One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Soothsayer]

Hi Graham,

How refreshing to read such a reasonable view of the circumstances and issues surrounding the diary where the author is a disbeliever. The long road to resolution of this debate can only really start when folk take equally balanced views and leave personal opinion out of it.

I never could, and can't, see the 'FM' on the wall. Yes, there are marks there, but I ain't convinced. ... And I don't deny the existence of the letters to debunk the Maybrick Candidacy - I just don't seem them!

I accept that some people can't see the letters. As I have stated elsewhere on this site, Mrs Soothsayer herself couldn't see them even when I drew my finger across them! (Mind you, she can be quite scheming - I think she wanted me to watch 'Prison Break' and stop barking on about James Maybrick.)

The real mystery is: if the Diary is a modern fake, then why James Maybrick? The forger, if it is a forgery, could have picked 'his' Ripper out of literally millions of real Victorians about whom nothing was or is known, and no-one would have been any the wiser. So why Maybrick? If he didn't write it, then whoever did must have selected that particular gent for a reason. One thing is for sure, and that is that Mike Barratt didn't write it.

Amen to that. The moment it became obvious he didn't write it was the moment he claimed he did. Your suggestion that it was Anne seems almost like the only realistic possibility given the commitment she has put behind her stated provenance for the diary. Personally, I'm too trusting - I think she's for real.

According to Feldman, Martin Fido told him that, quote, 'we can't fault it', or words to that effect. Was the inability for someone like Fido to find fault with the Diary because of serious research on the part of whoever wrote it, or sheer luck?

I think it was Keith Skinner Mr Feldman was quoting, and I think he said 'We just can't shake it' (it was one of the titles of Feldy's book, if I recall correctly).

Your question about was it serious research on the part of whoever wrote it or sheer luck I honestly feel cuts to the core of the diary. Luck rarely comes in such ridiculous quantities. For me, it would have to be serious research. It must have been circa 1987-1992 given the knowledge which only entered the public domain 100 years after the crimes. If there had not been the Hitler diaries, we would surely have taken the Maybrick tome more seriously - though the choice of timing of its emergence was impeccably hopeless (pre-1987, perfect!).

[Graham]

Dear Mr S Sayer,

First, is your brother Leo still making records? I always thought "When I Need You" an excellent number....

Second, thanks for your kind comments. There is a Romanian saying: He who intends to tread in s**t must wear sturdy boots.

Third, I've often thought that had Anne Barrett instead of her old man sent the Diary to Doreen Montgomery, then things may well have been vastly different for Mr Feldman and all who came with him and after him.

Respect,

Graham

[Ben]

The possible use of an anachronism ('Post House'), the handwriting style, the misplacing of the breasts at the Kelly death scene are challenges, but not death knells.

What's the alternative? That each of these things accidentally suggest forgery? Come on...

These two letters on the wall are so crippling to the debunkers' case against the diary that - extraordinarily - they simply claim they aren't there (no, seriously, they do - it's incredible, I know).

It's not a question of not "seeing" it. Most of us know precisely what you're referring to. It's just that the vast majority of us accept that they weren't actual "letters" written in blood.

[The Good Michael]

Soothslayer,

I have a serious question: Are you a medical patient? I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from. An affirmative answer would make it more understandable.

Cheers,

Mike

[Magpie]

These two letters on the wall are so crippling to the debunkers' case against the diary that - extraordinarily - they simply claim they aren't there (no, seriously, they do - it's incredible, I know).

They simply claim they aren't there because--and this might seem like an oversimplification--they really aren't.

This simply won't do. To deny evidence exists when so many can see it to me smacks of the last desperate vestiges of the scoundrel clinging to the lies which are nevertheless about to condemn them in a court of law.

And you know who else didn't see this "evidence"? The dozens of police officers who were in Kelly's room, the half-dozen or so doctors, the entire coroner's court who visited the room. In fact there's not a single contemporary account of anything being written on the wall in Kelly's room. And if it wasn't there, it wasn't photographed.


Also, a close look at a decent copy of the Kelly photograph makes it quite clear that the "M" is actually a closed shape that overlaps Kelly's arm, meaning that it more likely represents some sort of damage or stain to either the original plate or was introduced during the copying process.

As I have said previously on this site, this is a case of the Emporer genuinely parading down the street in his fine new clothes, and this time the crowd are laughing at him because they think he's naked!

Nope, it's a case of a well-documented and perfectly explainable phenomenom called pareidolia

[Crystal]

Michael, it's Soothsayer - SOOTHSAYER! Really! Let's not have you starting with whole spelling thing - Bad enough that Ben and I are semi-literate.. Soothsayer, sorry mate, but you're reaching. That diary is akin to a heap of horse manure that even Hutch the groom would have feared to approach. Give it up?

[Magpie]

For example, despite claims that the diary shows no new insight into the case, it is through the emergence of the diary that the cuts on Eddowe's cheeks have entered the wider public domain.

Piffle! No, I would go so far as to say "Twaddle!"

The diary also provides the suggestion that the metal case in her possessions may actually have been the killer's.

