The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[caz]

The fact that they were under no threat for their supposed "creative writing" project doesn't help you.

1. It's still a stupid thing to do so who cares if there was a legitimate threat or not

2. The real threat that they obviously seemed to fear would come from ratting out or exposing a thief or a gang of thieves. That helps the Fence Theory again.

My hunch - which will no doubt be rejected - is that Mike conned Eddie out of the diary with no cash changing hands, on the pretext of having 'contacts' who would know how best to handle and place it. In short, he nicked it off the nicker. Mike promised to get back to Eddie when he knew more. When Eddie learned that Mike had only gone and hooked a book publisher, and not just some private collector who would pay in cash and ask no questions, he started to worry about the consequences, and had that conversation with Brian Rawes in the drive of Battlecrease on Friday 17th July 1992 - Eddie's second and final stint at the house, no doubt bringing back memories of the first.

In May 1994, Mike made several large withdrawals from his bank account, every other working day until he was back in the red again, with nothing paid off his mortgage by June, when he gave Harold Brough this as his motive for having written the diary in the first place.

"Go figure", as they say in the Land of the Free.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

For RJ ...

(The fonts appear to have a mind of their own, I'm afraid.)

Let's see how I do (I am doing this 'live' so I have no idea what the outcome will be). Blue is confirmed or accepted. Red is asserted but not confirmed. Grey is irrelevant to the hoax claim.

Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995
From a sworn affidavit:

I MICHAEL BARRETT, make oath and state as follows:-

That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant.

I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident., for which I am attending Hospital as an out-patient.

I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand.

Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary").

Nobody will believe me and in fact some very influential people in the Publishing and Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far as to introduce a new and complete story of the original facts of the Diary and how it came to light. [Only his wife Anne had introduced "a new and complete story of the original facts".]

The facts of this matter are outlined as follows:-

I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came a time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possbility. 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. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was to (sic) easey (sic).

I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".

Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration.

Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper.In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book,I cannot remember their name,she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.When this Diary arrived in teh post I decided it was of no use [This cannot be known as we do not know what his purpose was for seeking it], it was very small.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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it and in fact he gave me L50 towards expences which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.[There has never been any evidence whatsoever of Mike Barrett entering this or any other auction house]

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. This Album was part of lot No.126 which was for auction with a 'brass compass', it looked to me like a 'seaman's Compass', it was round faced with a square encasement, all of which was brass, it was marked on the face, North South, East and West in heavy lettering. I particularly noticed that the compass had no 'fingers'.

When the bidding stated (sic) I noticed another man who was interested in the itmes (sic) he was smartly dressed, I would say in his middle forties, he was interested in the photographs. I noticed that his collar and tie were imaculate and I think he was a Military man.

This man big up to L45 and then I bid L50 and the other man dropped out.

At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid L50. This ticked was stamped. I woman, slim build, aged about 35/40 years dealt with me and she asked me my name, which I gave as P Williams, XXXXXXXXXXXXX I think I gave the number as 47.When I was asked for details about me the name Williams arose because I purchased my house from a Mr P Williams, the road name I used is in fact the next street to my mums address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased.

I was then told to return return (sic) my ticket to the Office, but I did not do this and left with the Photograph Album and Compass.

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.

I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.

I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife.

This last [left] 64 pages inside the Album which Anne and I decided would be the Diary. Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.

This all happened late January 1990 and on the same day that Anne and I bought the nibs we then decided to purchase the ink elsewhere and we decided to make our way to the Bluecoat Chambers, in fact we had a drink in the Empire Pub in Hanover Street on the way.

Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.

We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) 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.

I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.

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. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

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 severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot.

Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN.

Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake.

Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Ediated by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'. [Although Barrett is acknowledged as the first person to uncover the source of this quotation, there is no evidence whatsoever that he used it as part of a hoax]

Page 184 in Volume 2 referrs (sic).

When I disposed of the photographs from the Album by giving them to William Graham, I kept one back. This photograph was of a Grave, with a Donkey standing nearby. 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. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me.

