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

[Iconoclast]

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

I'm in a hurry as it is late, Herlock, so I will try to come back to your post again tomorrow, but for now I just want to say that in the online world in which we all now exist, anything is possible. The possible has become routine, and now represents not the probable but simply the sum-of-all-things and each of those possibles carries the same weight, especially if it suits one's argument.

But what is key is not the possible but the plausible. Yes, it's possible that a hoaxer was the only commentator to ever notice those initials out of the literally thousands of Ripperologists who have pored over MJK1 but it is not plausible. It is not plausible for the reasons I outlined in my Options 1-3. For a hoaxer to have done what you are proposing they did, the natural laws have to be suspended, and that is not plausible. You will disagree, you will revert and say "But it's still possible", but will you say to us that it is plausible and if you do, can you be more specific regarding which of my 3 options is actually the one you think most likely to have occurred? None of them are plausible in the real world, but we aren't living in the real world; we're living in the digital world where contesting an argument is far more important than simply making a point. Yes, what you describe is possible, Herlock, but I say it is not plausible. What say thee?

I did not make these red marks:

[Lombro2]

That's a good one, Ike. I have to admit. I thought I had picked out all the Ms in this case.

I was just about to offer you that the arm was a J and the legs together formed an M.

[FISHY1118]

Id like to buy a vowel please .

[c.d.]

Why would Mary be the only victim to be the recipient of the initials as mentioned in the diary? Weren't they all substitutes for the hatred he had for Florence? Why don't we see initials in the other murders? What would have been special about Mary in this regard?

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Why would Mary be the only victim to be the recipient of the initials as mentioned in the diary? Weren't they all substitutes for the hatred he had for Florence? Why don't we see initials in the other murders? What would have been special about Mary in this regard?
c.d.

I have no idea. The question about why someone does something or does not do something is irrelevant. I could only guess and what use would that be? My guess would be that the killer simply had so much more time to do other things.

Unless you can show us the evidence for an immutable human trait which guarantees that serial killers will do exactly the same thing - without any form of deviation - at every site of their evil acts, then your question is utterly moot. I hope you weren't submitting this as evidence that Jack didn't put those initials on Kelly's wall?

[The Baron]

I have no idea. The question about why someone does something or does not do something is irrelevant. I could only guess and what use would that be? My guess would be that the killer simply had so much more time to do other things.

Unless you can show us the evidence for an immutable human trait which guarantees that serial killers will do exactly the same thing - without any form of deviation - at every site of their evil acts, then your question is utterly moot. I hope you weren't submitting this as evidence that Jack didn't put those initials on Kelly's wall?

The claim that 'the question of why someone does something is irrelevant' is a masterclass in dodging logic. If motivation and behavior patterns are irrelevant, then why bother linking Maybrick to the murders at all?

We're to believe that Jack suddenly decided, for no particular reason, to sign his art in Kelly's room because he wasn’t feeling rushed that night?

Was he just saving the big finale for Mary Kelly because she booked the VIP treatment?

Or maybe he was just bored and thought, 'Hey, I’ve already gutted a victim, why not work on my penmanship?

That we need proof of some 'immutable human trait' to disprove this theory, by that logic, we should accept anything as valid unless we can prove otherwise. A unicorn stomped through Kelly's room, can you prove this didn’t happen? No? Well, then it’s obviously a valid theory!

This isn't a courtroom where silence equals guilt, it’s a debate where baseless speculation equals nonsense.

The argument hinges on this idea: 'Serial killers don’t always follow the same behavior, so we can’t question why Maybrick supposedly left initials on Mary Kelly’s wall but not on others.' But this misses the point entirely. The problem isn’t that serial killers sometimes deviate, it’s that behavior patterns are key evidence when identifying a killer. By this logic, why stop at initials? If deviation is the only standard, then Jack could’ve planted flowers in one scene, played hopscotch in another, and still be Maybrick in your eyes, because hey, no immutable traits!

