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?

The title of this thread---"The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?"--suggests that the old hoax theory is still on the table.

Perhaps Iconoclast should rename it? The Diary Dichotomy: Authentic or a Modern Hoax?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It’s just that all that I see in the mind of the creator is a desire to make a few quid. Perhaps he read something on the Maybrick case and thought ‘what if the wife killed him because she discovered that he was the ripper’? It’s exactly the same as coming up with a plot to a novel. So for me, it has nothing to do with the case. I’m as convinced as I can be that it’s a modern forgery. I have absolutely no doubts at this point in time. I’m interested in the ripper murders and a forged diary isn’t connected imo.

Afternoon Herlock,

But you don't know if the diary's creator ever made a bean, never mind had the desire to do so. You can't 'see' any of this from reading the text itself; you've just imagined it.

Most people acknowledge that hoaxers don't always do it for the money. Some do it because they can, or because they have a particular person in mind they want to play a joke on, who is likely to fall for it.

When you write: 'Perhaps he read something...' do you have anyone in mind? It seems that few if any posters, who are familiar with the subject matter, put much credence these days in the theory that Mike Barrett could have come up with the idea on his own and taken it much further, without Anne being willing and able to collaborate with him fully, composing up to 90% of the text. It would indeed have been like coming up with the plot for a novel in that case, with one theorist suggesting that this was precisely what Anne believed she was doing, right up to allegedly handwriting the text into 63 pages of an old photo album which, as far as she knew, Mike had bought at auction as an innocent 'marketing gimmick'.

What is less clear with this theory is when the penny dropped with Anne that Mike had taken her for a fool, and that he was planning to take the people down in London for fools too, using her handiwork. It is not disputed that she had a big row with Mike over the diary at one point, and had tried but failed to destroy it, which would be understandable in those circumstances, except that only a week or so after it was seen in London, she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft. [How ironic is that, if it had been stolen in the first place and Anne had already tried to burn it?]

What would our dear readers have done, if such a dastardly trick had been played on them, and they were then prevented from destroying their own work before the first expert could examine it? Would they have thrown up their hands and said: "Oh well, I tried my best. I can do no more", before waving it off to the bank for safekeeping?

I know what I'd have done. I'd have nipped it in the bud by writing Doreen a long letter, in the same handwriting as the diary, explaining how the plot had been conceived, and how I had then found all sorts of details in the ripper literature and victim photos to add colour, such as possible initials at the Kelly scene and other references to the letter M. I would put it beyond all doubt that this was a fictional treatment of the two infamous cases from 1888 and 1889, in London and Liverpool, so there could be no possible wriggle room for anyone seeking to represent my work as anything more.

I certainly wouldn't let the matter rest and drag on, only to be 'terrified' of being linked with the diary's creation two years down the line, when I had finally left the bastard who had originally betrayed my trust and he was all fired up to do it again.

But you can seemingly make a woman like Anne do anything you want merely by turning her into a chess piece and moving her round the board. You don't need to be Mike, manipulating her in person. You don't need to analyse her mind, as the woman being manipulated.

You just have to shut your eyes, mentally cut out all background noise and ideally cut off the blood flow to your brain - and imagine.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The title of this thread---"The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?"--suggests that the old hoax theory is still on the table.

Perhaps Iconoclast should rename it? The Diary Dichotomy: Authentic or a Modern Hoax?

Well that's up to Ike, as Palmer notes. I am not his brother or his keeper.

But it's interesting that Palmer would have taken it from Ike that 'the old hoax theory' [however one defines it] was 'still on the table', or would use my own example to decide whether it is or it isn't.

[caz]

Caz,

You are talking about the hoaxing genius who did that trick with the shapes that look like Florence Maybrick's initials and then barely mentioned them in his scrapbook.

I think he must have known exactly what he was doing, don't you?

Cheers,

Ike

Well, this is the thing, Ike.

Some people seem to expect that the diary author - whoever that was - ought to have explained every little thing that is written down, which actually makes no sense, either from the real Maybrick's point of view, writing for his eyes only, or from the hoaxer's, who is supposed to be writing for 'Sir Jim's' eyes only, at least up until the funny old fiend finally decides to leave his bons mots to posterity.

It would have been a trifle daft if everything had been spelled out - like a bedtime story that even little Bobo and Gladys would have appreciated, before nodding off and not having nightmares.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Well that's up to Ike, as Palmer notes. I am not his brother or his keeper.

