Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    And I suggest you try to find your own writing style instead of using Fisherman's expressions.
    I thought that was popularized by Obama? he used it whenever he visited a small country.

    Comment


    • We all knows liars give different stories when telling a fib, Florrie probably gave different accounts of her London visit to different people to suit herself.
      What I would say though, is that she’s almost certain to have given the same excuse for visiting London to both her husband, and her Live-in Nanny.
      So i’m suggesting that whatever Florrie told Yapp, is an indicator to what should appear diary.

      Comment


      • Well, I'm breathless!

        That last page and a half of new entries was a triumph of pure, vitriolic invective. I loved it!

        I hate it when it's boring on the Casebook. This last hour or so was clearly not boring. Only disappointment is that I missed it all!

        Encore!
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

          What I meant was that first Caz now you claim that Harris was the force behind the affidavit. The power behind the barstool. He orchestrates an affidavit by MB.

          But when he has it, he abandons the plan. My question is, how does this theory make sense? You stated he typed up or drafted the affidavit, which I'm guessing is dramatic hyperbole, yet "when he read the affy David he must have utterly shat himself at the realisation that Bongo Barrett could not substantiate a single word that he was willing to swear to"

          If MH is the force behind the affidavit, why isn't the affidavit suitable for his purpose?
          I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

          The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.

          Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP. I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

            The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.

            Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP. I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Hi Trevor,

            There is a wonderful built-in irony to emails such as your latest as it is exactly these which keep me (and others) here, fighting the good fight, because they are so befuddled.

            I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
            I'm sure you have said these things many times before, Trevor, but proving them would be quite a cool trick too, detective.

            The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.
            This is the perennial claim against the scrapbook which is presented every time without the counterclaim. We hear that the 'Poste House' is a clear anachronism. We are informed that Maybrick got the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong. We are solemnly informed that the farthings were not there, that he couldn't have taken Kelly's key away with him, that he didn't write the 'Dear Boss' letter (that - of course - was the work of our 'enterprising' journalist), and now we hear that Maybrick could not possibly have written 'aunt' when Florrie later announced she'd been to see her 'godmother'. None of these are categoricals, but you present them - by implication - as such, and this fools the ill-informed and easily-swayed on this Casebook, thereby increasing the likelihood that people like me will stay vigilant and stay here.

            Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP.
            This is my favourite bit - you know, the bit where you just make something up in order to 'win' (ha ha) your argument. You have now made the claim so the burden of proof now falls on you to back up your claim: please inform us which experts have said this and what evidence they provided to show that the scrapbook could not have been penned in the LVP. You do realise - surely - that if your claim were true, we'd all be out of here, enjoying the summer rays?

            I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!
            Your post answers its own question, Trevor. There are only poorly-constructed arguments against the authenticity of the scrapbook - hence plenty of room for believing it to be authentic, and a whole host of ill-informed opinion about the scrapbook which gives motivation daily to defend its right to a fair hearing.

            The biggest issue here (of many) is your outrageously-indefensible claim that "Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP." When you type that, a thousand young Ripperologists turn away from Maybrick because they think that what gets stated here is necessarily true (and by a published Ripper author, it must be true!).

            This bit in bold needs to be backed-up with indisputable evidence or else you need to withdraw it. If you do neither, you comment on the substance of your place in the annals of Ripperology.

            All the best, Trevor. It's always good to keep in touch.

            PS By the way, I typed 'emails' in my first sentence instead of 'posts' and - once I'd spotted it - decided to leave it in as an example of the very easy way it is for the flowing thought as it is transcribed onto paper or onto a keyboard to be inadvertently corrupted: 'posts' become 'emails', 'godmothers' become 'aunts'.

            Ike
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

              What I meant was that first Caz now you claim that Harris was the force behind the affidavit. The power behind the barstool. He orchestrates an affidavit by MB.