The truth is, serial killers do tend to display specific patterns of behavior, even if there are occasional deviations. Those patterns aren’t arbitrary, they’re shaped by their motives, rituals, and psychological needs. The idea that Maybrick just decided to start decorating Kelly’s wall with initials out of nowhere raises more questions than it answers. Why did he never do it before? Why start now? If your theory requires a massive deviation from all known behavior with no explanation, it’s not evidence, it’s special pleading.

Why would time suddenly inspire Maybrick to become a calligrapher? Time might explain why Kelly's mutilations were more extensive, but it doesn’t explain why he’d suddenly leave initials. That’s a specific act that would have to mean something to the killer. Without a motive for this, it’s not just a deviation, it’s a plot hole.

Dismissing the question entirely as 'irrelevant' is the rhetorical equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and shouting, 'Who knows? Let’s just believe it anyway!' If the only response to logical scrutiny is to wave it off as unimportant, then why should anyone take the theory seriously?

A good theory addresses the inconsistencies, it doesn’t just sweep them under the rug.

Unless you’ve got actual evidence that the initials in Kelly’s room exist and can be tied directly to Maybrick, this entire argument is less convincing than Maybrick’s diary itself, which reads more like bad fanfiction than a killer’s confession. Nice try!



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Why would time suddenly inspire Maybrick to become a calligrapher? Time might explain why Kelly's mutilations were more extensive, but it doesn’t explain why he’d suddenly leave initials. That’s a specific act that would have to mean something to the killer. Without a motive for this, it’s not just a deviation, it’s a plot hole.
The Baron

It's only a plot hole if you have pre-determined that there was ever a plot. You reveal your nailed-on bias and your refusal to consider the possible by implying that your lack of knowledge of Jack's motives for what he did therefore mean there were none.

One of the worst aspects of the internet generation is that it feels perfectly legitimised at criticising everything. I suspect it is a human nature thing - when anonymous, we seek only the worst not the best. I made it very clear that I had no idea why Jack would leave Florence's initials at Kelly's murder site but possibly (do we even know?) not at others. To help the poster consider at least one possibility, I suggested that time might have worked in Jack's favour that evening. It didn't seem terribly controversial. Jack's time in Miller's Court has been estimated at some two hours. Whatever the truth was, I doubt we'd find many commentators who would say it wasn't considerably longer than he had at his other murder sites. Seemed a reasonable suggestion. A man who had possibly finished his mutilations then has the confidence of time to spread Kelly's organs and entrails all around the room, and possibly leave Florence's initials here and there. None of this would be intuitively likely when he only had maybe five-to-ten minutes available to him, but that's far too practical for the online anything-is-possible brigade, and it simply must be challenged. Goodness, if it isn't challenged, people might think the post was correct in some way!

What comes of it? The Baron decides my comment is so set in stone that it deserves a long diatribe invoking unicorns at one point. I leave my dear readers to decide just how helpful his post was to the debate. C.F. Leon asked us why Jack would leave initials at one scene but not at the other. Does it really take a brain surgeon to answer that one? The answer is, "Only the person who did it knows" and he's long dead so why ask questions which have no hope of being properly answered?

But was the question posed in order to question that Jack ever did leave Florence's initials on the wall - as if by showing that something didn't happen the first four times it could not possibly have occurred on the fifth? Jack definitely didn't spread his other victims organs and entrails around the killing zone - for the avoidance of the awkwardness of the internet generation I am talking about hanging them on railings or over a fence or on top of a pile of bricks or strewn over a leather apron, et cetera - so does that mean that we should infer that he didn't in Kelly's room?

But we know he did in Kelly's room so what sense are we to make of that deviation from the mean?

I've no idea because the very suggestion (and the response) are mired in denial and obfuscation so I really don't know what we do with positions like this that people take.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm in a hurry as it is late, Herlock, so I will try to come back to your post again tomorrow, but for now I just want to say that in the online world in which we all now exist, anything is possible. The possible has become routine, and now represents not the probable but simply the sum-of-all-things and each of those possibles carries the same weight, especially if it suits one's argument.

