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

[Scott Nelson]

I remember a time when the Barretts were too dim to have created a document that had (supposedly!) "fooled the experts."

Now the Barretts were far too clever and cautious to pawn off such an obvious fake! Far too clever to request paper from the 1880s instead of 1850-1900 when they are trying to bamboozle us!

Hell, they didn't even fake Maybrick's handwriting! How could they have believed for one second that even an utter moron would take the diary seriously without faking the handwriting?

Yet here we are.

So, let's add Prof. Rubenstein, Peter Wood, and Colin Wilson to Herlock's long list of people insulted by this line of argument.

Hey, whatever happened to Peter Wood anyway?

[Kunochan]

[I]Provided that first it can be determined that they are in fact the initials F. and M. and not simply pareidolia. And of course then that would have to be followed by proving that the diary is genuine and written by Maybrick.[I]

A previous poster mentioned the Cottingley Fairies, which I point out because I am fascinated with fairy mythology and actually own Conan Doyle's book on the subject. The photos are so obviously of paper cutouts of fairy art that I can't believe anyone actually believed in them at the time.

I bring this up because the "FM" "initials are so obviously pareidolia that I can't believe anyone buys it. Aren't I correct in assuming that no one noticed these "initials" at the time? Isn't that weird? No it isn't, because there were no initials.

-Kuno

[Lombro2]

My point about the Cottingley Fairies was that debunkers love hoaxes. They're not going to debate letter pareidolia and ask everyone to do a Rorschach test over an incidental part, of a contested text, that is a matter of interpretation and therefore inconsequential and you therefore win no argument anyway but you keep trying to. Why? What is it about the Diary that brings out the yadda yadda nada.

[Lombro2]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

[erobitha]

A previous poster mentioned the Cottingley Fairies, which I point out because I am fascinated with fairy mythology and actually own Conan Doyle's book on the subject. The photos are so obviously of paper cutouts of fairy art that I can't believe anyone actually believed in them at the time.

I bring this up because the "FM" "initials are so obviously pareidolia that I can't believe anyone buys it. Aren't I correct in assuming that no one noticed these "initials" at the time? Isn't that weird? No it isn't, because there were no initials.

-Kuno

It is possible that the alleged “FM” initials in the crime scene photo of Mary Jane Kelly were only visible in the photograph due to the photographer’s flash or other photographic effects, rather than being noticeable to the naked eye at the time.




Here’s why:




1. Early Photography and Flash Effects

• Late 19th-century photography often used magnesium flash powder, which produced a harsh, bright light that could highlight details otherwise unseen in dim conditions.

• The angle of light and shadows created by the flash could reveal textures, stains, or patterns that might not be visible under natural light.




2. Photographic Artifacts & Exposure Issues

• Long exposure times and the limitations of early photographic techniques could create visual distortions or enhance existing patterns in the image.

• Overexposed areas or shadows could unintentionally give the illusion of letters or symbols.




3. Blood & Wall Stains Reacting to Light

• Blood and organic matter can reflect or absorb light differently under artificial lighting.

• If there were smudges or splashes of blood on the wall, the flash could have made certain parts appear more distinct in the photograph.




4. Psychological Perception (Pareidolia)

• Humans are naturally inclined to see patterns in random data (known as pareidolia), which could explain why some people perceive “FM” while others do not.

• If the marks were not noted by police or witnesses at the time, it’s likely they were not distinct to the naked eye but became more noticeable in the photograph.

[Iconoclast]

It is possible that the alleged “FM” initials in the crime scene photo of Mary Jane Kelly were only visible in the photograph due to the photographer’s flash or other photographic effects, rather than being noticeable to the naked eye at the time.
Here’s why:
1. Early Photography and Flash Effects
• Late 19th-century photography often used magnesium flash powder, which produced a harsh, bright light that could highlight details otherwise unseen in dim conditions.
• The angle of light and shadows created by the flash could reveal textures, stains, or patterns that might not be visible under natural light.
2. Photographic Artifacts & Exposure Issues
• Long exposure times and the limitations of early photographic techniques could create visual distortions or enhance existing patterns in the image.
• Overexposed areas or shadows could unintentionally give the illusion of letters or symbols.
3. Blood & Wall Stains Reacting to Light
• Blood and organic matter can reflect or absorb light differently under artificial lighting.
• If there were smudges or splashes of blood on the wall, the flash could have made certain parts appear more distinct in the photograph.
4. Psychological Perception (Pareidolia)
• Humans are naturally inclined to see patterns in random data (known as pareidolia), which could explain why some people perceive “FM” while others do not.
• If the marks were not noted by police or witnesses at the time, it’s likely they were not distinct to the naked eye but became more noticeable in the photograph.