              But when he has it, he abandons the plan. My question is, how does this theory make sense? You stated he typed up or drafted the affidavit, which I'm guessing is dramatic hyperbole, yet "when he read the affy David he must have utterly shat himself at the realisation that Bongo Barrett could not substantiate a single word that he was willing to swear to"

              If MH is the force behind the affidavit, why isn't the affidavit suitable for his purpose?
              Katnip,

              Melvin Harris was working with Alan Gray to get Bongo to sign an affy David that he hoaxed the scrapbook. Bongo had made the claim in the summer of 1994 and - by the December - Harris was desperate for his claim to be formalised in a detailed affy. We know about Harris's involvement with Gray because there is a tape recording of Gray talking to Bongo in Liverpool Royal (Caz has quoted from it in a recent post) and it is clear that Gray wants Bongo to sign an affy David (presumably so that Gray can get paid something at long last) in order to placate Harris.

              Bongo was easily-led, and he duly provided the affy David. The details would have come from Bongo, the typing from Gray or Harris or someone who could type (Bongo couldn't). He'd been given a month's warning so he had plenty of time to come up with juicy little slice-of-life details that would convince at the superficial reading stage of his bill.

              Excited to Hell, Harris may have asked Bongo for some evidence to back up his affy to which Bongo - as we know - would have come up cold. So Harris may have done some initial research to ensure that the details in the affy were vaguely believable.

              And then that's it, the story goes cold. Harris keeps schtum about his Great Reveal. Harris's LOBSTER Day dies as quickly as Lord Orsam's.

              Why? Well, if it had been a clear and evidenced affy, Harris is unlikely to have kept quiet about it so the reasonable inference to be drawn here is that it is possible that he read it, typed it up, and researched it, before shelving it with a huge sigh and a "**** me pink".

              Hope this helps.

              Ike
              Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-06-2020, 08:30 AM.
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                Why don't you say it Caz?!

                Say you believe Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and free yourself.

                What are you afraid of?

                Say it, come on, you can do it, just trust yourself! It isn't that difficult as it seems, you are almost there


                The Baron
                Yes, I too get the feeling Caz is hiding in the closet where the diary is concerned... or should that be under the floorboards?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  Hi Trevor,

                  There is a wonderful built-in irony to emails such as your latest as it is exactly these which keep me (and others) here, fighting the good fight, because they are so befuddled.



                  I'm sure you have said these things many times before, Trevor, but proving them would be quite a cool trick too, detective.



                  This is the perennial claim against the scrapbook which is presented every time without the counterclaim. We hear that the 'Poste House' is a clear anachronism. We are informed that Maybrick got the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong. We are solemnly informed that the farthings were not there, that he couldn't have taken Kelly's key away with him, that he didn't write the 'Dear Boss' letter (that - of course - was the work of our 'enterprising' journalist), and now we hear that Maybrick could not possibly have written 'aunt' when Florrie later announced she'd been to see her 'godmother'. None of these are categoricals, but you present them - by implication - as such, and this fools the ill-informed and easily-swayed on this Casebook, thereby increasing the likelihood that people like me will stay vigilant and stay here.



                  This is my favourite bit - you know, the bit where you just make something up in order to 'win' (ha ha) your argument. You have now made the claim so the burden of proof now falls on you to back up your claim: please inform us which experts have said this and what evidence they provided to show that the scrapbook could not have been penned in the LVP. You do realise - surely - that if your claim were true, we'd all be out of here, enjoying the summer rays?



                  Your post answers its own question, Trevor. There are only poorly-constructed arguments against the authenticity of the scrapbook - hence plenty of room for believing it to be authentic, and a whole host of ill-informed opinion about the scrapbook which gives motivation daily to defend its right to a fair hearing.

                  The biggest issue here (of many) is your outrageously-indefensible claim that "Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP." When you type that, a thousand young Ripperologists turn away from Maybrick because they think that what gets stated here is necessarily true (and by a published Ripper author, it must be true!).

