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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello Caz,

As you have probably guessed I’ve always assumed that diary was forged by Mike with help from Anne (and maybe someone else) but I certainly have no fixed ideas on the subject (and I certainly don’t know anything close to enough about the details to get into the discussions that are had on here between yourself, Ike, Roger, Ero, and with David O commenting from elsewhere, on electricians and affidavits and suchlike). As Mike brought the Diary ‘into the light’ then it seems likely to me that he knew that he was at least perpetuating a hoax but to what extent he was involved in the actual creation, I don’t know, but you are right that I make the assumption of financial gain as a motive.

Who would have suspected though Caz, back in 1992 when we were all excited about the possibility of it being the ripper’s diary, that it would still be the subject of such vigorous debate 33 years later?

[Scott Nelson]

I guess I'm an 'old hoax' theorist, but with a caveat. There was an 'original' spoof diary from the late 1890s that was found and rewritten in Billy Graham's old photo album by one or more persons. Then the older original was destroyed.

[Lombro2]

That's a fascinating solution. It's sort of a "Forgery On The Orient Express". That means everyone is right or partly right.

Orient Express was the only time Agatha Christie was nice to me and I was right. My guy did it. (no spoilers)

Thank you Agatha and Scott.

[caz]

Ike, I think if you're going to ask a poll question which asks if the hoaxer would have been "the only person who ever saw those shapes as "F" and "M"" you need to make very clear what shapes you are talking about. Is it the supposed "F" on the arm or the supposed "F" on the wall?

I believe I gave a good explanation as to why there is nothing surprising about a forger being the first person to see shapes in the photograph. And in the pre-internet age, how many people who could properly be described as Ripperologists were even active in 1992? Less than a hundred? I would think that anyone with any sense would have discarded the idea that letters on Kelly's wall could be relevant to the crime and assumed were probably there before the murder. And they would surely also have assumed the police would have seen them if they were there. Truly, there are so many reasons why no-one would have bothered to scrutinise a dirty wooden wall. Simon Wood had the idea that Kelly might have written her killer's name in blood but that that's the only reason he even bothered to look at it. Who else, in reality, would have done so?

Hello Herlock,

This is not directed at you, but I wonder how those who insist they can't see anything resembling letters or initials in any of the published photos of MJK, reconcile this with the argument that Mike, or Anne, or A.N.Other-Hoaxer did see initials resembling FM on the wall - or at least one initial 'here', looking like a large F carved into Kelly's arm, and another initial 'there', looking like a large M in blood on the wall - and thought to themselves: "Great, now we can have some fun with 'Sir Jim' referring to them in his diary as clues that the fools didn't spot at the time."

If people still can't see a sodding thing, even when their eyes are directed to the areas in question, it does beg the question how the composer of the diary was expecting to capitalise on the faintest and vaguest of barely visible letter shapes, with non-specific references to them which could leave the text open to interpretation. Maybe they took the precaution of not being too specific, in case any vague letter shapes were provably caused by photographic defects or otherwise ruled out as marks left by the murderer.

It would be interesting to know what anyone setting themselves the task of creating the diary text in the early 1990s would have made of the following report published in the Boston Daily Globe on 10th November 1888:

'Profiting by former blunders the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to a report that bloody handwriting was on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed to enter the room say they did not observe it, but possibly they were too excited to notice details.'

I assume one of the 'former blunders' referred to would be the failure to photograph the GSG before it was wiped off the wall, which could well have given rise to speculation that the police would not have risked a repeat of that mistake, if there was even the slightest chance of a repeat performance by the killer, possibly using a bloody finger on the wall this time instead of chalk. I don't suppose the newspaper would have had any firmer intelligence on this by 10th November, and I have seen no evidence of an actual report - in any form - referring to bloody handwriting.

