And This Is Factual!

[Iconoclast]

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

Hi Kaz,

Of course, it is your right to give up whenever you wish to, but your submission should not be confused with insight by others who may be impressionable and easily-led. Nothing has been proven. Only whispers on the breeze, my friend, all-too simply misheard.

Ike

[Kaz]

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

[DirectorDave]

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

That would be Maybrick, the arsenic addict as opposed to Barrett the alcoholic?

So they both had alleged substance abuse issues.
They were both emotionally broken men.
They were both married with children, having issues with their wives.
Both had failing health.
Liverpool cotton merchant v Liverpool scrap metal merchant.
Would be 40-50 when they committed their crime
Both had literary ambitions


It's not just the barrattisms in the Diary or Anneslips with the proof reading, Mike is pretty much writing Maybrick as himself.

[Iconoclast]

Indeed, these notes....etc etc certainly put the amongst the pigeons.

I'm not sure how they can be defended

Good work, David.

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

[Kaz]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 2


It may (perhaps) be said that they are fake notes written by Mike for the purpose of deceiving others or giving them what they wanted to read and, while I have no reason to think that is the case, this would demonstrate a hitherto unknown ability by Mike to create fake manuscript documents!

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.

Indeed, these notes....etc etc certainly put the amongst the pigeons.

I'm not sure how they can be defended

Good work, David.

[DirectorDave]

Totally true, Dave. I had been told earlier that the diary author's handwriting did *not* match either of the Barretts, or their friend Tony. I suppose Mr. Orsam 's examination of the diary for word use and errors in comparison with Anne's writings does seem to sink the notion that Anne wasn't involved.

Well, re the value of the old photographs, Anne might have wanted a possible source of money in case she needed it in a hurry (perhaps to get away from Mike?); that was my only point there. There is also the interesting comment she made on the radio interview: "I thought it might have been stolen." The best lies have a bit of truth in them, and maybe she did guess or know it was stolen.

Hi Pat,


A Victorian Photo Album is not something you can hawk about the pubs of Liverpool with any great success, really you might get £50 at an auction, probably half that at an antiques shop, and e-bay was a few years away. The photo album as it was is not instant cash and not enough cash to make an escape.

Yes, I agree it's easier to distort than lie, but we must be careful that does not allow us to look for the truth that must be in every lie....that way madness lies.

[Pcdunn]

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.

Totally true, Dave. I had been told earlier that the diary author's handwriting did *not* match either of the Barretts, or their friend Tony. I suppose Mr. Orsam 's examination of the diary for word use and errors in comparison with Anne's writings does seem to sink the notion that Anne wasn't involved.

Well, re the value of the old photographs, Anne might have wanted a possible source of money in case she needed it in a hurry (perhaps to get away from Mike?); that was my only point there. There is also the interesting comment she made on the radio interview: "I thought it might have been stolen." The best lies have a bit of truth in them, and maybe she did guess or know it was stolen.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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!

[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

[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.