One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

That's actually very clever, Yabs - good spot (and good rhyme).

[erobitha]

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.

[Iconoclast]

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.

Hi Yabs,

Your comments are generally full of merit, but please all be mindful that these are your opinions not - as I understand - categorical claims about what is true and what is not (if they were, they would obviously come with a burden of proof and I'm not sure how you would provide one).

What I would ask you, Yabs, is do you believe that had Martin Fido NOT mentioned Simon Wood's 1989 observation in his November 1992 report on the diary, then would the discussion between Martin and Paul Begg ever have occurred at all? That is, do you believe that Paul came to the same conclusion as Martin independently or because Martin guided him to that conclusion? Their notes suggest that Paul was led to the initials by Martin's comment and perhaps you believe that that invalidates Paul's interpretation of the marks as initials?

And for the convenience of everybody following this thread, could you just post the relevant pages from the diary (not the transcript) so that people will not only be able to follow your train of thought in interpreting Mike Barrett's thought processes when creating the diary but also see how similar the handwriting is to Mike and Anne Barrett's (or not, as the case may be)?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

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.

Whilst this may have been the hoaxer's reference point for Mary Kelly's room (coupling it with the 'M' at 29 Hanbury Street and/or the Vs on Eddowes' cheeks), if you discount the relevance of the 'FM' on Kelly's wall you still have to make some sort of intellectual effort to explain them. How did Simon Wood see/unsee them? How did Martin Fido have no problem seeing them? How did Paul Begg have no problem seeing them? How do so many posters on this thread alone have no problem seeing them? Why did (and do) so many books include photographs which clearly show those initials on Mary Kelly's wall?

If you attempt to deflect the intention of the author away from those initials, you have not provided a single shred of evidence that Florrie's initials were not actually on Mary Kelly's wall.

[Simon Wood]

The question should be, would Martin Fido and Paul Begg have recognised the markings as initials, let alone translated them as "FM", had I not mentioned four years earlier the possibility of there being initials on Kelly's wall?

The Diary is like the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notations: people are having to turn cartwheels in order to lend them any semblance of credibility.

[Scott Nelson]

So true, Simon. To those who believe the initials are on Kelly's wall, why do they have to stand for "Florence Maybrick"?

And as RJ Palmer has mentioned, initials as written about in the Diary wouldn't necessarily have to appear together and could be interpreted as being in other locations known in Maybrick's lifetime.

[erobitha]

The question should be, would Martin Fido and Paul Begg have recognised the markings as initials, let alone translated them as "FM", had I not mentioned four years earlier the possibility of there being initials on Kelly's wall?

The Diary is like the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notations: people are having to turn cartwheels in order to lend them any semblance of credibility.

But Simon, you are missing the point. Whether they would have or not is irrelevant.

You simply dropped the seed that prompted them to draw their own conclusions. If you believe Begg & Fido would never have seen them without your prompt - then how did it end up in the scrapbook? Do you believe Mike & Anne could see what Begg & Fido would not have without your prompting?

"An initial, a initial there". Regardless of Yabs valiant attempts to make it sound singular - it is plural. Therefore either the hoaxer had the same information you, Begg and Fido had. Or the hoaxer did something you believed Begg & Fido couldn't have picked up without your help independently. There is no public record of this observation between 1989-1992. Therefore the hoaxer is someone you or the others most likely know. Or it is real.

So did you help the so-called hoaxer? You saw the initials (then decided you were mistaken). Did you pass this information to anyone else outside of Begg, Fido or indeed Skinner? Perhaps innocently enough that would have good knowledge of both Maybrick AND JtR?

We will never hear Fido's response obviously, but I would hope we will hear more from you, Paul Begg and perhaps Keith Skinner on this.

If you truly believe the scrapbook is a hoax then think hard. You may even know the hoaxer. This could be the death knell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Erobitha,

I believe I do know the identity of the hoaxer.

