Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    ...actually, Tom, "strong psychological drive" doesn't enter into it - our minds simply work that way, trying to make sense of ambiguous stimuli, whether we have strong feelings about something or not (although the interpretation of such things can certainly be affected by motivation or belief). It's one thing to see something similar to an "FM" shape on the wall - which I can - but it's quite another to say that it's a deliberately written pair of initials.
    Sam,

    As you evidently perceive it, what precludes the something similar to an 'FM' on the wall from being an 'FM' on the wall?

    Would it be your belief?

    Comment


    • It has been argued (elsewhere) that Diego equals James (which it does) and that Laurenz passably rhymes with Florence (which I guess it does), and that it was all in uppercase with no obvious reason for being there other than - apparently - as some sort of marker of 'genuineness'
      But such an argument requires a straw-graspingly gigantic leap of faith to link it, any capacity, with James Maybrick, especially as the handwriting - again - is all wrong for any of the documents the diarist claimed to have written.

      It is true that Florie's use of 'May' to refer to her husband Jim/James does give some small degree of support to the diarist's use of it in the same context (prompted by the fortuitous mention in Punch)
      "May" was more likely to have been a written abbreviation than a spoken nickname, and the Punch cartoon was all that the forger required to come up with "May" in the diary.

      Many people have no problem seeing the letters
      Many people have no problem seeing what look like letters if you blot out the rest of the image. I'd include myself in that catergory. It certainly isn't true to say that many people genuinely believe that someone deliberately wrote those letters on the wall. In fact, I can't think of anyone who subscribes to that view besides yourself and the Maybrick-book authors.

      Regards,
      Ben

      Comment


      • its the whole face on mars, rosache inkblot thing. we can see what we want to see. i dont think that their is letters on the wall because the plice would have seen them and made a note of them (they had access to these photos too).. remember, they were able to make out the goulston street writing very well and that was in a shady doorway.. it seems that the writing is more clearly visible on one photo than on the other.. if you were going to write on a wall with blood then i'm sure that it would show up and if you were wanting people to see it then you'd make sure it showed up.. the killer wasn't in need of "ink"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          But such an argument requires a straw-graspingly gigantic leap of faith to link it, any capacity, with James Maybrick, especially as the handwriting - again - is all wrong for any of the documents the diarist claimed to have written.
          I firmly disagree - it places 'James/Florence' in the body of Ripper-letters when - if the diary were a fraud - that would be simply little short of imposible.

          Originally posted by Ben View Post
          But "May" was more likely to have been a written abbreviation than a spoken nickname, and the Punch cartoon was all that the forger required to come up with "May" in the diary.
          Unfortunately, if I don't respond to this, you and others may infer that I agree with you. For the umpteenth time, Ben, the diarist used the Punch cartoon as his or her source for the diarist's use of 'May' as a name for Jim/James. No need to get excited at this point because either Maybrick or a forger could have used the same source to write this. The crucial point is simply that Florie's telegram comes along and refers to Jim/James as 'May' also. It's just a tiny link between what is real (the telegram) and what is considered to otherwise be a fraud (the diary, obviously). Seriously, Ben, that's the only point of relevance here. Constantly referring back to the diarist using the Punch cartoon as his or her source of the play on 'May' is totally irrelevant as no-one is saying he or she didn't. The telegram just adds a small amount of credence to the possibility that the diary was actually written by James Maybrick (who was at least once referred to as 'May' by his missus).

          Originally posted by Ben View Post
          Many people have no problem seeing what look like letters if you blot out the rest of the image. I'd include myself in that catergory. It certainly isn't true to say that many people genuinely believe that someone deliberately wrote those letters on the wall. In fact, I can't think of anyone who subscribes to that view besides yourself and the Maybrick-book authors.
          Ben
          The issue is not whether or not many people believe that someone deliberately wrote those letters, but simply that they can be seen, and the diary does make reference to something which sounds for all the world like Florie's initials. You see them, I see them, Ben sees them, etc.. If indeed they turn out to be random blood-splatters then what an amazing coincidence that the forger or Maybrick made reference to Florie's initials at the time of Kelly's death, and lo and behold the famous Kelly photo shows an area of wall which appears to you, me, Ben, etc. to have something which looks like those very letters.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Leighton Young View Post
            its the whole face on mars, rosache inkblot thing. we can see what we want to see. i dont think that their is letters on the wall because the plice would have seen them and made a note of them (they had access to these photos too).. remember, they were able to make out the goulston street writing very well and that was in a shady doorway.. it seems that the writing is more clearly visible on one photo than on the other.. if you were going to write on a wall with blood then i'm sure that it would show up and if you were wanting people to see it then you'd make sure it showed up.. the killer wasn't in need of "ink"
            Leighton,

