Special Announcement

[Kattrup]

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).

[Iconoclast]

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

[Kattrup]

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?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[The Baron]

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

So you’ve noticed it too ABE?

That’s a relief.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n739

Why would someone who ‘hates’ Lord O so vehemently praise his Islington book so generously?

Gary

[/QUOTE]

Because it's a good book? I've never read it, but is a book by default shite because the author is a twat?

If it is, I'll chuck out most of my shelves now.

[The Baron]

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

Glass houses mate.

My comment is beyond you to understand.


The Baron

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

My comment is beyond you to understand.


The Baron

Thanks for that Baron. I was genuinely concerned I was punching above my weight. Its a relief really. I'll leave you intellectuals to it. In fact, I do apologise to the community at large, I'm out of my depth here. Please accept my deepest and most sincere apologies for offering an insight into what is clearly beyond me to understand.

The shame of it all. What was I thinking. Thanks Baron. Thanks. I now see what I must do. Ma!? Ma!? Where's that hosepipe Ma!? I'm off for a drive. Well, not a drive as such, I'll be in a layby. Ma?

(Now that's sarcasm!)

[MrBarnett]

Because it's a good book? I've never read it, but is a book by default shite because the author is a twat?

If it is, I'll chuck out most of my shelves now.

As I say, I started the book and got drawn into the story immediately. What I read was excellent. Other things then claimed my attention and I didn’t get to finish it. But I will, and I’ll be very surprised if it disappoints.

And if I had felt that the great ‘announcement’ really had proved some aspect of the diary’s origin beyond a reasonable doubt, I’d have given the Great Orz a generous thumbs up.

[The Baron]

Thanks for that Baron. I was genuinely concerned I was punching above my weight.

And I suggest you try to find your own writing style instead of using Fisherman's expressions.


The Baron

[Kattrup]

I'm now drawing a line under this line of questioning, coming from someone who only recently claimed they had no interest in the subject matter or learning more about it. I'm happy to leave others to judge how trustworthy that claim was, in light of your continued terrier-like persistence over this one issue.

I cannot actually recall having said I had no interest in it or in learning more about it, I looked through some of my old posts to find it, perhaps you could direct me to it?
I think I said that it was not very interesting, and that I followed it mostly for the amusement value.

I expect you'll find Inside Story positively riddled with schoolgirl errors if you spend the next 17 years going over it page by page with a fine-toothed comb, instead of concentrating on whether Mike's affidavit was reliable or riddled with rotten lies from start to finish.

You make it sound like the book is not as trustworthy as you stated earlier, if you expect it to be riddled with errors. Actually, it sounds like a gratuitous swipe at the authors, Caz

Anyway, this "line of questioning" isn't about mistakes in a 17-year old book - as stated, all books contain errors and I'm perfectly satisfied the authors did what they could at the time - but about your posts here repeating mistaken information (and having a disdainful or perhaps "sneering" tone while doing it, too).

I guess it's all a question of personal priorities: trying to find where the truth lies, or finding fault with those of us who doubt Mike Barrett's ability to lie straight in bed.

Those two options are not mutually exclusive, but I must add that I don't try to find fault with you or others, just that your arguments are faulty.