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

[Iconoclast]

What you should be focusing your energy on is the central story of the affidavit which is that Mike dictated the text of the diary to his wife who wrote it down in eleven days. As to that, I've seen references in posts to Mike telling the story of the forgery at a public meeting a few years after the affidavit. Are you able to tell me exactly what he said at that meeting in respect of creating the diary? It seems to me we'd be better off focusing on what he definitely said rather than what someone else typed in an affidavit on his behalf.

I assume you mean the Cloak & Dagger Club meeting in 1999?

Unfortunately, Mike appeared to be inebriated so his terrible performance and failure to provide any corroborating evidence or even speak cogently of the events detailed in the affidavit have provided his supporters with a Get Out of Jail card. You should perhaps refer to Orsam's A Man in a Pub article on his website as a truly priceless example of what you have been attempting to do with the affidavit - that is, ignore everything which is just patently incorrect or unproven and shoehorn in a story which happens to fit the story you want to tell. It's a classic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has just occurred to me that I should have challenged this conclusion somewhat more assertively than I did.

The original question was around how much of Barrett's affidavit had been confirmed (or accepted as true) so everything which had NOT been confirmed got coloured red by default. This left open the possibility that someone might come along and suggest that the amount of red was irrelevant because actually just because it wasn't yet confirmed didn't logically mean it could not be confirmed in the future. In truth, many aspects of this affidavit could never be confirmed because they were actually false claims

Here's where I should have been more clear: I should have colour-coded those things which had been shown to be untrue a different colour to those things which were simply unconfirmed.

These would have included:

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"). [This has been shown to be false because there should be a record of it somewhere starting in December 1993 and there is not a scrap of evidence to support this claim and that doesn't mean it could be unconfirmed - it means it is patently false. It is not an unproven claim because its significance would be too apparent]

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. [This is false - only his wife Anne had introduced "a new and complete story of the original facts".]

... she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book [This is false as HP Bookfinders did not advertise in the W&A Yearbook - Martin Earl of HP Bookfinders has stated that he assumed Barrett found his firm through the Yellow Pages but even this may not be correct as Barrett would have only had the Merseyside edition of the Yellow Pages, but either way the actual claim is patently false.]

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 then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant ... I was then told to return return (sic) my ticket to the Office ... [This account has been denounced by Kevin What of O&L as not consistent with how their auction process worked.]

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 scrapbook has been examined by numerous experienced people. None have ever mentioned that linseed oil - or any sort of oil - had been identified during their examination - it is a truly ridiculous claim which is patently false.]

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. [Tony Devereux did on August 8, 1991.]

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. [I can't locate this ink blot right now but my recollection is that the word covered over was 'regards' not 'Thomas'.]

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. [This was John Tenniel - a small point but still a false one.]

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. [Barrett's sister denies this happened.]

I have even had bills to cover expenses incurred by the author of the book, Shirley Harrison. [This is not so much false as simply a statement of fact - Harrison and Barrett equally incurred costs - but Barrett spins it so it appears to be egregious.]

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 Either it was November 1993 or it was December 1993.]

One might yet argue that not all of these examples are specifically falsehoods, but there are falsehoods and there are errors and I perhaps should not have treated them as 'equal' to that which is unconfirmed by colour-coding them all red. I would hate my dear readers to think there was substance to that which remains unconfirmed about Mike Barrett's farcical affidavit of January 5, 1995.

There wasn't an "original question", Ike. There was just a statement from Roger that some elements of the affidavit had been confirmed. That was correct but for some reason you and Erobitha questioned it and all you ended up doing was confirming it!

The red in your version of the affidavit just demonstrates how much hasn't been shown to be false. So it's a massive self-own.

I can't believe you're still going on about the December 1993 date, the date of Tony Devereux's death and the writer's year book. They're obvious errors. What could Mike Barrett have gained by lying about things that are matters of public record? It's madness to keep banging on about obvious mistakes.

So Mike got the name of the Punch artist wrong. How does that tell us anything? He could have made that mistake just as much if he was the forger than if he wasn't. It just looks like you're desperate for things to include in the list.

In your list, you even include argument. Stuff that I think remains disputed. It shows how desperate you are to find things to include.

