One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kaz]

I think the answer to that, Kaz ( as I imagine you know), is that those who say the letters aren't there (and protest so painfully that they aren't) realise all too clearly the dangerous conclusion if they don't. If those letters are there, Maybrick was Jack. No debate.

Sam, citing one serial killer's message on a wall does not contradict another's. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you attempted to make your point in this way, though not even vaguely surprised that HF was so quick to agree with you.

Ike

Indeed, theres one to many for it to be 'luck'....

I quote your brilliant worded conclusion, lets hope it helps these frightful 'naysayers'...

There is also a very obvious ‘F’ carved into her left arm; and for those who do not accept Casebook contributor Tempus Omnia Revelat’s suggestion of an ‘M’ having been manufactured from Kelly’s chemise, there is always the position of her legs which form an admittedly inarticulate ‘M’. Again, the context of Maybrick’s actions belong very firmly with him, and never with us – it was for him and him alone to decide whether these examples of his wife’s initials met his cryptic expectations and whether one example was more to his liking than any other. It is not for us to dismiss them simply because they may not sit comfortably with our context - 127 years later - nor because we are not convinced that they are obvious enough to warrant our attention.

Bold is my highlight

[Sam Flynn]

I can. Clearly an 'F' and an 'M' why is this position wrong for you?

I can imagine other letters, too. Most of them are about as distinct as the "FM", but I know that they're just random stains.



By the way, the "F" and the "M" in the "FM" look not much bigger than a doorknob, placed low down and almost out of sight, when the killer had a much bigger - and cleaner - "canvas" in the middle of the partition. Some message, that! Compare and contrast with the "Death to Pigs" message above, or any of the other Manson Family blood graffiti, which were clearly written in large letters on broad, clean canvases.

[Henry Flower]

I think the answer to that, Kaz ( as I imagine you know), is that those who say the letters aren't there (and protest so painfully that they aren't) realise all too clearly the dangerous conclusion if they don't. If those letters are there, Maybrick was Jack. No debate.

Sam, citing one serial killer's message on a wall does not contradict another's. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you attempted to make your point in this way, though not even vaguely surprised that HF was so quick to agree with you.

Ike

Ike, I know you like to play the provocateur sometimes, but really it's a shame you cannot do so to greater effect. This 'naysayers' gibe is no more worthwhile than Christer's go-to allegation that there is a cabal of people with agendas who are determined not to be persuaded by the evidence against Lechmere. You know what, though? If it makes you feel better to think that way, rather than admitting that the evidence just doesn't persuade some reasonable fair-minded people, then you go ahead and enjoy your little game.

As for your imbecile contention that people are just refusing to admit the presence of the oh-so-clear initials because they cannot countenance the Diary being genuine, all I can say is....

That is as wrong as it is arrogant.

And it is, very arrogant. And insulting. It implicitly insults the honesty and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you. So, frankly, screw you.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, citing one serial killer's message on a wall does not contradict another's.

It's got nothing to do with serial killers, but writing messages. Who would want to write messages that might not be noticed? Specifically, who writes messages in small, vague, letters on a noisy background, when a much more amenable surface for their message lies a few inches above? Instead, we get an ostensible footnote that barely nudges above the horizon of Kelly's bed. Whether a serial killer wrote it or not, this is the sort of message I'd expect:



Interestingly, in making my "FM", I chose a brush size approximately the size of a male index finger, using Kelly's pinky as a guide and making the brush-head a little wider. Now, having done that, I've realised for the first time that the traditional "FM" would have to have been written with a much finer-bored instrument than a man's index finger. Perhaps he borrowed Mary Kelly's mascara brush.

[Iconoclast]

And it is, very arrogant. And insulting. It implicitly insults the honesty and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you. So, frankly, screw you.

If only I were a wind-up merchant, I might consider my work well done ...

😜

Ike

[Kaz]

It's got nothing to do with serial killers, but writing messages. Who would want to write messages that might not be noticed? Specifically, who writes messages in small, vague, letters on a noisy background, when a much more amenable surface for their message lies a few inches above? Instead, we get an ostensible footnote that barely nudges above the horizon of Kelly's bed.

Whether a serial killer wrote it or not, this is the sort of message I'd expect:

[ATTACH]18231[/ATTACH]

Interestingly, in making my "FM", I chose a brush size approximately the size of a male index finger, using Kelly's pinky as a guide and making the brush-head a little wider. Now, having done that, I've realised for the first time that the traditional "FM" would have to have been written with a much finer-bored instrument than a man's index finger. Perhaps he borrowed Mary's mascara brush.