When I eventually did the deal with Robert Smith, he took possession of the Diary and it went right out of my control.There is little doubt in my mind that I have been hoodwinked or if you like conned myself. My inexperience in the Publishing game has been my downfall, whilst all around me are making money, it seems that I am left out of matters, and my Solicitors are now engaged in litigation. I have even had bills to cover expenses incurred by the author of the book, Shirley Harrison. [These bills contractually belonged to Harrison and Barrett in equal measure.]

I finally decided in November 1993 that enough was enough and I made it clear from that time on that the Diary of Jack the Ripper was a forgery, this brought a storm down on me, abuse and threats followed and attacks on my character as Paul Feldman led this attack, because I suppose he had the most to gain from discrediting me.

Mr. Feldman became so obsessed with my efforts to bare the truth of the matter, that he started to threaten me, he took conttrol (sic) of my wife who left me and my child and he rang me up continuously threatening and bullying me and telling me I would never see my family again. On one occasion people were banging on my windows as Feldman threatened my life over the phone.I became so frightened that I sort (sic) the help of a Private Detective Alan Gray and complaints were made to the Police which I understand are still being pursued [This is generous of me as there is no proof that Feldman or anyone else was threatening Barrett - on one occasion an unknown person had banged on one of his windows one night, presumably as they were passing.]

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 L20,000 before the end of the month.She was all over meand 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.

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.I would hate to leave at this stage the name of Mr. Maybrick as a tarnished serial killer when as far as I know, he was not a killer.

I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary.

I give my name so history do tell what love can do to a gentleman born, Yours Truly -- Michael Barrett. [The line that Barrett quotes here actually reads, "I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born" - although he quoted it frequently, he never once got the line he claimed he wrote correct.]

Sworn at Liverpool in the (Signed)
County of Merseyside, this
5th day of January 1995. Before me: (Signed)

A Solicitor Empowered to Administer Oaths

D.P. HARDY & CO.,
Imperial Chambers,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I think that makes eleven claims in blue for which there is good evidence that they were true or proven or confirmed on the record by someone other than Mike Barrett.

Honestly, dear readers, having read it again, do you feel it's a stonewall "He obviously did it" kind of document or an act of a desperate man who had lost everything and was trying whatever he had left in him to get some of it back (the attention, his ex-wife, his daughter, perhaps some money for booze, et cetera)? If it's the former, which bits persuade you the most, I wonder?

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what life can do to a Scouser of very average intelligence.
Yours truly
Ike Iconoclast
Dated this eighth day of February 2025

[caz]

I don't think you're understanding me correctly Caz. I wasn't making any form a circular argument because I wasn't arguing that Michael Barrett was the forger. The point I was making was straightforward one - If Mike was the forger, as some people have suggested, and if the diary was exposed as a forgery, he wasn't in any serious legal peril because he never vouched for the diary's authenticity.

You must agree with that statement, surely. And it has to be predicated on the basis that Mike was the forger because there's no other way of expressing it. The only danger for Mike (as the forger) would have been if it was proven that he didn't receive the diary from Tony Devereux but was responsible for creating it. Something which would have been difficult to do. Only then would he have been in the you-know-what.

And that is precisely the point, Herlock.

How could he not have been in the you-know-what IF the diary HAD been created and handwritten by his wife as a bit of creative fiction, and IF he had presented THIS [instead of what he did present] as a possibly genuine confessional diary written by JM/JtR?

But you are probably right in a way, because IF that had been the case, he'd have been out of Doreen's door with a flea in his ear and her boot up his arse, faster than he could ejaculate the proverbial: "Oh, sugar lumps!", and Anne and her father would have wasted their money on the return train fare to London and the various raw materials, and the time and effort would all have been for nought.

Now, the only reason I wrote what I did was because Kattrup had said in the post to which I was responding, "Diary Defenders usually portray the risk to Barrett's as immense". So the only purpose of my post was to say, in agreement with Kattrup, that, really, there was very little risk to the Barretts.

See above.

For that reason, the rest of your post about another unnamed forger makes no sense to me. You seem to be trying to make an entirely different point which bears no relation to mine or Kattrup's. This is that an unidentified forger would not have bothered recreating Maybrick's handwriting in the diary (even though they presumably could have done) because there was no risk to them if the diary was shown not to have been by James Maybrick. Leaving aside that I can't fathom why they would have wanted to create such a diary in the first place nor how it ended up with Michael Barrett, I could just as easily say that because there was no risk to them of ever being arrested for fraud, because they were unknown, they might as well have attempted to recreate Maybrick's handwriting to make the diary appear far more convincing. But when talking about unknown people with unknown motives it just seems to pointless to discuss it.