What you should be focusing your energy on is the central story of the affidavit which is that Mike dictated the text of the diary to his wife who wrote it down in eleven days. As to that, I've seen references in posts to Mike telling the story of the forgery at a public meeting a few years after the affidavit. Are you able to tell me exactly what he said at that meeting in respect of creating the diary? It seems to me we'd be better off focusing on what he definitely said rather than what someone else typed in an affidavit on his behalf.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I meant - as well you and everyone else knows - is that so very few things have ever been confirmed and what has been confirmed (or, at least, accepted as true largely because they really don't matter that much) was essentially irrelevant to the hoax claim, and that everything that remained (and it was a lot) was in red, therefore not confirmed.

When someone is making a series of claims about anything (as Barrett did in his affidavit), the burden of proof lies heavy on their shoulders and to have so very little confirmed means that no-one should take any of it seriously.

Is this the same conclusion as spinning it around so that very little has been proven to be untrue? I don't think so. If I claim a unicorn walked through my garden this morning, the fact that it remains unconfirmed is a serious problem for my claim, and this problem is not levelled-up by someone else pointing-out that the claim hasn't actually been shown to be false either.

I hope my dear readers get that. I know you won't.

The responsibility of confirming or disproving what was in the affidavit rests with those investigating that affidavit. So, saying that not everything is confirmed (or disproved), only reflects on the performance of the investigators.

If no-one's bothered to carry out any investigations, then to say that nothing is confirmed or disproved is meaningless.

Contrary to what you seem to think, it's not for a deponent to prove what's in a sworn affidavit because that affidavit itself is the evidence the deponent is presenting.

Where we end up is back with what Roger said, i.e. that Barrett's story is worth intelligently investigating, particularly because some elements have been proved to be true. That's all. The rest is noise.

[Iconoclast]

When you talk about "what the rest of us could not miss", do you mean the fact that, obvious errors of dating and chronology aside, nothing material in Barrett's affidavit about how the forgery was done had been demonstrated to be false?

It has just occurred to me that I should have challenged this conclusion somewhat more assertively than I did.

The original question was around how much of Barrett's affidavit had been confirmed (or accepted as true) so everything which had NOT been confirmed got coloured red by default. This left open the possibility that someone might come along and suggest that the amount of red was irrelevant because actually just because it wasn't yet confirmed didn't logically mean it could not be confirmed in the future. In truth, many aspects of this affidavit could never be confirmed because they were actually false claims

Here's where I should have been more clear: I should have colour-coded those things which had been shown to be untrue a different colour to those things which were simply unconfirmed.

These would have included:

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"). [This has been shown to be false because there should be a record of it somewhere starting in December 1993 and there is not a scrap of evidence to support this claim and that doesn't mean it could be unconfirmed - it means it is patently false. It is not an unproven claim because its significance would be too apparent]

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. [This is false - only his wife Anne had introduced "a new and complete story of the original facts".]

... she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book [This is false as HP Bookfinders did not advertise in the W&A Yearbook - Martin Earl of HP Bookfinders has stated that he assumed Barrett found his firm through the Yellow Pages but even this may not be correct as Barrett would have only had the Merseyside edition of the Yellow Pages, but either way the actual claim is patently false.]

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 then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant ... I was then told to return return (sic) my ticket to the Office ... [This account has been denounced by Kevin What of O&L as not consistent with how their auction process worked.]

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 scrapbook has been examined by numerous experienced people. None have ever mentioned that linseed oil - or any sort of oil - had been identified during their examination - it is a truly ridiculous claim which is patently false.]

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. [Tony Devereux did on August 8, 1991.]

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. [I can't locate this ink blot right now but my recollection is that the word covered over was 'regards' not 'Thomas'.]

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. [This was John Tenniel - a small point but still a false one.]

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. [Barrett's sister denies this happened.]

I have even had bills to cover expenses incurred by the author of the book, Shirley Harrison. [This is not so much false as simply a statement of fact - Harrison and Barrett equally incurred costs - but Barrett spins it so it appears to be egregious.]

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 Either it was November 1993 or it was December 1993.]

One might yet argue that not all of these examples are specifically falsehoods, but there are falsehoods and there are errors and I perhaps should not have treated them as 'equal' to that which is unconfirmed by colour-coding them all red. I would hate my dear readers to think there was substance to that which remains unconfirmed about Mike Barrett's farcical affidavit of January 5, 1995.

[Iconoclast]

When you talk about "what the rest of us could not miss", do you mean the fact that, obvious errors of dating and chronology aside, nothing material in Barrett's affidavit about how the forgery was done had been demonstrated to be false?

What I meant - as well you and everyone else knows - is that so very few things have ever been confirmed and what has been confirmed (or, at least, accepted as true largely because they really don't matter that much) was essentially irrelevant to the hoax claim, and that everything that remained (and it was a lot) was in red, therefore not confirmed.

