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

[rjpalmer]

I also find it anything but judicious and intelligent for a professor to be so inflexible of mind

So suddenly the supposed initials that you've circled in bright red ink on the Kelly photo --on the wall and her forearm--are NOT what was 'predicted' in the text, but instead the text refers to other initials on other walls that are conveniently out of sight?

Do I have that right?

You've abandoned the citadel at the first hint of danger.

[Iconoclast]

I think Geddy's comment was interesting, and it reminded me of the very judicious and intelligent remarks by Professor Chisholm.
I think it is undeniable that the hoaxer knew of the Kelly photograph and wanted his readers to refer to it. This doesn't pose as debilitating a problem for you (though it IS a problem for you) as it does for the 'old hoax' theorists, though I've been told there are no longer any old hoax theorists in these parts.

Dear readers, please pay attention to what Professor Chisholm was quoted as saying:

This is an erudite point first raised by Professor Alex Chisholm, a lecturer in history from Wales, when he commented on the diary decades ago.
"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective. The diarist does not claim to have left in front of 'them' or the 'fools' but only in front for all eyes to see.' The wall on which these initials were supposed to have been written [and let's also add Kelly's forearm] was at the right side of the room on entry, to the right side of Kelly. The only thing the initials could reasonably be described of as 'in front of' being the police photographer's lens."
Regards.

At no point does Professor Chisholm tell us about the 'F' and 'M' clues Maybrick may well have left to Professor Chisholm's left as he walked hypothetically into Kelly's room, nor those on the wall in front of him, nor those on the wall to his right (but away from the camera's angle), nor those behind him (but also away from the camera's angle).

There may have been none, of course, but how are we to be so certain that there could not have been given that none of us were in that room, hypothetically or otherwise?

I also find it anything but judicious and intelligent for a professor to be so inflexible of mind that he or she is unable to take a reference anything other than 100% literally. How many of us speak and write only with considered and unremitting exactitude?

"I got the eight o'clock bus to town".
"You can't have done. No bus stopped at eight o'clock last evening. We have it on the record that the nearest bus stopped and collected passengers at 8.03 last evening".
"You've got me, officer. I've been tumbled right enough".

If the only initials left were right next to the slaughtered woman, I'm willing to give the author a tiny bit of licence when he stated that he had left them in front for all eyes to see. After all, he might not unreasonably have thought to himself, "Where the hell else will they be looking, for gawd's sake???".

[rjpalmer]

a concerted campaign by RJ to squeeze every single piece of information (whether known or rumour) into a Barrett hoax theory.

Hilarious, Ike!

Compared to what? Your concerted campaign to squeeze every single piece of information into a Maybrick wrote-it theory?

Why am I not allowed to fight my corner while you fight yours?

I think Geddy's comment was interesting, and it reminded me of the very judicious and intelligent remarks by Professor Chisholm.

I think it is undeniable that the hoaxer knew of the Kelly photograph and wanted his readers to refer to it. This doesn't pose as debilitating a problem for you (though it IS a problem for you) as it does for the 'old hoax' theorists, though I've been told there are no longer any old hoax theorists in these parts.

[Iconoclast]

"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective.

No, it absolutely does not.

In other words, the hoaxer was aware of the Kelly photograph.

No, this does not logically follow unless you are illogically working from the premise that the only view available in that room was the one the photographer caught when he (or she) took MJK1.

I would add that the hoaxer is almost begging his or her readers to refer to the Kelly photograph in order to look for the 'clue' that the 'fools' could not find.

This is simply not correct. The author of the scrapbook is clearly saying that his wife's initials had some role to play in Kelly's room by the time he left it.

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

It is a puzzle which the best we can hope to do is solve through the lens of MJK1 because we have no other lens with which to view Kelly's room (I exclude the photograph of the table here - others might wish to add it back in).

The hoaxer also assumed that the reader would have access to the police photograph in order to solve this puzzle ...

This is not correct. There is no evidence that the author even knew that a photograph had been taken. His (or her) comment about Florence's initials could have referred to any number of other locations in Kelly's room, but we only have one lens into it, not five or ten or twenty, so most of her room is not recorded on film for us to view in detail.

... which again rationally dates the diary to the 1960s or later, when the photograph first obtained wide circulation.

Self-evidently not so.

Before that date, the photo was either in the off-limits City of London Police materials or in one exceedingly rare book in French--so rare that to this day only one library in the UK owns a copy, and that Library was only founded after the diary was published.

It doesn't matter where the photograph was or is stored. The fact that there is a photograph tells us nothing about what else Maybrick could have left 'for all to see' in Kelly's room which was unfortunately not photographed.

Dear readers, I implore you all to think long and hard before assuming that these terrible simplicities are anything other than a concerted campaign by RJ to squeeze every single piece of information (whether known or rumour) into a Barrett hoax theory.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock.

I'm still amused, twenty-four hours later, that I make one suggestion, one brilliant and perceptive suggestion to use Ike's vernacular, that the diary's text contains puzzles to solve, and Barrett was a puzzle maker for Look-In Magazine, and Ike loses his mind, screaming it is unfair, prejudicial, close-minded, etc. etc.

Can you imagine if it was recently discovered that Maybrick wrote puzzles for a Victorian magazine? Just imagine the ecstasy of delight from Ike if this was discovered--another jewel to be included in Society's Pillar.

And yet, compared to my simple suggestion, Ike has written a whole book arguing the text was written by Maybrick, using everything from anagrams to false statements about the alleged obscurity of his parents' graves, and Ike promotes this as judicious, intellectual, open-minded, etc.

This is what we are up against and why discussing anything with someone this fanatical and pot/kettle/black-ish is a very poor choice of morning hobbies.

Cheers.