The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

There's no FM? Am I seeing things? Am I going crazy? Am I insane? Did I really see a cloaking Sasquatch or did I imagine the whole thing? Ahhhhhhhhhh!

Yes there is no FM

[Lombro2]

There's no FM? Am I seeing things? Am I going crazy? Am I insane? Did I really see a cloaking Sasquatch or did I imagine the whole thing? Ahhhhhhhhhh!

[John Wheat]

Of course there's no FM on the wall, Wheato. Same as Barrett was a journalist - everything has to go one way, doesn't it?

What do you say to those people who can see shapes which look like FM on Kelly's wall ('cos it sure ain't just me)?

But Barrett was a journalist or are you saying someone whos written a number articles in a magazine is not a journalist? Which is obviously wrong. Also there is no FM its random blood spatter.

[Iconoclast]

But there is no FM on the wall so it can't be gaslighting.

Of course there's no FM on the wall, Wheato. Same as Barrett was a journalist - everything has to go one way, doesn't it?

What do you say to those people who can see shapes which look like FM on Kelly's wall ('cos it sure ain't just me)?

[John Wheat]

Smart move, Scott.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an abuser causes their victim to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality. It can... lead to confusion and self-doubt in the victim. Signs of gaslighting include the abuser denying facts, manipulating information, and creating a false narrative that makes the victim feel insecure about their judgments and beliefs. Copilot

Did you really see that? (FM) Did you really hear that? (Fifty-fifty) Do you really remember that? (Korsakoff) Do you really know that? (Anything at all.)

But there is no FM on the wall so it can't be gaslighting.

[Lombro2]

Smart move, Scott.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an abuser causes their victim to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality. It can... lead to confusion and self-doubt in the victim. Signs of gaslighting include the abuser denying facts, manipulating information, and creating a false narrative that makes the victim feel insecure about their judgments and beliefs. Copilot

Did you really see that? (FM) Did you really hear that? (Fifty-fifty) Do you really remember that? (Korsakoff) Do you really know that? (Anything at all.)

[Scott Nelson]

I don't want to discuss it any longer.

[C. F. Leon]

Congratulations, you've only gaslit me several times.

Sorry, "gaslit"?? I'm not getting the reference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You self-righteous twit.

I'm not going to join you in your sorry downward spiral into abuse, Scott. I prefer to make every effort to post within the Forum rules. Thanks for the ‘debate’.

[Scott Nelson]

You self-righteous twit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, but you seem to holding them accountable for just about everything and I'm not talking about their interpretations of things heard on poorly-recorded tapes. Did it ever occur to you that certain information may be known to some, but must be withheld for now for specific reasons?

You still don't seem to be understanding the issue Scott. Caz implied she could hear certain things said on the tape that I am unable to hear. What I'm trying to find out is whether she has actually heard what she is saying is on the tape or is she mistaken? It's got nothing to do with interpretation or withholding of information.

Addressed, yes, most of them. I don't think there will be too many definitive answers in this sorry saga.

What does "addressed" mean? Is it the same as "avoided" in your mind?

Yes, I agree with you, Robert Smith's diary is a modern forgery. But I think the Abberline inclusions make a more compelling case for modernization than "one off instance"."

Abberline's role as a detective on the Whitechapel murders case was mentioned in the contemporary newspapers during 1888. One correspondent claiming to be Jack the Ripper even sent him a telegram in November 1888. How the diarist's references to Abberline make a more compelling case for modernization than the use of an expression that couldn't possibly have existed in 1888 is beyond me but you do have a unique way of thinking Scott.

Thank you, I know I'll find it eventually. I don't think Caz or Ike were familiar enough with Ripperana. Roger, I don't know.

Do report back in a year's time as to how you got on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Plenty of people challenged Ike on this, myself included. Stop trying to set yourself apart as the only crusader of common sense.

I'm not "setting myself up as the only crusader of common sense". I've simply been responding to your insulting claim that my posts are tiresome and going over old ground. I shouldn't have needed to but there we are. Now, when, I respond with facts you don't like it. All that I’ve had since posting on this subject is that I’m a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ and so not a member of the ‘allowed to post on the subject of the diary’ club and all this is because I’ve suggested that Mike and Anne could have been behind the forgery. You’d have thought that I’d suggested Boris Johnson as the culprit and not the two people intimately involved the entire saga with one of them being responsible for revealing the ‘diary’ to the world and who admitted to forging it.

Are you sure you haven't imagined the idea that you've challenged Ike's "plenty of people" claim? He said that directly to me a few months ago and no-one challenged him other than me. My challenging him about this was what led directly to the poll question being introduced. You might have challenged him as to whether "FM" was on the wall but not his claim that "plenty of people" can see it. If you dispute this, what post did you do it in?

[Scott Nelson]

In saying that you "doubt they would know for sure", you reveal that don't even seem to have understood what's happening. Caz has implied that she's heard the things on the tapes that don't appear to be there. She hasn't yet confirmed whether she has or hasn't. It's the same for Ike. I've asked him if he heard the critical sentence on one of the tapes. He hasn't responded for some reason. So, yes, they will know for sure, Scott, whether they have heard something on the tapes or not. Are you actually reading all the posts? Yeah, but you seem to holding them accountable for just about everything and I'm not talking about their interpretations of things heard on poorly-recorded tapes. Did it ever occur to you that certain information may be known to some, but must be withheld for now for specific reasons?