But what is key is not the possible but the plausible. Yes, it's possible that a hoaxer was the only commentator to ever notice those initials out of the literally thousands of Ripperologists who have pored over MJK1 but it is not plausible. It is not plausible for the reasons I outlined in my Options 1-3. For a hoaxer to have done what you are proposing they did, the natural laws have to be suspended, and that is not plausible. You will disagree, you will revert and say "But it's still possible", but will you say to us that it is plausible and if you do, can you be more specific regarding which of my 3 options is actually the one you think most likely to have occurred? None of them are plausible in the real world, but we aren't living in the real world; we're living in the digital world where contesting an argument is far more important than simply making a point. Yes, what you describe is possible, Herlock, but I say it is not plausible. What say thee?

I did not make these red marks:

I really have no idea, Ike, why you think it's implausible for any forger to have opportunistically imagined some initials in that photograph, and you haven't explained it. It seems to be highly plausible to me.

Don't forget, the forger controls the narrative. Absent the diary, one would not have expected to find the initials of Jack the Ripper's wife at the crime scene. But the forger cunningly tells us that the killer deliberately put them there as some sort of weird (and implausible) clues for the police.

If the forger had seen a "J" and an "M", he could have woven a totally different story into the narrative. If there had been other initials discernible he could have created a story about what they meant.

When Simon Wood was looking for initials, he was thinking that Kelly had written them on the wall to name her killer. There's all kinds of narratives to weave with sufficient imagination.

Incidentally, I don't think the diarist was indicating that there is an "FM" on the wall. Saying "an initial here, an initial there" doesn't sound like two initials together on a wall. And I don't see "FM" on the wall, nor do most people, according to the responses you've had on this forum, even after being told where to look, so I'm guessing the forger didn't either.

While he maybe saw an "F" on the arm, I doubt the forger saw an "F" on the wall but might well have seen an "M". Either way, he didn't explain what he was talking about, leaving it for the reader to find the shapes themselves. Fido, as I mentioned, first saw "EM" there. So the forger would have been equally lucky if Maybrick's wife's name had been Emma or Elizabeth etc. Looking at the blob of black lines and smudges in the image you posted, I can see what could be "TM" (but not "FM"). So the forger would have got lucky if his wife's name was Tilly or Tiffany etc.. If I try hard enough I can even see a little "V".

As for your image, it's obviously not what I asked for. I know where to look, I just don't see an "F" there, so I was asking for it to be overwritten. I find it interesting that the "F" supposed to be on the arm IS overwritten by whoever prepared it but not the "F" supposed to be on the wall. Why is that, I wonder? Does the fact that you can't find an image example of the "FM" being overwritten on the wall mean that no such example exists? If so, why not just create one yourself?

[Iconoclast]

I really have no idea, Ike, why you think it's implausible for any forger to have opportunistically imagined some initials in that photograph, and you haven't explained it. It seems to be highly plausible to me.

I explained the implausibility in my 3 Options but you resolutely refuse to say which one you feel id the actual on (in your opinion). In my opinion, they are all utterly implausible, but in your opinion any of them would be plausible so we have hit an impasse over which neither of us is going to climb so debating it further will border on he-said, she-said and that will not be edifying for anyone.

Don't forget, the forger controls the narrative.

I would obviously agree but you would have to demonstrate that there had unequivocally been a hoaxer which - to date - has not been proven (Orsam's 'one-off' has not been unequivocally proven - merely unequivocally stated by him).

Absent the diary, one would not have expected to find the initials of Jack the Ripper's wife at the crime scene.

So that implausibility causes you to infer that actually they weren't there; whereas that implausibility simply reminds me that we would not be discussing Florence's initials on Kelly's wall if it were not for the scrapbook because those initials are still claimed to be absent by some posters (certainly not the huge numbers you arbitrarily take ownership of) and were never observed by endless Ripperologists, and therefore our super-perspicacious hoaxer truly was in a league of his own. If he ever existed, of course, which no-one has demonstrated yet.

But the forger cunningly tells us that the killer deliberately put them there as some sort of weird (and implausible) clues for the police.

