Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    My comment is beyond you to understand.


    The Baron
    But not beyond me.

    Get a life, sonny Jim.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    That'll be like when you creamed your Jodhpurs over Fishy1118's all in capitals posts slagging off Herlock?

    Glass houses mate.
    Hi Al,

    By 'paid henchman', the Baron is alluding to what professional researcher Keith Skinner was once called, because he had the nerve to undertake paid research for authors such as Paul Feldman, while not necessarily endorsing a single opinion expressed by said authors.

    I very much doubt Keith is now having to cross Ikeypoo's palm with silver, to get him to post what he does. But it continues to show how little the Baron must think of Orsam's awful auntie argument, that he can't just keep his nasty trap shut. Does he really still see himself as being on the 'winning' side of the argument, or is he resorting to such truly desperate measures because he rather fears he's not?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Bongo's blowing the gig was in the making since June 1994, when he claimed sole authorship of the hoax. By no coincidence, the Graham family provenance crops up at this time.
    Did Mike create the script, and Anne typed it out? Maybe, maybe not, but his affidavit wasn't a shock to anyone. They all knew what was going on. His solicitor had tried to protect him already, is it a stretch of the imagination that that's what happened in Jan '95? Melvin may well have wanted it suppressed, but it was down to Bark Jones what came out, and his sole responsibility was protecting Mike Barrett.
    'They all knew what was going on'? Who knew, Al, and what was going on? There is no evidence that Bark-Jones knew that Mike was going to make another, more detailed statement, adding to the number of forgers and contents of the scrapbook; adding a compass supposedly sold with it by the auction house as a job lot; and nearly all of it contradicting what he had claimed the first time. Bark-Jones had no involvement with the January affidavit, and I don't know if and when he was told about its existence. Solicitors don't all share information with each other, do they, without the client's specific and written permission?

    Every time Mike talked or wrote to Shirley and co after June 1994, he changed his story, often during the same conversation or correspondence, from being a silly faker all on his own, to the diary being 100% genuine, to the handwriting being Anne's, to believing Anne's 'in the family' story, and back to not knowing who the hell wrote it or where it came from, other than Tony gave it to him but didn't write it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 02:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Is it all possible Caz that perhaps Mike may himself led Mr Harris a merry dance?

    Would that be something in tune with his character?

    Would Melvin be on the hunt to blow the nest of forgers wide open only for Mike to sell him a dud bullet?

    Is it possible this may have dawned on Melvin after Mike's pledge under oath in January 1995?
    You got it!

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    But you/Caz said bongo as the penman was no good to him, and he had to abandon the plan. So why would he type up an afidavit fingering Bongo, then abandon it?

    And, minor point, I know, but still: where's the evidence for any of this?


    Also, I do not agree about the word's intentions; Caz has very clearly stated that Melvin Harris deliberately kept the affidavit from others until 1997 (it was of course known about earlier).
    But 'known about' by whom, and how much earlier than January 1997, Kattrup? Who knew it existed, and also knew all that it contained, before a version of it reached the internet, more than a year after it was sworn, and possibly more like two years?

    As far as is known, Mike dictated it to Alan Gray who typed it up for Mike to check through and sign. Mike had injured his hand and wasn't up to typing much on his own at the best of times, so all that at least makes sense. It was what Mike dictated to Alan that must have made little sense to Melvin, and was nothing like he was hoping for or expecting. I do think Melvin genuinely believed he knew who was in his 'nest of forgers', and that Mike would be able to deliver the goods, but what he got was a total mare's nest instead. He must have needed a little lie down after that - or a long one.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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
    Hi Caz,

    Thanks for the correction, and the time line for Barrett's confession.
    I've subsequently seen the articles, there's not a great deal of info them really.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    You really should start getting to grips with what actually happened and when, Kattrup, and with what Melvin Harris's theory was [not mine], because you still appear to have as little knowledge of the subject matter as you claimed to have only a few weeks ago, when you also said you had no interest in expanding that knowledge.

    I don't know where to start with this one, because you really don't know what you are talking about.

    Okay, I'll be generous and give you another clue. Melvin maintained that Mike didn't write the diary because he didn't have 'the capacity', and neither did Anne. They merely acted as handlers and placers. He knew he couldn't pin the handwriting on Tony Devereux or Anne's father either, who were also named in Mike's affidavit.

    That left Melvin in a pickle. Mike had now involved four people, not 'the three' Melvin had predicted in the newspaper in December, and he still didn't have the forger who held the pen. Melvin only thought he knew who that was, but Mike never mentioned this person or claimed anyone else wrote it. So Melvin couldn't identify his suspect in case he was wrong and was sued for libel.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Is it all possible Caz that perhaps Mike may himself led Mr Harris a merry dance?

    Would that be something in tune with his character?

    Would Melvin be on the hunt to blow the nest of forgers wide open only for Mike to sell him a dud bullet?

    Is it possible this may have dawned on Melvin after Mike's pledge under oath in January 1995?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    This post demonstrates quite clearly that you've misunderstood the principle which Iconoclast referred to, and indeed why such a principle exists: you're using a lack of information (Harris not mentioning something) as evidence of something (suppression because conspiracy theory etc.) while speculating wildly about his motivation, thoughts and intentions.
    So MH is the force behind getting Alan Gray to persuade MB to make an affidavit. That much is "blindingly obvious" but when the orchestrated affidavit appears, MH finds it useless because...why exactly? He just didn't like the idea of the Barretts or Devereaux as the forgers, apparently, and had hoped for someone else, who MB should have named, despite having never met or heard of that person.
    Just to get it straight: the argument here is that Harris used his influence with Gray (what influence?) to make MB swear an affidavit drafted and typed by Gray fingering the culprit(s), but he forgot to specify who it should finger. Is that your theory, Caz?
    You really should start getting to grips with what actually happened and when, Kattrup, and with what Melvin Harris's theory was [not mine], because you still appear to have as little knowledge of the subject matter as you claimed to have only a few weeks ago, when you also said you had no interest in expanding that knowledge.

    I don't know where to start with this one, because you really don't know what you are talking about.

    Okay, I'll be generous and give you another clue. Melvin maintained that Mike didn't write the diary because he didn't have 'the capacity', and Anne didn't write it either; they merely acted as handlers and placers. He knew he couldn't pin the handwriting on Tony Devereux or Anne's father either, who were also named in Mike's affidavit.

    That left Melvin in a pickle. Mike had now involved four people, not 'the three' Melvin had predicted in the newspaper in December, and he still didn't have the forger who held the pen. Melvin only thought he knew who that was, but Mike never mentioned this person or claimed anyone else wrote it. So Melvin couldn't identify his suspect in case he was wrong and was sued for libel.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 02:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    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


    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X