Which, I guess, is why it's more comfortable to keep the Barretts in custody, so everything can be argued from the point of view of their involvement and you don't need to go any deeper - except that the evidence doesn't stack up, because the people in the story were real, and not complete fools. Do you seriously imagine that Martin Fido, for one, would have agreed to get involved in the first place IF he'd been presented with a genuine Barrett version of the diary? Have you the faintest idea what that would have looked like, in comparison with the one you are stuck with? Oh, I forgot. It doesn't matter, because if you shut your eyes and only believe hard enough, then the one you are stuck with can BE a genuine Barrett, and you don't need to know if that is true or even likely.

You then made another separate and disconnected point about whether the money would have gone up in flames "when Anne tried to burn it". The simple answer is that if the diary had been burnt there would have been no money to have been made from it.

No s..t, Herlock. My point was directly linked with your argument that this was a forgery created for financial gain. Forgers don't generally try to destroy a forgery that they are expecting to get 'authenticated' and make them loads of money - another of your arguments.

But what independent evidence is there that Anne really did try to burn it? She certainly didn't do a very good job of it! I may be misremembering Caz but didn’t I read something about her insisting on the diary being kept at the bank because of her fear of it going up in a house fire?

I don't expect you to read and absorb every post here, but I have gone into this one recently, Herlock. I don't recall anyone suggesting that Anne had 'insisted' on the diary being put in the bank, which would have implied it was against Mike's wishes, and the evidence we do have isn't clear if it was his idea or hers. We only know that when Anne first spoke to Doreen, a few days after the London trip, she explained it was a precaution in case of fire or theft.

My hunch, which I am happy for people to reject - and they will - is that Anne simply didn't want the bloody thing in the house, one way or another. And who could blame her? It was a destructive force in Mike's hands from day one of its known existence. It has destroyed marriages and friendships, caused financial ruin and continues to this day to make a small handful of internet hoax busters fired up and angry.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

I'll borrow one from your playbook, Ike.

I'd name all the elements right here & now if I thought for a moment, you wouldn't immediately spin them.

I count six, arguably seven, elements in Barrett's confession that have been directly or indirectly confirmed.

But I'm currently toying with the idea of writing up my final analysis of the diary so I don't need to discuss it again. Something along the lines of 'the top twenty reasons we know the Diary is a modern fake, and that Barrett was undoubtedly involved.'

I'll give you a heads up when or if it drops. I have other irons in the fire.

[rjpalmer]

I'd give you the very quotation if I thought for a moment RJ wouldn't immediately spin it. .

I enjoyed the above comment from Ike, Herlock.

It's a good companion piece to this recent one:

It is customary - especially when challenged - to be clear on a citation but if you just want to make a claim here without backing it up, I guess there's little anyone can do (bar wonder ether you are correct or not)?

But please don't cite reasons why you won't when perhaps people are wondering whether in truth it is more that you can't.

I, of course, immediately posted the relevant citation from Dr. Joe Nickell (even though Nickell's quote should have been obvious to even the most neophyte Maybrickian) to prove my accuracy.

What is stopping Ike from jumping in if he has the quote? Or are people now wondering whether in truth Ike can't give the quotation?

As for me, I'm afraid I have little insight into the accuracy of Caroline's claims. I'm still waiting for evidence that Barrett 'immediately invited the experts to examine' the diary.

I was under the impression, based on her theories, that Barrett didn't immediately invite any experts to examine it, and within minutes of seeing the diary called up a literary agent.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that worrisome. Barrett's behavior compares unfavorably even to the behavior of Russell Edwards and Tim Atkinson who did seek expert opinion. Mike went straight to the fountain of cash flow and there's not even any solid evidence that the diary physically existed when he made that first call to London under the alias "Mr. Williams."

[Iconoclast]

What elements?

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

Did you mean the bit where he gave his name truthfully this time?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Roger, can I just check something with you. Is: "she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft", as Caz put it, an accurate summary of what was said?
Are you able to pinpoint the source of Anne's expressed worry about fire for me? I've seen it mentioned in posts but I don't quite know where it came from.