I may leave their name in an envelope to be opened once I'm dust.

Regards,

Simon

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha,

I believe I do know the identity of the hoaxer.

I may leave their name in an envelope to be opened once I'm dust.

Regards,

Simon

Well that is something.

I will do my best Derren Brown impression and guess what will be written on that piece of paper. I have good spidey senses for this sort of thing.

But, it will only be an allegation after death with no opportunity for investigation and follow-up.

A dead person pointing the finger at another dead person, doesn't help much.

[Scott Nelson]

"An initial, a initial there". Regardless of Yabs valiant attempts to make it sound singular - it is plural. Therefore either the hoaxer had the same information you, Begg and Fido had. Or the hoaxer did something you believed Begg & Fido couldn't have picked up without your help independently. There is no public record of this observation between 1989-1992.

We have to be careful here. I'm not aware that initials were publicly mentioned between 1989-1992, but I haven't read all of the Ripper material from this period. Does someone know if they were?

[Iconoclast]

The question should be, would Martin Fido and Paul Begg have recognised the markings as initials, let alone translated them as "FM", had I not mentioned four years earlier the possibility of there being initials on Kelly's wall?

The Diary is like the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notations: people are having to turn cartwheels in order to lend them any semblance of credibility.

When one use terms like people are having to turn cartwheels in order to lend them any semblance of credibility, this is the work of an Apologist - it is a brutal stretching of the actual truth of the matter in order to compromise an argument and poison a well: No-one is having to turn cartwheels at all, they are simply having to look at a photograph and agree that Florence Maybrick's initials are on that wall. It's rich coming form Simon himself who saw and unsaw them again so quickly, but fortunately Martin Fido, Paul Begg, and so many other people saw them (and continued to see them) clearly enough that no cartwheels have ever been required nor should be vindictively inferred.

Just to iterate all of this (it's probably reiterate by now):

Simon has stated Paul Begg was not in the City Darts with Martin Fido which is supported by Keith Skinner's recollection. Simon goes on to say that he changed his mind about there being initials on Kelly's wall and admitted his mistake the same day.

Simon has still not clarified what photograph he was examining in the City Darts with Martin Fido and what made him change his mind?

The 1991 edition of the A To Z makes no reference to Simon's 1989 observations - yet it is Martin Fido in November 1992 that introduces Simon's observation into Martin's report on the diary after having been told by Simon that he had made a mistake. So Martin has ignored Simon's sudden myopia and has decided - on the contrary - initials are definitely there on Kelly's wall. What could Martin see in that mysterious book that Simon suddenly couldn't see anymore? Paul Begg picks up Martin's comments and expands on it in his own report on the diary in January 1993.

Simon has claimed that he knew the diary to be a modern hoax because he was responsible for suggesting to Martin Fido about the markings on Kelly's wall possibly being initials. Does this logically follow?

I'm not sure where this leaves us - by the implications of Simon's claims, he identified the initials for less than 24 hours and yet that was sufficient to initiate the hoax which Martin Fido inadvertently later supported when he told Paul Begg about the initials Simon had seen so briefly.

To make this a little more palatable, the Apologists have already started to undermine the initials in the scrapbook as referring to something other than the 'F' and the 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall that are so easily seen by so many people and in pretty much every version of the photograph. As I think ero b has pointed-out, the comment in the rhyme in the scrapbook is not about a singular thing - not about the one 'F' on Kelly's arm (which the Apologists have turned into defensive wounds) - it is about a plural thing. Now, is that plural as in 'Mary Kelly's room' or plural as in 'all of the initials left throughout the series of canonical murders?

The reality is that it is pointless any of us making categorical claims about what the line definitely means because that brings with it a burden of proof which can never be met with the evidence currently at our disposal. We should feel free to hold our opinions, make some suggestions, but be wary of making unequivocal statements of what is true or untrue because neither can be proven. But I'm not referring to Florrie's initals being on Mary Kelly's wall, note, I'm referring to whether they are what the diarist was referring to.

