One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I noticed a typo in my earlier post; Barrett's alleged stroke was around 1992; but it could have been later--1994---the details always remain sketchy. A former poster to this message board who knew Barrett personally believed the stroke was real.

To Lord Orsam: we will all be dead by then, but what are the odds that when 1991 UK Census is released, Barrett's occupation will be listed as a "journalist"?

A ticking timebomb that no one can prevent from exploding?

[Iconoclast]

I noticed a typo in my earlier post; Barrett's alleged stroke was around 1992; but it could have been later--1994---the details always remain sketchy. A former poster to this message board who knew Barrett personally believed the stroke was real.

To Lord Orsam: we will all be dead by then, but what are the odds that when 1991 UK Census is released, Barrett's occupation will be listed as a "journalist"?

A ticking timebomb that no one can prevent from exploding?

On Monday August 22 1994, Barrett's GP (with Mike's permission) wrote to Doreen Montgomery with a list of Mike's medical conditions dating back to 1984. There was no mention of a stroke in 1992 or any other year, and yet Mike had claimed to have had one in his Tuesday September 28 1993 article in the Liverpool Daily Post: The Ripper Diary – Part 3 (‘How the Ripper ruined my life.’). The article read, "He is only 41 yet moves slowly with the aid of a walking stick. He blames the stress and strains involved in living with the Ripper story for the stroke which has left him with limited use of his right side."

Obviously Mike would not have lied about his stroke (he wasn't the type of person to say something that was blatantly untrue), so this seems quite inexplicable to me.

Any ideas anyone?

Did Mike's stroke cause his GP to forget it ever happened? It's possible, I suppose (if you're Lord Orsam) ...

Ike

[caz]

What make you so sure the confession is false, when you nor anyone else has been able to negate the contents other than to highlight a date issue. Whoever penned/formulated that affadvit provided sufficient and accurate detail of how the hoax was perpretarated and who was involved.

On another issue why would anyone go those lengths to hoax a diary just for the fun of it unless they had an ulterior motive in mind.

But the police could have become interested in him after the affadavit was made public, that would have been dependent of what if anything he told the police in the first instance and whether or not they took a statement from him which later contradicted the affadavit.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My question, Trevor, was for those who have reached that happy place where they are satisfied that Mike's most detailed confession was TRUE.

I didn't actually claim to be sure it was false; I'm just not satisfied it reflected reality.

Why do you think anyone would go to the lengths Mike did to make his own confession [not Sir Jim's, whose author remains a big fat unknown] unless he had an ulterior motive in mind? What was in it for him? And why bother with that affidavit at all when, according to Orsam, Mike had physical proof of his claims in the form of the auction ticket for the scrapbook which was used? Why even mention the embarrassingly useless 1891 diary, if he had the golden ticket tucked into his trackie bottoms?

Two Scotland Yard detectives conducted a three-hour interview with Mike at the family home, back on 22nd October 1993, which was daughter Caroline's 12th birthday. Anne's birthday was the following day. But you'd know that if you had read our book. The Yard also interviewed about a dozen other Liverpool witnesses around the same time. Maybe Anne served up jam butties and a couple of Party Sevens for the occasion, and the cops spent the three hours in Goldie Street playing strip poker and getting rat-arsed, and clean forgot to take a statement from quite possibly the only man on the planet who knew precisely how he'd obtained the diary.

Or maybe not every policeman is a dildo.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Prompted by all of this furore over Honest Mike Barrett's January 5, 1995, affidavit, I've just been musing over it and I've picked-out bits as I've gone along to try to help me to understand how it is the solid body of evidence certain people appear willing to claim it to be. Confession: I did not simultaneously check back with Lord Orsam's fantasy version. I stress that this was a cursory reading, but in my defence I don't normally have to wrestle with my own brain when I read something in order to understand it (though it's not entirely unknown). So these are the keynote points which leapt out at me.

I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

So we're thinking it was around January 1990 but it clearly could not have been because - as RJ and others have pointed-out - it refers to the maroon 1891 diary which we now know was requested and received in March 1992 (and finally paid for in May 1992) so January 1990 has to be March 1992 or later. The only auction at O&L on record between March 9 and April 13, 1992, was apparently the one held on March 31, 1992. So let's remember that Mike - in Lord Orsam's fantasy - is permitted to get his dates mixed-up.

It was about 11.30am in the morning when I attended the Auctioneers. I found a photograph Album which contained approximately, approximately (sic) 125 pages of phootgraphs. They were old photographs and they were all to do with teh 1914/1918 1st World War.

