One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

I wasn't codding dear old readers when I said there's an image to be found here. If you can't see it, does that mean categorically there's nothing to be seen?

For years, I thought that Magic Eyes were a sort of global joke played on the gullible - that, in fact, there was nothing there (because I couldn't see 'through' any of them). Once I saw what was there, I realised there was no global joke and actually there's a wonderful world of clarity and understanding apparently hidden there.

The analogy could hardly be more apposite, I feel.

PS Okay, you've all forced me to give you a clue. The festive season is soon upon us!

Ike

Hear the sledges with the bells—
Silver bells!
What a world of merriment their melody foretells!
How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle,
In the icy air of night!
While the stars that oversprinkle
All the heavens, seem to twinkle
With a crystalline delight;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the tintinabulation that so musically wells
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells—
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.

[Iconoclast]

Hear the sledges with the bells—
Silver bells!
...
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells—
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.

But what do you think it might be, ero b?

Ho Ho Ho!

[Iconoclast]

Just some background to the reports written by Messrs Fido and Begg when part of the Harrison and Feldman research teams.

Below are extracts from two pages from Martin Fido’s 17 page internal report on the diary sent to Shirley Harrison in November 1992. This was before Paul Feldman secured the video rights for The Diary of Jack The Ripper and prior to Feldman having anything to do with the diary project. You can see that Martin is casting back to the conversation he remembered having with Simon Wood in 1988. (In fact the correct year is 1989 as the JtR weekly seminars did not begin until April 1989 and ran through until October 1989.) You’ll also note that Martin makes no reference to Simon having signalled Martin that he had changed his mind about there being initials on the wall by the end of that fateful evening in the City Darts, although there is no reason why Simon had to actually inform Martin of this fact, I guess.

I don't yet have a copy of Paul Begg's report where he has confirmed his own views as I reported a few days ago. If I can locate a copy, I'll post it too.

Just a quick reminder of the note I received from Keith Skinner a few days ago (posted a few pages back, #7299):

"MF - I can make out a quite definite M above Mary's right arm in the photo of her corpse, and could persuade myself that the preceding smudge was an F if pushed. Though I'd also suspect something like an A above what I take to be her liver."

"PB - I, too, can see the M. Also at the top of the picture above the M there seems to be the word George. Also, up and to the left of the M I can see a very clear 4 followed by what could be 8 or 0. I believe Kelly was murdered 40 days after the double event. I don't know whether to attach any significance to the latter, but it does suggest that the murderer wrote on Kelly's unit. A George features in the Journal as JM's dearest friend."




Cheers,

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

The hoaxer would have to had some close ripperologist knowledge to know of the thoughts of Woods, Fido, Begg et al. There was no internet.

We are told Mike Barrett is the master hoaxer - so either the men who spotted the F (arm / wall) & M (wall) told Mike of this or he came across it somewhere? Was it mentioned in a book or newspaper during 1989-1992? If not, the hoaxer must know someone who thought there were initials therefore the hoaxer is a ripperologist. If this is the case - who, why and how did it end up in the hands of Mike Barratt?

This is an interesting question. Did mention of the so-called initials appear in the first edition of the A-Z in 1991(?). I don't have that one, nor can I remember mention having been made of initials in any other Ripper book before this.

[Iconoclast]

This is an interesting question. Did mention of the so-called initials appear in the first edition of the A-Z in 1991(?). I don't have that one, nor can I remember mention having been made of initials in any other Ripper book before this.

The 1991 A-Z does not mention the initials under the Simon Wood section. That's not to say that it wasn't mentioned in some other section. I'll see if I can check this in the morning.

Ike

[erobitha]

This is an interesting question. Did mention of the so-called initials appear in the first edition of the A-Z in 1991(?). I don't have that one, nor can I remember mention having been made of initials in any other Ripper book before this.

I think it is fair to walk the journey of possibilities because through the process of elimination we get closer to the truth.

If there is no public mention of the initials in print, TV or radio between 1989-1992 then the three scenarios remain:

1) The hoaxer independently found the initials (arm and / or wall) on the photo when most (on this thread at least) claim not to see anything at all. Bongo or Ann Barrett for example are RJ's and Orsam's prime suspect for this. This level of awareness of details such as this is not be something either could have found independently in my view. There was barely any consensus by people who arguably knew more about JtR than anyone alive at the time. Yet, one or both of this suburban couple could spot the initials and reflect it in the document with sheer luck and timing of it being discovered by others around this period of 89-92?