But it's interesting that Palmer would have taken it from Ike that 'the old hoax theory' [however one defines it] was 'still on the table', or would use my own example to decide whether it is or it isn't.

Your comments are becoming increasingly strange, Caz--and tiresome.

Do you get to decide what is and what is not discussed?

This is a thread---named by Ike a few days ago-exploring whether the diary is modern, an old hoax, or genuine.

See title for further explanation.

Any rational person would conclude those were topics open for discussion.

As such, I merely pointed to a relevant comment made by Gareth Williams, suggesting that if the diary is referring to the 'Farson' photograph, it must date to after 1972.

Totally fair game, and an obvious strike against the 'old hoax' theory that Ike mentions in the title of this thread.

Worthy of discussion? Maybe, maybe not, but your response is to jump out of your skin, demanding to know who these old hoaxers are who aren't posting!

Shouldn't that have been a question for Ike? Were your ears burning?

You then followed up with the usual diatribe about how insane it is to think that Mike or Anne could have hoaxed the diary.

And quite deliberately misstating my beliefs to boot.

I strongly suspect that your obsession with the Mike and Anne 'theory' is that you can't find anything wrong with it, and not so deep down you know that Mike and Anne are the only plausible suspects.

[caz]

Doesn't 'Sir Jim' [or Anne Barrett if you prefer] write something about Kelly reminding him of Florie - 'the whore'? Possibly because she was younger than the others?

Then what reason does he give for killing the others?

c.d.

Have you not actually read the diary, c.d.?

We may not find the reasons credible, as people who don't commit serial murder or create hoaxes featuring one, but that's another matter.

The real killer may not have been spoilt for choice, of course, during August and September, and only struck lucky with Kelly because she had a room to herself when winter was fast approaching.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Well, this is the thing, Ike.

Some people seem to expect that the diary author - whoever that was - ought to have explained every little thing that is written down, which actually makes no sense, either from the real Maybrick's point of view, writing for his eyes only, or from the hoaxer's, who is supposed to be writing for 'Sir Jim's' eyes only, at least up until the funny old fiend finally decides to leave his bons mots to posterity.

It would have been a trifle daft if everything had been spelled out - like a bedtime story that even little Bobo and Gladys would have appreciated, before nodding off and not having nightmares.

Love,

Caz
X

The problem is that some people view the incredibly vague "initials" (which only seem to be barely visible on a copy of a copy of a photograph nearly a century after the murder scene was thoroughly investigated) as being detailed in the scrapbook, but they're not really detailed at all. It's a vague couple of lines that could refer to initials if you really wanted them to, and that's the problem with this scenario.

[caz]

I'm always surprised, Ike, that you are so utterly unfamiliar with the archives that you feel the need to ask such questions.

Personally, I know exactly what Caz's former views have been on 'FM' but it's not my place to say. Good luck.

No, it's not Palmer's place to say, and the 'former' views of anyone can have no place in a discussion going on today, so I'm not sure why he constantly feels the need to refer people to the past.

If it helps, I believed in God as a child, but I wouldn't expect anyone to refer people back to the 1960s to familiarise themselves with my 'former' views on the Almighty, which may or may not have any relevance in the here and now.

[rjpalmer]

No, it's not Palmer's place to say, and the 'former' views of anyone can have no place in a discussion going on today, so I'm not sure why he constantly feels the need to refer people to the past.

If it helps, I believed in God as a child, but I wouldn't expect anyone to refer people back to the 1960s to familiarise themselves with my 'former' views on the Almighty, which may or may not have any relevance in the here and now.

So, if you don't mind saying, what are your current views about the diary referring to an 'FM' on the wall?

Why is it unreasonable for me to assume that your frequently expressed views over a period of many years haven't changed?

Can you point out where the diarist mentions the wall at all? Why does the diarist write 'the whores initial' (singular) is he is referring to two initials?

What does he mean by 'in front for all eyes to see'? Isn't that a strange way to refer to a clue on a wall behind Kelly? Isn't it equally strange to refer to 'an initial here and a (sic) initial there' when describing two initials side-by-side?

Why does the diarist refer, in the same passage, to carving on flesh if he's referring to writing on a wall?

Can someone seriously believe that Maybrick would write "the fools will never find it" if he's written his wife's initials in blood several inches high?

I think what people are wondering is how Ike can sustain the idea that the diary "predicted" the FM that Feldman thinks he found on the wall, when the diary not only doesn't mention it, but seems to be describing something else entirely.