere. Lord Orsam is watching you. The Pro Maybrick believers secretly passing around copies of "Inside Story", fearing capture for their thought crimes. A two minutes hate as Iconoclasts avatar flashes up on the TV screen.

    Ironically, 1984 starts with a guy writing a diary on a bright cold day in April!
    Hi Abe,

    Great post - I loved it! (Could we get some lobster GIFs in there next time, I wonder?)

    Just a quick note of clarification before The Switchblade parks outside your gaff in the dead of night, Inside Story is definitely not a pro-Maybrick text in the sense that it doesn't have a pro-Maybrick agenda. If it reads like a pro-Maybrick text, that will be because there is a natural pro-Maybrick narrative within the Ripper history which is rarely (if ever) contradicted by the existing evidence, so Messrs Morris, Skinner, and Linder simply reported what was on the record via research and interviews and - if that caused the eventual book to feel more pro- than anti-Maybrick - that would be because that was where the evidence took them.

    We know Morris is on Interpol's Dangerous Persons list, and Skinner (who favours Druitt, by the way) and Linder look to me like a right pair of bruisers (probably recruited by Morris way back when for some of her nefarious activities) so - unless you correct yourself - I suspect that your dystopian nightmare is going to be even more dystopian than mine.

    Now, what shall I have for lunch? Oh - I know!

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-28-2020, 09:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    You have enough science to crack on with there and figure it out yourselves. Be aware though I will retract this statement at a later date too.
    Probably multiple times on the same day, erobitha.

    Even - at your apex - giving contrary accounts within the same sentence.

    Well, of course we'd all believe you, dear boy - why on earth would you lie???

    Ike
    As Stupid and Gullible as it Gets it Seems

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Honestly Calumny, you're at least 28 years too late with this "Think I'll wind up the Maybrick believers" routine. It's passť. We've seen your type come and go a thousand times. Now, Harry D, here really is a WUP!

    Erobitha, you can tell from his fragile, basic grasp of the case that he's come over here for a bit of jolly. Don't give him the air space and he'll quickly waddle off again to try to get a rise elsewhere.

    It's all over in just five days time. We should enjoy this time for soon it will all have passed.

    Ike
    I’m not sure what a WUP is, but if you’re flirting with me...Actually I find Barrett fascinating. With his imagination I can’t believe he hasn’t written more stories. I’m not here to wind up anyone, just voicing my opinion like everyone else. If you want to believe it that’s your right. I personally have not seen any proof that it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Can you disprove what he wrote ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Disprove the diary or Barrett’s affidavit?

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Just wanted to add. If your sole ambition when going to a solicitor, and submitting a legal oath of an affidavit, is designed to make a statement of truth, then why has none of the elements within the statement ever been backed up with hard evidence? Confess properly - give us the actual source materials for how each page was constructed and what measures you took to jump over many, many lasers - we are intrigued. Show us the receipts of the books, pens, inks and materials. Show us the magic dear wizard. Surely that’s its purpose, but yet we are and where we have always been, bereft of hard evidence.

    On some of the logic displayed on this thread I could go to my solicitor tomorrow and draw a picture in crayon of the Mona Lisa and claim it was me wot painted it. I took some crayons and some paper and just drawed it. I did it by soaking the paper in olive oil and then put it under the grill for a bit and then so put some crayons in some sugar water to dissect the particles so it would look aged. I have a GCSE in art and sometimes I paint the odd air fix kit so my credentials as a world class painter means I can pull it off. I have no actual proof I did this but as I said it under oath it must all be true. You have enough science to crack on with there and figure it out yourselves. Be aware though I will retract this statement at a later date too.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-27-2020, 10:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    Seems pretty clear cut to me. He faked it.
    Can you disprove what he wrote ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Has anyone checked the Book of Revelation? I'm sure it predicts Orsam Day.

    Life in a post diary world. I can just imagine the giant posters of David Barats head everywhere. Lord Orsam is watching you. The Pro Maybrick believers secretly passing around copies of "Inside Story", fearing capture for their thought crimes. A two minutes hate as Iconoclasts avatar flashes up on the TV screen.

    Ironically, 1984 starts with a guy writing a diary on a bright cold day in April!
    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 07-27-2020, 09:32 PM. Reason: Of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    You're a hoot! but you don't need to be a master hoaxer to fake this. A little research and a good imagination is all that you need. I think you're gonna be a bit disappointed on August 1st. Oh, one more thing. Outside of the Diary, what ties has anyone come up with for Maybrick as a viable suspect? He doesn't match the descriptions, he was much older and in ill health. Thinking this Diary is real doesn't matter if you can't make a case for Maybrick.
    Honestly Calumny, you're at least 28 years too late with this "Think I'll wind up the Maybrick believers" routine. It's passť. We've seen your type come and go a thousand times. Now, Harry D, here really is a WUP!