Maybrick was playing games. he knew they were there, that was enough for him. He also didn't want to be caught...

The letters 'M' and 'Y' on mary's right leg are alot clearer than the markings on the wall.

[Kaz]

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3181&d=1220971054

[Iconoclast]

It's got nothing to do with serial killers, but writing messages. Who would want to write messages that might not be noticed

Bizarrely, I find myself quoting Kaz who quoted me, though I hadn't recalled it: "Again, the context of Maybrick’s actions belong very firmly with him, and never with us – it was for him and him alone to decide whether these examples of his wife’s initials met his cryptic expectations and whether one example was more to his liking than any other. It is not for us to dismiss them simply because they may not sit comfortably with our context - 127 years later - nor because we are not convinced that they are obvious enough to warrant our attention."

If I wasn't so modest, I'd be tempted to concur with Kaz's generous interpretation of my genius.

Either way, I honestly feel that her case (and indirectly my own) has been well made.

����

Ike

[Henry Flower]

If only I were a wind-up merchant, I might consider my work well done ...

😜

Ike

Brilliant, old chap, just brilliant. Well done. Enjoy it. Fantastic. Hats off to you.

[Sam Flynn]

The letters 'M' and 'Y' on mary's right leg are alot clearer than the markings on the wall.

The lines of the "M" and "Y" aren't even joined up. Those marks are almost certainly fingerprints accidentally left behind on her stocking as he momentarily gripped her calf with his left hand.

Besides, it beats me why anyone would smear a badly-written and indistinct pair of initials on the wibbly-wobbly, curved, fleshy surface of a leg.

[Sam Flynn]

Bizarrely, I find myself quoting Kaz who quoted me, though I hadn't recalled it

If I wasn't so modest, I'd be tempted to concur with Kaz's generous interpretation of my genius.

Either way, I honestly feel that her case (and indirectly my own) has been well made.

You and Kaz really should consider getting together.

[Kaz]

Besides, it beats me why anyone would smear a badly-written and indistinct pair of initials on the wibbly-wobbly, curved, fleshy surface of a leg.

James Maybrick gives you the answer. he wanted to 'leave his mark'..

You're trying to understand the mind of a raging psychopath... this is probably why you fall down.

[Henry Flower]

James Maybrick gives you the answer. he wanted to 'leave his mark'..

You're trying to understand the mind of a raging psychopath... this is probably why you fall down.

That's a very nice reproduction of the leg section, can I ask where that image is from?

Similarly, so we're all singing from the same hymn-sheet, can anyone point me to (or post here) the most reliable, clearest image of the MJK photo plate with the 'initials' visible in context? People keep posting from reproductions of such varying quality we're not really comparing like with like.

[Iconoclast]

Maybrick was playing games. he knew they were there, that was enough for him. He also didn't want to be caught...

So this is the absolute nub of this argument. There is to my knowledge no established and unyielding law which determines the criminal's intentions when they play their games. Maybrick didn't wish to be caught. I imagine that few criminals do. For Maybrick, it may well have been enough of a titillation for him to know that his clue was there and unlikely to be seen (it seems the letters were small). Can we honestly say that we would not experience a similar thrill at 'goading' the police with what we know is a clue whilst ensuring that in reality it is unlikely to lead us to the gallows?

My brilliant History vs Maybrick makes considerable play on the issue of context down down the long line from then to now. It is absolutely critical that we take ourselves out of the here and now and the human ego that we uniquely possess and imagine ourselves in the dust and dirt of 1888 and the man James Maybrick may very well have been.

When we do so, we have room for his idiosyncrasies in a way which we would not afford ourselves as we were not he. His context is the only context which matters, so comparing his actions with those before him or after him are of only tangential relevance at very best. Comparing his psychological drives with ours makes no sense, and leads us unerringly into the falsehood of the certainty of our own drives. What follows are the immortal words "Surely you aren't expecting us to believe ... ?" when quite possibly that is exactly what happened.

God, I'm good at this, aren't I?

Ike

[Sam Flynn]

James Maybrick gives you the answer. he wanted to 'leave his mark'..

He could have if he'd wanted to, instead all we get are some vague, dribbly smears, and smears is all they are. They are not deliberately made marks at all, and don't even look like they are. They're accidental smudges, splashes or photographic artefacts, period.