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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, Ike, I've asked enough times why you keep calling Melvin Harris a viper and I can see you're refusing to answer. I really couldn't care less whether he was a viper type person or not. As someone not thoroughly versed in diary history, I just wanted to know what he'd done to deserve that name. From the fact that you can't seem to provide me with any kind of answer, I'm going to assume it's what I suspected all along. He didn't think the diary was genuine so, your mind, he's a viper. Okay, if that makes you feel better, do carry on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I'm afraid that's one of those most pressing reasons why you really should be more circumspect in your comments on a Maybrick thread. My comment about feeling ill again was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "I can't believe that someone posting such trenchant views on the Maybrick case doesn't even know the answer to that question".



There are no sources for his receiving it but we do have Alan Gray on tape in December 1994 telling Mike Barrett that Melvin Harris is seeking it. I'm paraphrasing here, but be in no doubt, it's made clear to Barrett that Harris wants it. So we have to rely on inference that Gray got it to him. If he didn't it would have been a quite astonishing oversight on Gray's part. I'll grant you all of the things you say, though, Herlock, because I have far too much to do to go fact-checking for exactitude on this particular point.



Doh!

PS Herlock, let's just go back to being pals who never discuss politics, religion, or the Maybrick scrapbook. I'm actually not sure if you read my posts before asking your questions so let's stick to football and beer, mate. No, seriously.

I knew exactly what you meant when you said you felt ill, Ike. Likewise, I expected you to know what I meant when I asked the question because the answer is that no-one is relying on Barrett's affidavit, so who cares if it contains some dating errors?

Now you're going to have to forgive me for asking for a silly little thing like supporting evidence but please provide me a direct quote in which Alan Gray says on tape in December 1994 that Harris is seeking an affidavit. I do hope you're sure about this Ike and are not misremembering something to suit your narrative? Are you quite sure it wasn't Harris simply suggesting to Gray that it would be in Barrett's interests for Barrett to prepare a statement, as opposed to Harris wanting it himself?

And let me get this right, on the basis of Harris suggesting that Barrett prepare a statement or affidavit in December 1994, and nothing else, you are prepared to tell me as a fact that Gray then gave this statement/affidavit to Harris, almost certainly the day after it was sworn, and attached no confidentiality to that document? It's kind of beyond belief if that's all you've got. It's just a complete guess on your part, in other words, right?

But, frankly, unless you can (sensibly) tell me what you think Harris should have done with the affidavit in the two years or so before it was made public on the internet, even if he felt he could do what he liked with it without the permission of its author, it's all meaningless anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Last comment from me.

No, that would be a one-off afternoon and there's clearly a world of difference which really does make the difference.

But enough ...

You're mistaken, Ike. No hyphen is required for "one off". Whether you put one in or not, doesn't change the meaning. It's frequently used without a hyphen and in fact, according to Orsam's "one off article", it didn't have a hyphen when it first appeared in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in 1973

[Herlock Sholmes]

12 Goldie Street. Man and policeman at Mike Barrett's door.
Knock knock.
Barrett: Yes?
Man: I believe you have recently come into possession of an old Victorian document. It had writing in and blank pages.
Barrett: Yes, that's right.
Man: That was stolen from my house a few days ago.
Barrett: Oh sugar. That's terrible. Would you like it back?
Man: Yes I would thank you.
Barrett: Here it is.
Man: That's not my document.
Barrett: Well that's the only one I've got.
Policeman: I'm sorry, Mr Barrett, it looks like this gentleman was misinformed.

Now, I can't promise anyone that this is how it would have gone down, but all we have to think is that Barrett might have been worried someone would come to his door wanting their Jack the Ripper diary back and all we have to accept is that Barrett thought he could reduce the risk of losing his Jack the Ripper diary by sourcing a genuine Victorian document to pretend was the one he had received. We only have to accept that Barrett might have thought it, note - it doesn't have to be logical to you, me, or anyone else other than the guy who ordered it.



Yes, it is clear that if Barrett thought like you he would have realised immediately that it was a stupid idea. But he didn't so he didn't. Let me ask you this question, though, Herlock: When you received a Jack the Ripper document which was almost certainly stolen and which you knew would be worth millions, what did you do to protect what had come your way?

If you say, "I didn't do anything because that situation has never happened to me" I think we'd all be reasonable in thinking you're in no position to call any theory 'stupid'.

By the way, I suggested that notion but I do err on the side of the other as it has slightly more predictive power than mine. It more neatly explains why he wanted at least twenty blank pages.

I'm really confused now Ike. Why couldn't the conversation have gone like this:

12 Goldie Street. Man and policeman at Mike Barrett's door.
Knock knock.
Barrett: Yes?
Man: I believe you have recently come into possession of an old Victorian document. It had writing in and blank pages.
Barrett: No, I don't know where you got that idea from.
Policeman: I'm sorry, Mr Barrett, it looks like this gentleman was misinformed.