What is available to us to be absolutely clear about is that whether the line in the scrapbook refers to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall or to initials perhaps in that room and also perhaps at the other crime scenes, we can be absolutely certain that - if James maybrick were not Jack the Ripper - our being able to see what appears to be Florrie's initials on Mary Kell's wall when the scrapbook appears to predict something like that - is simply miraculous. Whether the scrapbook is a hoax or is authentic, it is simply beyond the realms of mere chance alone that a random, throwaway line in a scrapbook should refer to Florence Maybrick's initials being in Mary Kelly's room when so clear an example of them sits proudly on Kelly's blood-stained wall.

If the scrapbook is actually a hoax, it could only have started with an awareness of those initials and the hoax had to be backward-engineered around those initials to focus on Florence Maybrick and thereby James Maybrick who just ever-so-conveniently for the hoaxer works on every level as a possible candidate for Jack.

I think Scott was asking a similar question: How could that be Mike and Anne Barrett if the evidence suggests that the initials on Kelly's wall were not mentioned in print between the period 1989 and 1992?

Ike

[John Wheat]

When one use terms like people are having to turn cartwheels in order to lend them any semblance of credibility, this is the work of an Apologist - it is a brutal stretching of the actual truth of the matter in order to compromise an argument and poison a well: No-one is having to turn cartwheels at all, they are simply having to look at a photograph and agree that Florence Maybrick's initials are on that wall. It's rich coming form Simon himself who saw and unsaw them again so quickly, but fortunately Martin Fido, Paul Begg, and so many other people saw them (and continued to see them) clearly enough that no cartwheels have ever been required nor should be vindictively inferred.

Just to iterate all of this (it's probably reiterate by now):

Simon has stated Paul Begg was not in the City Darts with Martin Fido which is supported by Keith Skinner's recollection. Simon goes on to say that he changed his mind about there being initials on Kelly's wall and admitted his mistake the same day.

Simon has still not clarified what photograph he was examining in the City Darts with Martin Fido and what made him change his mind?

The 1991 edition of the A To Z makes no reference to Simon's 1989 observations - yet it is Martin Fido in November 1992 that introduces Simon's observation into Martin's report on the diary after having been told by Simon that he had made a mistake. So Martin has ignored Simon's sudden myopia and has decided - on the contrary - initials are definitely there on Kelly's wall. What could Martin see in that mysterious book that Simon suddenly couldn't see anymore? Paul Begg picks up Martin's comments and expands on it in his own report on the diary in January 1993.

Simon has claimed that he knew the diary to be a modern hoax because he was responsible for suggesting to Martin Fido about the markings on Kelly's wall possibly being initials. Does this logically follow?

I'm not sure where this leaves us - by the implications of Simon's claims, he identified the initials for less than 24 hours and yet that was sufficient to initiate the hoax which Martin Fido inadvertently later supported when he told Paul Begg about the initials Simon had seen so briefly.

To make this a little more palatable, the Apologists have already started to undermine the initials in the scrapbook as referring to something other than the 'F' and the 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall that are so easily seen by so many people and in pretty much every version of the photograph. As I think ero b has pointed-out, the comment in the rhyme in the scrapbook is not about a singular thing - not about the one 'F' on Kelly's arm (which the Apologists have turned into defensive wounds) - it is about a plural thing. Now, is that plural as in 'Mary Kelly's room' or plural as in 'all of the initials left throughout the series of canonical murders?

The reality is that it is pointless any of us making categorical claims about what the line definitely means because that brings with it a burden of proof which can never be met with the evidence currently at our disposal. We should feel free to hold our opinions, make some suggestions, but be wary of making unequivocal statements of what is true or untrue because neither can be proven. But I'm not referring to Florrie's initals being on Mary Kelly's wall, note, I'm referring to whether they are what the diarist was referring to.