Er ... pareidolia ... er ... stupid ... er why did the coppers not look ... er ... er ... Ike's a twat ...er ... er ... er ... [****, I'm in danger of losing a point here] ... er ... er ... blood splatters!

[erobitha]

Er ... pareidolia ... er ... stupid ... er why did the coppers not look ... er ... er ... Ike's a twat ...er ... er ... er ... [****, I'm in danger of losing a point here] ... er ... er ... blood splatters!

My point Ike is that the argument of the flash in my view, is equal to that of pareidolia. On the face of it, pareidolia is a fair and reasonable theory. As much as those claiming you and I are seeing things seems to be regarded as a valid argument, then they must equally accept and consider the photographer's flash only bringing the initials to light as being of equal value argument.

I'm willing to accept that I cannot rule our pareidolia. Can they rule out the photographer's flash argument? I am guessing they will try even though the evidence is just as good, if not stronger. It shows clear bias.

I stand on the side of I see FM, and I believe no one else saw it at the time due to the poorly lit room. Who is going to notice blood amongst blood in a dark corner of the room? It was hardly CSI-standard forensics back then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

How does the fact that Melvin Harris was "skilled at exposing hoaxes and frauds" long before the emergence of the diary, according to his biography on Casebook, fit in with your theory about him? How does the fact that he continued to argue that the diary was a hoax for the ten years after publication of his book about Stephenson, until his death, fit in with your fact-free theory? And do, please, continue to speculate from the very depths of your imagination about his motives.

[Iconoclast]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

Anyone who puts himself or herself up as a beacon of 'integrity' had better be without blemish or the possibility of bias or blame. If you want to be taken seriously, you recognise that you will appear to have a humungous vested interest in killing the scrapbook story stone dead as quickly as you can and you keep your big gob shut on the subject of your so-called 'integrity'. That's why Melvin Harris was a viper. Like Alice Yapp, he claimed one thing and behaved another. (I answered this some posts ago yesterday but not everyone reads posts before they reply to them.)

And don't start me on the famous '3 predictions'! I have asked this question many times before and never got an answer: to whom did Melvin Harris make these three predictions and where is the record of him making them? To be 'predictions', they needed to be made before he knew the answers to them and - as man of so much self-asserted 'integrity' - his soothsaying needed to be on the record. To my knowledge, it is not. If they were just three predictions made in his head and never shared with anyone until he knew they were correct, that's nothing to shout your gob off about.

By the way, I made a prediction yesterday morning that Newcastle would beat Arsenal 2-0 last evening, that Isak would have an early goal disallowed, and that Mikel Arteta would still look like he came out of a box of Lego at the end of the game.

How did I do, everyone?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My point about the Cottingley Fairies was that debunkers love hoaxes. They're not going to debate letter pareidolia and ask everyone to do a Rorschach test over an incidental part, of a contested text, that is a matter of interpretation and therefore inconsequential and you therefore win no argument anyway but you keep trying to. Why? What is it about the Diary that brings out the yadda yadda nada.

You post as if you have some resentment against ‘debunkers.’ As if they are evil ‘bubble bursters.’ There would be little need for them if the world wasn’t so ripe with childishly gullible conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know reason if they tripped over it.

[Observer]

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

I occasionally post in a Zodiac killer forum and recently a fellow member referred to another member as a "VPN Viper". Any idea what this is? I've asked but haven't had a reply yet

[Iconoclast]

My point Ike is that the argument of the flash in my view, is equal to that of pareidolia. On the face of it, pareidolia is a fair and reasonable theory. As much as those claiming you and I are seeing things seems to be regarded as a valid argument, then they must equally accept and consider the photographer's flash only bringing the initials to light as being of equal value argument.

Rubbish, stupid points. Obviously pareidolia. Why don't you wake up? It's an obvious fraud and there's obviously no initials on the wall even though loads of people can see them without any problem whatsoever. You're just biased and spinning things to suit your own argument. It's like a religion to people like you - you'd say anything to keep this fraud going. You're probably making money out of it!

I'm willing to accept that I cannot rule our pareidolia. Can they rule out the photographer's flash argument? I am guessing they will try even though the evidence is just as good, if not stronger. It shows clear bias.