The end result is the same but this way Barrett saves himself £25 and avoids the pointless handing over of something which wasn't what he was being asked for. However stupid Barrett might have been, even he could have worked that one out.

Now for your question which I'll repeat for anyone who hasn't appreciated how ludicrous it is:

"When you received a Jack the Ripper document which was almost certainly stolen and which you knew would be worth millions, what did you do to protect what had come your way?"

The reason it's a ludicrous question (in a strange tense) is because there is no sensible answer other than hand it over to the police. What can I possibly do with a valuable stolen document? Publish it in a book with my name on it so that the person who it was stolen from can sue me and take all my millions? No, I certainly wouldn't be doing that. That would be absolutely crazy!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

I kid ye not, mate, I am genuinely worried about your ability to understand what is being said.

If Barrett had sought a dated document from 1870-1900, it could not have been to forge a Maybrick diary for reasons that he was brown bread by the middle of 1889. He could have sought an undated one from earlier than 1870 or later than 1900 if he'd wanted to maximise his chances of getting one, obviously (I assume you agree).

As his advert did not say he would accept an undated document, but mentioned 1890 (and the one he finally accepted was a dated one from 1891), then that is overwhelming evidence that he was not seeking to hoax a Maybrick diary.

No, Ike, I don't agree that Barrett should have sought an undated document from earlier than 1870 or later than 1900. He couldn't have been sure it wouldn't be scientifically dated to those (incorrect) periods. I certainly wouldn't have known if I was in his position; As you put it yourself, he wanted a diary from around the time of the Ripper murders. What's so difficult to understand about that?

His advert didn't refer to dated or undated documents. It just asked for a diary from a certain time period. No mention was made of dates. An 1891 diary would have been suitable if it hadn't had a date on it, or if the date could have been removed.

Let me ask you this, Ike, because I think it's the critical question. How do we know that the actual Maybrick diary isn't contained in a photograph album manufactured in 1891? If you can work out the answer to this, you might be able to fathom why Barrett could reasonably have thought that an 1891 diary with mainly blank pages might have been something he could use for his Jack the Ripper diary, before he actually saw

[caz]

Now we just have to differentiate if the spoor leads to a Rick Dyer forger or a Fritz Stiefel fence.

Michael Barrett can't really be compared to Mark Hoffman. He can be compared to Rick Dyer if he was a Hoaxer but Dyer's story makes sense in the context of his Hoax and so does his motive. He wanted to make people happy. That's one possible motive here. It doesn't work for the Diary. Is forging a Ripper Diary the best way to make money?

But some forgers make hoaxes to try to "prove" a theory they believe in. The Piltdown guy believe in missing links and Pierre Plantard believed he was the King of France. Maybe a serial killer diary IS the best thing to fake since it's virtually unknown territory.

It's the start of a seamless narrative. To compete with Caz's Patsy Theory which is very seamless, so seamless that the only arguments, thrown at her, work for a fence as much as a forger, if not more so. That's when the scat hits the fan.

PS That's Patsy not Patty.

What you said here, Lombro2, about some forgers making hoaxes to try to "prove" a theory they believe in, is interesting because I had just been thinking along similar lines.

If someone who had always thought Jimmy Savile was 'creepy', years before his unspeakable double life came tumbling out, had decided to write a spoof diary, based on their own suspicions of what "Sir Jim" might actually have been capable of, it wouldn't make the diary any more real when the truth finally emerged. If the diary had emerged long before the reality, and been full of the most sordid details imaginable, would fans of the odious Savile have pointed to it as proof positive that the real "Jim" was no serial sexual predator, and his worst sin was being a bit too "touchy-feely" with the young guys and gals?

We still have no credible explanation for the diary author selecting James Maybrick of all Victorian males to be Jack the Ripper, but if they had their own suspicions about the man from something they had read, heard or seen, they could have made a whole lot more of it in diary form, without ever knowing whether their instincts could be correct or wide of the mark. Something like the watch, for instance, could trigger a suspicion without ever confirming it, but we all know how little it can take for the seeds of suspicion to be planted and take root.

With this in mind, let's imagine someone, who has been convinced by one of Mike Barrett's affidavits and the advert for an 1880s diary, sitting down to write The Diary of Anne Graham, filling 60+ pages with their own suspicions, assumptions and conjecture, based on little more than provable Barrett lies and misdirection. They are hoping that time may eventually reveal all and confirm all the confessional thoughts they have attributed to Anne in their own spoof diary. They may even send a copy of their diary to Anne, 99% confident that when she reads it she will recognise herself and all her faults and know she has been well and truly sussed. But it would be sent anonymously, in case they are only 1% right about what Anne knows.