Now I’m sure it was reported on this thread some time ago that WWI photographs were considered far more valuable than mere Victorian/Edwardian scrapbooks and that they would therefore never have been auctioned as a ‘job lot’ (maybe I read this elsewhere). If this is true, then this is at least one of those claims which Trevor Marriott asked for which demonstrate that whoever created the Barrett affidavit was making it all up.

When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.

This is unsupported by the photographs of the diary which clearly show that linseed oil has not been applied at any level to the cover. That was just a terribly stupid Barrett lie but one which - sadly - you will all have to wait until 2025 to see the evidence of.

Anyway, best case scenario, we’re now at April 2, 1992 (two days after the auction).

This all happened late January 1990 …

So we’re confirming that we remember the date being January 1990, but that's allowed of course.

so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust

So there aren’t enough days for all of this unless the Barretts are doing the two days of practice during the same two days that the ‘linseed oil’ was drying-out so that takes us to some point on April 2 when they decide ‘to go for hell or bust’.

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor. Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

So April 2 plus eleven days becomes April 13 which clearly doesn’t work as Mike is to be in London with the diary that day so, presumably, the writing started on April 2 and this day then counts as Day 1 so that the diary is finished on Sunday, April 12, 1992 which therefore becomes Day 11. It works (just about), but it’s incredibly tight. As hoaxes go, this is crazy tight.

So, presumably, Mike has all his notes from months and months of research into all those books he read:

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper.

And – with the benefit of those notes – he writes the diary during those eleven days and Anne dutifully transcribes them into the diary.

During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

Now, setting aside the fact that Tony Devereux died in August 1991 (remember, we are permitting Mike to have zero grasp of dates come January 1995), there is an obvious problem here as Mike is reporting an episodic memory – he is confused about the dates and we are allowing him to do that, but he is also remembering that Tony was house-bound and very ill during the time the script was being written. This is all chronological in the affidavit – Mike states “During this period [April 1992] when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound …”. This clearly isn’t true (Trevor, I hope you’re keeping-up).

Are we to permit Mike to be easily confused by dates and also to have a faulty episodic memory? If we do, how many more allowances are we willing to make in order to shoe-horn the creation of the Victorian scrapbook into the tightest of windows?

I had actualy written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre.

Mike then goes on to claim that he wrote the diary on his word processor ‘first’ – which I take to mean long before April 1992. Personally, I can’t reconcile all these claims in one affidavit. Did Mike type up the diary text on his word processor between 1986 (not 1985, but we are allowing this, remember) and 1990 or did he type it up during 1991 whilst Tony Devereux was housebound and ill or did he type it up in early April 1992 when he claimed “Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.” Or were the purchase of the materials in 1990 (as he claimed) therefore he started to roughly outline the Diary on his word processor in 1990? In his affidavit, he claims that (to iterate):

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor. Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

So were the magical eleven days in 1990, 1991, or 1992? And was the story typed up on the word processor in 1986-1990 or in 1991 or in those magical eleven days in early April 1992? Or was it just the rough outline that was created on the word processor and the document itself was created from Barrett's many months of hard research into Maybrick and Jack? Barrett does appear to be claiming that he did all of these things so no wonder Lord Orsam had so many lies to cherry-pick from.

I think I'm right in saying that you could use this affidavit to claim that:

a) Barrett first sketched out the diary on his word processor, then
b) He and Anne worked on a version in 1991 when Tony was housebound, and
c) The materials were purchased at some random date, and
d) They finally decided to create the diary in March 1992, and so
e) They contacted Rupert Crew and set up a meeting for April 13, 1992, and then
f) Realised at the end of March that the Victorian diary they had ordered was totally unsuitable, so
g) Mike raced off to O&L on March 31 1992 and miraculously found a document he could use, and
h) In the twelve days which followed he worked on the outline of the diary on his word processor (thought he'd already done this at least once before?), and
i) Whilst the linseed oil was drying-out (and not warping the scrapbook), Anne wrote the diary whilst Mike ploughed through his copious notes

I also think that - if you claimed that - you'd need to take a huge dose of salt whilst you did so.

Barrett finally claims that:

I have now decided to make this affidavit to make the situation clear with regard to the Forgery of the Jack the Ripper Diary, which Anne Barrett and I did in case anything happenes (sic) to me.

He may very well have made this affidavit but he most certainly did not make the situation clear. This mess is just from a cursory reading of it, for goodness sake!