Of course we can rule out the photographer's flash! How come no-one in that room said in the trillionth of a second that the room lit up, "Hey, I see Florence Maybrick's initials on the wall there, James Maybrick must be Jack the Ripper"? Come on - surely no-one's taking this seriously?

I stand on the side of I see FM ...

Well, you would, wouldn't you?

... and I believe no one else saw it at the time due to the poorly lit room.

Bollocks.

Who is going to notice blood amongst blood in a dark corner of the room?

Der! Only the brilliant Metropolitan Police detective squad of 1888 - arguably the finest minds the criminal world has ever had to face.

It was hardly CSI-standard forensics back then.

And you would know! Were you there?

Oh - and the diary was obviously written by Mike and Anne Barrett (should have said that first).

[caz]

You do not need to believe that the Maybrick scrapbook is genuine in the process of agreeing that there is not one scintilla of categorical evidence that Mike Barrett (and therefore Ann Graham) had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of it.

I understand fully that Barrett is the easey [sic] answer to the quandary of who - in your opinion - created this clever hoax which has bedevilled us for over thirty years now, and I understand that you will not have any idea whatsoever who could have done so, when, and why if you accept that there is no categorical evidence against Barrett. I understand, therefore, that the Barrett option is actually highly attractive even without categorical evidence because it permits you to declare the scrapbook a hoax without the need to do any more thinking about it than that.

The Maybrick scrapbook could be a hoax. I - and I seem to stand alone in this but that doesn't bother me - believe it is almost certainly authentic (see my remarkable Society's Pillar update when it is posted here). But what I can say with categorical certainty is that there is not a single piece of categorical evidence which proves that Barrett created a hoax. For your hoaxer, you need to look elsewhere, but I understand that that requires a massive amount of effort and commitment and I don't think anyone who posts here or reads here has that motivation.

For what I trust are obvious reasons, I won't be doing so either ...

Ike

Morning Ike,

Charles Lechmere was 'found' with a 'freshly' killed victim of Jack the Ripper and then 'lied' to a copper, ergo he was a serial killer, hiding in plain sight. They scratch the surface and find nothing so they have to imagine what wickedness must lie beneath.

William Bury was hanged for killing his own wife and lied about it, ergo he was Jack the Ripper. He was undoubtedly a very wicked and violent man, so a case can be made for him taking the full extent of his murderous character and exploits to the grave.

James Maybrick was known to have been a brothel-creeping, drug-abusing, adulterous and secretive hypochondriac, who struck his wife in front of witnesses, ergo the author of his diary didn't need to go digging into his soul to portray a man - who was outwardly only respectable "up to a point, Lord Copper" - as rotten to the core.

Michael Barrett was 'found' with the 'freshly' written diary of Jack the Ripper and then lied about this, that and the other for the rest of his days, ergo he 'wRoT' it himself, or got his intellectually challenged doormat of a wife to do it for him. What more 'pRoFF' does anyone need, that if we cut their heads off we'd see the word H O A X E R running through them like letters through sticks of New Brighton rock?

It's what most of us do. When a person's faults and wrongdoings can be seen out there in the open, we don't generally believe they will be squeaky clean below the surface, with no secrets they would sooner never tell - secrets, for instance, that might have energised the police or made a vicar blush had they been fully, credibly and coherently confessed.

I see Chris Jones as an exception, because he's done a lot of digging and champions the real James Maybrick - underneath just a thin veneer of character weakness - as a salt of the earth, all round decent cove with a wide circle of friends, and one who wouldn't even have thought of hurting that proverbial fly.

But most of us don't see angels or devils lurking beneath philanderers and liars until we consider the evidence for it overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Can I just add here that it is astonishingly easy sitting on this side of the fence this morning. I'm loving it! All you have to do is say things like, 'Bollocks', and make assertions you can't properly back up and about forty people will pile-in in support and rush to hit the 'Like' button (I didn't realise being 'Liked' was a measure of your competence - good to know) saying stuff like, "These idiots with their stupid theories are just trolls and time-wasters".

I'm looking for an easy life these days. It's a toss-up between sleeping all day or replying to posts on Casebook which contribute nothing to the debate and potentially are not even logically constructed.

Ooh, decisions, decisions ...

[Iconoclast]

I read somewhere recently that Mike Barrett tried to buy a pot of ink once when he was 13 years old.

RJ, I leave it to you to draw your usual incisive inferences from this damning evidence against him ...