Upon reading the Diary again...

[caz]

I guarantee that if Florie Maybrick's initials had been anything else, some people would have claimed to see those initials somewhere in the mess that can be seen in the MJK photo and declared the diary genuine or a modern fake on the strength of it.

It's a backwards way to write history, and no matter how anyone chooses to interpret the diarist's words, he/she chose not to spell out precisely which initials 'Sir Jim' is meant to have left or where, or how he is meant to have made them. Whoever scratched the victims' initials inside the watch endowed Maybrick with an 'initial' obsession, which ties in very much with the diary's 'Sir Jim', even though a bandwagon watch hoaxer coming forward in June 1993 could not yet have known that initials would even feature in the diary.

The possible permutations are many, especially considering the initials MK (among others) are scratched into the watch, and a hanky identified as Florie Maybrick's was found with her husband's stash of arsenic after his death.

'Sir Jim' is meant to have murdered those women on account of his wife's infidelity. The diary makes that abundantly clear and when combined with the watch it's a no-brainer that the victims (by way of their respective initials) are equally meant to 'tell of the whoring mother' - ie the woman Jim holds responsible for making him kill them. To him she is the mother of all whores and his victims are the direct result of her whoring ways.

Our crafty old diarist left it vague for all to speculate and interpret in their own way, but never to know. Far too smart, I would submit, to fall for some likely provable photographic effect and plop it in the diary wholesale.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=caz;245432]I guarantee that if Florie Maybrick's initials had been anything else, some people would have claimed to see those initials somewhere in the mess that can be seen in the MJK photo and declared the diary genuine or a modern fake on the strength of it.

How on earth can you say that! Those initials are not a mess, caz, you cleary have no understanding of what it takes to make such marks.

It's a backwards way to write history, and no matter how anyone chooses to interpret the diarist's words, he/she chose not to spell out precisely which initials 'Sir Jim' is meant to have left or where, or how he is meant to have made them. Whoever scratched the victims' initials inside the watch endowed Maybrick with an 'initial' obsession, which ties in very much with the diary's 'Sir Jim', even though a bandwagon watch hoaxer coming forward in June 1993 could not yet have known that initials would even feature in the diary.

He or she chose not to tell us who he was or who Bunny was, but you still worked that one out. And again, caz, he did tell us where. If you wish to ignore everything he writes, then that is up to you.

The possible permutations are many, especially considering the initials MK (among others) are scratched into the watch, and a hanky identified as Florie Maybrick's was found with her husband's stash of arsenic after his death.

The possible permutations are not many. You only have one: they are the initials of the 'whoring mother'. That is it!

'Sir Jim' is meant to have murdered those women on account of his wife's infidelity. The diary makes that abundantly clear and when combined with the watch it's a no-brainer that the victims (by way of their respective initials) are equally meant to 'tell of the whoring mother' - ie the woman Jim holds responsible for making him kill them. To him she is the mother of all whores and his victims are the direct result of her whoring ways.

The diary states many motivations for the killings, caz, not just Florence. Myself and Miakaal4 have dicussed these before.

Caz, you yet again ignore the photographic evidence. You say the initials could stand for anything and yet you ignore the obvious FMs everywhere in the room. You cannot, despite what you believe, find any other type of 'deliberately made' initial in that room. That is a fact. I can, and it's an FM.

Our crafty old diarist left it vague for all to speculate and interpret in their own way, but never to know. Far too smart, I would submit, to fall for some likely provable photographic effect and plop it in the diary wholesale.

You cannot speculate on actual scene of crime facts, caz. All you can do is either take them as fact or ignore them, as you are doing.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Albert]

Can you explain this away?

Hi everyone,
After reading the recent various Diary threads I was prompted to take another look at my copy of Shirley Harrison’s book (1993). On the first page I opened (Page 284, Diary section 241), ‘Sir Jim’ is describing his actions with the body of MJK and he writes ‘I thought it a joke when I cut her breasts off, kissed them for a while. Left them on the table with some of the other stuff.’
This didn’t seem to tie in with what I remember having read before about the crime scene and I referenced SPE’s SYI (2006) page 184 where Dr. Bond’s report states that The breast had been cut off with more or less circular incisions leaving the muscles down to the ribs attached to the breasts. One was placed under the head and the other by the right foot.’
This led me to have a look at the excellent reproduction of the said photograph on page 189 of CSI: Whitechapel (2012) by Bennet and Beggs.
As one looks at this, the second MJK photograph, the one with the ‘crocodile’, there on the table to the right of the photograph are two objects that do indeed look like breasts.
My point is that this proves to me that the diarist had access to the photograph but not to Bond’s report and therefore made the understandable mistake of thinking they were the breasts when describing the murder. If he was JtR he would have known exactly where he'd placed them, in my opinion.
For me the Diary is definitely a hoax, albeit an interesting one.
Regards Albert

