One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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

Hee hee, s****** s******, guffaw guffaw ...

Edit: The system is preventing me from typing a word which starts with S, rhymes with 'trigger', and means to laugh rather childishly. I can obviously work out why, but I think the internal algorithm which has done so is rather precluding an honest use of English.

[Henry Flower]

Hee hee, s****** s******, guffaw guffaw ...

yawn.

[Iconoclast]

You and Kaz really should consider getting together.

But not you and Henry Flower, Sam?

[Kaz]

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 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 my 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

The whole thing 'seems' completely implausible..

That is a nutshell closes minds even to the possibility of JTR writing a diary.


James Maybricks profile doesn't 'fit'

Michael Danaher's profile didn't 'fit'. no criminal record, father, middle aged, professional... but a complete lunatic.

[Iconoclast]

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.

Look in your copy of Sugden and then again in your copy of Marriott. Both very hostile to the journal in their texts, though with terribly casual reasoning - one might even say with the laziness of authors who had made up their minds before checking any facts - and yet two wonderfully clear reproductions of the F and the M for which I for one am hugely grateful. Without their support, my own case would be so much the weaker!

[Iconoclast]

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.

Or compare Ike with Ike and check out my brilliant History vs Maybrick (via email if you want the pretty pictures).

[Henry Flower]

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.

That is exactly how I see them too.

And this might be important to stress: there is no reason why this should be so politicized or tribal. When the Diary was first published I was a teenager with a good hairstyle and an excellent sex life, and I bought the book excitedly as soon as it was published. Nothing would've pleased me more than for the book in my hands to have contained the actual memoirs of the killer. I had no prejudice against it, quite the opposite.

But it didn't convince me. And the more I read about it the less it convinced. And I never, try-as-I-might, could see the alleged 'FM' as anything other than an accidental vague splash or smear, a smear or stain that yielded 'FM' only if you really, really tried hard to find it there, because you wanted it to be there.

There, tucked away, small and vague, luckily just in the line of sight of the camera... but still not looking much like a deliberate F or a deliberate M, certainly not enough to have caught the eye of experienced detectives.

(Those detectives, by the way, we're now being told, seem to have missed Fs and Ms and Ys scrawled liberally over the whole crime scene and the victim herself! What idiots. And that's only the messages that were clearly readable from the precise angle the photographer chose: which might imply that there were even more initials and messages visible but only from other angles. The police somehow missed them all.... )

Anyway. I was more than willing. I just didn't see it, but I could see how those who wanted to see it in those vague smears would do so.

[Henry Flower]

Look in your copy of Sugden and then again in your copy of Marriott. Both very hostile to the journal in their texts, though with terribly casual reasoning - one might even say with the laziness of authors who had made up their minds before checking any facts - and yet two wonderfully clear reproductions of the F and the M for which I for one am hugely grateful. Without their support, my own case would be so much the weaker!

Ike, I wish I could. My entire JtR shelf (with the exception of an old copy of Rumbelow I kept for sentimental reasons) got given away during a mental purge several years ago.

[Henry Flower]

Or compare Ike with Ike

Good work!

[Iconoclast]

That is exactly how I see them too.

Honestly, you and Sam Flynn were clearly made for each other.

Anyway. I was more than willing. I just didn't see it, but I could see how those who wanted to see it in those vague smears would do so.

And that would be called pareidolia, if that were what it was. The good news is that not every argument you don't like can be neatly swept aside and dismissed by citing this particular psychological trick. Goodness, unless you genuinely believe that they can???

😱

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I wish I could. My entire JtR shelf (with the exception of an old copy of Rumbelow I kept for sentimental reasons) got given away during a mental purge several years ago.

I'll say it again, my brilliant History vs Maybrick ... in technicolor if you send a grovelling email to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com.

Okay, it doesn't have to be grovelling.

I'll settle for fawning ...

Ike
Creative Genius and Great Bloke

[Kaz]

What made Daddy a killer? Chilling documentary reveals the moment woman and her sons LAUGHED in disbelief as police told her her 'gentle giant' ex-husband had stabbed a bookseller 30 times over a copy of The Wind in the Willows

The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me.

It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

I continue to keep an open mind to all of this. At least until theres One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes it....

[Iconoclast]

I continue to keep an open mind to all of this. At least until theres One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes it....

Oh Lord, Orsam's on his way ...

😜

[Henry Flower]

Honestly, you and Sam Flynn were clearly made for each other.

For the record, that's what we thought too, but since he moved in a few weeks ago I've started objecting to the way my whole bathroom reeks of Old Spice, and his socks littering the bedroom 'floordrobe', and his incessant Mantovani nights.

And that would be called pareidolia, if that were what it was. The good news is that not every argument you don't like can be neatly swept aside and dismissed by citing this particular psychological trick. Goodness, unless you genuinely believe that they can???

There is no argument I 'don't like', Ike. I could pretend to see the initials clearly there, but I don't. It's not even a question of 'argument'. My eyes and brain are not seeing what you're seeing. What does that tell us?

That's the question you must honestly answer, Ike. If I have no axe to grind, (and I don't - I'd be genuinely happy for the case to be solved, whichever suspect turned out to be JtR. I have no dog in the fight, and would feel no disappointment at all if it turned out to be Maybrick), and I cannot see those marks in the photo as an F and an M - but you DO have an axe to grind and you DO see them as an F and an M, which of us is more likely to be seeing what we want to see?

Pareidolia isn't a theory or an argument - it's a fact. It exists, and it's hardwired into the human brain. If you believe in the Diary and the presence of the initials, and yet more than half of those who see the photo just don't see deliberately written initials in MJK1, then there must be an explanation for your certainty, Ike.

That's the thing: it's disputed, to say the least, but you seem to have certainty. That should trouble you.

It amuses the rest of us, but it should trouble you.

[Iconoclast]

Pareidolia isn't a theory or an argument - it's a fact. It exists, and it's hardwired into the human brain. If you believe in the Diary and the presence of the initials, and yet more than half of those who see the photo just don't see deliberately written initials in MJK1, then there must be an explanation for your certainty, Ike.

We are distinctly at cross-purposes here. Just because you don't see what many others see doesn't mean it's a trick of the brain! Some might say it could simply be a deficiency in yours! It is not simply I who can see those letters, as has been attested to many many times on this thread. Most people who acknowledge that they can see what looks like letters are not hardcore advocators of the journal.

Something is there that looks compellingly like the letters F and M and may well therefore be the letters F and M. If that were the case, it will be game over for Jack Chasers. As we sit here, we don't know for certain, but I believe that it is far more likely that they are there than that they are not and that is not because I want them to be there. Not every snivel is a cold. It's not always going to be pareidolia when someone sees something which supports their argument. If you can't see that and recognise that then you will be a very difficult person to debate with. If you can't see that, then I can, and I promise you that that is not wishful thinking, pareidolia, or good old winding-up.

Ike