And this is the document which forms the backbone of the Barrett Hoax Theory. It is so messed-up, I may have to sink to the level of reading Lord Orsam's fantasy account again! Perhaps someone could kindly save me from that by explaining for me how Mike and Anne Barrett actually pulled-off this coup of the century (ideally in a way I can actually understand)?

To quote Martin Fido: "It's just not good enough".

Ike

[caz]

Well hear hear to you too Caz!

It's a wonderful point you make: why on earth would Mike Barrett seek to reveal the hoax he had concocted given that the gravy train was rolling, he was happily pouring his wad down alleyway walls and toilets, and there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to confess anything (other than to keep his new friends Alan Gray and Melvin Harris happy, of course)?

His January 5, 1995 affidavit (I think it was this one, let's face it he made so many signed affidavits and statements - it's up to four now I think, one in April 1993 and three in January 1995?) stated that he had been trying to reveal the hoax since December 1993 via pretty much everyone he knew. Why? If he created the whole brilliant scheme in order to pay a mortgage they seemed to have had no problem paying for years before the scrapbook appeared, why did he suddenly get a pang of conscience and put his liberty at risk, his estranged wife's liberty at risk, and therefore his daughter's future safety at risk?

Hold on - 'estranged wife'? Surely - as you hint at above - he wasn't thinking this was one corker of a chat-up line: How do you like your affidavits in the morning, darlin'?

Ike

Thanks Ike. I'm getting behind with the posts - as the butcher said about his orders when he walked backwards into the bacon slicer.

RJ doesn't need to voice his personal suspicions about the pen person's identity. It's enough to express his faith in Mike Barrett's affidavit. In the same way, RJ doesn't need to imagine what Mike could possibly have had to gain from making a true confession. He could forget ever seeing his daughter again for starters.

The explanation that Mike could have shafted Feldy as thoroughly with a true confession as a false one may be true, but it doesn't favour the former over the latter and takes no account of Mike's emotional turmoil on the domestic front, or indeed the speculative claim that, while Mike had been encouraged by Alan Gray, egged on by Melvin Harris, to produce an affidavit that all the papers would take, Mike's plan was to do it for Anne's eyes only.

If that were true, I don't see how that would tilt things in favour of the affidavit being true. Anne would have known that already, without needing to see a bit of paper. How would that have melted her hard heart and let him back into Caroline's life? She'd have known from January 1994 that her deserted, humiliated and heartbroken husband could blow the whistle on them all at any time, so what would have been the point of Mike putting in an affidavit destined for Anne, what she had known he had in his arsenal since April 1992?

It strikes me that he didn't know his arsenal from his elbow until the tail end of 1994, when he had managed to gather enough ammunition, with Alan Gray's help, to go back on the tools again and produce a statement that would only sound credible to those already swayed by his original confession.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Clearly to attempt to pass the diary of as the real deal and attempt to obtain money by fraud. Who in their right mind would go to all the trouble of writing a diary in the way described without having a motive. its not the sort of thing you do on a sunday afternoon when you are bored

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I'm still not getting, dear Trev, is why you believe Mike would have gone to all that trouble of writing the diary in an attempt to obtain money by fraud, only to offer his head up on a silver platter, with freshly picked carrots, just three years later, as the villain of the piece, along with the heads of his estranged wife, his late father-in-law and his late drinking mate, and to send his daughter to the slaughter as a living and compliant witness at the original scene of crime.

The police had done their investigation more than a year previously and did not have the evidence to charge anyone with fraud. Mike's non stop gravy train was heading towards Lime Street when he had the brain wave to pull the communication cord just outside Crewe and announce that he wanted to get off.

I expect he took a taxi the rest of the way. After all, he had a pressing engagement with private investigator Alan Gray, to provide all the evidence the police had lacked and more, so this time he was sure to end up well and truly buckled, with no wife and no daughter, and penniless to boot.

Alan would have paid for the taxi no doubt, and put it on Mike's bill. Touchingly trusting of him.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

So these are the keynote points which leapt out at me...

To quote Martin Fido: "It's just not good enough".

Ike

Fantastic post Ike, and one that really does highlight just how ****-for-brains stupid you have to be to take Barrett's second affidavit at face value.

[caz]

Following on from my previous post I have to ask that if the diary was an old hoax as some suggest the same questions apply, why would someone go to all that trouble to forge a diary if they didnt have a motive for doing so? I would have thought that the hoaxer would have had much more chance in convincing people that it was the real deal back then, than in the 90`s when more technology was available to disprove it, after all the crimes of JTR were still as well known then as they are today

Furthermore if it is an old hoax why would the hoaxer go to all that trouble and then hide it away under floorboards where it may never have been found? I think some need to take a step back and re evlauate what they believe about who penned the diary and when it was penned.