As for Mike Barrett:

I say fence; they say forger.

I say let's not call the whole thing off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

And, no, it doesn't mean the same as having a one off afternoon. If someone said that it would mean they were having a unique afternoon.

Last comment from me.

No, that would be a one-off afternoon and there's clearly a world of difference which really does make the difference.

But enough ...

[Iconoclast]

I asked you who is relying on Barrett's affidavit and, rather than answer, you tell me you feel ill. That's not an answer. As far as I know, nobody is relying on Barrett's affidavit for anything.

And I'm afraid that's one of those most pressing reasons why you really should be more circumspect in your comments on a Maybrick thread. My comment about feeling ill again was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "I can't believe that someone posting such trenchant views on the Maybrick case doesn't even know the answer to that question".

If you don't know when Harris received a copy of the affidavit, why do you say it was almost certainly on 6th January 1995? Is it a guess, or based on something? How do you know Gray gave it to him? And how do you know there were no confidentiality conditions attached? You told RJ Palmer to cite his sources. Could you please cite yours?

There are no sources for his receiving it but we do have Alan Gray on tape in December 1994 telling Mike Barrett that Melvin Harris is seeking it. I'm paraphrasing here, but be in no doubt, it's made clear to Barrett that Harris wants it. So we have to rely on inference that Gray got it to him. If he didn't it would have been a quite astonishing oversight on Gray's part. I'll grant you all of the things you say, though, Herlock, because I have far too much to do to go fact-checking for exactitude on this particular point.

Just saying "viper" over and over again just seems like you bear him a grudge. I repeat my question. Why do you keep calling him a viper? Is it just because he didn't think the diary was genuine. Is there a reason why you're not answering this question?

Doh!

PS Herlock, let's just go back to being pals who never discuss politics, religion, or the Maybrick scrapbook. I'm actually not sure if you read my posts before asking your questions so let's stick to football and beer, mate. No, seriously.

[Iconoclast]

How would handing over a blank diary from, say, 1882 have possibly helped Barrett achieve what he wanted to achieve?

12 Goldie Street. Man and policeman at Mike Barrett's door.
Knock knock.
Barrett: Yes?
Man: I believe you have recently come into possession of an old Victorian document. It had writing in and blank pages.
Barrett: Yes, that's right.
Man: That was stolen from my house a few days ago.
Barrett: Oh sugar. That's terrible. Would you like it back?
Man: Yes I would thank you.
Barrett: Here it is.
Man: That's not my document.
Barrett: Well that's the only one I've got.
Policeman: I'm sorry, Mr Barrett, it looks like this gentleman was misinformed.

Now, I can't promise anyone that this is how it would have gone down, but all we have to think is that Barrett might have been worried someone would come to his door wanting their Jack the Ripper diary back and all we have to accept is that Barrett thought he could reduce the risk of losing his Jack the Ripper diary by sourcing a genuine Victorian document to pretend was the one he had received. We only have to accept that Barrett might have thought it, note - it doesn't have to be logical to you, me, or anyone else other than the guy who ordered it.

Honestly, what a stupid theory. While the other one you mention (but don't adopt) is equally stupid. What a stupid pair of theories!

Yes, it is clear that if Barrett thought like you he would have realised immediately that it was a stupid idea. But he didn't so he didn't. Let me ask you this question, though, Herlock: When you received a Jack the Ripper document which was almost certainly stolen and which you knew would be worth millions, what did you do to protect what had come your way?

If you say, "I didn't do anything because that situation has never happened to me" I think we'd all be reasonable in thinking you're in no position to call any theory 'stupid'.

By the way, I suggested that notion but I do err on the side of the other as it has slightly more predictive power than mine. It more neatly explains why he wanted at least twenty blank pages.

[Iconoclast]

Surely as a Local to the North East, sorry I've heard you are a Geordie, then you should know the term 'having an off afternoon' and what it means. Basically it means he was not at his best.

Sorry, Geddy2112, you mustn't spend much time on the Maybrick threads as I was actually being ironic. It's too convoluted to go into but gan canny man am not losin it like a knew exactly what a was sayin me bonnie lad.

I'm driving through to Newcastle shortly to drop my daughter off in the Bigg Market. Surely you can't let a two goal advantage slide. I know if you did it would not be a 'one off' but surely it can't or should not happen.

We've just lost at home to Fulham and Arsenal have just thrashed the reigning Champions of the Universe 5-1 so I'm taking nothing for granted. Fourteen years ago TODAY, it was Newcastle 0, Arsenal 2 in the time it teks uz te make a ******* saveloy and pease pudding scottie man (just 3 minutes), 0-3 after just 9 minutes and 0-4 after half an hour so am tekkin nowt for granted.

Obviously, it didn't end 0-4 ...