2) The hoaxer heard of the initials from one of the researchers who had been discussing it. If Simon Wood says literally he changed his mind overnight, then I doubt he would have told that many people of his original thoughts. That leaves Fido and Begg both documenting the fact that they could see initials on the wall (varying degrees of what they saw - but they saw something) by 1992. I actually don't know if Keith Skinner knew of Simon's claim between 1989-1992 - he would have to answer that. This means one of these men who could see or knew of the initials may have told another person with a strong interest in the Maybrick case and that of Jack the Ripper. That person then hoaxed the document using that nugget when forging it. Then how on this earth did such a thing end up in Mike Barrett's hands? There is no connection of Mike Barrett to any researcher prior to him bringing it publicly to the world. If this is the truth I want to know the full story and journey.

3) It is genuine. It validates the picture and the picture validates it. It sounds circular because it is. That's what the truth can do.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So let's eliminate. I think we need to consider 1 as being the least likely of all three scenarios.

So, point 2 - can Simon Wood, Paul Begg or Keith Skinner (if he was aware) share if they passed this information onto anyone they knew who may have had an interest in both Maybrick and Jack the Ripper between 1989-1992? Is there anyone who would fit this bill? You need not name them publicly, just confirm if the possibility exists. If so, we must consider them as being viable candidates as hoaxers. This then will lead us down a path of further investigation. If we cannot identify any individual that matches this criteria then 1 or 3 are left.

I would see 3 as being more likely.

[Iconoclast]

I would see 3 as being more likely.

Excellent summary of the options and the likelihood of each, ero b.

would you give any credence to a possible fourth option - that the hoaxer literally just lucked-in by putting the reference to initials in the scrapbook and there turning-out to be initials appearing to be on Kelly’s wall?

I can hear Bongo in my head: “Sheer bloody luck” he claimed about various features of the scrapbook when challenged about how he created the hoax he claimed during the worst of his drinking and emotional distress. Should we consider that the initials could have been exactly that?

Personally, of course, it’s too implausible for me from a probabilistic perspective but maybe it ought to take its place in the canon of the possible nevertheless?

Cheers

Ike

[erobitha]

Excellent summary of the options and the likelihood of each, ero b.

would you give any credence to a possible fourth option - that the hoaxer literally just lucked-in by putting the reference to initials in the scrapbook and there turning-out to be initials appearing to be on Kelly’s wall?

I can hear Bongo in my head: “Sheer bloody luck” he claimed about various features of the scrapbook when challenged about how he created the hoax he claimed during the worst of his drinking and emotional distress. Should we consider that the initials could have been exactly that?

Personally, of course, it’s too implausible for me from a probabilistic perspective but maybe it ought to take its place in the canon of the possible nevertheless?

Cheers

Ike

Hi Ike,

I feel that it is implied in scenario 1 that it was sheer luck by Mike or Anne. Luck that they found the initials or luck Mike drunkenly hit triple 7s on the JtR fruit machine.

Sheer luck of mentioning initials "here and there" in Kelly's murder specifically with no photo or with any inside knowledge? Well that is one for odds checkers.

To clarify:

1) Mike / or Anne's sheer luck either through own discovery or drunken lottery of random writing
2) Inside ripperology job that somehow found its way to the hands of Mike Barrett. Which means it would have to have been created between 1989-1992
3) It's real

Of course, these can only be considered if there is no evidence of mentioning the initials in any print document or mentioned in any public forum between 89-92.

- Ero

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

I feel that it is implied in scenario 1 that it was sheer luck by Mike or Anne. Luck that they found the initials or luck Mike drunkenly hit triple 7s on the JtR fruit machine.

That is true, Ero b. I would actually prefer the odds of hitting seven 3s on the JtR fruit machine in the Ten Bells in 1888 than banking on sheer luck alone.

Nevertheless, you may yet have to polish up that fourth option as another occurred to me (in the interests of fairly reflecting the possible): I am certain that those people who insist that Florence Maybrick's initials are not on Kelly's wall at all will not give up simply because so many people contradict them, now including that arch-antidiaryist Martin Fido as well as the somewhat less polemic and polarised Paul Begg. So should 'Pareidolia' (to keep it brief) slip into your now near-fabled list?

What I would certainly say and feel confident in saying is that the initials on Mary Kelly's wall make the old-hoax theory much less tenable (I never thought it was tenable even in the canon of potential hoax solutions, anyway). If it is a hoax, so much seems to point towards a modern hoax (by 'modern', dear readers, we obviously mean 'modern when it came out of an oven at 12 Goldie Street or some other suburban home that commonly manufactured brilliant hoaxes which just cannot be disproven').

And - if it is indeed a modern hoax and it does contain reference to Florence's initials on Mary's wall - we have the problem of provenance if it is still to be ascribed to Mike and Anne Barrett. How would Lord Orsam and his loyal (if slightly evil) band of acolytes explain Mike and Anne lucking-in in this extraordinary way if neither had been in the City Darts that fateful evening when Keith Skinner won the acclaimed Whitechapel Arrows Trophy after stiff competition from Martin Fido, Simon Wood, Caroline Brown (flexing the diamond-encrusted switchblade in her Louis Vuitton handbag ready to claim the prize for herself as darkness fell), and - for all we know - Iconoclast himself (as I was darn that Larndarn Tarn at that time)?

