And This Is Factual!

[Iconoclast]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 1
I think this already shows that Mike was lying to Bob Azurdia when he said he had only once ever claimed that the Diary was a forgery in which he had played a part.

We're obviously going to have to humour this because - if we don't - we'll be accused of ignoring evidence of a fraud, but let me first start by saying the key evidence that Mike was lying was that his lips were moving or his hand was writing. If you have read the full Feldman and Harrison books you will know that first it was black, then it was white, then it was a grey, then it was a psychedelic whiter shade of pale.

I hope that I am going to read in this thread some of Anne's admissions of forgery because Mike's categorically cannot be trusted for longer than the five seconds it takes for his latest comment to self-destruct, making room in his befuddled brain for his next statement-that-suits-the-situation-I-find-myself-in.

[Iconoclast]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 2
But the purpose of me exhibiting them is to prove that Mike did not only claim to have forged the Diary on one single drunken occasion.

Accepted, no need to argue this any further. Of course he claimed it on more than one occasion and he would have undoubtedly been in different stages of befuddlement and alcoholic stupour. He doesn't always have to be drunk to have been fundamentally lying through his back teeth.

[Iconoclast]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 3

Let's start with a fairly cryptic one page note for which here is my transcript:

"Anne, please, please, speak to me today. You're destroying yourself and Caroline and myself by not doing so. This hate between us has to stop. I know a great deal more than you think I do. A watch!!!

If you will not speak to me, how can I help? Because I just go on and on until the end. As I have said it's not over until the fat lady sings.

There's more paperwork in this house than even you could not imagine. I've made my choice, it stops today one way or the other. If it's the other so be it. Only you can stop it by talking. Call the police if you so wish, then it really is over. I work with you or against you. It's your choice. But don't be so clever."

Not sure what the relevence of this is. Barrett the lier - presumably whilst pissed up - tells his errant missus that he has all manner of evidence to sink her evil plans. She doesn't appear to have wet herself in fear at Barrett's terrifying threats, assuming she ever saw Barrett's terrifying threats.

[Iconoclast]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 4

Next up is Mike's annotations on a typed letter written to him by Anne dated 1 February 1995 which were presumably intended to be his reply to that letter.

It's a three page letter and Mike has written on the first and third pages and then, at length, on the reverse of the third page.

Mike's writing on the first page isn't worth reproducing but I'll include a transcript of the whole thing. His writing on page 3 and the reverse of it can be seen below.

Page 1

Ha, ha, I wrote it once, I written it again. p.s. You got one chance. Speak to me. p.s. It's all photographed [or possibly "photocopied"] fvck the spelling.

Page 2

You still don't understand do you? I never give in, you and me wrote the Diary. That's a fact.
P.T.O.

Page 3

I don't care because you don't love me. That's where you lose. Wake up to the real world, we both wrote it. Don't tell me [illegible]. This year 1994, I don't care for you. You know the truth. And so help me god I will prove it. Back off now!!! Or I fvcking well will come out with the truth. I have your voice on tape. You never win. Will you speak to me?

Having a bit of Can’t Connect to DNS Server challenges at the minute so have had to move onto my iPad. Makes editing a bit harder.

This one is more of Mike reminding Anne that the two of them wrote the journal. I accept that he makes this statement, and I accept that he’s incredibly sad and desperate, so I’m looking forward to seeing Anne’s responses where she confirms Mike’s potentially-drink-fuelled comments. They must be coming-up in a few posts time, I reckon.

[Iconoclast]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 5

Finally, for now at least, here is something curious written by Mike on a payment note from 1991, in respect of some Look-In puzzles, which I think he has just used as the first piece of paper to hand at a much later date.

Aficionados of Diary quirks will, of course, note the expression "and I you".

He writes:

Anne, I need your help. Please stop this hate towards me, and I you. I'll give you everything you want, including the tape and the receipt for the watch. Last night I gave a press interview.

I thought I knew the journal well but I can’t remember the occasion where the author writes “and I you”? Interesting that it is grammatically correct whereas in the journal the use of ‘I’ is frequently incorrect and should be ‘me’. Let’s face it, that one was either chance or else someone else was dictating it to Mike!

[Iconoclast]

More favourite phrases? From the diary:

"One day God will answer to me, so help me"

"May God have mercy on her for I shall not, so help me"

"Damn it damn it damn it so help me God my next will be far the worst… Abberline Abberline, I shall destroy that fool yet, so help me God"

(The last two instances turn up in the same paragraph.)

One, “so help me” and “so help me God” in the context of threats is a bit like saying it’s unusual for an action-thriller to use the term “Let’s get out of here”. There is nothing to get all excited about.