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi everyone,
After reading the recent various Diary threads I was prompted to take another look at my copy of Shirley Harrison’s book (1993). On the first page I opened (Page 284, Diary section 241), ‘Sir Jim’ is describing his actions with the body of MJK and he writes ‘I thought it a joke when I cut her breasts off, kissed them for a while. Left them on the table with some of the other stuff.’
This didn’t seem to tie in with what I remember having read before about the crime scene and I referenced SPE’s SYI (2006) page 184 where Dr. Bond’s report states that The breast had been cut off with more or less circular incisions leaving the muscles down to the ribs attached to the breasts. One was placed under the head and the other by the right foot.’
This led me to have a look at the excellent reproduction of the said photograph on page 189 of CSI: Whitechapel (2012) by Bennet and Beggs.
As one looks at this, the second MJK photograph, the one with the ‘crocodile’, there on the table to the right of the photograph are two objects that do indeed look like breasts.
My point is that this proves to me that the diarist had access to the photograph but not to Bond’s report and therefore made the understandable mistake of thinking they were the breasts when describing the murder. If he was JtR he would have known exactly where he'd placed them, in my opinion.
For me the Diary is definitely a hoax, albeit an interesting one.
Regards Albert

Hahahaha! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it looked like a crocodile, Albert. Lol

[caz]

But of course it only looks like a crocodile. Common sense tells us it's not really a crocodile, put there by the killer as a 'clue' that he was a snappy dresser.

Common sense should also tell us, therefore, that none of these supposed F's or M's need have been made deliberately by the killer, and could just as easily be photographic red herrings - or red crocs if you will.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=caz;245569]But of course it only looks like a crocodile. Common sense tells us it's not really a crocodile, put there by the killer as a 'clue' that he was a snappy dresser.

Common sense should also tell us, therefore, that none of these supposed F's or M's need have been made deliberately by the killer, and could just as easily be photographic red herrings - or red crocs if you will.

Caz, common sense should tell you when things are actually in a photograph and when they are just interpretation. But obviously they don't.

The F on her arm is a deliberate construction. Fact.

The chemise was placed on top of the body - like the left forearm - after the mutilations were carried out. Fact.

If common sense doesn't tell you why this is so, then nothing will.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[caz]

My point is that this proves to me that the diarist had access to the photograph but not to Bond’s report and therefore made the understandable mistake of thinking they were the breasts when describing the murder. If he was JtR he would have known exactly where he'd placed them, in my opinion.
For me the Diary is definitely a hoax, albeit an interesting one.
Regards Albert

Hi Albert,

The diarist didn't need the photograph to suggest the breasts were found on the table. The newspapers of the day reported this in error, their actual positions not known publicly at the time.

The diarist refers to reading about his latest, so yes, you'd think JtR himself would have written: "Ha ha, the fools are wrong, I left one here, under the whores head, and one there, by her foot". But the diarist does actually recall later that he had thought of leaving them by "the whores feet", which is an odd coincidence if this was a hoaxer who had no idea that one had actually been left by a foot, and the whole MJK entry makes little sense if a hoaxer had read exactly where both had really been left.

Incidentally, the murdering nutjob Albert Fish was so high when in the process of abducting, killing and dismembering a female child, that he couldn't even recall her gender afterwards, believing he had killed a boy. So I'm not so sure that a killer high on adrenaline and God knows what else can always remember exactly what they were doing, and they wouldn't be expecting the papers to get it so wrong. After all, JtR would have worked quickly and left the scene sharpish, but those who had to deal with it were able to take everything in at their leisure and make careful notes.

I have known people to forget conversations, even entire nights out, through alcohol alone. They wouldn't have known the next day if they had left their phone on the bus, at the night club or in the cab on the way home.

Just a few thoughts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

I have known people to forget conversations, even entire nights out, through alcohol alone. They wouldn't have known the next day if they had left their phone on the bus, at the night club or in the cab on the way home.

Just a few thoughts.

Love,

Caz
X

I have known people loose more time than that


Not remembering where he left things proves nothing, people seem to forget JTR was a psychopath.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Tempus

If you really must mix up other peoples quotes and your own answers in one post then please put the other person's quotes in bold and your answers in regular font.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=Stephen Thomas;245666]Hello Tempus

If you really must mix up other peoples quotes and your own answers in one post then please put the other person's quotes in bold and your answers in regular font.[/QUOTE]



Wilco Skipper!

[Albert]

Hi Caz,
Good points there for consideration, thank you. And there was me thinking I'd cracked the diary mystery once and for all!! Never mind - I'll keep trying. (Are you sure that's not a real crocodile?)
Cheers
Albert