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

[Iconoclast]

Allo, Ike! Hasn't Simon Wood since recanted his idea that there were initials on the wall?

He recanted his claim on that very evening in late 1988, Mike. I was working for a short while at New Scotland Yard at that very time and it niggles me that I too could have been privy to some or all of that discussion, but I wasn't. Bit like when Bill Waddell rang me up and offered me a last-minute trip around the Black Museum but I was out of the room and didn't get the message until it was too late!

I think Simon would like to have been the first to see the controversial 'FM' on Kelly's wall but he wasn't - it was Martin Fido.

Either way, I find it just as hard to believe that nobody in 1888 spotted these initials, nor felt the need to mention them if they did, including Joseph Barnett, who had actually lived in the room ...

We've hashed this one around many times, Mike. Put yourself in Kelly's room. Imagine the disgusting gore, the smell, the lack of air and light. And then imagine what the phosphorus glow of a flash 'bulb' could do to briefly illuminate certain parts of the room? I think that's your answer, mate (it was first given in about 2008 so I can't claim ownership of it).

... yet a century later we have Simon Wood spotting them through the grain of an old photograph.

Not so, Mike. Simon asked Keith and Martin for their views on the possibility of initials, Keith got sidetracked by someone else, and Simon and Martin continued the debate. By the end of the evening, they agreed there were no initials on the wall. Now, the two of them might have been absolutely legless by then, but they weren't looking for the 'FM' shape and - evidently - didn't spot it en passant as it were. Crucially, we don't know which version of MJK1 they were looking at.

IMO, there are no initials, I've always struggled to see them, tbh. It's a case of people seeing what they want to see...

I've done this one many many times. Can you see the magic eye puzzles? If you can't, you assume everyone's in on the joke and the joke's on you. Then you see through the puzzle and it blows your brain. See below (bit late, obviously):



For me, your comment reflects the possibility that some people fail to see what they don't want to see. Cuts both ways, doesn't it?

I also don't really believe the notion that the diarist predicts anything in the way of finding an "FM" on Kelly's wall.
"An initial here
and a initial there
would tell of the whoring mother"

It's a bit of a stretch, ain't it?

Clearly, I don't agree with you. What else could Maybrick have been referring to given that 'the whoring mother' throughout the scrapbook was Florrie, and given that her initials were 'F' and 'M'? I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly struggle with the inference which is somewhat screaming from the rafters. For me, it's not a stretch at all but does that mean that my credulity stretches too far or that yours does not stretch enough? Works both ways, doesn't it?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I was just startled by your use of the word "predicted" which is what prompted me to post.

Then perhaps I should find another word, Herlock. What the scrapbook did was to draw our attention to what was actually pretty clear for twenty years but which had never once been mentioned by anyone. That feels a bit like a 'prediction', but I will think twice before using the term.

I can't see how the scrapbook can possibly be said to contain a prediction of something which was clear to the world twenty years before anyone ever set eyes on it

See above.

If, as you seem to accept, the forger could have spotted the very clear initials on the wall in the photograph, those initials don't seem to be a great argument in favour of the scrapbook's authenticity.

I note that you studiously avoid answering my question regarding which of the only 3 options you favour if the scrapbook is a hoax. Please answer the question.

And think on this: Martin Fido located the 'FM' 'shape' because he was actively looking for it. Why is our hoaxer looking for something? If they were looking for something to give the scrapbook credibility, then you are plumping for Option 1 - they were the first to ever see that 'shape' and they capitalised on it by backward-engineering their nascent hoax to be Florence Maybrick's initials which therefore could have been put there by James Maybrick who therefore could be accused of Jack the Ripper. And after that feat of backward-engineering to home-in on a relatively prosperous, middle class, Liverpool, businessman, our hoaxer finds that nothing seems to get in Maybrick's way to being Jack. No dates clash. He has a brother in London. He used to live in nearby Stepney. He did work for a guy in the Minories. His name starts and ends 'JACK', the name 'James' looks rather like 'Juwes' in the GSG.

Our hoaxer must have been so amazed that he must have briefly wondered if James Maybrick could have actually been the Ripper!

Anyway, our hoaxer had the luck of the Oirish, and I'm not buying it ...

The only sensible approach, it seems to me, is to take the view that, if it's entirely possible that a forger saw the initials, he probably did.

It's only the 'sensible approach' because you are seeking to shoe-horn in a hoaxer, Herlock.

I don't know exactly what was in the forger's mind and I don't particularly care. What I do know is that the forger makes no mention of any initials on the wall in the scrapbook, let alone the initials "FM", merely leaving it to the reader's imagination to decide what the initials placed here and there were.