And two, this would not be the first time that Barrett had quoted from the journal. When asked to prove that he forged it, his first response was to quote from it - as if I could cite “And the rockets red glare” and convince the world I wrote the words to the Star-Spangled Banner!

[Iconoclast]

Incredible.

Not even in the slightest.

[Iconoclast]

At this stage in proceedings I'd say predictable.

Good spot Sam, and well done David "the truth shall out" but only if someone like yourself has the fortitude for the task.

The truth most certainly shall out, DD.

[Iconoclast]

Should we be concerned that he mentions 'receipts for the watch'?

No, but the whole forgery escapade should have been over the day he produced that receipt or receipts.

I can’t seem to place that bit anywhere, though. Can someone remind me when Barrett produced the receipt or receipts for the watch, please?

I for one will be convinced in the forgery the moment one of you reminds me when that was (and where I can see the evidence).

Waiting patiently, guys ...

[Iconoclast]

"Recites (presumably receipts) for the watch" -- are we ignoring this little tidbit? He had them, promised them to her... Are we to assume she paid for the engraving on the watch?!

Or just more lies?

[Pause to fill up the requisite 5 characters before being allowed to post] And ...

Doh!

[Iconoclast]

Yes, if it's all a lie, it's quite creative, showing skill in creating a false narrative, but if these are genuinely private notes written to Anne it would be very strange for him to be saying things like "you and me wrote the diary" if it wasn't true, as there would be no point.

I don’t think having a point ever occurred to Michael Barrett. You cannot twist and twist again and expect anything you say to ever have substance.

Where are Anne’s confessions, guys??? I assumed I’d be finding them by now?

[Iconoclast]

This is the honey trap passage:

"It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of £20,000 before the end of the month. She was all over me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self. She insisted Mr Feldman was a very nice Jewish man who was only trying to help her. My wife was clearly under the influence of this man Feldman who I understand had just become separated from his own wife. It seemed very odd to me that my wife who had been hidden in London for long enough by Feldman should suddenly re-appear and work on me for Mr Feldman."

And of the red diary:

"My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address."

Fair enough if any of this were true. I don’t fancy anyone’s chances of making that case stand up in a bus queue never mind in court, though.

Anne’s replies, where are they??? That’s the bit that will prove the forgery, man!!!

[Iconoclast]

Yep, I agree. I was really just saying no matter which way one jumps on Mike's truthfulness, even if everything he says is a lie, the way he wrote it and what he wrote it on is damning.

If this was a psychological evaluation, the data points would make "Mike Barrett = Forger" clinically significant.

Not just the Prime suspect, but barring his wife being more the master forger than him, he is the only suspect....except Maybrick, and no one with any sense would still be claiming that.

I would, thank you.

[Iconoclast]

This has been an extraordinary series of threads. Has been almost like watching a skilled Queen's Counsel demolish a case step by step. I agree with DirectorDave that it is worthy of bringing it all together in some form. I wish you well with that challenge!

“Has been almost like watching a skilled Queen's Counsel demolish a case step by step.“ Honestly, I almost wet myself reading this gem.

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for the response, Mr. Orsam. I think the notes you've posted to Anne but not sent to her are very final if he is telling the truth in them (i.e., they both forged the diary)-- but his track record with truth is terribly poor. The problem is, he was mad at Anne for claiming the diary to have been a family heirloom, thereby linking his daughter to the serial killer JtR, she had sold the diary, and was proving him a liar about hoaxing it, so he was determined to take her down too, unless they could get their stories straight (which is probably why he wants to talk to her.) Given all of those factors, the unsent notes could have been a mix of truth and lies.

I think Anne's family had the old scrapbook already, and she told the truth to a degree, about getting it and hiding it. However, I think it was only partly full of old photos, which she hid from Michael so he would not sell them. If she was involved in the hoax, she pulled it out to use instead of the red diary. If she wasn't part of the hoax, Mike must have found the book and opted to use it for the diary, removing the photographs and doing other things to it that ruined the album's value either as a family heirloom or as something sellable for cash.

I think Anne's account on the radio show sounds plausible, UNTIL she is asked why she hid the supposed diary of James Maybrick, alias Jack the Ripper, down behind a piece of furniture. She didn't have a believable answer at all for that.

I don't buy Mike's story about the auction, partly because the other things he is supposed to have bought that day were conveniently given to a relative, who destroyed them. Never existed, more like.

It is a hoax, the old diary.

What a shame - your argument was sort of balanced until your last line which may or may not be correct but you shouldn’t be so sure given the lack of real evidence in favour of a hoax.