I'd give you the very quotation if I thought for a moment RJ wouldn't immediately spin it. Maybe I wouldn't have been so alert to the possibility if he hadn't just posted the following gem:

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

I think this could be the very apogee of RJ's ceaseless attempts to turn every event into a bright torch shining on a Barrett hoax.

[Iconoclast]

Hey, Ike, how do you like being called a "religionist"? About as much as Caz likes being called a "Maybrickian"?

So, in this faith-based "religion", is Maybrick God or the Devil? Is he an object or worship? Or is he your Profit?

I'll ask him when I get down there, Lombro2.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm reluctant to quote from the archives, as it invariably leads to a bollocking, but in this case I am surprised that you can't find the quote for yourself, because it was a claim Caroline Brown made barely a week ago--in a post directed to you.



What I find annoying is that Caz herself acknowledges that Anne frequently contradicts herself, and yet when I similarly point this out, she accuses my "theory" of being muddled in regard to Anne when in reality I am merely acknowledging Anne's contradictory behavior and contradictory statements, rather than ignoring them. I have incorporated this obvious reality into my analysis, in a way no one else has, with the possible exception of the late Martin Fido.

As for Caroline Barrett, I don't deny that she would have been coached. It goes without saying if the Barretts were the hoaxers, she would need to be trained to repeat the claim that the Diary came from Devereux, and that she has seen her father pestering him on the phone, and spend many hours researching the diary, etc.

I still can't imagine, however, why the Barretts would coach her to say there was a struggle going on behind-the-scenes. What would be the strategical purpose of coaching her to say this?

About the only counter explanation that I can come up with is that having been coached, Caroline herself couldn't work out what the right answer should be when suddenly quizzed by Paul and Martin, so blurting out that her mum tried to burn the diary, thinking it would somehow help the cause. Whether you find that a plausible explanation, I do not know.

If I was having this conversation with David Barrat or Peter Birchwood or someone else who sees no reason to expand the list of suspects beyond Mike and Anne, I would be hard pressed to argue that Anne wasn't an enthusiastic accomplice, as she admits to typing up the transcript, typing up the bogus research notes, supported the Devereux provenance, and (as far as we know) must have went along with many of Barrett's other porkies in the early days of the diary. And I even think there is a very solid chance she was the pen person. We are hampered in knowing how much she went along, however, as we don't have any recordings or transcripts of those early conversations with Anne, by which I mean those dating to before she left Barrett. It's would certainly be an entirely rational conclusion, but some of Anne's behavior makes me wonder if she didn't want the whole thing to blow up when Mike took the diary to London. She certainly seemed to be afraid of the investigation in a way that Barrett wasn't.

Regards.

Hi Roger, can I just check something with you. Is: "she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft", as Caz put it, an accurate summary of what was said?

Are you able to pinpoint the source of Anne's expressed worry about fire for me? I've seen it mentioned in posts but I don't quite know where it came from.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for the Feldman extract, Roger, much appreciated. Shame there's no direct quote there by Caroline

On reflection, I have a faint memory of Paul Begg confirming this account, but it might be difficult to chase it down. If I recall, he denied Feldman's characterization of Martin's behavior, and his own, but admitted to quizzing Caroline on this point. If I can find it again, I'll repost, though it is hardly a pressing issue and will only lead to more unproveable speculation.

[rjpalmer]

If what Caroline was saying was true. I do see what you mean about Anne getting upset that her husband wanted to get the diary published which, perhaps, she had never thought he would do. But can I ask you this, Roger, because the others don't seem to want to help me. Did I read somewhere that Anne wanted to have the diary put in a bank vault in order to protect it from a house fire? Or did I imagine this?

Hi Herlock,

I'm reluctant to quote from the archives, as it invariably leads to a bollocking, but in this case I am surprised that you can't find the quote for yourself, because it was a claim Caroline Brown made barely a week ago--in a post directed to you.

It is not disputed that she had a big row with Mike over the diary at one point, and had tried but failed to destroy it, which would be understandable in those circumstances, except that only a week or so after it was seen in London, she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft.