Of course geting back to Barrett being the hoaxer given that it has been suggested that he was not the brightest spark in the fire, if he did pen the diary perhaps he would not have been aware of what technology was out there to prove it to be a hoax as I would bet many other people would have been in the same boat.

So many questions but very few conclusive answers to work with.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Mike didn't pen the diary, Trev.

If you believe his affidavit you'd know why he didn't.

One answer down, just the one to go: whose handwriting was it anyway?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Fantastic post Ike, and one that really does highlight just how ****-for-brains stupid you have to be to take Barrett's second affidavit at face value.

Ain't that the truth, Owly, and thanks for the compliment (I was so confused once again by the affidavit that I feared I was typing-up utter mince).

I have had a huge amount of insight from my correspondent FDC around the nature of the scrapbook and how its internal cover pages are inconsistent with the application of linseed oil (or, indeed, any other oil) along with some intriguing commentary on how implausible it would be for a Stanley knife to produce the specific serrations we see where the 48 pages have been butchered out of the document. That will all form part of my brilliant 2025 version of my brilliant Society's Pillar so - everyone - get it into your diaries now to avoid disappointment!

Cheers,

Ike
Still Recovering from the Experience

[Columbo]

What I'm still not getting, dear Trev, is why you believe Mike would have gone to all that trouble of writing the diary in an attempt to obtain money by fraud, only to offer his head up on a silver platter, with freshly picked carrots, just three years later, as the villain of the piece, along with the heads of his estranged wife, his late father-in-law and his late drinking mate, and to send his daughter to the slaughter as a living and compliant witness at the original scene of crime.

The police had done their investigation more than a year previously and did not have the evidence to charge anyone with fraud. Mike's non stop gravy train was heading towards Lime Street when he had the brain wave to pull the communication cord just outside Crewe and announce that he wanted to get off.

I expect he took a taxi the rest of the way. After all, he had a pressing engagement with private investigator Alan Gray, to provide all the evidence the police had lacked and more, so this time he was sure to end up well and truly buckled, with no wife and no daughter, and penniless to boot.

Alan would have paid for the taxi no doubt, and put it on Mike's bill. Touchingly trusting of him.

Love,

Caz
X

To me it seems Barrett thought to make a lot of money, but his personal life, the likelihood of criminal charges and maybe his mental state caused him to confess. Just my opinion. People do strange things and watching a few interviews and documentaries doesn't really allow for an educated guess, but an affidavit is a serious move so I tend to believe he was telling the truth in his first affidavit. The second one could've been financially motivated or even to revive his 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? Either way he's been debunked as far as I'm concerned.

Columbo

[caz]

Mike Barrett told Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post as early as 26 June 1994 that he bought the scrap book at Outhwaite & Litherland. I think that Keith will agree that this was the spontaneous, poorly thought-out outburst of a man who was currently a physical, emotional, and mental wreck--so much so that he was soon whisked away to rehab, and his confession dismissed as the ravings of a drunk.

Yet, if Barrett had merely made up this detail, how in the blazes could he have known that Outhwaite & Litherland really did hold an auction of Victorian and Edwardian items three years earlier (on 31 March 1992)—which dovetails perfectly with his later admission (confirmed admission!) of buying a red diary that proved "too small" and "useless," thus forcing him to go shopping for another at the auction house? Are we supposed to believe that the ever-spiraling downward Barrett, with one foot in rehab, worked it all out?

Just mopping up a few older posts I had yet to read and get my head round.

I find this one a very strange argument, RJ. Of course Mike didn't know O&L had held that auction on 31st March 1992, or he'd have been able to produce the ticket for the scrapbook he obtained there and get the date right, saving Orsam the job of joining up the dots.

Mike knew the date he took that scrapbook to London, RJ: Monday 13th April 1992. It was etched into his brain like the initials in the watch - or that Tony Devereux had died the previous summer, providing him with a provenance because dead men tell no lies.

Mike would also have known very well if Anne had spent the previous eleven days writing out the text into it.

Yet he dated the entire physical creation process, from receiving and rejecting the 1891 red herring; the finding of the scrapbook in the auction sale; the purchase of all the other raw materials; the preparation of the book, including the whiffy linseed oil; and the transfer of the text into it, to a few days in early 1990 when he knew damn well Devereux was still alive, but had to backdate his death to fit what he was claiming about putting the finished diary to one side.

