One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Hi, Iconoclast.

That thread you mentioned is here - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3121

Yours, Caligo

Many thanks, Caligo!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike

The FM if it even exists could mean various things. It could mean Free Mason's as some have suggested. I don't really see how it could be proven that the FM stands for Florence Maybrick.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I'm going to make this point again because I like you though you are wearing on my nerves a wee bit now because we're going 'round in circles here ...

This is my point, and - here - my only point, so let's just focus right down on it:

It matters not whether the letters are 'truly' there, and it matters not what the letters refer to - what matters here is that:

• We have a journal purporting to be written by James Maybrick who is clearly punting himself as Jack the Lad; and
• That journal makes reference to Florence Maybrick's initials in the context of Kelly's death scene; and
• We have a picture of that death scene; and
• Lo and behold, there on Kelly's wall is something which researcher Simon Wood first brought to our attention in 1989 and which - in the writing of the Feldman text - was identified via some work by Direct Communications Design in Chiswick as actually being the letters 'F' and 'M' (p71, Feldman); and therefore ...

The two options I keep referring to:

• Maybrick wrote the journal and was Jack, or
• The hoaxer saw those letters on Kelly's wall and thought "Ha ha, here's a laugh - I'm going to write a journal of Jack the Ripper, I'm going to research obscure facts and get them right, and include easily-researched 'facts' and get them 'wrong', I'm going to choose the least likely candidate ever proposed for Jack, and then I'm going to weave a story which links to those two letters on Kelly's wall in order to clinch the deal".

Ann Truth attempted it, and her clincher were the words 'Damn Michael Barrett' which she identified in the text. From this, she backtracked a story to explain the origins of the 'forgery'. Maybe that's what the forger did when he or she saw the letters 'F' and 'M' on Kelly's wall, or - if not - then Maybrick wrote that journal and he was Jack.

Imagine this scenario: I decide to write a forgery about Jack and I want the famous British ex-prime minister William Gladstone to be my fall guy (apologies to Ann Truth for stealing this example), so I write my hoaxed journal and in it, at the description of Kelly's death, I write something along the lines of "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the Grand Old Man". And I have my hoaxed journal emerge into the light of day and it falls into the hands of Paul Feldman and his dogged research takes him to Direct Communications Design in Chiswick who blow up the picture and discover that there on the wall are something which can be comfortably discerned as the letters 'W' and 'G'. Imagine that some people say it's just blood splatters and some say that it is a definite attempt to write those two letters - but ultimately you're the hoaxer finding out for the first time that your prediction has been borne out by the letters 'W' and 'G' on Kelly's wall! Your head would explode with the sheer implausibility of it!

And that's what must have happened with our hoaxer unless he or she used those letters as the starting point for the hoax.

It's that simple. It was Maybrick, or else it was a hoax based on seeing those initials on Kelly's wall, or else - utterly implausibly - it was a throwaway referece to Florence Maybrick's initials and (lo and behold) by sheer chance those letters could be reasonably discerned on Kelly's wall.

Just imagine!

[Harry D]

• That journal makes reference to Florence Maybrick's initials in the context of Kelly's death scene;

But it doesn't.

[Iconoclast]

But it doesn't.

Goodness me, Harry - of course it does!

Why would you make such a bizarre claim?

[Iconoclast]

But it doesn't.

Quick one: Have you read any of the main works (Harrison, Feldman, Linder et alia)?

[Harry D]

Are you referring to the 'Initial here, initial there' poem?

A tenuous link to a possible piece of wall-scrawling validates the diary, but the fact the diarist couldn't remember correctly what he did with MJK's innards doesn't invalidate it?

[Abby Normal]

To the title of this thread.

Yes. There is. It's not his handwriting. Now close out this nonsense.

[Iconoclast]

Are you referring to the 'Initial here, initial there' poem?

A tenuous link to a possible piece of wall-scrawling validates the diary, but the fact the diarist couldn't remember correctly what he did with MJK's innards doesn't invalidate it?

Harry,

It isn't 'tenuous'. In the journal at the time of describing the Kelly murder the author draws our attention to Florence's initials. Paul Feldman saw no tenuousness in this - so much so that he was willing to spend money analysiing the infamous photograph, and that analysis yielded the letters first observed by Simon Wood back in 1989.

The presence of the letters definitely contributes to the theory that Maybrick wrote the journal. It also contributes to the theory that a hoaxer was inspired by those letters to write a hoax. What it definitely makes very problematic is the theory that someone wrote a hoaxed journal, made a reference to Florence's initials at the time of describing Kelly's death scene, and then - lo and behold - was surprised to find that the letters 'F' and 'M' could indeed be discerned in the photographic evidence.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

To the title of this thread.