            My response to Ben becomes a response to you too. Whether or not the letters were ever there, people can see them, and they appear to be referenced in a 'hoaxed' diary. It's a remarkably unlikely set of events, and they are genuinely thought-provoking - whether they are real or otherwise.

            Soothy

            Comment


            • I firmly disagree - it places 'James/Florence' in the body of Ripper-letters when - if the diary were a fraud - that would be simply little short of imposible.
              I don't know what you mean.

              The letter in question doesn't put "James/Florence" anywhere. It doesn't say "James/Florence". You only get "James/Florence" if you accept and endorse the unacceptably crass and far-fetched interpretations offered by Paul Feldman. The "Laurenz must mean Florence" argument is really really stretching existing material to fit a preconceived mould.

              Unfortunately, if I don't respond to this, you and others may infer that I agree with you.
              But you just did.

              Here's what I said: "the Punch cartoon was all that the forger required to come up with "May" in the diary".

              Do you honestly disagree with that? Because your replies suggest otherwise; that nothing else was needed besides a reference to "May" in a Punch cartoon to come up with "May" in the diary. He needed no more ammunition than that, rendering any other May references completely coincidental. They weren't needed. There was enough there to come up with "May" without needing - and I street the word "need" - any telegrams from Florence.

              May would have been there regardless, thanks only to the cartoon.

              If indeed they turn out to be random blood-splatters then what an amazing coincidence that the forger or Maybrick made reference to Florie's initials at the time of Kelly's
              Not really, because I don't accept for a moment that I'm seeing letters. I'm seeing a pattern, part of which includes something vaguely resembling an M-shape. If there was a squggly, spiralling line from ceiling to floor, the chances are strong that part of it would have an S-shape, but it isn't an "S" in isolation. It's part of a larger pattern than includes something looking like an "S". The "F" I don't see at all.

              Regards,
              Ben

              Comment


              • Remember people,

                In Tom's case, you are dealing with the strong-willed faith necessary to fit the facts to the desired result, regardless of what the facts are.

                You can't debate an issue such as the imaginary letters silliness with someone willing to do that, as his peculiar methodology does not rely on rational thought. It is simply blind faith -- the same sort of blind faith and wildly driven desire that drove Feldman to producing that ridiculous book full of irrational nonsense and that made it impossible for him (and for Tom) to see the obvious, common sense conclusion every legitimate expert has since reached: i.e. the reason the writing in the diary doesn't look anything like the real James Maybrick's writing, the reason why there has never been any actual evidence found anywhere that links the book in any way to the real James Maybrick, the reason why every bit of real evidence we do have tells us it wasn't written by the real James Maybrick is finally quite simple -- it wasn't written by the real James Maybrick. It's a cheap hoax.

                Faith and fantasy aside (and remember, you can't argue rationally with faith or fantasy), there is no real debate.

                Don't forget that as you watch Tom do his best here to have fun with the locals.

                He too knows the book's a fake, no matter what he writes here for fun and games.

                Enjoy the day,

                --John

                Comment


                • The same occurred to me, John. And please, call him Soothy.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • Can someone post a photo of the so called initials? Thanks.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                      The same occurred to me, John. And please, call him Soothy.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott
                      Mr. Soothsayer when I'm being abused, gentlemen ...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        Can someone post a photo of the so called initials? Thanks.

                        c.d.
                        Check out the 'Picture of Mary Kelly's Room' thread, c.d., you'll see the initials as clear as day there.