Paul Begg also found a report that said the police found a photographer after some difficulty and that the conditions were very unfavourable. This may or may not have had anything to do with the alleged belief that photographing Kelly's eyes might capture an image of her killer. Personally, I favour the theory that they were looking for clues of a more solid variety at the scene, since the police were not exactly flush with them and had managed to get rid of the one potential clue they did have following the last murder. Had they left themselves open to further accusations of screwing up by not having those awful images taken of the crime scene, then the writing may really have been on the wall for them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Hello Herlock,

This is not directed at you, but I wonder how those who insist they can't see anything resembling letters or initials in any of the published photos of MJK, reconcile this with the argument that Mike, or Anne, or A.N.Other-Hoaxer did see initials resembling FM on the wall - or at least one initial 'here', looking like a large F carved into Kelly's arm, and another initial 'there', looking like a large M in blood on the wall - and thought to themselves: "Great, now we can have some fun with 'Sir Jim' referring to them in his diary as clues that the fools didn't spot at the time."

If people still can't see a sodding thing, even when their eyes are directed to the areas in question, it does beg the question how the composer of the diary was expecting to capitalise on the faintest and vaguest of barely visible letter shapes, with non-specific references to them which could leave the text open to interpretation. Maybe they took the precaution of not being too specific, in case any vague letter shapes were provably caused by photographic defects or otherwise ruled out as marks left by the murderer.

It would be interesting to know what anyone setting themselves the task of creating the diary text in the early 1990s would have made of the following report published in the Boston Daily Globe on 10th November 1888:

'Profiting by former blunders the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to a report that bloody handwriting was on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed to enter the room say they did not observe it, but possibly they were too excited to notice details.'

I assume one of the 'former blunders' referred to would be the failure to photograph the GSG before it was wiped off the wall, which could well have given rise to speculation that the police would not have risked a repeat of that mistake, if there was even the slightest chance of a repeat performance by the killer, possibly using a bloody finger on the wall this time instead of chalk. I don't suppose the newspaper would have had any firmer intelligence on this by 10th November, and I have seen no evidence of an actual report - in any form - referring to bloody handwriting.

Paul Begg also found a report that said the police found a photographer after some difficulty and that the conditions were very unfavourable. This may or may not have had anything to do with the alleged belief that photographing Kelly's eyes might capture an image of her killer. Personally, I favour the theory that they were looking for clues of a more solid variety at the scene, since the police were not exactly flush with them and had managed to get rid of the one potential clue they did have following the last murder. Had they left themselves open to further accusations of screwing up by not having those awful images taken of the crime scene, then the writing may really have been on the wall for them.

Love,

Caz
X

"Pareidolia is the tendency to see patterns or meaning in things that aren't there. It's a psychological phenomenon that can cause people to see faces in everyday objects."

It's easy to claim that you see shapes resembling almost anything in virtually any photograph similar to Kelly's murder scene (grainy old copies of copies).

Sure, you could probably see letters on that wall if you wanted to, but you'd be seeing something that absolutely nobody in 1888 actually attending the scene saw.

If there was no diary of Jim Maybrick, and it was instead "the diary of Joseph Merrick", and the author made the same incredibly vague hints about initials as the scrapbook author did, then we'd likely be here discussing the "clear as day" JM on Kelly's wall.

There is no FM, certainly there never was. It's a mess of lines and shadow on a messy wall in grainy old copy of a photograph from 1888 being manipulated to show something which isn't there.

At any rate, I'm not sure what it's got to do with anything, either it's a modern hoax or an older hoax, but either way the author made a vague comment about initials and people claim that those initials are on Kelly's wall in the shape of an FM. I don't know what the significance is supposed to be here, James Maybrick didn't write any of it.

[Mike J. G.]

We can believe what we like about supposed writing on the wall, couple them with incredibly nonspecific hints at initials in the scrapbook and then throw in the claim that we see Florence Maybrick's initials in grainy old photographs, but it's all for nought unless you believe that Jim actually wrote the scrapbook, when we know he didn't, and unless you believe he actually was Jack, despite the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that he was.
There's initials on that wall if you want there to be, and they could certainly read FM as well, if you wanted them to.

If newspapers were reporting writing being on the wall, it's odd that nobody bothered to document them, despite their excitement, seeing as it was worthy enough to be picked up by a journalist after the fact.

The diary author says barely anything about an FM on Kelly's wall, regardless, so it's yet another avenue that doesn't really lead us anywhere.

After all these years, the evidence for it having been written by Maybrick hasn't gotten any better. The common opinion is that it's a hoax, so I'm not sure why any initials, seen or unseen, matter at all.

