And This Is Factual!

[rjpalmer]

I don't see it that way at all.

What I find interesting, if we accept these at face value as private communications, is that Anne has been asking Mike for certain tapes, receipts, etc., with the obvious inference that she is seeking to destroy any evidence that Mike still might have.

This is credible, because it brings to mind the strange affair of the maroon diary and how exactly it ended up in Anne's possession by early 1995. In Mike's sworn affidavit there is reference to a sort of 'honey trap' where Anne comes over, makes nice, and shortly afterwards obtains the red diary. This note seems to support the credibility of that claim, at least to me.

Anne at this point is in the 'fold' of Paul Feldman. I've said it before, but if I were Keith Skinner, I would seriously consider the possibility that Anne and Feldy were playing games behind his back.

(P.S. Though I should of course add that Feldman may have been entirely oblivious to all of this).

[David Orsam]

The notes that I saw, in their original form, weren't crumpled enough to have come from a wastepaper basket I don't think.

While keeping in mind the possibility that Mike could have created these notes to try and prove to someone that the Diary was a forgery and that Anne was involved my feeling is that they are genuine notes intended for Anne which he never had the chance to deliver and Alan Gray retrieved them. My main reason for saying this is that I've seen other notes written by Mike, a couple to Caroline and one to his friend Jenny (and a few one liners which appear intended for Anne), none of which say anything incriminating so it's not like the notes I've posted were the only ones Mike created and didn't deliver. However, it's fair to say I would say that wouldn't I?, bearing in mind that if the notes are genuine it's pretty much game over and the Diary is a modern forgery.

[rjpalmer]

David. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the last sentence on the last note in post #4 might read: "you [will] never win untill [sic] you speak to me."

Why exactly is Barrett after Anne's "help"? Is this some sort of scheme to get her to help him privately expose the Diary is a fake, to apply leverage to Smith & Co?

Rhetorical question.

[David Orsam]

In Mike's sworn affidavit there is reference to a sort of 'honey trap' where Anne comes over, makes nice, and shortly afterwards obtains the red diary.

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."

[David Orsam]

David. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the last sentence on the last note in post #4 might read: "you [will] never win untill [sic] you speak to me."

Yes, I think you are right RJ.

[DirectorDave]

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.

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

Yes, I think we were both saying the same thing.

Daves united!

[DirectorDave]

In all seriousness David I hope you are going to put your findings in a more permanent format, I admire you for putting this stuff out there but I think your work merits a more permanent medium.

[Busy Beaver]

No point getting the blood pressure up. I've been saying this "Diary" was a fraud from the day it was published. In fact I thought my book shop misplaced their copies by putting it in the Non-Fiction section.

Book burning session anyone?!
BB

[David Orsam]

In all seriousness David I hope you are going to put your findings in a more permanent format, I admire you for putting this stuff out there but I think your work merits a more permanent medium.

Thanks Dave, not for me but what I've posted is out in the open and anyone can use it if they want to!

[DirectorDave]

I accept the challenge.

Not a book obviously I've not got the concentration span for that...if I knock up a decent documentary do you think I could make it as a guest on Rippercast?

[sushka]

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!

[Sam Flynn]

If those notes are representative of Mike's handwriting, there's no wonder he'd have needed an amanuensis if he decided to forge a diary. I've rarely seen such an ugly, childish scrawl.

[Pcdunn]

The notes that I saw, in their original form, weren't crumpled enough to have come from a wastepaper basket I don't think.

While keeping in mind the possibility that Mike could have created these notes to try and prove to someone that the Diary was a forgery and that Anne was involved my feeling is that they are genuine notes intended for Anne which he never had the chance to deliver and Alan Gray retrieved them. My main reason for saying this is that I've seen other notes written by Mike, a couple to Caroline and one to his friend Jenny (and a few one liners which appear intended for Anne), none of which say anything incriminating so it's not like the notes I've posted were the only ones Mike created and didn't deliver. However, it's fair to say I would say that wouldn't I?, bearing in mind that if the notes are genuine it's pretty much game over and the Diary is a modern forgery.

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.

[DirectorDave]

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.

Pat, if Anne was not involved we are looking for someone who has similar handwriting to her and someone whose proof reading fails to spot the same mistakes as her.

What is the simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions? Anne Barrett transcribed the diary.


As for the value of the book, as an heirloom certainly there would be value, but surely more in the photos rather than the book. As for cash value what would you get for a Victorian book with a few photos circa 1990? £50? Mike could earn more than that composing a couple of word searches.