The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Tani]

Hasn't it been established that the 'writing on the MJK room wall' was transfer from writing on the envelope of the picture?

[Iconoclast]

Hasn't it been established that the 'writing on the MJK room wall' was transfer from writing on the envelope of the picture?

I think you'll need to provide a bit more detail than this, Tani!

Who claimed it? When was it claimed? What was the evidence to support it?

You have to be very careful when you make such throwaway claims - there are just too many people you throw them to who actually file them away for later re-use.

'Enterprising' journalist, anyone?.

[Mike J. G.]

A Hoax or not a Hoax? That is the question. And a lovely one at that for anyone who is a debunker. We're all debunkers here, more or less, aren't we?

We love the Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and the Cottingley Fairies. It's no different with the Diary. It's a fun fairytale time of Purple Dragons and Bumbling Buffoons. It should be all fun and games and enjoyable debate. But it doesn't seem to go that way with the Diary. I've been on both sides of hoaxes so I know how it goes sometimes.

I have to admit I can get testy over the Sasquatch and the Patterson-Gimlin film but I try to control myself. I know, by getting hostile and mean, I wouldn't be doing Patterson or Gimlin or the Sasquatch any favors. I would be making myself look like a tin-foil fanatic or a monomaniac with an agenda. So although I don't take kindly to the comparison of the Diary to the Patterson-Gimlin Film, I remain calm and focused and get all my ducks and frames in order.

Instead of throwing a conniption, I remind myself I have scientists and professors and experts and even science on my side, same as I do with the Diary Debate. The other side either has the Woo Factor or the Giant Ongoing National Conspiracy.

Then I model my behavior on Caz who is level-headed and calm and unbiased and, as a consequence, does a better job with the Hoax theory than anyone else. Why can't we all just do the same with the Diary?

Now pretend my name is Eric Shipton and carry on!

No offense, mate, but I hope you're not suggesting that the Patterson film is genuine footage of a sasquatch, supported by science and scientists. Nor do I hope that you hold any stock in Don Jeff being a credible scientist as far as Bigfoot is concerned...

I'm far more likely to believe that Jim was Jack.

Anyway, carry on!

[Tani]

I think you'll need to provide a bit more detail than this, Tani!

Who claimed it? When was it claimed? What was the evidence to support it?

You have to be very careful when you make such throwaway claims - there are just too many people you throw them to who actually file them away for later re-use.

'Enterprising' journalist, anyone?.

It's not a throwaway claim. But I'm not doing you research for you; it was here on Casebook recently. The writing seems to like to be used by conspiracy theorists and I'm not bothering with it.

[Lombro2]

No offense, mate, but I hope you're not suggesting that the Patterson film is genuine footage of a sasquatch, supported by science and scientists. Nor do I hope that you hold any stock in Don Jeff being a credible scientist as far as Bigfoot is concerned...

I'm far more likely to believe that Jim was Jack.

Anyway, carry on!

No. I'm just pointing out the fact that debunkers should enjoy hoaxes if what they're debunking is a hoax. And proponents should enjoy promoting their "artifact" (or video) if their "artifact" is real.

When they get all worked up over it, then it give the impression of religious extremism or political fanaticism, and they appear to be overcompensating for their inner feeling of inadequacy regarding themselves and their belief or disbelief. It would shake my belief in them and what they have to say.

I used the Patterson-Gimlin Film example because it was used before by others for Ike. Ike is not the mainstream of this Unsolved Mystery. Ike is the Woo Factor.

[Iconoclast]

It's not a throwaway claim. But I'm not doing you research for you; it was here on Casebook recently. The writing seems to like to be used by conspiracy theorists and I'm not bothering with it.

Could you at least point us in the general direction of where it was claimed because it is utterly new to me (for one)? I assume it was not in a James Maybrick thread as I would have seen it.

Please don't call it 'writing' - it isn't words or even a word. Maybrick placed his wife's initials on Mary Kelly's wall using her blood. It was first published in a clear and unequivocal form in Dan Farson's paperback (1973) - it was presumably also in his 1972 hardback but I don't have a copy of it. Here it is:



I think you should start bothering with it as it totally blows the case wide open and points directly towards James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper.

PS For the record, if someone has genuinely claimed that these letters were written on an envelope and were thus transferred to an original copy of MJK1 because it was inside at the time, I would be ever so corked. It's clearly errant nonsense. I'm guessing that someone suggested it might have happened (the wish-it-away strategy) and then there was a pile-on of 'confirmation', you know, like the pile-on of confirmation for the 'enterprising' journalist theory which has never actually been confirmed (and never can be now)?

[c.d.]

Maybrick placed his wife's initials on Mary Kelly's wall using her blood.

Yes, that is the claim.

I think you should start bothering with it as it totally blows the case wide open and points directly towards James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper.

Provided that first it can be determined that they are in fact the initials F. and M. and not simply pareidolia. And of course then that would have to be followed by proving that the diary is genuine and written by Maybrick.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

It's not a throwaway claim. But I'm not doing you research for you; it was here on Casebook recently. The writing seems to like to be used by conspiracy theorists and I'm not bothering with it.