[caz]

So, are you suggesting that Mike got it right? Am I reading that correctly?

Not sure I follow. It would depend on whether Martin Fido 'got it right' before him, I guess.

Certainly, it would have been obvious to any reader that the diarist is referring to injuries to Eddowes' head.

The nose is cut off. The eyelids are nicked. The neck is cut down to the vertebrae. 'Left my mark' is somewhat more obscure though, isn't it?

Yes, but if Martin Fido saw that sketch and was convinced that the killer had left his 'personal mark' [whatever that may have been], I still don't see the problem with anyone, including Mike, coming to the same conclusion after reading the diary, with all its funny little name games, but going further and assuming its author was referring to a letter M for Maybrick.

If the diary had identified Jack as John Virgo, Mike would no doubt have been seeing the letter V in his head as clear as day, to represent the killer's 'mark', and it would be no surprise to anyone if he was the first to do so, having been the first to read the diary after acquiring it in somewhat suspicious circumstances.

Can 'left my mark' plausibly refer to something other than the significant injuries that aren't mentioned--ie., the cuts to Eddowes' cheeks, that can in turn be interpreted as an 'M'?

Or are you suggesting that the cuts to Eddowes' cheeks are such a natural interpretation of 'left my mark,' that even Barrett could figure it out? (Whereas Shirley evidently couldn't, and had to rely on Mike's explanation?)

Palmer is making more of this than appears strictly necessary, unless I'm missing something fundamental. Mike only needed to read the reference to Maybrick leaving his 'mark' on Eddowes, in the context of describing knife injuries to her 'nose' and 'eyes', in order to make the not so ingenious leap to supposing the killer MAY [geddit?] have added his own initial - M - to the other facial cuts. Would he even have needed anyone to draw him a picture?

[caz]

I genuinely don't know what you mean, Ike. How am I "close minded"? What assumptions did I make in that post?

If it's that the diary was written by a forger, that's not an assumption it's a fact, due to it having been impossible to have been written in 1888.

But is that all you meant? We both know that this is my strongly held conclusion about the diary which is a factually based conclusion, not something I'm assuming.

Was there anything else that you were referring to when you spoke of my "battering-ram of unremitting assumptions" because I don't think it's true at all.

In any case, would you mind just engaging with my arguments in your responses rather than making such comments?

Forgery is typically the act of copying someone else's handwriting, signature or a complete document for unethical or criminal purposes, often but not always to separate a victim from their money.

The diary is not a forgery by any normal definition, because its author made no attempt to fool anyone by trying to mimic Maybrick's handwriting.

This in itself is a problem for anyone arguing that Mike Barrett was hoping to get over the first hurdle if he knew the handwriting was not Maybrick's, or even that of someone trying to copy Maybrick's, because he knew precisely whose handwriting it was in, and he had a close connection with that person.

This leaves open the very real possibility that the diary was written not for financial gain, but for some other, as yet unknown motive, by someone whose plan was always to remain anonymous - in which case Mike Barrett would have been the very last person on earth that the person responsible would have trusted to feed their cat, never mind keep their identity secret.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Forgery is typically the act of copying someone else's handwriting, signature or a complete document for unethical or criminal purposes, often but not always to separate a victim from their money.

The diary is not a forgery by any normal definition, because its author made no attempt to fool anyone by trying to mimic Maybrick's handwriting.

This in itself is a problem for anyone arguing that Mike Barrett was hoping to get over the first hurdle if he knew the handwriting was not Maybrick's, or even that of someone trying to copy Maybrick's, because he knew precisely whose handwriting it was in, and he had a close connection with that person.

This leaves open the very real possibility that the diary was written not for financial gain, but for some other, as yet unknown motive, by someone whose plan was always to remain anonymous - in which case Mike Barrett would have been the very last person on earth that the person responsible would have trusted to feed their cat, never mind keep their identity secret.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don't think I can agree with you when you say that "The diary is not a forgery by any normal definition".