What is available to us to be absolutely clear about is that whether the line in the scrapbook refers to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall or to initials perhaps in that room and also perhaps at the other crime scenes, we can be absolutely certain that - if James maybrick were not Jack the Ripper - our being able to see what appears to be Florrie's initials on Mary Kell's wall when the scrapbook appears to predict something like that - is simply miraculous. Whether the scrapbook is a hoax or is authentic, it is simply beyond the realms of mere chance alone that a random, throwaway line in a scrapbook should refer to Florence Maybrick's initials being in Mary Kelly's room when so clear an example of them sits proudly on Kelly's blood-stained wall.

If the scrapbook is actually a hoax, it could only have started with an awareness of those initials and the hoax had to be backward-engineered around those initials to focus on Florence Maybrick and thereby James Maybrick who just ever-so-conveniently for the hoaxer works on every level as a possible candidate for Jack.

I think Scott was asking a similar question: How could that be Mike and Anne Barrett if the evidence suggests that the initials on Kelly's wall were not mentioned in print between the period 1989 and 1992?

Ike

Ridiculous

[rjpalmer]

And as RJ Palmer has mentioned, initials as written about in the Diary wouldn't necessarily have to appear together.

The diary flat-out refers to it as an initial. Singular. And if Ike and Ero don't like hearing it from 'anti-diarists' they should go back and read post #3266 very carefully, written by someone they know and love.

If the diarist isn't referring to the back wall (and he isn't) then there is no need for KS, Ike, or Ero to wring their hands about whether or not the Barretts could have heard about Simon's theory. It need not have come into play.

Hi Harry,

I have often wondered if 'an initial here' was meant to refer to Sir Jim, back in Liverpool, scratching another initial in the watch, while the initial 'there' referred to one left somewhere at the 'front' of the Kelly crime scene 'for all eyes to see' - possibly carved roughly into her flesh and not appreciated as a deliberate marking among all the other damage. The diarist does express the thought of carving a 'funny little rhyme' on the next victim's flesh, and if this passage was meant to refer to two initials together on the wall behind Kelly, one has to ask why the words 'here', 'there' and 'in front' were used to describe them. It wouldn't be cryptic - it would just be inaccurate.

A nice turn of phrase.

It wouldn't be cryptic - it would just be inaccurate. A perfect rebuttal to Martin Fido's alleged 'quibble.'

[Iconoclast]

The diary flat-out refers to it as an initial. Singular. And if Ike and Ero don't like hearing it from 'anti-diarists' they should go back and read post #3266 very carefully, written by someone they know and love.

If the diarist isn't referring to the back wall (and he isn't) then there is no need for KS, Ike, or Ero to wring their hands about whether or not the Barretts could have heard about Simon's theory. It need not have come into play.



A nice turn of phrase.

It wouldn't be cryptic - it would just be inaccurate. A perfect rebuttal to Martin Fido's alleged 'quibble.'

So, RJ, if you have decided that the scrapbook's reference to initials is actually singular ("an initial here, an initial there" sounds very plural to me), then you believe that Florence Maybrick's initials were on Mary Kelly's wall just by sheer unadulterated chance alone (as confirmed by someone - Martin Fido - who was even more anti-diary than even you).

So that does create some rather significant cognitive dissonance (as someone said the other day) for you so it is no surprise to me at all that you therefore 'cannot see' the initials on her wall at all.

Are you at least willing to speculate on how such commentators as Martin Fido and Paul Begg (amongst so many others including, ephemerally Simon Wood) could be so badly mistaken in their views regarding those 'FM'-like shapes on Kelly's wall when commentators such as yourself can see nothing at all like 'FM'?

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

(as confirmed by someone - Martin Fido -)

Yes, you got me there, Ike.

Martin gave 'FM' a ringing endorsement. If pushed, he could persuade himself, that the 'smudge' was an F.