Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

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


    Abby,

    What evidence is there that the reference to the woman as an aunt was a ‘mistake’?

    I don’t mean in the genealogical sense, but in the sense that she was not referred to as an aunt in the Maybrick household in the looser, but no less correct, sense of a close female friend?

    Why would someone who ‘hates’ Lord O so vehemently praise his Islington book so generously? And as for him shrugging off mistakes and moving on - have you missed the torrents of bile he directs at anyone who has the audacity not to tug their forelock in his lordly direction?

    Gary
    I reckon that's a fair point Gary. He'll pull you up for the most minor indiscretion, or such.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Gary
    there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that she was ever referred to as an aunt in the family. There is on the other hand alot of evidence that she was mistakenly referred to as in aunt in the trial, which was repeated by the hoaxer. Im not assuming anything, and there is no theory. these are cold hard facts.
    now if you have evidence that she was ever referred to as an aunt then provide. if not its the usual it could have been this it could have been that-pure speculation, diary defending and flying pigs. and in my experience when Lord Orsam makes a mistake, which is rare, he simply acknowledges it and moves on. I think your hate of Lord Orsam is clouding your judgement Gary.

    Abby,

    What evidence is there that the reference to the woman as an aunt was a ‘mistake’?

    I don’t mean in the genealogical sense, but that she was not referred to as an aunt in the Maybrick household in the looser, but no less correct, sense of a close female friend?

    Why would someone who ‘hates’ Lord O so vehemently praise his Islington book so generously? And as for him shrugging off mistakes and moving on - have you missed the torrents of bile he directs at anyone who has the audacity not to tug their forelock in his lordly direction?

    Gary
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-05-2020, 08:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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



    A truly paid henchman!


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

    Glass houses mate.
    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 08-05-2020, 08:18 PM. Reason: Your not you

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Yes, Abnormal, I think that must be it. Before Florrie went to London to see her godmother, Maybrick appears to have believed - for whatever reason (and there are plenty) - that she was off to see her 'aunt'.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    A couple of weeks go by (possibly a few weeks). Florrie goes to London, comes back, they both meet Dr Hopper and Dr Hopper says they both say Florrie had been to see her godmother. We don't know if James said it or if he simply concurred when Florrie said it (thinking "That's funny, I could have sworn she'd said 'aunt' - that's buggered my scrapbook up completely and irrevocably").

    I am comfortable that this is a perfectly plausible view of how things went down.

    Ike


    A truly paid henchman!


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    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).
    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.

    Mike originally confessed to Shirley Harrison. What was being suppressed? His inability to have single handedly masterminded the hoax?

    Like everything else in this saga, the bridges had been burnt, danced on and pissed on. Even then it wasn't about facts. It was about camps. Us Vs Them. And that's the real shame.

    That was always going to be the issue with the "special announcement"

    It was proven and disproven before it ever made the slightest suggestion of publication. Because it was never about objectivity.

    He shot me down for it, but I reiterate. Lord O played us all like Bongo's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I don't think I said this (the clue is that I don't know what you mean): "But you/Caz said bongo as the penman was no good to him, and he had to abandon the plan." This sounds like something to do with the 1891 maroon diary? I think Caz (or I) once suggested that Bongo had wanted an authentic Victorian diary in order to copy the actual diary text into (to protect it if he lost it to those thieving Cockneys)? Or maybe Bongo himself said it? Yes, I think that was it - in the affy David he said he bought a Victorian diary to hoax the diary into but what he got was no good to him so he had to abandon the plan.

    None of this has anything to do with Harris typing-up 'Bongo's' affy David, though, and Bongo 'accusing himself' in it of being a hoaxer.

    Ike
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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).
    I don't think I said this (the clue is that I don't know what you mean): "But you/Caz said bongo as the penman was no good to him, and he had to abandon the plan." This sounds like something to do with the 1891 maroon diary? I think Caz (or I) once suggested that Bongo had wanted an authentic Victorian diary in order to copy the actual diary text into (to protect it if he lost it to those thieving Cockneys)? Or maybe Bongo himself said it? Yes, I think that was it - in the affy David he said he bought a Victorian diary to hoax the diary into but what he got was no good to him so he had to abandon the plan.

    None of this has anything to do with Harris typing-up 'Bongo's' affy David, though, and Bongo 'accusing himself' in it of being a hoaxer.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Just to get it straight, the affy David Gray (or Harris) had typed-up for Bongo fingered Bongo so who got forgotten?
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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?
    Hey, man Katnip - come on!