When someone is making a series of claims about anything (as Barrett did in his affidavit), the burden of proof lies heavy on their shoulders and to have so very little confirmed means that no-one should take any of it seriously.

Is this the same conclusion as spinning it around so that very little has been proven to be untrue? I don't think so. If I claim a unicorn walked through my garden this morning, the fact that it remains unconfirmed is a serious problem for my claim, and this problem is not levelled-up by someone else pointing-out that the claim hasn't actually been shown to be false either.

I hope my dear readers get that. I know you won't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course, fences never try to mix their stolen goods with legitimate ones, and thereby pretend innocence and ignorance so they can get away with fencing…

https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/c..._being_caught/

Hi Lombro, rather than trying to compare apples with pears, perhaps you can explain to us how any of the different scenarios discussed at the link you posted could be said to apply in any way to Mike Barrett in March 1992, and, in particular, why he needed a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to "pretend innocence and ignorance".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes indeed, RJ has proven to us all that he was bang on the nail - at least six or more (RJ’s original claim as I recall) statements in that affidavit have been confirmed or can at least be taken to be true. Hoorah for investigative journalism of the highest order! Only a true Barrett-believer could manage to avoid mentioning what the rest of us could not miss.

Now you’ll excuse me whilst I go back to work to pay for that red ink toner I now need for my printer …

When you talk about "what the rest of us could not miss", do you mean the fact that, obvious errors of dating and chronology aside, nothing material in Barrett's affidavit about how the forgery was done had been demonstrated to be false?

[Iconoclast]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

Brilliant post Lombro2.

It's this kind of logic which shines a light on some of the facile thinking which so frequently drives ripperology's desperate search for a solution - any solution.

[Lombro2]

I agree. Ditto.

But at least, it wasn't five pages of rubbish.

[John Wheat]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

Rubbish post.

[Iconoclast]

So, after all that, you've proved that elements of Michael Barrett's affidavits have been confirmed, just as Roger said. Thanks Ike

Yes indeed, RJ has proven to us all that he was bang on the nail - at least six or more (RJ’s original claim as I recall) statements in that affidavit have been confirmed or can at least be taken to be true. Hoorah for investigative journalism of the highest order! Only a true Barrett-believer could manage to avoid mentioning what the rest of us could not miss.

Now you’ll excuse me whilst I go back to work to pay for that red ink toner I now need for my printer …

[Lombro2]

And of course, fences never try to mix their stolen goods with legitimate ones, and thereby pretend innocence and ignorance so they can get away with fencing…

https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/c..._being_caught/

[Lombro2]

Caz and I are actively looking for the real Forger and the real Ripper and the real Mary Jane Kelly ( and the real Tom Mitchell). You’re welcome to join us instead of wasting your time with the Barretts and taking up Caz’s time and patience.

As for the Ripper, we’re eliminating guys like Maybrick because only Bivy the Chivers buy knives, as only forgers buy vintage diaries, not fences. Unlike deerstalkers, six inch knives are not ubiquitous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that interesting quote, Herlock. I must have missed it back in 2018 and couldn't find a reference to it in the archive.

It's strange how, many years ago, Anne was marketed as plausible and consistent, yet the more one looks, the more she contradicted herself.

Anne being 'chirpy' and 'friendly' with the woman who is attempting to publish the book she doesn't want published is also troubling.

I might have to rethink my assumptions about how willing she was to accommodate Barrett's schemes, but people can disguise their emotions.

No problem Roger

[rjpalmer]

As to Anne wanting to protect the diary from fire, after quite a lot of searching on Casebook, I've finally managed to track down the source of the story (and thanks to no one for helping!). Keith Skinner posted it in a thread entitled "Acquiring a Victorian Diary" on February 21, 2018. It was in a letter from Doreen Montgomery to a Sally Evemy dated April 22 ,1992. The key passage is this:

"I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman. I think they are genuine people and her only anxiety in asking her husband to place the Diary with the bank was because of the fact that they have had a couple of burglaries and she is also frightened of fire. Understandable."

Thanks for that interesting quote, Herlock. I must have missed it back in 2018 and couldn't find a reference to it in the archive.

It's strange how, many years ago, Anne was marketed as plausible and consistent, yet the more one looks, the more she contradicted herself.

Anne being 'chirpy' and 'friendly' with the woman who is attempting to publish the book she doesn't want published is also troubling.

I might have to rethink my assumptions about how willing she was to accommodate Barrett's schemes, but people can disguise their emotions.