Hi Tani.

I have no desire to further debate the Maybrick Hoax, but I think I might be able to help you out on this one point.

If you ever become better acquainted with Iconoclast, you'll soon notice that he's so buried in his own air castles and theories that he often misunderstands what someone is attempting to ask him.

You're referring to a very old observation by Simon Wood regarding certain letters that are supposedly visible on the original Kelly photograph 'MJK3': And you're correct--this was brought up again recently. To quote Simon:

”That said, writing is indeed visible all over the photograph we know as MJK3. Most of it is illegible or nonsensical, probably the result of people writing on the envelope in which the photograph was kept. But at some point an original print was die stamped. In the area below the raised left knee clearly visible concentric circles contain the letters HO. Home Office? Within the circles, and to the left, a notation reads 'SIB8FGA' and, beneath, a second reads: 'pd 2/4'.”

There was also a widespread belief, going back at least a quarter of a century, that there might have been writing on one of the photographic plates and these are discernible in certain reproductions. Over the years, lots of people--not just 'Iconoclast'-- have convinced themselves that they can see all sorts of letters and figures and shapes in the two Kelly crime scene photographs.

What Iconoclast is referring to, however, is a dark blotch (undoubtedly traceable to the arterial spray mentioned by Dr. Bond) that vaguely resembles 'FM' in Dan Farson's particularly poor-quality reproduction of the more famous of the Kelly crime scene photographs in his 1971/1972 book, undoubtedly the result of the photograph being second or third or fourth generation. As Rob Clack and others have demonstrated, this illusory 'FM' is not visible in the original 'sepia' photograph.

I hope this helps.

[Iconoclast]

What Iconoclast is referring to, however, is a dark blotch (undoubtedly traceable to the arterial spray mentioned by Dr. Bond) that vaguely resembles 'FM' in Dan Farson's particularly poor-quality reproduction of the more famous of the Kelly crime scene photographs in his 1971/1972 book, undoubtedly the result of the photograph being second or third or fourth generation. As Rob Clack and others have demonstrated, this illusory 'FM' is not visible in the original 'sepia' photograph.I hope this helps.

The version Rob Clack himself uploaded to JtR Forums was exquisite - better even than Farson's 1973 paperback version!

I've tried to upload my copy that I took of this but it won't produce anything bigger than a 'small' version.

Believe me, the initials are so clear!!!

Tani, RJ and people like RJ have to disparage the initials on Kelly's wall because their presence points wholly towards an authentic document. You don't have to believe me when I say this, but at least believe me that you shouldn't just believe ad populam.

[Iconoclast]

Maybrick placed his wife's initials on Mary Kelly's wall using her blood.
Yes, that is the claim.
I think you should start bothering with it as it totally blows the case wide open and points directly towards James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper.
Provided that first it can be determined that they are in fact the initials F. and M. and not simply pareidolia. And of course then that would have to be followed by proving that the diary is genuine and written by Maybrick.
c.d.

Pareidolia is an evolutionary facial-recognition facility that we all have. It helps us to see Jesus in the toast and Elvis in the clouds - even when they're not there!

We're talking initials here. An 'F' and an 'M' on Kelly's wall, shapes which have been confirmed by too many people (pro-scrapbook, neutral, and many anti-scrapbook) that we don't need to do that little deflection thing when things get a bit hot under the collar. (I'm not arguing ad populum here - people acknowledge shapes which look like 'F' and 'M', usually not initials themselves.)

Someone put those initials on Kelly's wall. I wonder who that could have been? You know my theory. What's yours? They are clearly there but - I agree - it's easier to incorrectly cite pareidolia than address the awkward question of how a hoaxer could have been first to ever spot them.

[c.d.]

Someone put those initials on Kelly's wall.

This is the problem in a nutshell, Ike. You have determined that they are in fact initials. But this is an unproven claim which you refuse to acknowledge and not everyone agrees with you.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Someone put those initials on Kelly's wall.This is the problem in a nutshell, Ike. You have determined that they are in fact initials. But this is an unproven claim which you refuse to acknowledge and not everyone agrees with you. c.d.

Then let me clarify, c.d.. In my opinion, someone put those initials on Kelly's wall.

I ask only of my dear readers that they are intellectually honest enough to admit that shapes which look like the letters 'F' and 'M' do very much appear to be on Kelly's wall.

In the right order, note. Just as predicted in the Maybrick scrapbook.

Some hoaxer that.

[c.d.]

Well I can only speak for myself but I see what appears to be or could be the initials F. and M. But for what it is worth I also see horses in clouds and Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.

You are using the initials to support the authenticity of the diary and the diary to support the authenticity of the initials. But the fact remains that both of those claims are unproven independent of each other. I think there is a name for this time of argument but I am not sure what it is.

I do know however that that type of reasoning would never cut it in a court of law.

c.d.

[The Baron]

Circular argument or Begging the question



The Baron

[c.d.]

Circular argument or Begging the question



The Baron

Thank you, sir.

c.d.