                  This bit in bold needs to be backed-up with indisputable evidence or else you need to withdraw it. If you do neither, you comment on the substance of your place in the annals of Ripperology.

                  All the best, Trevor. It's always good to keep in touch.

                  PS By the way, I typed 'emails' in my first sentence instead of 'posts' and - once I'd spotted it - decided to leave it in as an example of the very easy way it is for the flowing thought as it is transcribed onto paper or onto a keyboard to be inadvertently corrupted: 'posts' become 'emails', 'godmothers' become 'aunts'.

                  Ike
                  I notice you avoid the inconsistencies issue which surrounds the diary, inconsistencies that as I said you would not expect to be found if the killer (Maybrick had written the diary, and I am not referring to Aunty.

                  As to the experts as you probably know they can only give their expert opinions based on their expertise and as a result of examining the document in question or copies, and one such expert was Kenneth Rendell who says it is a fake. I nor you are experts in this field and we have to accept or reject these opinions. and sometimes these opinions are not what we want to hear as I think the case is with you.

                  If you have an expert who can say the diary was penned in the LVP then fine, then you have to then switch to the balance of probabilities based on the evidence for and against, and the evidence for it being a hoax far outweighs the evidence to show that it is genuine and was written by Maybrick.

                  Go get out in the summer rays !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-06-2020, 09:16 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    Yes, I too get the feeling Caz is hiding in the closet where the diary is concerned... or should that be under the floorboards?
                    Haha nice one HD. Yes,and we're not the only ones to suspect as much

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I notice you avoid the inconsistencies issue which surrounds the diary, inconsistencies that as I said you would not expect to be found if the killer (Maybrick had written the diary, and I am not referring to Aunty.

                      As to the experts as you probably know they can only give their expert opinions based on their expertise and as a result of examining the document in question or copies, and one such expert was Kenneth Rendell who says it is a fake. I nor you are experts in this field and we have to accept or reject these opinions. and sometimes these opinions are not what we want to hear as I think the case is with you.

                      If you have an expert who can say the diary was penned in the LVP then fine, then you have to then switch to the balance of probabilities based on the evidence for and against, and the evidence for it being a hoax far outweighs the evidence to show that it is genuine and was written by Maybrick.

                      Go get out in the summer rays !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                      Nothing better than a good advice, and there you have it in front of you, clear as the sun in the sky in a summer day.

                      But some refuse to give up, no matter what.


                      The Baron


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                        Haha nice one HD. Yes,and we're not the only ones to suspect as much
                        Which only goes to show me how unqualified you all are to judge anyone from what they write.

                        If you want to spit it out, why not just call me a liar and be done with it? Oh wait, that would ruin your fun if you got reported for blatant personal attacks, so you'd better stick to the very slightly more subtle variety. And I'd sooner know what I'm dealing with, so carry on.

                        But you'd increase your credibility in my eyes from zero, if you could force yourself to discuss what people actually post, and not what you wrongly suspect about their beliefs, motivation, character and integrity.

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                          Has anyone got a link to the actual article, or a transcription thereof, of Mike's initial confession in June 1994 in the Liverpool Echo?

                          Cheers.
                          Hi Al,

                          I have been meaning to respond to this, although I don't have a link or full transcription to hand. In case you are still waiting, I can offer you the following related info from my timeline:

                          Wednesday 22nd June 1994
                          Shirley H and Sally see Mike B at new girlfriend Jenny's house. MB tells them he is going to say he forged diary.

                          Friday 24th June 1994?
                          Harold Brough from the Daily Post visits Anne G to tell her that Mike has just confessed to forging diary. He tells her that he left Mike dead drunk on the floor.