I see you got your credulity stretch from the same place Mike did. Are you not even vaguely struck by the reference to Florence Maybrick's initials during four pages of writing on Kelly's murder (especially now that you know the 'FM' 'shape' is on her wall)? As I asked Mike, what else do you think those lines could refer to?

He might, for all I know, have been talking about an "F" on the arm and an "M" on the wall.

Take the logic further, Herlock. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

But that seems far less important than the fact that if the initials were clearly visible on the wall in a published photograph from as early as 1973 or 1972, there is no special mystery about them being referred to in a 1992 document.

The special mystery lies in the fact that no-one else mentioned them (imagine how many Ripperologists have pored over that dreadful photograph but our boy gets it apparently in one) and what our mooted hoaxer found once he had backward-engineered his way to James Maybrick: Someone who literally becomes Jack the Ripper once Jack the Ripper's clues are reviewed in the context of Maybrick.

Ah, but for that you will all have to await my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025. Goodness only knows when it'll be finished though ...

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then perhaps I should find another word, Herlock. What the scrapbook did was to draw our attention to what was actually pretty clear for twenty years but which had never once been mentioned by anyone. That feels a bit like a 'prediction', but I will think twice before using the term.



See above.



I note that you studiously avoid answering my question regarding which of the only 3 options you favour if the scrapbook is a hoax. Please answer the question.

And think on this: Martin Fido located the 'FM' 'shape' because he was actively looking for it. Why is our hoaxer looking for something? If they were looking for something to give the scrapbook credibility, then you are plumping for Option 1 - they were the first to ever see that 'shape' and they capitalised on it by backward-engineering their nascent hoax to be Florence Maybrick's initials which therefore could have been put there by James Maybrick who therefore could be accused of Jack the Ripper. And after that feat of backward-engineering to home-in on a relatively prosperous, middle class, Liverpool, businessman, our hoaxer finds that nothing seems to get in Maybrick's way to being Jack. No dates clash. He has a brother in London. He used to live in nearby Stepney. He did work for a guy in the Minories. His name starts and ends 'JACK', the name 'James' looks rather like 'Juwes' in the GSG.

Our hoaxer must have been so amazed that he must have briefly wondered if James Maybrick could have actually been the Ripper!

Anyway, our hoaxer had the luck of the Oirish, and I'm not buying it ...



It's only the 'sensible approach' because you are seeking to shoe-horn in a hoaxer, Herlock.



I see you got your credulity stretch from the same place Mike did. Are you not even vaguely struck by the reference to Florence Maybrick's initials during four pages of writing on Kelly's murder (especially now that you know the 'FM' 'shape' is on her wall)? As I asked Mike, what else do you think those lines could refer to?



Take the logic further, Herlock. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?



The special mystery lies in the fact that no-one else mentioned them (imagine how many Ripperologists have pored over that dreadful photograph but our boy gets it apparently in one) and what our mooted hoaxer found once he had backward-engineered his way to James Maybrick: Someone who literally becomes Jack the Ripper once Jack the Ripper's clues are reviewed in the context of Maybrick.

Ah, but for that you will all have to await my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025. Goodness only knows when it'll be finished though ...

Ike

I'm still struggling with your logic here, Ike.

You insist the initials are "very clear" in the photograph, yet seem baffled by the idea that no-one saw them until the forger did in 1992. That seems to be your problem to solve, not mine.

But someone had to be the first to see them, if they are clearly visible. Why not the forger? After all, how many fake Jack the Ripper diaries have been created since 1973?

And it's not as if Michael Barrett wasn't an observant fellow. I've been looking at Melvin Harris's The Maybrick Hoax: The Roots File. He notes that Shirley Harrison tells us in her book that Mike was "the very first person ever to notice" an M apparently carved onto the face of Catherine Eddowes.

So he had the ability to find shapes in photographs. According to you, all he needed was a pair of functioning eyes to see the "very clear" initials on the wall.
I already answered your question about the 3 options. I don't know what was going on inside the forger's head. I see no problem whatsoever in him perceiving an "M" on the wall and an "F" carved onto Kelly's arm and then incorporating that into the forged diary. There's nothing amazing about it, just a forger's cunning.

Like many others, I have difficulty in seeing an "F" on the wall. Perhaps you can outline both initials for me on a copy of the photograph so we can all understand what it is we're supposed to be seeing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not accepting that the initials "FM" were actually on Kelly's wall. I'm taking your word for it that the initials appear very clear on the wall in the photograph. But while they may or may not be clear in the photograph, that's very different from them actually having been on the wall.

