Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  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 severely (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, Edited by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'.

  Page 184 in Volume 2 refers (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 actually 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.

  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 control (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.

  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 me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickly (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 happens (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.

  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,

  However on January 26th 1995 he again returned to his solicitor and signed a second affidavit in which he retracted much of what he had said in his first affidavit. This is also reproduced below. The first part of this second affidavit relates to a complaint he made to the police regarding the threats and assaults etc. he had been subjected to which he states made him retract his first affidavit.

  Thursday 26th January 1995

  MICHAEL BARRETT will say:-

  Further to my statement of the 23rd January 1995, I have since contacted the Police and I am told that the Crime No. is 16391.J.95.CR.001, and that this Investigation (sic) has now been allocated to a Detective at Copperas Hill Police Station on 'A' Block.

  At this time I am staying at an address that is only known to Mr. Gray because this matter is becoming very serious, I have already had threats, my home attacked, and all this is ledged with the Police, also my phone wires were cut and now I have been beaten up, perhaps when they find me dead one day they might take me seriously.

  On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the beginning (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET FUCKED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs. Harrison, Sally Evemy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser". I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Anne Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaborate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary, much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.

  I was also afraid that if Anne and I get arrested for fraud what would happen to our daughter. I did not know who the Independent Advisor was and I felt a serious threat to me either through the Law or if I didn’t (sic) conform personal injury maybe. My wife has for the past 12 months kept my daughter away from me and used her to threaten me and blackmail me that I will not see her again if I don't co-operate.

  Paul Feldman in June 1994 contacted me by telephone and I quote him "BARRETT I WILL FUCKING GUARANTEE (sic) I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOUR (sic) WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EVER AGAIN".

  This is the type of pressure I have been under and there is no doubt in my mind that Paul Feldman in particular wants m
e dead.

  I should inform you that I actually worked as a Barman in the Post House Public House about 7 years ago and I gained a full knowledge of the history of the old pub, and I decided when writing the Diary that I would put the name Post House in knowing full well that it had been called the 'Muck Midden' in the 1800's. This fact could actually be established and in particularly by me should I later need to prove what I had done.

  I am ready now should it be necessary to speak to the Detectives from Scotland Yard who saw me some time ago. Detective Thomas.

  When writing the Diary Devereux was a tremendous help to Anne and I but we did not go to anyone else for advice in the matter.

  I know it’s old hat and I am sick of trying to convince people about it but the truth is I wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper and my wife Anne Barrett transcribed it onto the old photograph Album.

  I should also mention that because of personal injury to my right hand and arm I now sign as best I can with my left hand.

  Signed: M. Barrett (practically illegible)

  The major stumbling blocks with regards to Barrett’s account as given in his initial affidavit are firstly, with regards to Barrett as a person. He has been described by many who knew him as being somewhat illiterate and not deemed capable of carrying out such a detailed and complicated exercise, as the forgery of the diary would have required. Clearly as can be seen he did state he did not carry out this task alone.

  Furthermore, it was discovered that in 1992 a newspaper advert appeared in H.P. Bookfinders purportedly placed by Barrett seeking a Victorian Diary, the advertisement read: “Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages.”. I don’t think for one minute Barrett himself placed this ad, I think it was place by A.N. Other, and another example of perhaps Barrett being manipulated by another person or persons. This action of placing such an advertisement clearly shows intent by someone, having regard to what followed in 1993 when the diary was first released into the public domain and what was contained in the first affidavit.

  Further enquiries reveal that in fact Barrett went to the solicitors with a pre-prepared statement, which was simply transcribed into an affidavit by the solicitor. That being said it can clearly be seen that whoever drafted that statement for him was a person who was well educated and clearly by the content had to have had direct involvement in the forging of the diary. So of course I have to ask who prepared it for him?

  On another note, not wanting to cast any aspersions. D.P. Hardy the Liverpool solicitor who acted for Barrett was struck off the solicitors register from practicing in 2003 for a number of offences of improper practice.

  I have no doubt that there was perhaps some form of conspiracy involving some of the persons whose names appear throughout the investigation. I suspect there may have been others who have as yet not been named. However, the passage of time has not been kind to the question of ascertaining conclusively who the persons responsible for forging the diary were. Three of the main persons, Tony Deveraux, Melvyn Harris and Paul Feldman all of whom had direct involvement with Barrett are now deceased.

  The police did become involved in a criminal investigation but I am led to believe that this wasn’t helped by a number of complainants subsequently withdrawing their complaints. The failure of the police to be allowed to carry out a full criminal investigation has not helped in trying to fully establish whether or not the diary is genuine or a fake and if the latter then who was responsible?

  James Maybrick died on May 11th 1889 from arsenic poisoning. His wife was subsequently accused of murdering him. As has been documented following his death there were the two further prostitute murders in Whitechapel, Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles both of which were thought by the police to have been the work of Jack the Ripper.

