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

[rjpalmer]

Sure, but Ike has told us that the initials are "so clear", "clearly visible" and "clear and unequivocal" on the wall in the photograph. On that basis, you shouldn't have needed to have been told they were there in order to spot them.

So how do you account for the fact that you didn't see them?

Hi Herlock -

Melvin Harris mentions a man named Dennis Parsons who analyzed the Kelly photograph in 1991--just before the diary emerged.

He claimed to see, among other things, a crown, a child, a man with a helmet, etc., but made no mention of seeing any 'FM.'

I don't remember (and perhaps never knew) who this Dennis Parsons was or where he published his 'work.' There is no mention of him in the first edition of the A-Z, but according to Harris he had a 'black magic' theory of the murders.

Perhaps someone here has heard of him.

[Mike J. G.]

Sure, but Ike has told us that the initials are "so clear", "clearly visible" and "clear and unequivocal" on the wall in the photograph. On that basis, you shouldn't have needed to have been told they were there in order to spot them.

So how do you account for the fact that you didn't see them?

Agreed. The thing is, they can't be simultaneously clear as day but not clear enough for anyone in 1888 to have spotted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

Melvin Harris mentions a man named Dennis Parsons who analyzed the Kelly photograph in 1991--just before the diary emerged.

He claimed to see, among other things, a crown, a child, a man with a helmet, etc., but made no mention of seeing any 'FM.'

I don't remember (and perhaps never knew) who this Dennis Parsons was or where he published his 'work.' There is no mention of him in the first edition of the A-Z, but according to Harris he had a 'black magic' theory of the murders.

Perhaps someone here has heard of him.

Hi Roger,

I hadn’t heard of them although I’ve read all of the dissertations on here and he’s mentioned in one by Melvyn Harris. His name clearly didn’t stick. Perhaps he needs to be introduced to the Van Gogh guy (who’s name also eludes me for the moment - he was going to write a book which, unsurprisingly never surfaced)

As I was typing it came to me. Dale Lerner.

[Scott Nelson]

So how do you account for the fact that you didn't see them?

They weren't there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They weren't there.

That makes perfect sense, Scott. 100% agree.

[caz]

Let me help you out here, Ike. As you will no doubt recall, one poster who forcefully admitted to seeing the initials was 'Sam Flynn' (Gareth) on JTR Forums.

Unfortunately for you, but more so for the 'old hoax' theorists, he took this as evidence the diary was created after 1972 when Farson's book was published (I think the first edition actually dates to 1971).

"No, because they're there "for all eyes to see" in the photograph. I know they're blood spatter or photographic artefacts, and so do you, but they could be taken for an "F" and an "M" written on the wall... indeed, they have been and still are perceived to be the initials of Florence Maybrick by some people! If people can think that now, why couldn't somebody seeing the photograph between 1972 the diary's emergence have thought the same?"

[Same point Herlock is now making]

And

"it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the diary's "an initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother [Florence Maybrick]" was inspired by the "FM" in the MJK1 photograph, which only became available to the public in popular books published from 1972 onwards (Farson, Rumbelow, Knight...)

This is pretty fundamental to the date of the diary's composition."

Again, Ike, these objections are more of a kick in the teeth to the 'old hoax' theorists than to you since he remarks the same blurry FM is not evident in the early reproductions, though as I understand it, even the old hoax theorist dismiss the idea that there is an 'FM' on the wall, or that the text refers to it, comparing these ideas to seeing figures in the clouds and jumping to faulty interpretations about the text.

But this only my understanding and they will need to explain it for themselves, if, that is, they don't mind picking on a 'persecuted minority.'

All the warmest wishes.

Oh, I love this. Who are today's 'old hoax' theorists, and how many of them are regular posters here? Would it not be a case of one 'persecuted minority' picking on another, even if Palmer could name one who has recently been arguing for the diary to date back further than Farson? Presumably Palmer would not have needed to provide his own understanding of how 'old hoax' theorists would define themselves and what they believe, if they were all here doing it for themselves.

As far as my own current definition goes, 'old' would mean the diary existed by Monday 9th March 1992, while for Palmer the date only shifts forward five weeks to Monday 13th April 1992.

There are sound reasons why Melvin Harris believed that Mike and Anne were simply the placers or handlers of someone else's work. And yes, I know Palmer will immediately point out that I only agree with Mighty Mel when it suits my argument, but there it is. Palmer only disagrees with Harris or agrees with Feldman when it suits his, so we are quits in that respect. Who among us is right all the time or wrong all the time? Melvin didn't believe Mike had the 'capacity' to have created the diary [there's a surprise] and was evidently far from convinced that it could have been in Anne's handwriting. But I suspect there was another crucial factor in Melvin's thinking.

As Shirley Harrison made clear in a letter back in 2001 to the then editor of the Daily Express, Melvin Harris had, the previous year, publicly part-identified two people [the Barretts] whose roles were "simply as placers, or handlers of a document forged by others".

As a professed hoax-buster, Melvin would have known a bit about placers and handlers, and why one would have been needed by whoever authored and penned the actual diary. It seems so obvious when you think about this. Who is odds-on going to be the prime suspect, when a fake is presented for inspection by a range of experts and the best possible consensus will be: "Inconclusive", while the worst will be: "Go directly to jail. Do not collect £200"?

The faker's best hope is that they can fool someone else into handling and placing their handiwork and keeping their traps shut forever. And the only way that was ever likely to happen with someone like Mike Barrett at the helm was if he didn't know who the diary author was and could never give them away. Better still if Mike had no idea what the experts might find when he walked into Doreen's office: an innocent abroad when it came to creating or spotting ripper hoaxes, but crafty enough to have seized the opportunity and the diary when he saw it, in case it turned out to be a winning lottery ticket.

The idea that Mike would have taken his own wife's handiwork to London in April 1992, expecting to convince anyone that it was James Maybrick's, let alone Jack the Ripper's, is what we are being asked to believe here. And I don't care if I'm the last person standing to remain sceptical, because that way I shan't go mad.

[rjpalmer]

Oh, I love this. Who are today's 'old hoax' theorists, and how many of them are regular posters here?

Why do the old hoax theorists have to be currently posting for me to refer to them? Are your ears burning? Why did you assume I was referring to you when I mentioned Gareth Williams' observation? Are you the only person that matters? Just because you are so clearly obsessed with the theories of 'Palmer' doesn't mean this obsession is reciprocated.

I believe Lombroso2, among others, has toyed with the idea of an old hoax in the past, as has Bruce Robinson and Paul Begg, as well as respondents to various surveys over the years.

One of Paul Begg's three questions is 'when' the diary was written?' so it is a worthy question to ask, and it would obviously be relevant in determining the identities of the hoaxers.

Any questions about the diary's age are fair game and worthy of discussion. Why do you keep trying to shut it down?

And why do you immediately shift every wayward observation to a lecture about how Mike and Anne couldn't possibly have hoaxed the diary?

Are you trying to convince yourself of that? It certainly seems that way to me.