Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • It's OK, Soothsayer.

    Smurfs are real.

    Isn't that enough for you?

    -Archaic

    Comment


    • Soothsayer’s Definitive Top 5 Reasons in Support of the Journal’s Authenticity

      Soothsayer’s Definitive Top 5 Reasons in Support of the Journal’s Authenticity

      I continue to sense the occasional doubt amongst the Casebookers around the otherwise blatantly obvious authenticity of the Maybrick journal. Obviously, the well-informed understand that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Maybrick as Ripper, but for those who watch programmes on television whose titles consist of, for example, ‘Top 50 Television Interferences’, or ’50 Worst Sneezes in Soaps’, here are the official ‘Soothsayer Top 5 Reasons For Believing in the Journal’:

      In 5th place… the FBI geoprofiler who identified Middlesex Street as the 2nd most likely location for Jack’s room based solely on murder sites alone (and therefore ignoring the vote-swinging Goulston Street graffito). You couldn’t make this stuff up!

      In 4th place … the letter to the Liverpool Echo disclaiming responsibility for a ‘Ripper’ letter published the day before, and signed ‘Jack the Ripper (Genuine)’ with the mysterious DIEGO LAURENZ appended as some sort of clue. If anyone can think of a better explanation for this than that James Maybrick was trying to say ‘James Florence’ as some sort of personal marker of origin, please let us know. We are all agog in anticipation.

      In 3rd place … the letter from Florence to Alfred Brierley in which she adds credence to the journal’s claim that Maybrick told Florrie about his crimes when she writes ‘The tale he told me was pure fabrication and only designed to scare the truth out of me’. You couldn’t write it, and no bookmaker worth his salt would give you odds of less than a million to one on such an unlikely event occurring were the journal merely a forgery (of course, it is always possible that the forger worked backwards from the letter, but Lord the coincidences which favoured him in his work if he did!).

      In 2nd place … the mere fact alone that the journal exists – yes, Lord forbid that we should have a Ripper suspect for whom there is even the slenderest shred of evidence against! The journal provides us with a plausible explanation for all of the significant events during the Whitechapel slayings, and for that alone, it deserves respect and reverence in this most sacred of churches.

      In 1st place … unfortunately, and breaking somewhat with tradition, I used up all my arguments between 5th and 2nd place so there is no official Number 1 in this particular list of 5.

      Only joking! (Lord, I crack myself up sometimes!)

      Obviously, the numero uno reason for believing in the authenticity of the journal is the combination of ‘F’ and ‘M’ on Kelly’s wall – referred to in the journal, and so clearly demonstrated in almost all versions of the photograph; and now well-documented by so many different people that those whose sole reply amounts to ‘they aren’t there’ are left with no credibility whatsoever the moment they utter them or type them (of course, it is always possible that the forger worked backwards from the letters, but Lord the coincidences which favoured him in his work if he did!)

      So, there you are, Soothsayer’s Top 5 Reasons for Believing in the Journal.

      As they say in that most honourable, nay venerable, nay untarnishable of Houses, ‘The Eyes have it!’ – Seeing is Believing!

      Pow! Zap! Biff!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Soothsayer View Post
        [ those whose sole reply amounts to ‘they aren’t there’ are left with no credibility whatsoever the moment they utter them or type them
        They aren't there, or rather there is some blood that ran in rivulets down the wall that a few negligible, and obsessive people have imagined to be letters, numbers, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.

        Mike
        huh?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
          They aren't there, or rather there is some blood that ran in rivulets down the wall that a few negligible, and obsessive people have imagined to be letters, numbers, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.

          Mike
          Ladies & Gentlemen, I rest my case!

          Rivulets, eh?

          Those pesky rivulets and their tendency to spontaneously spell out letters! How they have cunningly influenced us over the years, those unexpectedly-literate rivulets.

          The Magna Carta? I think not - just rivulets, you know!

          Declaration of Independence? Don't be daft - it was just rivulets, man!

          Clear and unequivocal evidence of the author of the terrible Ripper crimes? Of course not - rivulets, rivulets, and thrice I say "rivulets" ... and yet still those poetic drops lie in their orderly, temptingly-familiar form! Lord, how they seduce the uninitiated such as I!!!

          Seriously, everyone - get a grip.