  So was James Maybrick Jack the Ripper or responsible for any of the murders? The answer is no. Did James Maybrick write the diary? In my opinion no he didn’t. However, there are those who still seek to suggest the diary is authentic, despite it being proved that the handwriting in the diary has been compared to the handwriting of Maybrick’s will and they are different. Those believers in the authenticity of the diary will argue the fact that the reason for this is that Maybrick did not write his own will out.

  WALTER RICHARD SICKERT

  Walter Sickert the famous British painter only emerged as a suspect in recent years when in 1993 US crime novelist, Patricia Cornwell, took it upon herself to investigate Sickert as a Ripper suspect. Sickert was first mentioned with regards to the Royal Conspiracy theory. At the time of the murders Sickert would have been 28.

  Cornwell suggests that in his early painting days Sickert frequented the slums of London's East End and is alleged to have had a number of secret rented studios in that area. This was never proved, but it was a fact that he did have rented studios in the Camden area of North London. Sickert’s models for his paintings were said to be poor, unattractive female prostitutes. One such painting, which added to Patricia Cornwell’s suspicions was the “Camden Town Murder”. This was painted by Sickert in 1908. This painting she suggests bears some similarity to the original murder scene of Mary Kelly. However, this painting was not painted until many years after the murders and the Mary Kelly original murder scene picture would have been readily available then as it is today. If one looks at the general painting style of Sickert it can be seen that he has painted a number of pictures whereby males are seen in company with semi-clad females in room and bedrooms, so the picture Cornwell refers to is not unique.

  Patricia Cornwell believed that Sickert was also responsible for the writing of a number of Ripper letters sent to the police during the time of the murders. She thought that if she could obtain DNA from letters believed to have been sent by the Ripper, she could compare them with letters known to have been written by Sickert, as well as trying to extract a DNA profile from any of the letters.

  She came to London with her own team of forensic experts. She was given permission to examine the Ripper letters now contained in The National Archives at Kew. However, she discovered that the letters had been heat sealed under plastic to preserve them, a process that degrades primary DNA. None of the letters had any trace of any DNA, primary or secondary. She then came into possession of a letter that, strangely enough, had not been handed over to the archives and had not been heat sealed so was suitable for DNA examination. When tested there was no trace of any primary DNA.

  In an attempt to acquire a DNA sample of Sickert, Cornwell purchased some of Sickert’s paintings and purportedly tore them apart, examining the frames and canvas for fingerprints or traces of blood, but found nothing. It was the same story with his painting table. Cornwell will argue that the paintings were damaged when she acquired them.

  So do her suspicions surrounding Sickert stand up to close scrutiny? Well there are unconfirmed reports that suggest Sickert was not even in the country at the time of some of the murders. It is believed that he was in France painting between August and October 1888. Although Cornwell states that Sickert was a man of mystery and not even his close friends knew where he was at any one time, but she has failed to produce evidence to support this. She even suggests that he could have left France unnoticed and come to England, committed the murders and then travelled back unnoticed. Despite all the hard work and expense she went to, her experts were unable to prove that Walter Sickert was the author of any Ripper letters.

  So what can be deduced from her research and findings? She did in the first instance set out to prove or disprove some interesting theories and she was the first person to actually use modern-day forensic science in an attempt to solve the crimes. For this I have to commend her.

  Many researchers into these crimes like me have wondered whether it was possible to extract useable DNA from any of the documents left behind in the archives. Well we now know it is possible, equally we know that without any comparison samples any results would be worthless, which turned out to be the case wit
h Cornwell’s examinations.

  Since the publication of her book, “Jack the Ripper - Portrait of a Killer” I am led to believe that she has been continuing her quest to prove some involvement of Sickert in the letters and the murders. As far as my investigation is concerned I can find no evidence to connect Walter Sickert to any of the murders or the letters.

  ROBERT MANN

  In October 2009 the Jack the Ripper bandwagon rolled into town yet again with the publication of a new book titled, “Jack the Ripper: Quest for a Killer” and an accompanying television documentary based on the book titled, “Jack the Ripper: Killer Revealed”.

  The book was written by author Meirion Trow, who had published one previous Ripper book in 1997, “The Many Faces of Jack the Ripper”. In that original book he stated he believed the Ripper would never be identified. However, in his new book he puts forward a new name as being the prime suspect. In what in my opinion is clearly another case of a wild speculative uncorroborated theory, where he suggests a male by the name of Robert Mann was Jack the Ripper.

  Mann was 52 years of age at the time of the murders. He was a pauper and a resident in the Whitechapel workhouse. Mann worked as the mortuary keeper at the Whitechapel workhouse mortuary where the bodies of Chapman and Nichols were taken and the post-mortems carried out.

  Trow’s suspicion is based on a number of facts. The first being, that at the inquest of Annie Chapman it was suggested that someone with anatomical knowledge had committed the murder and removed the uterus. The second being that the knife used could have been similar to that used in a post-mortem room. The third being that Mann fits the psychological profile provided by the FBI in the 1980s. But then again so did half the population of Whitechapel at the time.