Yes, in your version of events that is what happened - we know this because the hoaxer chose to indicate during four pages focused solely on Kelly's murder that we should pay attention to his wife's initials. Now, I understand that some people are unfortunately a bit slow on the uptake and can't make the link between a hint (the doggerel) and a circumstance (the doggerel's 'prediction' coming true) but that's a limitation they need to live with but one that I do not suffer from.

If the forger had seen a "J" and an "M", he could have woven a totally different story into the narrative.

What's your point, caller? If Jack had chosen a different victim he could have woven a totally different story into the facts. How does any of that help us or guide us towards a meaningful conclusion? We can only operate with what we know and what we know is implausible in the extreme if the author of the scrapbook was not Jack the Ripper.

If there had been other initials discernible he could have created a story about what they meant.

No ****, Herlock.

When Simon Wood was looking for initials, he was thinking that Kelly had written them on the wall to name her killer. There's all kinds of narratives to weave with sufficient imagination.

No-one can say that Simon Wood wasn't correct when he said that, but what differs in your irrelevant example of Simon's interpretation from my point regarding Florence's initials being on the wall of Kelly's room is that we have a 'prediction' of it in the scrapbook and this is where we hit out impasse because you think this is a trivial point because the hoaxer could have been the only person ever to have noticed Florence's initials on MJK1 whilst I contend that it is implausible in the extreme. I return to my earlier point, when two people have such a diametrically opposite view of the same information, the impasse created is highly unlikely to be unlocked through ere dialogue because neither is going to yield from their polarised views.

Incidentally, I don't think the diarist was indicating that there is an "FM" on the wall.

It's a wearisome canard, Herlock, which I honestly would not have expected of you. All the scrapbookist claimed was that "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother". If he was NOT referring to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, he may well have been referring to more separated examples but - blow me - what a shame he completely missed the most obvious example on her wall (and how striking that they should be there if he was not referring to them).

Saying "an initial here, an initial there" doesn't sound like two initials together on a wall.

No ****, Herlock.

And I don't see "FM" on the wall ...

It doesn't matter one iota whether you can discern those initials or not. Plenty of people have admitted that they can discern those shapes and - surprise surprise - the vast majority of them are not known Maybrickians. If someone can't discern the Magic Eye puzzles, is that because they do not work?

... nor do most people, according to the responses you've had on this forum,...

Now you are simply demonstrating how little attention you have paid to the Maybrick case over the years. If you were to trawl through the occasions where this hs been discussed elsewhere on the Maybrick threads, you would immediately retract this baseless claim.

... even after being told where to look, so I'm guessing the forger didn't either.

Just absorb what you've just said. The hoaxer did NOT see the initials on Kelly's wall, but subsequent to his comment in his scrapbook, many people have. What an idiot that hoaxer was - imagine what mileage he could have made of those initials if only he'd seen the ones on the wall too!

While he maybe saw an "F" on the arm, I doubt the forger saw an "F" on the wall ...

The fact that you say you can't see what others can see is not an argument in favour of a hot, Herlock. It is simply an argument that you seem determined NOT to see what even Lord Orsam himself has gone on the record of acknowledging (that there are shapes which look like 'F' and 'M'). Surely you aren't saying you know better than even the Dark lord of Darkness?

Either way, he didn't explain what he was talking about ...

Have you ever passed a bus stop, Herlock, and seen loads of people in some sort of orderly queue very close by and then wondered, "I wonder what they're queuing for?". I think you must have done. Does everything need to be spelled-out in fine detail for it to be true or is a little inference a reasonable faculty to invoke occasionally?

... leaving it for the reader to find the shapes themselves.

The alternative would have been, "An initial there on the wall and the logically second one right next to it, will point you towards the 'whoring mother's initials ('whoring mother' being my wife Florence". It isn't the version the author went for. I wonder why? Ah yes - he was employing inference even if you don't appear to share that skill.

Fido, as I mentioned, first saw "EM" there. So the forger would have been equally lucky if Maybrick's wife's name had been Emma or Elizabeth etc.