    So Caz uses the word 'suppression'. It's just a word. It conveys (even without asking her) her apparent frustrated belief that Harris attempted to influence the extremely vulnerable Barrett for his own ends. And then - when he realised the affy David was too awful to do anything with - he cunningly left it on the shelf in case anyone came along and realised what a bongbat old Bongo truly was. That's why I said it was 'strategic' of him.

    It wasn't that he "didn't like the idea of the Barretts or Devereaux as the forgers" in the slightest. I doubt Harris would have cared. As long as he had someone to accuse, the pathetic sales of his own recent Ripper publication might not be too adversely affected (that's 'Integrity' for you, guys). Of course, 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.

    I suspect the influence that Harris used over Gray was the very one Bongo promised Gray and so consistently failed to deliver (cue sound of till opening). Gray just wanted to be paid, by someone, anyone. He didn't care who.

    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?
    Just to get it straight, the affy David Gray (or Harris) had typed-up for Bongo fingered Bongo so who got forgotten?

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    It is blindingly obvious from the evidence presented that Melvin Harris - Hoaxbuster Supreme - was the force behind getting Alan Gray to persuade Mike Barrett to swear that affidavit in January 1995, so he could make good his reported prediction in the December that the three people responsible for the Maybrick diary 'forgery' would soon be identified, and bag all the brownie points.

    I rather doubt Melvin thought it was 'irrelevant' when Mike came up with the goods [why would he?], and therefore 'didn't think to mention it'.

    However, if he found it to be relevant but counterproductive to his aims to bust this hoax wide open himself, that would go a loooong way to explain why he decided not to mention it, or get the newspapers involved, as Mike was led to believe would happen. It might also explain why Melvin later claimed he was misquoted, when giving that prediction to the newspaper in December 1994. He must have known from that dog's breakfast of a sworn statement that he didn't have a penman for a start. He didn't have the Barretts or poor dead Devereux down for that starring role, so without a 'forger' he was wiser to distance himself from it and hope that others - his trusted band of foot soldiers for instance - would do the job of actually naming and shaming, so he wouldn't risk soiling his own hands.

    If only Mike had named someone he had never met and never heard of as the actual forger - someone whose surname began with K, who could have been schooled in the 1930s - Melvin might have been home and dry.
    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?

    Last edited by Kattrup; 08-05-2020, 07:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    The Land of Clutching Desperately at Straws?

    Does Mrs Hammersmith live there?

    (Sorry Ike)

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Honestly, there's no rush ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    This entire thread has been as overplayed as it's possible to get.

    Let me know if I've got my facts wrong here:
    • We have no idea what Florrie told James she was going to London for - she may well have mentioned she was going to see her aunt, or someone else's aunt, or her own godmother (we'll never know)
    • Before Florrie went to London, Maybrick wrote in his scrapbook that she was welcome to it and that he actively wanted her to see her aunt (this suggests that she had said she was going to see her aunt, or John Baillie Knight's aunt, or her godmother - whichever it was, Maybrick wrote 'aunt' before Florrie went to London)
    • After the trip to London, Dr Hopper (not Fuller) visited the Maybricks and went on the record as saying that they had both said that she had been to see her godmother (Florrie may have said it and James concurred, James may have said it because by then Florrie had said this was the case, or they both said it because by then that was Florrie's official line)
    • Dr Hopper's testimony was not called at the trial
    • Someone told Mr Addison that Florrie had gone to London supposedly to see her aunt
    • In his opening remarks, Mr Addison said Florrie had been to see her aunt
    • The papers reported she'd been to see her aunt
    • The books reported that she'd been to see her aunt
    • Lord Orsam decided this was unequivocal evidence of a mistake by a forger because Maybrick therefore could not possibly have made the mistake of writing 'aunt' before Florrie's trip to London
    If I've got this right, then we are in the Land of Clutching Desperately at Straws here to argue that what has been uncovered cannot be interpreted any other way than that the scrapbook was written by a hoaxer whose inadequate research caused him or her to have Maybrick say that Florrie was going to see her aunt rather than her godmother.

    Pillars of sand, it is indeed, everyone ... but do carry on ...

    Ike

    PS There is an acid test here which should - if the reader is honest with themselves - resolve this issue. If there is no possibility whatsoever that James Maybrick would (not simply could, note) have written 'aunt' in the scrapbook before Florrie's mooted trip to London, would you stake your every possession, every penny you own, and the life of every member of your family on this being so? If Lord Orsam has proved his point, then we should all be happy and willing to do exactly that, safe in the knowledge that we could not possibly be wrong. For the record, I obviously would not place that stake. If you would, please just state your name. If, however, you are willing to state your address also, the nice people in white coats will be able to get to you super quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    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,

    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X