Ultimately, I note that you're not going to answer my question as to why the initials support the the diary's authenticity if they were clearly visible to a forger in 1992, and will leave it to another time and an external document. A shame because I thought that's what this thread you started was for

[Iconoclast]

You insist the initials are "very clear" in the photograph, yet seem baffled by the idea that no-one saw them until the forger did in 1992. That seems to be your problem to solve, not mine.

Well, they are clear (at least to me) because we know where to look and we know to look. Previous commentators weren't presumably anticipating something there and the evidence for that is no-one mentioned seeing anything.

But someone had to be the first to see them, if they are clearly visible. Why not the forger?

I have already acknowledged that it could have been a hoaxer but it comes with special conditions because it requires Scenario 1 in my list of 3 to be true and that's a real stretch. A real stretch.

After all, how many fake Jack the Ripper diaries have been created since 1973?

Well, one obviously, but there's no law that says it had to have a line referencing something in Mary Kelly's room. I'm actually not sure what your point is there, Herlock, and I'm wondering if you do.

And it's not as if Michael Barrett wasn't an observant fellow. I've been looking at Melvin Harris's The Maybrick Hoax: The Roots File. He notes that Shirley Harrison tells us in her book that Mike was "the very first person ever to notice" an M apparently carved onto the face of Catherine Eddowes.

Do keep up, Herlock: once again, the scrapbook draws our attention to 'Left my mark', so Barrett was drawn to look for it because of the scrapbook. We don't know if he was right, but there's strong evidence there that he wasn't wrong.

So he had the ability to find shapes in photographs. According to you, all he needed was a pair of functioning eyes to see the "very clear" initials on the wall.
I already answered your question about the 3 options. I don't know what was going on inside the forger's head. I see no problem whatsoever in him perceiving an "M" on the wall and an "F" carved onto Kelly's arm and then incorporating that into the forged diary. There's nothing amazing about it, just a forger's cunning.

So you actually prefer version 2 (IIRC) - the scrapbook was already partly written and Maybrick already chosen and THEN the hoaxer found Maybrick's wife's initials on Kelly's wall? Is there no end to what you believe is reasonably possible? That's got to be impossible, but to you it's just the norm by the sounds of it.

Like many others, I have difficulty in seeing an "F" on the wall. Perhaps you can outline both initials for me on a copy of the photograph so we can all understand what it is we're supposed to be seeing.

Nope. If you haven't seen this done a thousand times, Herlock, it shows that you are passing through not seriously engaged. I don't need you to see them - too many people have acknowledged them that I can sleep content that they are there if you look. For the record, the 'F' is clearly fainter than the 'M' but they are right next to each other so you'll find them if you look.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not accepting that the initials "FM" were actually on Kelly's wall. I'm taking your word for it that the initials appear very clear on the wall in the photograph. But while they may or may not be clear in the photograph, that's very different from them actually having been on the wall.

I think I have made it clear that all I ask is that people accept that there are shapes on that wall that look like an 'F' and an 'M'. All I also ask is that people really think through the consequences of that being true in the context of Florence Maybrick's initials being mentioned in the context of Mary Kelly's room in the Maybrick scrapbook. Please don't reply and say, "But the hoaxer could have seen them first" without also explaining how likely it is that he managed Option 1, 2, or 3.

Ultimately, I note that you're not going to answer my question as to why the initials support the the diary's authenticity if they were clearly visible to a forger in 1992, and will leave it to another time and an external document. A shame because I thought that's what this thread you started was for

I thought I had addressed this over and over. Are you sure you're reading the entire posts, Herlock? The Maybrick scrapbook refers to Florence Maybrick's initials being connected with Mary Kelly's wall and - lo! - 'shapes' are there which support that (on Kelly's wall and on her arm). For a hoaxer to have made this connection with MJK1, he would have had to be the first amongst thousands who have viewed that infamous photograph, but, assuming that he was, you then have the jeopardy of Scenario 1, 2, or 3 - none of which are even vaguely plausible. That's my case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, they are clear (at least to me) because we know where to look and we know to look. Previous commentators weren't presumably anticipating something there and the evidence for that is no-one mentioned seeing anything.



I have already acknowledged that it could have been a hoaxer but it comes with special conditions because it requires Scenario 1 in my list of 3 to be true and that's a real stretch. A real stretch.



Well, one obviously, but there's no law that says it had to have a line referencing something in Mary Kelly's room. I'm actually not sure what your point is there, Herlock, and I'm wondering if you do.