    Erobitha, you can tell from his fragile, basic grasp of the case that he's come over here for a bit of jolly. Don't give him the air space and he'll quickly waddle off again to try to get a rise elsewhere.

    It's all over in just five days time. We should enjoy this time for soon it will all have passed.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    You're a hoot! but you don't need to be a master hoaxer to fake this. A little research and a good imagination is all that you need. I think you're gonna be a bit disappointed on August 1st. Oh, one more thing. Outside of the Diary, what ties has anyone come up with for Maybrick as a viable suspect? He doesn't match the descriptions, he was much older and in ill health. Thinking this Diary is real doesn't matter if you can't make a case for Maybrick.
    The watch my dear boy, the watch. It was the thing that made me sit up and notice in the first place, and I'm guessing if the scrapbook is proved beyond all reasonable doubt as being a fake at 2pm on 1st August 2020, then I believe it was done so to support the watch's existence. The science on the watch is quite compelling. The signature matches Maybrick's.

    With regards to eye witness accounts you simply cannot put too much weight on any of them being all that reliable. Escpecially not Hutchinson's. That level of detail in poor light leaves more questions than answers, despite Abberline's confidence in him at the time, too much detail is worse than too little. Written testimony does not portray the confidence in the answers of the wiitness with regards to key details. A recent study was conducted which showed eye witness reliability is heavily connected to the response type and speed to certain prompts. Ums and Aaahs are like poker tells, and show that the witness is not all that sure on certain details, and therefore you can downgrade the reliability of that specific detail. It looks like such techniques are finding their way into modern policing. When they respond quickly and with confidence you can upweight that detail. In written testimony, all of that is omitted and is unknown.

    You could quite easily put together some kind of composite from many of the accounts that actually reflect Maybrick quite well. He really only needed to change his hat here and there to throw a number of witnesses off the scent. I actually think the best witness account is actually Mrs Cox on MJK. Also, have you seen what arsenic can do to someone's mental and physical state both postively and negatively? Some on here even thought 70 year old Gull who had two strokes was capable. A 49 year old high on arsenic is not all that improbable.

    When the science rules the watch out is when I rule out Maybirck, but for 28 years no-one has conclusively ruled out the scrapbook. Until 2pm on 1st August 2020 of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Mike is not our master hoaxer for so many reasons, but I cannot until after 2pm on 1st August 2020, be certain that someone else MIGHT have hoaxed it. It's at that time and that day Lord O will deliver his final hammer blow to the whole affair.

    We will all know the truth then. Even Columbo.
    You're a hoot! but you don't need to be a master hoaxer to fake this. A little research and a good imagination is all that you need. I think you're gonna be a bit disappointed on August 1st. Oh, one more thing. Outside of the Diary, what ties has anyone come up with for Maybrick as a viable suspect? He doesn't match the descriptions, he was much older and in ill health. Thinking this Diary is real doesn't matter if you can't make a case for Maybrick.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    I really don't understand why anyone still believes this. Barrett confessed after his divorced. He provided concrete evidence he did it, even though some on here think it's not. It really is pretty clear cut. Maybrick was not the ripper.
    Pray tell Columbo, enlighten us with the "concrete evidence" of his forgery. The real Columbo might ascertain that perhaps he was not in the best mental state when submitting this. There is a significant chunk missing at the start of the copy and paste Trevor displayed which might well give you a short insight into the workings of this world class hoaxer. The real Columbo might have double checked that. I'll paste it below:

    "I MICHAEL BARRETT, make oath and state as follows:-

    That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant. I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident., for which I am attending Hospital as an out-patient. I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand."

    He could not even tell the truth past the second sentence. He never had such an injury where his fingers needed to be amputated. It was nonsense designed to garner reader sympathy.

    With regards to his "how" and "who" - it did not contain one shred of evidence which has actually supported any of the claims. Unless like the real Columbo you can provide some?

    Mike is not our master hoaxer for so many reasons, but I cannot until after 2pm on 1st August 2020, be certain that someone else MIGHT have hoaxed it. It's at that time and that day Lord O will deliver his final hammer blow to the whole affair.

    We will all know the truth then. Even Columbo.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-27-2020, 08:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X