Yes. There is. It's not his handwriting. Now close out this nonsense.

Oh Abby - if it were only so simple and straightforward there would never have been four published works, a documentary, and 24 years on unresolved debate.

The obvious issue with the examples we have of Maybrick's handwriting is that they were all written with a reader in mind. What we need to compare the journal with is an example of Maybrick's writing for only his own eyes. I would expect that to mirror the writing in the journal.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

... the fact the diarist couldn't remember correctly what he did with MJK's innards ...

It's true that he misrepresented the placing of the breasts, though he subsequently states that "He thought of leaving them by the whore's feet". He was insanely high on arsenic and blood-lust, and may well have read in the papers that he left Kelly's breasts on her bedside table and simply accepted that as the case.

I think we have to place ourselves briefly in the killer's shoes - the scene he created was one truly out of Hell itself. It wasn't like packing for your holidays ("Now, where did I pack my toothbrush?"). It was carnage (literally). It doesn't particularly surprise me that his journal lacked for forensic exactitude. He read about his crime in the newspapaers and at least one of them had stated that the breats were on the table so he accepted that as the case. It probably didn't concern him whether he got it right or not. He was writing for himself. Forensic exactitude would be playing a rather sorry second fiddle to the sheer and unadulterated thrill of knowing he was Jack when the entire world was wondering who Jack could possibly be.

The sort of mistake I'd be hoping for if I wished to make the case that the journal was a forgery would be something more categorically unforgettable - for example, stating that Bobo was older than Gladys, or referring to his parents' graves.

It's many many miles away from a done deal, this strange tale ...

Ike

[Harry D]

Harry,

It isn't 'tenuous'. In the journal at the time of describing the Kelly murder the author draws our attention to Florence's initials. Paul Feldman saw no tenuousness in this - so much so that he was willing to spend money analysiing the infamous photograph, and that analysis yielded the letters first observed by Simon Wood back in 1989.

The presence of the letters definitely contributes to the theory that Maybrick wrote the journal. It also contributes to the theory that a hoaxer was inspired by those letters to write a hoax. What it definitely makes very problematic is the theory that someone wrote a hoaxed journal, made a reference to Florence's initials at the time of describing Kelly's death scene, and then - lo and behold - was surprised to find that the letters 'F' and 'M' could indeed be discerned in the photographic evidence.

Ike

Why didn't the police make so much as a footnote about the supposed 'FM' on the wall? If only to dismiss it?

[Abby Normal]

Oh Abby - if it were only so simple and straightforward there would never have been four published works, a documentary, and 24 years on unresolved debate.

The obvious issue with the examples we have of Maybrick's handwriting is that they were all written with a reader in mind. What we need to compare the journal with is an example of Maybrick's writing for only his own eyes. I would expect that to mirror the writing in the journal.

Ike

if it were only so simple and straightforward there would never have been four published works, a documentary,

well people gotta eat. lol

[John Wheat]

But it doesn't.

I'm with Harry D

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

Why didn't the police make so much as a footnote about the supposed 'FM' on the wall? If only to dismiss it?

I can't answer that other than to say that they did not appear to note it.

Nor can I vouch for how well lit the room was. It didn't look a particularly well-lit room, and perhaps it was only the fleeting brilliance of the camera's 'flash' which provided sufficient light for the wall to be properly illuminated.

Or perhaps the police of 1888 had never had to deal with the taunting of the 'modern' serial killer and therefore did not make anything of the wall, but fixated on the gruesome scene which befell them elsewhere in the room.

Harry, Simon Wood is pretty much an arch-journal detractor. He sits amongst a cabal of folk who would rather it had neever come to light. Trevor Marriott and Phillip Sugden in their turn would be members of the same band if band there were. Wood first identified that there were letters on the wall, and the photographoc plates in Marriott and Sugden's seminal works leave little room for negotiation - less for interpretation - that the letters are there.

The letters are a massive problem for the journal's serial detractors, and an inconvenience for its mere critics so I totally understand why you would be comfortable in dismissing them, but keep an open mind, mate. You could be wrong.

Ike

[GUT]

Oh Abby - if it were only so simple and straightforward there would never have been four published works, a documentary, and 24 years on unresolved debate.

The obvious issue with the examples we have of Maybrick's handwriting is that they were all written with a reader in mind. What we need to compare the journal with is an example of Maybrick's writing for only his own eyes. I would expect that to mirror the writing in the journal.

Ike

Ha ha ha, have you seen the rubbish on Sickert, they must have done it together if (probably along with half a dixpzen others) if books and documentaries a ripper do make.