Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Just a brief comment.

    The revelation that Graham received a copy of Barrett's sworn affidavit in January 1995--and didn't say anything about it to Feldman’s team--is quite provocative, though unless someone has followed the ins-and-outs of the saga, it might pass unnoticed.

    I have felt for years that Barrett's confession and threats of confession were a way to apply leverage--blackmail, if you prefer--to those that he believed, no matter how fairly or erroneously, were not giving him his due royalties.

    But Orsam theorizes, with good reason, that Mike's initial target was Anne Graham.

    Of course, the mere fact that a man confesses, or threatens to confess, is not in itself evidence that he is telling the truth. But most intelligent people can appreciate that blackmail is going to be a hell of a lot more effective if the dirt the blackmailer claims to possess is true--particularly if his intended target is in a position to know whether or not it is true.

    Obviously, Graham was in such a position. If Barrett’s affidavit was a plate of pork pies, she would know it.

    Yet, even though she was working closely with Feldman and Feldman's team for the next 2-3 years, she at no time alerted them to the impeding threat of Barrett’s affidavit?

    Even if she knew Mike's affidavit was utter poppycock...

    No. Let me rephrase that.

    Especially if she knew Mike's affidavit was utter poppycock, why wouldn't she have alerted Feldman’s 'team' to Barrett's intentions, so they could investigate his claims and thus be in a position to defend their project against his allegedly 'false' (?) attack? Certainly, it would have been extremely important to share this information, if only so that Feldman and his researchers could anticipate and ward-off the damage it might do?

    Yet she evidently kept it a secret?

    Strange behavior, and remarkable.

    But, ultimately, friendships are more important than hoaxes. Maybe Skinner and Graham should work this one out between the two of them? Maybe Graham can even finally explain what was really going on?


    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Just getting into Lord Orsams latest-amazing stuff as usual and must read for anyone interested in the details, origins and motivations of the people involved with forging of the diary. Just finished the Silence of the Anne, Anne and Keith in a Tree and The new Cult of Diary Denial (not only didnt the barretts not forge the diary-its not even a diary! LOL).
    The real bombshell though is in the Silence of the Anne.

    just wow.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; Yesterday, 03:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    These days a ‘diary defender’ is anyone who questions any aspect of the diary detractors’ dogma.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    One other guy from years ago when the Diary Threads were in their heyday...Peter Wood, an ex-cop from Manchester. Passionate about the Diary's authenticity, but a really loopy poster.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Just as an aside, can anyone name the "diary defenders"? I can think only of erobitha and Ike.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    I hope he doesn’t make a complete aunt of himself again.

    Wasn't she Florence Maybrick who made a complete aunt of herself?! Or so we have been told from the diary defenders?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    double

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    amazing stuff as usual. makes you wonder NOT

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    I hope he doesn’t make a complete aunt of himself again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    lord orsam day! yippy!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    The long anticipated 19th September Orsam update!

    Happy weekend and amazing reading to all!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    New information is always welcome here, Al, especially if all the sources are given.

    Love,

    Caz - not quite brain dead but working on it.
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Seems a new article is in the pipeline, due 19th September. With new information regarding Barrett's affidavit. Should generate a bit of discussion, I hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Hi Kattrup,

    Bottom line is that Shirley and Keith did not get to see Mike's January 5th 1995 affidavit until two years later, in January 1997, when he sent Shirley a copy. This was after a version of it had reached the internet without their knowledge.

    You tell me how that makes sense if Melvin Harris and anyone else who had a copy of this statement had made it freely available back in 1995, to all those who had been investigating the diary and its origins since 1992?

    Even if Shirley or Keith could, or should, have got wind of its existence before 1997, how were they meant to get access to it when nobody was offering it to them? How would they have known who was involved with Mike in producing the affidavit, or who was on the distribution list?

    I can see you are gamely trying to defend Melvin Harris on this one for some reason, but for the life of me I can't see what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that he clearly neglected to distribute copies of this affidavit to the very people who were recently blamed for not having investigated the details when it was first sworn.

    How do you explain Melvin's failure to inform Shirley and Keith about it, while circulating copies to an unknown number of selected recipients, who similarly never thought to mention it, either to Shirley or Keith?

    How much investigating did Melvin Harris do, when he first saw the new claims Mike made about the creation process and who did what? Did he believe Mike's claim that it was Anne's handwriting in the diary, done over eleven days?

    Keith tells me it was the Evans/Gainey newly released book The Lodger, [published circa August 1995], being discussed on Radio Merseyside and the authors' dismissal of the diary as a recent forgery, which was the trigger for Mike Barrett to contact Bob Azurdia. In the book, Evans and Gainey rest on Mike's confession to the Liverpool Daily Post and also reference Melvin Harris obtaining six ink samples from the diary and subjecting them to examination by Analysis For Industry [AFI]. They also reference Dr Diana Simpson's [AFI] report of October 19th 1994. The authors conclude the chapter by writing... 'Since then [October 19th 1994] Mike Barrett has made a full confession of his hoax in a sworn affidavit.' No other details are given about this affidavit, nor do the authors cite a source, or explain how they knew of its existence before most people, or why they didn't use it in their book.

    Keith also confirms that Bob Azurdia referred specifically to Mike's affidavit by date and content, while Mike denied ever making it or signing it – or if he did he was drunk and didn't know what he was signing. Azurdia also assumed there were several copies of it floating about, but Keith didn't see one until January 1997 and doesn't know how Azurdia knew about it in such detail, but I think I can guess. By 2003, we included the affidavit in Inside Story, and summarised Mike's interviews briefly on page 205, when we wrote: 'He had, he claimed, been drunk when he made his previous confessions.'

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-21-2020, 04:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Okay, so how many of those listeners would have immediately cottoned on to the fact that Mike had made a new and improved statement, detailing the creative process and who else was involved? How many individuals had actually been given sight of his 5th January 1995 affidavit by then, and who were these people? What criteria determined who got to see a copy and who didn't?
    You tell me, Caz - You're the one claiming virtually no-one knew about the affidavit, and that it was suppressed by Melvin Harris. Yet this radio host knew details of it and states there were copies of it around.

    But now you seem to be saying that the listeners would not have understood what it meant, so they don't count, and that if we don't know exactly who had seen the affidavit, we shouldn't assume that anyone's seen it?

    Why not start by showing how Melvin Harris suppressed the document, as you've stated he did?


    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I wasn't around at the time, Kattrup, so I don't have an opinion on what Mike would have said about it, or to whom.
    Really? That seems highly unusual

    Originally posted by caz View Post

    All I know is the date he finally sent a copy Shirley's way, which she acted upon immediately with regard to his O&L claims, as well as passing on a copy to Keith. I'm struggling with how Shirley and Keith were meant to have obtained sight of the actual affidavit any sooner than January 1997, if it hadn't been offered to them by any of those with access to it. Did Mike tell all these people: "Don't worry, I've finally sent Shirley a copy now so you won't have to?" Or would access to the actual document have continued to be restricted to the privileged few, on a 'need to know' basis?

    The criticism earlier this year was that Shirley and co had failed to investigate Mike's new claims sooner, and I was criticised for suggesting that Alan Gray and Melvin Harris had every opportunity to do so, the minute they knew what was in that affidavit, yet still failed to get any evidence for the auction business. I am still wondering how Shirley or Keith were expected to succeed in 1997, where Alan and Melvin had failed two years earlier. Are the expectations so much lower where Melvin and co were concerned?
    Well, was access to the actual document restricted to the privileged few? You're stating it was, but on what grounds?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X