And This Is Factual!

[Mike J. G.]

But he's not a troll, guys. No siree!

Now now, Harry. He's merely the Ripper equivalent of those chubby blokes who dress in full camouflage and make trips out into their local greenbelts to knock on trees and holler loudly in an effort to communicate with the "Boss of the Woods," aka, Bigfoot.

He's out there, man. I felt him.

What else is a retired guy gonna do with his vast amounts of free time?

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Totally. I mean, there's so many reports of mermaids out there in the mythology of our world, and so far, nobody has been able to disprove them, ergo... they're probably legit. Science, and stuff. Critical thinking FTW!

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Imagine trying to argue the case for the diary being a genuine article, written by Maybrick in 1888, though.

[Kaz]

Just out of interest... how did David get his hands on all of these highly personal letters?

[Harry D]

But he's not a troll, guys. No siree!

[Iconoclast]

That's right. Stiff upper lip, mate...

King Arthur: A scratch!? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!

In truth, the only thing left is for Anne Graham to come clean, but the chance of that happening lies somewhere between 'highly unlikely' and 'a snowball's chance in Hell.' If she was unwilling to spill the beans to Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison, she's unlikely to be moved to talk by an abstract idea like 'setting the record straight.'

Or maybe it’ll be because she had nothing to do with it.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Kaz
Very commendable. I know we’ve had our snits in past, but I would be remiss if I didn’t say I find your change of mind refreshing.

And not just because it now more aligns with my ideas, but in general. Seems to many folks get entrenched in there beliefs here, and instead of being open minded, entrench themselves and never consider other possibilities.

I refer you all to my earlier answer regarding my inability to control my bladder e in the face of such wildly funny comments.

Commendable = You’ve finally got around to agreeing with my view
Open minded = As long as it agrees with me

[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.

[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]

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 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.