Do keep up, Herlock: once again, the scrapbook draws our attention to 'Left my mark', so Barrett was drawn to look for it because of the scrapbook. We don't know if he was right, but there's strong evidence there that he wasn't wrong.



So you actually prefer version 2 (IIRC) - the scrapbook was already partly written and Maybrick already chosen and THEN the hoaxer found Maybrick's wife's initials on Kelly's wall? Is there no end to what you believe is reasonably possible? That's got to be impossible, but to you it's just the norm by the sounds of it.



Nope. If you haven't seen this done a thousand times, Herlock, it shows that you are passing through not seriously engaged. I don't need you to see them - too many people have acknowledged them that I can sleep content that they are there if you look. For the record, the 'F' is clearly fainter than the 'M' but they are right next to each other so you'll find them if you look.



I think I have made it clear that all I ask is that people accept that there are shapes on that wall that look like an 'F' and an 'M'. All I also ask is that people really think through the consequences of that being true in the context of Florence Maybrick's initials being mentioned in the context of Mary Kelly's room in the Maybrick scrapbook. Please don't reply and say, "But the hoaxer could have seen them first" without also explaining how likely it is that he managed Option 1, 2, or 3.



I thought I had addressed this over and over. Are you sure you're reading the entire posts, Herlock? The Maybrick scrapbook refers to Florence Maybrick's initials being connected with Mary Kelly's wall and - lo! - 'shapes' are there which support that (on Kelly's wall and on her arm). For a hoaxer to have made this connection with MJK1, he would have had to be the first amongst thousands who have viewed that infamous photograph, but, assuming that he was, you then have the jeopardy of Scenario 1, 2, or 3 - none of which are even vaguely plausible. That's my case.

You make my point for me in your final paragraph, Ike, when, to explain the significance of the initials as they relate to the authenticity of the diary, you say:

"The Maybrick scrapbook refers to Florence Maybrick's initials being connected with Mary Kelly's wall and - lo! - 'shapes' are there which support that (on Kelly's wall and on her arm)".

That's not an argument to support the authenticity of the diary. If, as you state, the shapes were crystal clear to anyone who cared to look since 1973, the inclusion of the shapes in the diary cannot assist in any way in its authenticity.

It seems to me that you're arguing something very different, namely that the initials show that Maybrick was the killer of Mary Jane Kelly because there is no other explanation for "FM" being on the wall of her room.

You haven't come anywhere near establishing that those initials were actually on the wall, as opposed to perceived shapes in a poor quality photograph, but even if Maybrick was the killer, the diary could still be a fake if the forger saw those initials on the wall in the photograph and incorporated them into the text of the diary.

I think it's really important not to confuse the two things. The forger might have got the right suspect. I don't know. The short point is that if the initials were clearly on the wall in the photograph, they have no bearing on the authenticity of the diary because the forger could have easily seen them at any time after 1973.

To pick up on your other points:

I've never seen the initials overwritten anywhere ever by anyone on an image of the photograph. Could you direct me to where I can find them? If they are so clear and obvious, I'm really surprised that you don't have such an image ready at hand to demonstrate it. All I've ever seen you and anyone else do is reproduce the photograph and claim that the initials are there and all we need to do is look at them. Yet most people respond by saying they're not there and can't see them. So why not just overwrite them? Can I suggest it's because it's impossible to overwrite the supposed "F" in any kind of normal way because it isn't there?

I also think it must be obvious what I meant when I said that this is the only fake Jack the Ripper diary created since 1973. A forger of a diary identifying a particular individual as Jack the Ripper would have a particular interest in examining all the documents and images available in books a certain way, different to anyone else. So what might seem to one person to be random squiggles or shapes can suddenly take on meaning to someone with a forger's imagination. Didn't Martin Fido first think that the initials on the wall were "EM"? So it wasn't even clear to him after he knew what he was looking for.

But just think about it. If in January 1992 a non-fiction writer had published a book claiming that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and had used the initials "FM" on the wall (and the "F" on the arm) as support of his argument, I doubt he would have been taken very seriously. It would be extremely weak evidence to support his case. It certainly wouldn't be regarded as some kind of miracle that he was the first to see those shapes. Incorporating it into a supposedly genuine diary with an explanation given by Maybrick himself as to why he'd done it, takes it up a level in certain people's imagination. But it's exactly the same thing. Weak.

Finally, your claim that it's "impossible" that the forger might have started the diary and, while writing it, perceived an "M" on the wall and "F" carved into Kelly or even (which I think is less likely) the letters "FM" together on the wall, strikes me as so odd a statement as to be incomprehensible. It's entirely possible. Nothing could be more possible. It is, indeed, one of the most possible things that could ever have happened