          Sir Soothy Soothsayer of Southsootherland
          Knower of all Clever Things
          And Ruggedly Handsome With It

          Comment


          • Soothsayer, I don't know what to say. Do you really think that the large numbers of people who have told you that they don't see the letters and don't believe the letters are there have "no credibility"? If so, you are destined to defend the diary but no one else will listen to you. Whether or not the letters are there, numerous people I find completely credible disagree with you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christine View Post
              Soothsayer, I don't know what to say. Do you really think that the large numbers of people who have told you that they don't see the letters and don't believe the letters are there have "no credibility"? If so, you are destined to defend the diary but no one else will listen to you. Whether or not the letters are there, numerous people I find completely credible disagree with you.
              Hmm ... are you rivulets, Christine?

              Or maybe you're milk from a spilt bowl of Rice Crispies?

              Here's how it works in the human world:

              Person with perfectly unaffected vision: "Oh look, there's two letters on the wall" [loads of people then concur, possibly having also seen the letters highlighted in numerous books and here by contributors to this website]

              Person with affected vision: "I can't see anything therefore patently there can't be anything there".

              Wonder whose position has most credibility?

              Seeing is believing! (Get yer specs on, girl!)

              Comment


              • I am trying to decide if Soothsayer is pulling our leg or if he's actually so dim that he thinks the argument that people looking at copied over and copied over and reproduced grainy black and white photographs are better capable of determining whats on the walls than the police officers who were actually at the crime scene. Or that he thinks that copies of copies of copies are actually proof of anything when it comes to "seeing" blotches and interpreting them.

                He has to be pulling our leg people, because no one is actually dim enough to believe that's a logical deduction.

                Let all Oz be agreed;
                I'm Wicked through and through.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                  I am trying to decide if Soothsayer is pulling our leg or if he's actually so dim that he thinks the argument that people looking at copied over and copied over and reproduced grainy black and white photographs are better capable of determining whats on the walls than the police officers who were actually at the crime scene. Or that he thinks that copies of copies of copies are actually proof of anything when it comes to "seeing" blotches and interpreting them.

                  He has to be pulling our leg people, because no one is actually dim enough to believe that's a logical deduction.
                  I may be dim, but not enough to fail to see the blindingly obvious - that for anti-diarists (any of them!) to accept that the letters are there means that the journal suddenly has profound evidence to support it. And that would be unacceptable, wouldn't it?

                  Equally, I may not be dim. It often depends on the weather.

                  But, hey, I've always believed that a thousand people shouting "Black" doesn't make the one person shouting "White" wrong. Given the willingness of so many to follow, and to lie where there appears to be safety in numbers, your seemingly-greater numbers doesn't even suggest they might be!

                  I may well be dim. You may well be a sheep.

                  Woof!!!!

                  Comment


                  • Let's see...one person looks at something and sees something there, merely because someone else has told him it's there.

                    Another person looks, and sees nothing because there was nothing there in the first place.

                    If anyone is baa-ing, I do believe that's you. But it's probably more comfortable for you what with the wool over your eyes anyway.

                    Let all Oz be agreed;
                    I'm Wicked through and through.

                    Comment


                    • Diego Laurenz.
                      Florrie's letter.
                      Letters on Kelly's wall.
                      The journal itself.

                      Powerful evidence in itself (the journal) and powerful evidence backing up the journal. Dynamite!

                      Ah yes, the journal. You know - the thing made of material which you can actually touch.

                      Let's set that against the sum of the evidence in favour of any other of the hundreds of candidates over the years.

                      Erm ... well there's ... or maybe there's ... [check nearest census to 1888] Bob Hughes! - he was probably in Whitechapel in 1888, possibly - it must have been him! Evidence? We don't need evidence - we're Ripperologists, for goodness sake!!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Soothsayer View Post
                        Obviously, the numero uno reason for believing in the authenticity of the journal is the combination of ‘F’ and ‘M’ on Kelly’s wall – referred to in the journal, and so clearly demonstrated in almost all versions of the photograph; and now well-documented by so many different people that those whose sole reply amounts to ‘they aren’t there’ are left with no credibility whatsoever the moment they utter them or type them (of course, it is always possible that the forger worked backwards from the letters, but Lord the coincidences which favoured him in his work if he did!)
                        Hi Soothsayer

                        What's to stop a circa 1988 forger having noticed the supposed FM in the Rumbelow pic? That's the limpest killer blow I ever saw.

                        Some people say they can't see it but I can see it quite clearly.
                        allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                        Comment


                        • Florie's Letter In Its Proper Context

                          Hi, Soothsayer. I believe I can address the issue of what Florie's letter to Brierley actually meant in the context of her Life, Marriage, Love Affair, Motherhood, & the complex Social-Religious-Legal Reality of 1888. Her letter makes perfect sense within the context in which it was written and meant to be read. There is really nothing ripperish about it.

