Special Announcement

[Columbo]

Can you disprove what he wrote ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Disprove the diary or Barrett’s affidavit?

[Columbo]

Honestly Calumny, you're at least 28 years too late with this "Think I'll wind up the Maybrick believers" routine. It's passé. 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.

[Iconoclast]

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

[Iconoclast]

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

[caz]

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.

https://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

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[caz]

...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.

What has any of this to do with your belief in Bongo as the diary's author, Columbo? Are you saying there have only ever been two people on the planet who could possibly have written it? Maybrick or Barrett? Two people whose handwriting bears no resemblance to what's in the diary?

Words fail me - almost.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Be careful, erobitha, or Trev and Columbo might pay you a visit and charge you with forgery, without even playing good cop, bad cop first.

Whatever you do, don't swear an affy-David in two years' time. If anyone refers back to your post here, you'll never hear the end of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

The watch my dear boy, the watch.

The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889. As I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.

[caz]

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.

Well he'd find it tricky now, Columbo, as Mike Barrett died in 2016.

But in 2008, he did send the diary's original publisher, Robert Smith, the first chapter of a book he was hoping to impress him with, called Jacks Back.

Nothing wrong with Mike's imagination. He even imagined 9/11 happening on 9th November, so he could connect the former with MJK's murder and make something of it.

Needless to say, Mike's PROLOGE and CHAPTHER ONE make for pure comedy gold, and Robert was so impressed he nearly did himself a mischief laughing.

Slight problem though, the story was meant to be deadly serious.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

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

You moonlighting taking calls for Sidmouths Old Bill? Get back to your proper job dishing out the meds in the Cuckoo's Nest.

[erobitha]

The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889, as I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.

Where is the science that proves your polishing theory? Direct me to which report suggests that any of the polishing that took place could in anyway fake the aged brass particles in the base of the engravings? I seemed to have missed that bombshell. The polishing does not age it if anything it makes it harder to get a more accurate assessment of age as layers of various metal compounds are eroded. The aged brass particles in the base of the scratches is what dates the etchings being at least "tens of years old" - in 1994.

I will happily keep schtum when you provide that science. I never claimed the polishing was done to make the watch more attractive to sell. I think you find the antiques shop owner Ron Murphy who actually made that claim (Edit: It was Mr Stewart who did the polishing). As for clueless, some of us actually analyse clues properly and some of us don't. Observation is a little lacking from the "Observer". Another ironic twist in this saga.

[caz]

The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889, as I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.

Hi Observer,

It wasn't erobitha's explanation; it was Mr Stewart [sorry, Mr Murphy, as erobitha says], who sold Albert the watch! He said he noticed the scratch marks [which to the naked eye just look like random scratch marks at most, not engravings] and tried to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale. Now, he may have been trying to do the impossible, but it was what he said he did, and I see no reason why he would lie about it, can you?

Logically, he should now be your prime suspect for making the scratch marks, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this lets him off in your opinion, while still leaving the Johnsons guilty.

In your own time.

Love,

Caz
X