What I find annoying is that Caz herself acknowledges that Anne frequently contradicts herself, and yet when I similarly point this out, she accuses my "theory" of being muddled in regard to Anne when in reality I am merely acknowledging Anne's contradictory behavior and contradictory statements, rather than ignoring them. I have incorporated this obvious reality into my analysis, in a way no one else has, with the possible exception of the late Martin Fido.

As for Caroline Barrett, I don't deny that she would have been coached. It goes without saying if the Barretts were the hoaxers, she would need to be trained to repeat the claim that the Diary came from Devereux, and that she has seen her father pestering him on the phone, and spend many hours researching the diary, etc.

I still can't imagine, however, why the Barretts would coach her to say there was a struggle going on behind-the-scenes. What would be the strategical purpose of coaching her to say this?

About the only counter explanation that I can come up with is that having been coached, Caroline herself couldn't work out what the right answer should be when suddenly quizzed by Paul and Martin, so blurting out that her mum tried to burn the diary, thinking it would somehow help the cause. Whether you find that a plausible explanation, I do not know.

If I was having this conversation with David Barrat or Peter Birchwood or someone else who sees no reason to expand the list of suspects beyond Mike and Anne, I would be hard pressed to argue that Anne wasn't an enthusiastic accomplice, as she admits to typing up the transcript, typing up the bogus research notes, supported the Devereux provenance, and (as far as we know) must have went along with many of Barrett's other porkies in the early days of the diary. And I even think there is a very solid chance she was the pen person. We are hampered in knowing how much she went along, however, as we don't have any recordings or transcripts of those early conversations with Anne, by which I mean those dating to before she left Barrett. It's would certainly be an entirely rational conclusion, but some of Anne's behavior makes me wonder if she didn't want the whole thing to blow up when Mike took the diary to London. She certainly seemed to be afraid of the investigation in a way that Barrett wasn't.

Regards.

[erobitha]

That doesn’t make his affidavit automatically true, but it does mean that it would be incompetent not to intelligently investigate it, particularly since elements of it have been confirmed.

What elements?

[rjpalmer]

The main problem, in my opinion with the 'F' carved into the arm is it only possibly could be an F from the point of view the photo is taken, that being said how did the killer know where to position the arm so the camera got the correct perspective to make it look like an F?

This is an erudite point first raised by Professor Alex Chisholm, a lecturer in history from Wales, when he commented on the diary decades ago.

"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective. The diarist does not claim to have left in front of 'them' or the 'fools' but only in front for all eyes to see.' The wall on which these initials were supposed to have been written [and let's also add Kelly's forearm] was at the right side of the room on entry, to the right side of Kelly. The only thing the initials could reasonably be described of as 'in front of' being the police photographer's lens."

In other words, the hoaxer was aware of the Kelly photograph.

I would add that the hoaxer is almost begging his or her readers to refer to the Kelly photograph in order to look for the 'clue' that the 'fools' could not find.

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

The hoaxer also assumed that the reader would have access to the police photograph in order to solve this puzzle, which again rationally dates the diary to the 1960s or later, when the photograph first obtained wide circulation.

Before that date, the photo was either in the off-limits City of London Police materials or in one exceedingly rare book in French--so rare that to this day only one library in the UK owns a copy, and that Library was only founded after the diary was published.

Regards.

[Geddy2112]

I think you're confusing two things, Ike: the supposed "FM" on the wall, which I don't believe the forger perceived, and the supposed "F" carved onto the arm and an "M" shape on the wall. I do think the forger could have perceived those two latter "initials" and I think it's what he or she must have been talking about in the diary.

The main problem, in my opinion with the 'F' carved into the arm is it only possibly could be an F from the point of view the photo is taken, that being said how did the killer know where to position the arm so the camera got the correct perspective to make it look like an F?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Careful. Some posters have told us that those pesky initials are not there in MJK1 and they expect to be taken seriously in this regard.

I think you're confusing two things, Ike: the supposed "FM" on the wall, which I don't believe the forger perceived, and the supposed "F" carved onto the arm and an "M" shape on the wall. I do think the forger could have perceived those two latter "initials" and I think it's what he or she must have been talking about in the diary.

To be clear, it not an "F" on the arm nor an "M" on the wall but I can understand why a forger might have attempted to use those shapes, in a cryptic way, to bolster the narrative of the diary.