And still we get claims that all questions have been answered. Addressed, yes, most of them. I don't think there will be too many definitive answers in this sorry saga.

I don't care about solving the case, Scott. Wow, I never could have guessed(!) The only positive point I've wanted to make is that the diary is a definite forgery, created after 1945, due to the inclusion of the modern expression, "one off instance". That should be the end of the discussion. It's other people who obsess over every single detail of its creation, something which is impossible while the two people who could assist with getting to the bottom of matters remain silent. And if people stubbornly don't want to change their minds in the face of incontrovertible evidence that's up to them. Yes, I agree with you, Robert Smith's diary is a modern forgery. But I think the Abberline inclusions make a more compelling case for modernization than "one off instance".

"It wasn't a false belief. I remember a medical form with the diagnosis written on it."

You clearly don't remember such a thing, Scott, for the reason Roger has already explained to you. You just think you do. Your memory is playing tricks on you. If such a diagnosis existed, don't you think Caz would know about it? It was the first question I asked her and she wasn't aware of it. Ike, who appears to be in regular contact with Keith Skinner, isn't aware of it either. You may remember a form, just not one with a KS diagnosis. But good luck in your never-ending search.

Thank you, I know I'll find it eventually. I don't think Caz or Ike were familiar enough with Ripperana. Roger, I don't know.

[Scott Nelson]

It's correct, isn't it, that there's no evidence that "plenty of people" can see "FM" on the wall, as you claimed? Did you see the result of the poll?

Plenty of people challenged Ike on this, myself included. Stop trying to set yourself apart as the only crusader of common sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Scotty's description of your tone as 'vainglorious' is one well-received by regulars to these pages - anyone posting in the bombastic, whatever-you-say-I'll-just-unsay style of, oh, I don't know, say a Lord Orsam, is unlikely to maintain a willing audience to play along with him or her for very long. The vast majority of your long list of triumphs remain utterly unresolved - all you have tended to do is challenge and challenge and challenge every nitpicking word anyone has typed in a generous attempt to save you the effort of getting off your proverbial arse and finding the specifics out for yourself. Smugly congratulating yourself on your efforts after an endorsement by the Cut-and-Paste King is not going to improve the mood music around here very quickly.



The reason why you are awaiting an answer to this is that I have no recollection of having been asked it. Could you direct me to where you have asked it?

Whatever the source of this question turns out to be, I think I would be right in saying that - following your tendency to stretch one's imagination beyond reason to attempt to make an argument - I cannot be certain that James Maybrick didn't write the original document in some other vehicle before he died and before someone else came along in 1891 and copied the authentic original into an 1891 scrapbook. Stupid, I know, but very much in the style of a Lord Orsam-Sholmes, I'd say.

See how pointless the journey is when one adheres to the directions for it you provide us with?

PS Far from remaining silent on your endless questions, I am investing my time most profitably in SocPill25 within which I can present my case without the noise and distraction of the chattering classes coming-up with endless questions and challenges which in reality may not even be properly answerable by anyone, on either side (or sitting on top of) the fence.

In case you missed the background, Ike, I only listed those achievements because Scott falsely accused me of having been asking people to reinvent the wheel in tiresome fashion with questions which have mostly been addressed long before, despite not a single example being provided. There was nothing vainglorious about me listing a selection of my achievements over the past few months in response to this but I shouldn't have had to defend my right to post about the Maybrick diary and ask questions in the first place. It's ludicrous that this subject is apparently closed to new members and that a small elite of people get annoyed when their long-held assumptions are challenged or questions are asked. It’s simple arrogance.

It's correct, isn't it, that you retracted your ridiculous claim that the diary author predicted the discovery of "FM" on the wall after I challenged you about it? It's correct, isn't it, that there's no evidence that "plenty of people" can see "FM" on the wall, as you claimed? Did you see the result of the poll? I certainly caught you out when you claimed that Melvin Harris was "seeking" Barrett's affidavit and, indeed, that he was given the affidavit without any conditions on 6th January 1995. When I challenged you for the evidence it turned out there wasn't any. It looks like you simply invented it. The whole "fifty-fifty" fiasco was surely worth challenging. You didn't even know what tape it's on when I asked you about it! Now for the big question: Can you hear Alan Gray saying to Mike on the tape labelled 6^th November 1994: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting."? It's a simple question. Ike. I've already asked you once but you haven't answered. How many times do I need to ask you a question before you answer it?

Talking of which, I asked you the question about the 1891 diary in #296 of the thread "The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?" flagging it as a critical question as long ago as 5^th February 2025. Here is what I said:

"Let me ask you this, Ike, because I think it's the critical question. How do we know that the actual Maybrick diary isn't contained in a photograph album manufactured in 1891? If you can work out the answer to this, you might be able to fathom why Barrett could reasonably have thought that an 1891 diary with mainly blank pages might have been something he could use for his Jack the Ripper diary, before he actually saw [it]."

Your strange answer today demonstrates that you don't understand the purpose of the question. I asked it because you kept saying that Barrett couldn't have reasonably thought he could use an 1891 diary for the forgery. In asking why the diary as we have it today couldn't be written in an photograph album from 1891, to which there is no answer that it couldn't be, I'm showing you why Barrett COULD reasonably have thought he could use an 1891 diary.

Congratulations, btw, on limiting yourself to a mere two mentions of Orsam in your post, which suggests that you may at last be on the road to recovery and you may, in future, be able to discuss this without constantly resorting to snide personal insults.