I'm looking at various online dictionaries and they all define forgery, in essence, in the same way that the Forgery Act of 1913 does, namely that "forgery is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine". I don't see any requirement for copying anything to be part of the definition. Art forgers, for example, sometimes copy art works, other times they create new works in the style of an artist. The diary is presented as a text written by James Maybrick. It is supposed to be by him. I don't really know if the forger made an attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting or not or if he (or she, if you prefer) even knew what his handwriting looked like. It seems to me to be a classic forgery by any definition of the word. And I know it features in Joe Nickell's 1996 book "Detecting Forgery". It was also financially lucrative for its owner.

All the evidence points to the diary having been written after the Second World War and I just can't think of any reason why a forger in that time period would have gone to all that trouble to make it, absent a profit motive. Can you?

[Lombro2]

The Handwriting brings up three possibilities:

1. The alleged Forger didn't know or didn't care if his or her handwriting matched James Maybrick's.*

2. The alleged Forger knew that Serial Killers can and do have multiple "handwriting".

3. The author was James Maybrick and he was a serial killer with different "handwriting".


*Only expert forgers would be able to write in different hands. Since Mike and Anne aren't experts, that means that a non-match with them would be a positive non-match. With serial killers, of course, you can have negative non-matches. Any objection to that would be the real side-step of the issue, or just an inability to put aside your position and suspend doubt to imagine or even conceive of the alternate possibility for even a second for the sake of argument.

[Mike J. G.]

The Handwriting brings up three possibilities:

1. The alleged Forger didn't know or didn't care if his or her handwriting matched James Maybrick's.*

2. The alleged Forger knew that Serial Killers can and do have multiple "handwriting".

3. The author was James Maybrick and he was a serial killer with different "handwriting".


*Only expert forgers would be able to write in different hands. Since Mike and Anne aren't experts, that means that a non-match with them would be a positive non-match. With serial killers, of course, you can have negative non-matches. Any objection to that would be the real side-step of the issue, or just an inability to put aside your position and suspend doubt to imagine or even conceive of the alternate possibility for even a second for the sake of argument.

The author of the scrapbook didn't write in a different hand, they most likely wrote in their own hand with a touch of flavour added. The trouble is, we don't know who wrote it.

It's not easy to completely disguise your own handwriting, and certainly Mike, nor Maybrick, were capable, and though there are some similarities between Anne's writing and the scrapbook author, I'm not totally convinced it was her work, either. I'm open to it being Anne, though, just not convinced.

[caz]

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

It's not compulsory to read or respond to them, is it?

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

Where did Palmer get this from? I was suggesting the polar opposite, so I have no idea what the agenda is here.

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.

Ooh, the condescension just gets weirder, doesn't it? If memory serves, it was Palmer who suggested sarcastically that Ike might wish to rename it, while I pointed out that this was entirely Ike's call. It is also Palmer who repeatedly refers to 'old hoax' theorists and tries to define their beliefs, as if he knows there is a crowd of them hanging around who are all just too reticent to speak up for themselves. As Palmer knows from long experience, if something from the dim and distant past gets dredged up and repeated often enough, it can masquerade as today's reality.

Ike merely chose to adapt the title of an old thread to start a new topic, that would be Ike friendly [ha bloody ha]. I don't suppose he analysed every syllable of the new title to make sure each of the three categories already had a 'crowd' of potential contributors waiting to get stuck in, so I merely asked Palmer how many 'old hoax' theorists he could name today, when he took it upon himself to speak for them. If he finds this unreasonable, strange or tiresome, perhaps he needs to think a bit more before he whips out his typing digit and seeks to represent the beliefs of anyone he doesn't agree with, who may not even be around to confirm, clarify or correct. It's not cricket.

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

Yep, and Ike is one of them. I just think it's better to let people discuss their own views and make their own arguments, so we know their current thinking, and not what Palmer thinks it is, from his frequent trips to that foreign country called 'The Past'.

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

If anyone who knew or associated with the Barretts before the diary story broke, had expressed the opinion that the diary could have been their own work, I might have been kinder towards the folk who think they know better. Had the Barretts been insane enough to collaborate on a Maybrick/JtR literary hoax in 1992, I have little doubt that it would have lasted all of five minutes in the hands of Doreen and Shirley, and as for Robert Smith and Keith Skinner, Palmer can forget it. Does he seriously think Robert of all people would have invested a single penny in something concocted by Mike and Anne Barrett? If he does, Robert has a bridge to flog him. Even Melvin Harris had more nous.