Again, what on earth is your point, caller? If his wife's name was Fanny Maybrick, no-one would have had to do anything. Her name wasn't Emma and it wasn't Elizabeth, it was Florence and we can see her initials. Granted, the 'F' may 'in reality' have been intended as an 'E'. How does that change the fact that her name was Florence and the initials appear to be the right ones in the right order in a photograph taken of the very room he was spending four pages talking about?

Looking at the blob of black lines and smudges in the image you posted, I can see what could be "TM" (but not "FM").

Don't worry yourself about that. You see what you see and that is fine. You will find more than enough people who admit to seeing 'shapes' which look like 'FM' so you don't even need to worry about whether you should have gone to SpecSavers or not. But what you would never do - because it would be intellectually dishonest to do so - would be to claim that those 'shapes' could NOT be 'F' and 'M' because to do so would bring you into conflict with everyone who has ever just admitted that they do look like 'F' and 'M', Lord Orsam included, a commentator whose authority over 'one-off' you are not won't to question so perhaps you should extend him the courtesy of not assuming that all you can see is all that anyone else can see.

So the forger would have got lucky if his wife's name was Tilly or Tiffany etc.. If I try hard enough I can even see a little "V".

Try as hard as you like, Herlock, as you whittle your way down the alphabet, but many people are reading this (I promise you) thinking, "Why's he making such a huge attempt to wish-away what is very easy to see?". You see, they see the 'shapes' that look like 'F' and 'M' and they freely admit to it, and they STILL think it's a hoax, which is their right.

As for your image, it's obviously not what I asked for. I know where to look, I just don't see an "F" there, so I was asking for it to be overwritten.

Before I (or anyone else) puts in the hard yards of creating something so that you can see what so many others do not need markers for, can I ask that you simply look to the immediate left of the 'M' that you can see and then stretch your imagination just a little bit to see if you can contrive an 'F' from what resides there, please?

I find it interesting that the "F" supposed to be on the arm IS overwritten by whoever prepared it but not the "F" supposed to be on the wall. Why is that, I wonder? Does the fact that you can't find an image example of the "FM" being overwritten on the wall mean that no such example exists? If so, why not just create one yourself?

This was my favourite bit of your entire post. I gave you what I thought you were after from my hard drive from a poster who also had a theory that he had seen an 'M' elsewhere, and you immediately chastised me for attempting to help you! Classic internet generation. Where's your manners, Herlock? Do you think just because we don't know who each other are we can just be impolite? A simple, "Thank you but that wasn't what I meant - probably my fault" would have been appropriate in any other walk of life but not here in the digital nightmare that is the absolute curse of the modern age. And then you double-down on this by implying that the fact you didn't get what you demanded is evidence that what you demanded doesn't exist? I don't have one, but maybe someone somewhere does and will be kind enough to post one for you. But don't demand it, Herlock; and don't think that not getting what you demand means you're magically more correct in what you believe is true.

PS Apologies for all the auto-correct errors - there are too many to correct and I want my lunch.

[caz]

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!

Hello Lombro2,

Just dipping my toes in here for the first time and I see my name in your post, so it would be rude of me not to acknowledge the mention and very kind words.

Every day is a school day for me, so I am delighted to see a word which I had to look up: conniption. Conniption. I love it!

Increasing my vocabulary is always a treat, and I wish everyone would follow your lead instead of 'throwing a conniption' at the mere mention of the inanimate object we discuss here.

It's been around since 1992, being poked, prodded, promoted and pooh-poohed by persons from a plethora of professions [enough alliteration - Ed]. Yet here we are in 2025 with one poster presuming that nobody ever bothered to check, for example, if the real James Maybrick - a well known historical figure, at least after he had popped his clogs, who had been a frequent visitor to America, and an even more frequent visitor to the exasperated chemists and doctors of Liverpool - could have been within 200 miles of the worried women of Whitechapel, when they were wending their weary way through streets broad and narrow, hoping to be alive alive oh when the market pubs opened.

The irony is that there is no evidence that the Barretts, who still stand accused of picking on poor old Jim, were bothered to check anything at all, from his handwriting style and potential alibis, right down to a dictionary - modern or Victorian - for help with their own spelling and vocabulary.

Love,

Caz
X