Doesn't prove anything unless you can prove that the the metal case in her possession was the killers. You argument is circular and completely useless as evidence of authenticity.

[The Good Michael]

Michael, it's Soothsayer - SOOTHSAYER!

Ah! I assumed, because he hasn't a clue, that he is slaying the sooth. My bad.

Mike

[Crystal]

Ah! As always, Mike, I see that there is method in your madness - which may mean that you don't consider yourself a Maybrick supporter...is that correct?

[The Good Michael]

I was just thinking that the selection of James Maybrick for the forger was an obvious one. If he/she had been a devotee of true crime, he'd have known about the Florence Maybrick trial. A bit of reading and, voila! Here is someone that there is enough written about that one can find where to fit the Ripper crimes and where the holes are that he can use. Alas, he wasn't clever enough for most of us. Hardly any other contemporary had as much and as little written about him that would give the author what he thought would be enough space for creativity and as much of a back story that he could use to his advantage. Again, he failed miserably, but he did try.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Ah! As always, Mike, I see that there is method in your madness - which may mean that you don't consider yourself a Maybrick supporter...is that correct?

Of course not. I am surprised you didn't notice my subtlety. A big pshah! on you.

Mike

[Crystal]

Do you know what irony is? No matter - it doesn't exist in the realm of Maybrick anyway...

[The Good Michael]

Yes, I use an irony board every day for that clean, neatly-pressed look.

Mike

[Christine]

I cannot see the letters on the wall, and I don't believe that they are there. There are numerous marks on the wall, and to make "FM" only requires seven lines picked out from the mess. And remember that a forger would have been able to look at the picture and look at the various streaks and splatters and come decide that they looked more like "FM" than say, "JM," or any of many other possible secret messages that might have been left by Maybrick.

Micheal Barrett gave an excellent reason for choosing Maybrick, which is probably the right reason even if Barrett didn't actually write the diary: Maybrick was around at the time, he was known to be violent, and a lot of information was available about him so that the forger not only had lots of material, he was unlikely to be tripped up by a mistake or by something new being uncovered. Can anyone name a better fake ripper candidate?

There are in fact lots of questionable documents that have never been proved one way or the other. You'd think the Shroud of Turin would have been proven fake once it was dated to the 1300s, but people still come up with scenarios involving reweaves. And then there's "Secret Mark," and the "Life of Saint Issa," and we're still on the life of Jesus.

Anyhow, none of this addresses the ink, which is what I consider to be the only absolute debunking of the diary. I could probably write an undebunkable diary myself, using old paper and old ink, and not making any obvious mistakes.

[Soothsayer]

When I was a child, I first observed an interesting phenomenon in the playground. When a bully shouted at a kid, loads of other kids would join in. When I interviewed them extensively afterwards for the school magazine 'Psychospeak' (it was a tough neighbourhood), 50% of them admitted to doing so purely and simply to avoid being the next victim of the bully. For the record, 30% said they just plain enjoyed it, 20% said they thought the victim was hard of hearing and were therefore simply repeating the message until they heard it. The last 10% dribbled out of the side of their mouths and grunted quite a bit.

Ten people shouting loudly does not make less valid the comments of one person speaking quietly. Amen to that, your graces.

The letters are very very plainly there, not even vaguely inspired by circumstance (no arms, legs, streaks of paint, joins in the wall, etc.): they sit there proudly for the human eye to see. If they were not commented upon at the time of the murders it may very well have been because in 1888 it simply would never have occurred to anyone that a murderer would be twisted enough, or indeed vain enough, to leave a clue. After all, the reason why Jack is so famous (other than the fact that he was never formally uncovered) was the fact that he was the very first media serial killer. The good folk of England in 1888 simply were not ready for such deviousness - so unprepared indeed that on viewing the gruesome scene before them, I can well understand if not one of them turned their eyes to the wall instead and said "There's a couple of letters there - probably a clue from an as yet unrecognised form of killer".

I've seen countless versions of the famous crime scene and other than one (a poor reproduction), the 'M' is very apparent, and the 'F' reasonably so.

From this, I deduce that they were genuinely there.

From this, I deduce that they reference the diary (quotation cited earlier).

From this, I deduce that the diary is either genuine or the whole exercise was inspired by them. No other interpretation seems to me to be simultaneously possible and believable (although I accept that this is an excellent example of the Argument from Personal Incredulity). The only other interpretation I can think of is that a forger wrote the fake diary, made a random reference to Florie's initials in the context of the Kelly murder, and then miracles of miracles (to end all miracles), crime scene photographs show that the two letters, in the correct order, appear more or less where you would expect them to be given the nature of the text. But, no, the end of all miracles would not even be then, for the 'M' in the photograph conspires to be exactly the same 'M' consistently demonstrated throughout the diary (with the rising second-half)!

So - if you can hear me above the heckling and the cackling - I go on believing in the letters first and then the diary second. They underpin the case in favour of the diary - so OF COURSE you can't see them!

When you are a brilliant, ace detective like I, you tolerate the limited vision of underlings and dilletantes. Maybrick was your man - you can put money on it.

Soothsayer
Genius