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.

Ah, now that just demonstrates to me, as clear as a bell, that Palmer really doesn't have a clue about me or my thinking, even after all these years, so how does he ever hope to understand the Barretts, or anyone else mixed up in this saga? This is why Palmer's own obsession to nail Mike and Anne as hoaxers has been such an utter waste of his undoubted research abilities and intellect, which could have been so much more usefully directed at other, far more neglected subjects and pursuits.

But if Palmer wants to carry on pursuing this one, putting up with everything he finds strange and tiresome along the way while trying to nail jelly to the wall, he can't say I didn't warn him.

[caz]

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.

Have you read that part of the diary lately, Mike?

A genuine question, because it's hardly 'a vague couple of lines that could refer to initials if you really wanted them to'.

There is no specific reference to an F or an M, or where the initials might be, but we ought to be accurate about what is there in black and white on the page, and what isn't, when drawing our own inferences.

Otherwise it's just another pointless pursuit.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Have you read that part of the diary lately, Mike?

A genuine question, because it's hardly 'a vague couple of lines that could refer to initials if you really wanted them to'.

There is no specific reference to an F or an M, or where the initials might be, but we ought to be accurate about what is there in black and white on the page, and what isn't, when drawing our own inferences.

Otherwise it's just another pointless pursuit.

Love,

Caz
X

Hiya, Caz. I've obviously read it, I even posted the very passage on this thread or another one, there's so many of them I can't remember which. I know in the past you've said that you didn't think the author was referring to initials on the wall, either.
You once also said:

Just keep in mind that the diary does not make any specific references to a letter or letters on Mary's wall.

I think we all do this from time to time - ie assume that the diary author means one thing when there are often other possibilities.

I agree, I think there's a lot of presumption going on where there needn't be any. People connecting dots that only they can see.

I really don't see that the author is clearly stating that they left Florence's initials on Kelly's wall, and they definitely didn't, as it's only evident on certain copies, wasn't noticed by anyone at the time, and would be incredibly unlikely to even be left in such an unnoticeable position on the wall by a killer who clearly wanted their handiwork to be seen.

I could be wrong, but I thought you were in the hoax camp, despite being on the older origin side, so I'm not quite sure what you're arguing as far as these supposed initials go. They weren't on Kelly's wall, they're vaguely hinted at by the author of a diary not written by Maybrick, a man who was very unlikely to have been responsible for any murders in London or Manchester in 1888... So I'm in not sure what we're disagreeing about here.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

I don't think I can agree with you when you say that "The diary is not a forgery by any normal definition".

Hi Mike,

I can't agree, either.

In the U.S. such forgeries are referred to as "blind forgeries." (See below). It's still a forgery--and is referred to as such---but the forger doesn't have any exemplars of the subject's handwriting to work with, so he or she just 'wings' it, hoping it won't matter. As always, scammers aren't opposed to risk taking. That should go without saying.

With a fake as modern as we know the diary is (clearly post 1980s), the hoaxers simply assumed (as Feldman's team assumed at one point) that no significant examples of Maybrick's handwriting still existed. A hundred years had passed, after all. Of course, none of the diary's researchers knew the Barretts before April 1992 and thus can have no idea what Mike or Anne might have checked, so the point is moot, anyway. The abstract of Maybrick's will in the Liverpool Central Library was just a short, printed summary of it, and Mike, if he checked, might well have assumed that that was all that had been left by the ravages of time.

Obviously, the 'forger' DID want her or his audience to think the diary was written by Maybrick, and as far as Robert Smith and others are concerned, they succeeded. Didn't one of the handwriting experts--Dr. Audrey Giles or Sue Iremonger--believe that the penman (or penwoman) added extraneous swirls and loops to give the handwriting a mock-Victorian appearance?

If so, then the forger DID make an effort to make the handwriting appear to be 'Maybrick's'---the only way a 'blind forger' could do so, since they had no examples to work with.

I think we can move on from that somewhat odd suggestion.

All the best.