                          I actually started to write out a full response to your Point #3, but when I was almost done I hit the wrong key & erased the whole thing! - Perhaps this means the gods are on your side; who knows? -
                          So I just thought I'd inquire politely... I am willing to re-write it if you really, truly, sincerely care to read it. I can do so in a perfectly calm manner, too.

                          I don't know if you are a fan of 19th C. literature like I am, but the range Socio-Legal punishments facing any 19th C. married woman caught having an affair were both legion and hellish. Her children could be taken away forever, her friends & family would shun her, she could even be locked up as 'Depraved' & 'Morally Insane'. All the punishment & blame was directed at the woman, regardless of what the husband had done. If she were a Mother & still had an affair, she was additionally viewed as a 'Criminal' for her willful ''neglect'' & ''abuse'' of them. She was a Moral Leper.

                          I recommend Tolstoy's magnificent 'Anna Karenina' as the best illumination of the subject. But if that's too emotionally heavy & sad, try... oh, let's say...'Madame Bovary'.

                          I honestly think they'll help you put Florie's letter to Brierley in its proper perspective. Actually, even a good BBC Film adaption of either one will show you the god-awful fallout triggered when a Victorian Era woman is caught (or fears she shall be caught) in Adultery. It doesn't take a Ripper to make it a horror story. Best regards, Soothy! -Archaic
                          Last edited by Archaic; 05-26-2009, 09:10 PM. Reason: typo

                          Comment


                          • hi Archaic

                            Anna Karenina....very sad, but so majestic...one of my favourite novels. Madame Bovary, similar but more provincial, but both good examples of attitudes towards female adultery.

                            The children issue is particularly harrowing; and unfair to the children, regardless of the human rights issues of the mother.

                            There is also a very symbolic triptych of paintings by Augustus Leopold Egg, called Past and Present, depicting the discovery of a wife's adultery and the effect on the family; the children in the first painting are making a house of cards which is about to come crashing down at the revelations.

                            You can see them here:

                            http://www.victorianweb.org/painting...intings/1.html

                            Adultery was certainly very serious for a woman at these times, in many more ways than we perhaps now appreciate.

                            sorry slightly off topic but i thought some people might find the paintings interesting.
                            babybird

                            There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

                            George Sand

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Archaic View Post
                              Hi, Soothsayer. I believe I can address the issue of what Florie's letter to Brierley actually meant in the context of her Life, Marriage, Love Affair, Motherhood, & the complex Social-Religious-Legal Reality of 1888. Her letter makes perfect sense within the context in which it was written and meant to be read. There is really nothing ripperish about it.

                              I actually started to write out a full response to your Point #3, but when I was almost done I hit the wrong key & erased the whole thing! - Perhaps this means the gods are on your side; who knows? -
                              Hmmm ... I hate it when that happens. I'll accept that it was probably brilliant, though. (Incidentally, my beloved Newcastle have just been relegated after a season long series of rubbish performances coupled with dreadful bad luck, not desisting until we had scored the most implausible own goal possible to send us down - the gods are definitely NOT on my side!)

                              Originally posted by Archaic View Post
                              I don't know if you are a fan of 19th C. literature like I am, but the range Socio-Legal punishments facing any 19th C. married woman caught having an affair were both legion and hellish. Her children could be taken away forever, her friends & family would shun her, she could even be locked up as 'Depraved' & 'Morally Insane'. All the punishment & blame was directed at the woman, regardless of what the husband had done. If she were a Mother & still had an affair, she was additionally viewed as a 'Criminal' for her willful ''neglect'' & ''abuse'' of them. She was a Moral Leper.
                              I've read a few of the classics in my time, Archaic. I got a bit of history too, so I do have a reasonably clear view of the consequences of female 'immorality' in that age.

                              But the key to Florrie's letter is exactly that - consequences. What you are describing are threats Maybrick may have made, or consequences he may have stressed to Florrie.

                              What Florrie referred to, however, was a tale he told! There's such a world of difference between a tale and a threat, though if the former revealed your husband to be Mad Jack frae Whitechapel, I could well understand too why it would come across as sounding very much like a threat!

                              The key to Florrie's comment in the letter has nothing to do with the age in which she lived other than her unfortunate coupling with history's most mysterious psychopath!

                              I am now very carefully about to click 'Enter' ...
                              Last edited by Soothsayer; 05-26-2009, 09:59 PM. Reason: Insanity

                              Comment


                              • Insults aside, Soothsayer, the fact remains that the majority cannot see the letters, and that includes the police who actually saw the wall. Therefore for you to insult anyone who does not see the letters makes your case look ridiculous.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X