                        For the record, Mrs. Soothsayer can't see the initials either - we are a divided household in that respect.

                        Our daughter Susie (9) is too young to be exposed to the vitriol of the debate.

                        I'm sure you'll all understand.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                          You only get "James/Florence" if you accept and endorse the unacceptably crass and far-fetched interpretations offered by Paul Feldman.
                          It wisnae him, Big Man.

                          Shirley Harrison mentioned the link between Diego and James.

                          William D. Rubinstein mentioned the Laurenz/Florence aspect on the following link:

                          http://www.truebritsjournal.co.uk/li...e_ripper1b.htm

                          From the site ...

                          The case that Maybrick was the Ripper is strong even without the diary. Perhaps the most striking evidence for this is to be found in a number of unknown letters discovered by Paul Feldman from Liverpool sources. On October 9th, 1888, the Liverpool Echo printed a story (based on a letter it had received) that Jack the Ripper was about to strike in Dublin. The following day the same newspaper published the following, written on a postcard:

                          I beg to state the letters published in yours of yesterday are lies. It is somebody gulling the public. I am the Whitechapel purger. On 13th, at 3pm, will be on Stage, as am going to New York. But will have some business before I go. Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper DIEGO LAURENZ (Genuine)

                          Feldman asks 'What does Diego Laurenz mean? I have no idea. Is it a clue?' In my opinion, indeed it is - arguably the most important clue that we have. 'Diego' is Spanish for James, while 'Laurenz' is meant to rhyme with 'Florence'. If this is what it means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. (Anyone familiar with the diary will know Maybrick's penchant for puns and word-games. And why was a letter written with such assurance sent to a Liverpool newspaper?)

                          Back to me ...

                          Hope this is thought-provoking and fruitful.

                          The Soothster

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                            You only get "James/Florence" if you accept and endorse the unacceptably crass and far-fetched interpretations offered by Paul Feldman.
                            It wisnae him, Big Man.

                            Shirley Harrison mentioned the link between Diego and James.

                            William D. Rubinstein mentioned the Laurenz/Florence aspect on the following link:

                            http://www.truebritsjournal.co.uk/li...e_ripper1b.htm

                            From the site ...

                            The case that Maybrick was the Ripper is strong even without the diary. Perhaps the most striking evidence for this is to be found in a number of unknown letters discovered by Paul Feldman from Liverpool sources. On October 9th, 1888, the Liverpool Echo printed a story (based on a letter it had received) that Jack the Ripper was about to strike in Dublin. The following day the same newspaper published the following, written on a postcard:

                            I beg to state the letters published in yours of yesterday are lies. It is somebody gulling the public. I am the Whitechapel purger. On 13th, at 3pm, will be on Stage, as am going to New York. But will have some business before I go. Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper DIEGO LAURENZ (Genuine)

                            Feldman asks 'What does Diego Laurenz mean? I have no idea. Is it a clue?' In my opinion, indeed it is - arguably the most important clue that we have. 'Diego' is Spanish for James, while 'Laurenz' is meant to rhyme with 'Florence'. If this is what it means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. (Anyone familiar with the diary will know Maybrick's penchant for puns and word-games. And why was a letter written with such assurance sent to a Liverpool newspaper?)

                            Back to me ...

                            Just a little more fruitful and thought-provoking stuff, guys (just like I promised).

                            The Soothster

                            Comment


                            • Oh dear - having a few AOL-related broadband issues, I think.

                              Comment


                              • Thanks for providing that extract, Sooth.

                                I'm in bewildered awe that ol' Rubes could have fallen for this stuff to the extent that he has.

                                If this is what it means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
                                And if my auntie had bollocks, that constitutes virtual proof that she's my uncle. Mighty difficult to justify getting so excited on the basis of a colossal "if", especially given the tenuous nature of the interpretation. But even disregarding that, does the Prof honestly believe that if Maybrick wrote a letter, that "proves" he was the killer?

                                It seems he's made up his mind beforehand, though:

                                Anyone familiar with the diary will know Maybrick's penchant for puns and word-games
                                Best regards,
                                Ben
                                Last edited by Ben; 09-16-2008, 09:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X