If they weren't in the City Darts, listening-in to all conversations for potential snippets to slip into their nascent hoax, and the initials were not to be found anywhere in print between 1989 and early 1992, then we have a huge problem in providing any kind of believable Barrett provenance.

As if that's new!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
This is an interesting question. Did mention of the so-called initials appear in the first edition of the A-Z in 1991(?). I don't have that one, nor can I remember mention having been made of initials in any other Ripper book before this.

The 1991 A-Z does not mention the initials under the Simon Wood section. That's not to say that it wasn't mentioned in some other section. I'll see if I can check this in the morning.

Ike

Hi Scott,

I recently bought a second-hand copy of the 1991 A-Z and do plan to read it very soon so I'll give you a better answer once I have. I can't see any obvious mention in there of the initials, but that's just me casting my eye over what would seem to be relevant sections.

Oh, and the plate section contains an excellent example of the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, by the way!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I'd hate to wear out my welcome here so I'll make this my last post for the day (unless anyone responds, of course).

Just to offer a very short summary of where we have got to:

Simon Wood
Commissioner
#7225
10-24-2021, 07:44 PM
I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

It was Simon Wood who initiated this discussion - although he now seems to want to distance himself from the notion that he was responsible for giving the idea of initials on the wall to Mike Barrett, unless Simon has somebody else in mind?

The year can now be narrowed down to 1989 between April and October. Simon later clarifies that Paul Begg was not present and that he (Simon) changed his mind the same day and admitted he was mistaken. What Simon has yet to explain is which photograph he was looking at in 1989 (presumably published in a book) and what made him change his mind?

I think Scott and Erobitha have made it clear between them that some major questions now need to be answered by those who would have us believe that Mike and Anne Barrett created the Victorian scrapbook in that same time period. Obviously, the time period works in terms of publicly-available information (post-1987), but nothing is known about the provenance of Mike and Anne acquiring a knowledge of the initials in Kelly's room which they purportedly referenced in their hoax.

We do need answers to these question, and the debate cannot simply be allowed to die off again in order to conveniently suppress these critical issues for those who believe the Barretts were responsible for researching and creating the scrapbook.

Ike

[Yabs]

For all of that to be a major issue we would have to be sure that the journal is making explicit reference to what appear in some photos to be one or perhaps two letters on the partition behind Mary.

Before lapsing into MK related poetry the diary’s author wrote his keywords for the Millers Court murder..

Key, Rip, Flee, Intitial, hat, handkerchief…….. etc

Initial=singular.

He goes on to write

“Her initial there”

Again singular.

He then crossed that out, goes into poetical mode and it becomes “an initial here a initial there”
After this he goes on to express a desire to write a whole poem on flesh next time.


I think RJ has got it spot on that the forger was referring to the wounds that look like an F on Mary’s arm.
This answer doesn’t require any overheard conversations, any research, just somebody viewing a photo, looking for detail and leaving it for us all to play join the dots.

[Yabs]

[Yabs]

I heard footsteps coming, I could not wait.
My initial left upon the gate.
Perhaps the fools will find it a little later.
It was even seen by the illustrator.

Diary 2 out this autumn.

[Iconoclast]

I'd hate to wear out my welcome here so I'll make this my last post for the day (unless anyone responds, of course).

Just to offer a very short summary of where we have got to:

Simon Wood
Commissioner
#7225
10-24-2021, 07:44 PM
I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

It was Simon Wood who initiated this discussion - although he now seems to want to distance himself from the notion that he was responsible for giving the idea of initials on the wall to Mike Barrett, unless Simon has somebody else in mind?

The year can now be narrowed down to 1989 between April and October. Simon later clarifies that Paul Begg was not present and that he (Simon) changed his mind the same day and admitted he was mistaken. What Simon has yet to explain is which photograph he was looking at in 1989 (presumably published in a book) and what made him change his mind?

I think Scott and Erobitha have made it clear between them that some major questions now need to be answered by those who would have us believe that Mike and Anne Barrett created the Victorian scrapbook in that same time period. Obviously, the time period works in terms of publicly-available information (post-1987), but nothing is known about the provenance of Mike and Anne acquiring a knowledge of the initials in Kelly's room which they purportedly referenced in their hoax.

We do need answers to these question, and the debate cannot simply be allowed to die off again in order to conveniently suppress these critical issues for those who believe the Barretts were responsible for researching and creating the scrapbook.

Ike

PS I should have added that posts #7277 and #7278 give the information Erobitha and Scott were seeking (on that note, Paul Begg can be contacted via Casebook for further clarification on these points - though I'm rather hoping he'll stop by here anyway some day very soon and respond to the points with any insight he can offer us).