I mean if that doesn't tell you Mike was being deliberately creative, I don't know what would. He 'remembered' the few days Anne had to write out the diary before it was whisked off to London, but also 'remembered' them putting it to one side because the deceased Devereux was poorly at the time.

Further, notice that this account also dovetails too perfectly with Mike's repeated admission that he obtained the scrapbook so late in the game that it left him only 10 or 11 days to transpose the [pre-existing] typescript before he was to meet with Doreen Montgomery in London.

How do you explain this?

I think I just did. If Mike knew he had obtained the scrapbook that late in the game, and knew this was in April 1992, then he also knew the rest of it could not have taken place in 1990!

If, however, the transcript of the diary was prepared between, say, 8th April, when the London meeting was confirmed in writing, and 22nd April, when Doreen had received it, you have an alternative explanation for the 11 days Mike was remembering, which you will of course reject out of hand, in favour of the 'mental fog' explanation for the mother of all muddles you can see clearly enough for yourself, within the pages of that affidavit.

Nor do I entirely dismiss the suggestion of Maurice Chittenden that Barrett was paid-off to keep his gob shut by someone with a big investment in a still pending film deal, though I hasten to add that there is no proof of this beyond Barrett's unconfirmed claim (in the same affidavit) that Anne Graham told him to keep his mouth shut and he would soon get a paycheck. (I think she was specifically referring to pending royalties).

Whatever Mike said about Anne telling him to keep his mouth shut, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that she'd have advised him not to repeat his forgery claims, or risk all future diary money from whatever source - for himself, for Anne and for their daughter.

That might go a long way to explain the wretched man's confessions: "No more diary money for any of us unless you talk to me and let me see Caroline."

Might he have retracted everything in the January affidavit had it been taken further – as his solicitor did with his June 1994 'confession' – if only she had played ball?

[caz]

To me it seems Barrett thought to make a lot of money, but his personal life, the likelihood of criminal charges and maybe his mental state caused him to confess. Just my opinion. People do strange things and watching a few interviews and documentaries doesn't really allow for an educated guess, but an affidavit is a serious move so I tend to believe he was telling the truth in his first affidavit. The second one could've been financially motivated or even to revive his 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? Either way he's been debunked as far as I'm concerned.

Columbo

His first affidavit, Columbo? That was the one where he claimed he was given the diary in good faith by a mate who died.

Have you been taking lessons from not so clever Trevor?

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

To me it seems Barrett thought to make a lot of money, but his personal life, the likelihood of criminal charges and maybe his mental state caused him to confess. Just my opinion. People do strange things and watching a few interviews and documentaries doesn't really allow for an educated guess, but an affidavit is a serious move so I tend to believe he was telling the truth in his first affidavit. The second one could've been financially motivated or even to revive his 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? Either way he's been debunked as far as I'm concerned.

Columbo

[StevenOwl]

His first affidavit, Columbo? That was the one where he claimed he was given the diary in good faith by a mate who died.

Have you been taking lessons from not so clever Trevor?

Love,

Caz
X

Jesus wept - I'm losing the will to live with all these armchair detectives who think they have it all sewn up and yet still aren't aware of the basics regarding what lies Bongo told and when. Honestly Caz, I really don't know how you find the energy to keep serving them their arses back on a plate (but I'm very glad that you do).

[caz]

Quote: 'What I don’t understand is that the statement that Anne sent me which backs your story beautifully is dated May 1992. May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary.'

You might ask what--or who---led you to that mistaken belief, Keith, and get back to us. Maybe the wrong date that Mike gave isn't quite as important as the wrong date that Anne left lingering in your mind for the better part of five years?

This was addressed to Keith, but I'd just point out that there is zero evidence that when Anne sent a copy of her bank statement to him, from May 1992 [after offering to do so in conversation with him], she knew anything else about the red diary which had arrived in the post for Mike, and which she ended up paying for because Martin Earl had to chase him up. I have no doubt that if she'd known all the details, and knew there were people like you ready and waiting to read all sorts into her every move, she might have decided not to help Keith trace her payment.

But I'll tell you what. Let's just believe Anne's obvious attempt at gaslighting--May 1992---

As always, you can't bear to separate Anne from Mike and treat them as individuals, can you? Because if you once let go of your life raft and consider the possibility that Mike was acting alone, without Anne's knowledge or approval, until he needed her typing skills or her money, you'll be sunk.

P.S. What statement did Anne send Keith? Presumably the cheque and a written explanation? I've always been under the impression this was a first-hand conversation between Keith and Anne. Was I wrong about that?

Not entirely wrong, no. Which makes a change lately.