                          Saturday 25th June 1994
                          Liverpool Daily Post story appears, written by Harold Brough:
                          Mike B claimed last night (ie Friday 24th June 1994), in a signed statement to the newspaper, that he compiled the diary material himself. Report also says that MB is seriously ill and that Anne G has rejected MB's claim, calling the idea total rubbish.
                          Report quotes MB as saying that he forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant.
                          But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.
                          Source: copy of article (CAM/KS/1994)

                          Monday 27th June 1994
                          L'pool Daily Post:
                          Harold Brough writes more about MB's claims to be the greatest forger in history, having worked on the diary for five years. MB was saying last night that his doctor had given him only days to live and that Tony Devereux had nothing to do with it (the diary), while Anne G was insisting that MB told her he got it from TD and that was all she knew. AG was saying that MB was trying to get back at her for leaving him. "…But I will fight like a tiger to protect myself and my family against anything he says."
                          MB also tells of his visits to auctioneers, Outhwaite and Litherland and a shop at Bluecoat Chambers, to buy the photo album and ink respectively.
                          He says that he ripped out the used pages in the album and typed the diary on a word processor at his Liverpool home.
                          (Brough mentions MB taking diary to the publisher in 1991, but this is an error, it was 1992.)
                          Robert Smith is quoted as describing MB's claims as a sudden and surprising development. Mentions Scotland Yard's thorough investigation in Liverpool last year.
                          Source: copy of article (CAM/KS/1994)

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X

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


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            What I cant understand with regards to the making of the affidavit and putting his name to it, was the fact that Barrett and others had already been interviewed by the police and given their accounts. By making this alleged confession which clearly I assume was in direct conflict with what he told the police it would have left Barrett open to be re interviewed for an offence of attempting to obtain property by deception on his own admissions which he mentions in the second affidavit/

                            But it seems someone probably made him aware of that, and that is why we see the second affidavit where he claims duress to get him out of the proverbial should the police come knocking on his door.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trev,

                            What do you mean by 'attempting to obtain property by deception on his own admissions'?

                            What 'property' did Mike admit he had tried to obtain by deception'? And whose 'property'?

                            His story up until June 1994 had always been that he got the diary in good faith from Tony Devereux. He then made his first forgery claim, in a statement to Harold Brough.

                            In late 1994, Melvin Harris told Alan Gray to get Mike to make another statement, in the form of an affidavit [which Mike dictated to Alan Gray and signed on January 5th 1995], and said this statement would 'safeguard' Mike from getting nicked - I assumed he meant for forgery, although I'm at a loss to understand Melvin's reasoning. What do you suppose he meant by that? It confuses the hell out of me, and Mike very reasonably thought he'd get nicked if he swore such an affidavit, whether it proved to be true or false. What else would he have been nicked for?

                            And who would have made Mike aware of the risk of being re interviewed as a result of that affidavit? It would have to be someone who knew it existed, and that boils down to Mike, Alan Gray, the solicitor involved [who was not Bark-Jones], Melvin Harris and maybe one or two of his inner circle. Who else knew about it or what it contained at the time of the second affidavit?

                            Thanks.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 01:31 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                              Hi Trev,

                              Yeah, his solicitor pulled the original "confession" when Mike was hospitalised. That's what a good solicitor does, keeps you out of trouble with John Law.

                              Mike reiterated his confession in Jan '95, sworn as an affidavit in front of the same solicitor. Makes sense that the solicitor sat on it. It's his job. Unless solicitors are more interested in honesty, openness and justice?
                              No Al, not the same solicitor.

                              Any ideas why a different one was chosen this time? I have one or two, or three or four.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral -

                                through my previous verdict and firm belief that Michael Barrett didn't and couldn't have forged the Diary

                                and respond as I see fit.
                                Agree.

                                The Baron
                                I didn't know that was allowed - inserting your own words into someone else's post as if that person had written them. I live and learn.

                                If you took an actual quote of mine and conflated the two [which you didn't, because I always refer to the diary in lower case, and you tried - badly - to make your words fit into my sentence], that would still be pretty underhand. So once again, grow up and play nicely. Act like you are on the 'winning' side, instead of giving the impression that you have no faith in Orsam's abilities to prove so much as a doughnut. If your brains were dynamite...

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 01:56 PM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X