One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

tin match box empty

It is astonishing! It doesn't matter how many error one makes in a forgery, one can always find some people who will believe it!

In this case, those readily and unconditionally believers not only believe it, they use those exact errors to confirm its authenticity!

People can believe ANYTHING, there is NO LIMITS for imagination, this case proved it.

The Baron

For every implied piece of evidence which may be made to make the case for inauthenticity, there will be a piece of evidence for authenticity.

One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary does not exist despite the endless inane and incomplete claims about language or historical error. If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax. But what we get are claims of error and chronology which are just convenient to cite but do not disprove the case. We get 'Poste House' when 'post house' was a perfectly acceptable term (then and now) - yes, even for a pub! But we don't get the impossible - we don't get Maybrick drinking in the Philharmonic Dining Rooms not then built but later famous for James McCartney's brilliant Carpool Karaoke with James Corden. And if anyone thinks I've just made a typo, they've got another think coming ... look it up - things are never as obvious as they first appear!

On the other hand, there is one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary to be authentic, and that is the statement by Maybrick in his scrapbook that he left his wife's initials in Kelly's room, a claim which is evidenced by the rare but very welcome photograph of Kelly in death whose photographer's flash briefly illuminated the clue which has finally solved the case.

As we know, this clue is so catastrophic to the arguments of those who claim the diary is a hoax that they have to resort to one or even both of two scurrilously inept claims:

1) The author of the diary does not claim Florrie's initials were left in Kelly's room (the author just randomly mentioned them during just over four pages of ceaseless reflection on his worst destruction); and - and this is the best one! -
2) The letters are not actually there!



Feel free to wave your silly slogans - they appear like white flags of surrender as your argument becomes less and less sustainable ...

Ike

[Harry D]

Well whoa there Trigger. How do you know that Maybrick didn't place Kelly's breasts on the table before removing them again, putting one at her foot and the other at her head? In this event, Maybrick's account would have been right and then right again.

Because "Maybrick" never said that he did that. He quite clearly said he left the breasts on the table, as that was the prevailing myth at the time. There was no mention of him moving them afterwards. You thought you had me with the doggerel that referenced placing them by MJK's feet, but I already pointed out that the author was likely using another police report to embellish the narrative of the diary.

On what grounds have you apparently excluded this possibility? Is your worldview so rigid that events cannot be anything other than as they were recorded?

If we're going on the balance of probabilities, we have to weigh up all the errors and omissions scattered throughout the diary and judge if it's the genuine article. For me, those errors and contradictions lend no credibility to the diary's authenticity and that's without even getting into the ugly mess of its provenance.

You, however, are willing to dismiss every single one as human error. Problem is, it's the error of the hoaxer you fail to see, and not James Maybrick.

With the amount of mental gymnastics you pull to swallow this hoax, I'm surprised your brain doesn't look like a pretzel.

[Iconoclast]

Because "Maybrick" never said that he did that. He quite clearly said he left the breasts on the table, as that was the prevailing myth at the time. There was no mention of him moving them afterwards. You thought you had me with the doggerel that referenced placing them by MJK's feet, but I already pointed out that the author was likely using another police report to embellish the narrative of the diary.

He certainly said he left them on the table and he also said he thought of leaving them by Kelly's feet. You might have decided it suits your argument to assume that he stole both thoughts from Ripper texts, but the fair-minded would say that that's just an assumption you are making.

If we're going on the balance of probabilities

No we aren't - you are. I'm going on the facts and the one which proves Maybrick was Jack the Ripper was his leaving his wife's initials in blood on Kelly's wall and telling us about her initials in the scrapbook.

All you have are your heavily-laden assumptions and your desire to see a hoax where the evidence does not necessitate it.

Give us the facts that prove the hoax, and not the old assumptions. And I mean facts, not understandable errors which do not disprove anything.

Facts please.

[The Baron]

I had a key tra la la
and with it I did flee tra la la

but without it I couldn't be able to flee
tra la la



tin match box empty

proved the diary is a modern hoax more than 25 years ago



The Baron

[The Baron]

First the full and better quality image






And here is a zoom in






Here one can see it clearly not manufactured.


There is no letters here, you cannot draw an F or an M without intentionally ignoring and dropping out other lines in the picture.


What a terrible, deformed and cetomorphic proof diary defenders use to confirm authenticity.





The Baron

[Aethelwulf]

For every implied piece of evidence which may be made to make the case for inauthenticity, there will be a piece of evidence for authenticity.

One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary does not exist despite the endless inane and incomplete claims about language or historical error. If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax. But what we get are claims of error and chronology which are just convenient to cite but do not disprove the case. We get 'Poste House' when 'post house' was a perfectly acceptable term (then and now) - yes, even for a pub! But we don't get the impossible - we don't get Maybrick drinking in the Philharmonic Dining Rooms not then built but later famous for James McCartney's brilliant Carpool Karaoke with James Corden. And if anyone thinks I've just made a typo, they've got another think coming ... look it up - things are never as obvious as they first appear!

On the other hand, there is one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary to be authentic, and that is the statement by Maybrick in his scrapbook that he left his wife's initials in Kelly's room, a claim which is evidenced by the rare but very welcome photograph of Kelly in death whose photographer's flash briefly illuminated the clue which has finally solved the case.

As we know, this clue is so catastrophic to the arguments of those who claim the diary is a hoax that they have to resort to one or even both of two scurrilously inept claims:

1) The author of the diary does not claim Florrie's initials were left in Kelly's room (the author just randomly mentioned them during just over four pages of ceaseless reflection on his worst destruction); and - and this is the best one! -
2) The letters are not actually there!



Feel free to wave your silly slogans - they appear like white flags of surrender as your argument becomes less and less sustainable ...

Ike

The tragedy of this is that not only did Mary Kelly suffer the most appalling crime, intimate photos of her are now paraded about to support your stupid, bone idle, lazy, ridiculous, massive pile of steaming BS theory.

There are clearly no letters on that wall. If you are saying those are F M then you can make any number of letters out marks on that wall. What the marks you have highlight on the body are supposed to indicate, I have no idea and I do not wish to know. It is clearly some other stupid idea of yours.

Some study was made of the partition wall area, to record the blood spray on the wall and pool on the ground. Are you seriously saying police and surgeons who were actually at the crime scene and saw something other than a grainy photo did not notice these letters? Or are you also resorting to some pointless conspiracy theory?

I think your post is disgusting.

[Iconoclast]

The tragedy of this is that not only did Mary Kelly suffer the most appalling crime, intimate photos of her are now paraded about to support your stupid, bone idle, lazy, ridiculous, massive pile of steaming BS theory.

There are clearly no letters on that wall. If you are saying those are F M then you can make any number of letters out marks on that wall. What the marks you have highlight on the body are supposed to indicate, I have no idea and I do not wish to know. It is clearly some other stupid idea of yours.

Some study was made of the partition wall area, to record the blood spray on the wall and pool on the ground. Are you seriously saying police and surgeons who were actually at the crime scene and saw something other than a grainy photo did not notice these letters? Or are you also resorting to some pointless conspiracy theory?

I think your post is disgusting.

From Dan Farson, 1973 (Paperback Edition)

Well, I do love a little irony in the morning! I asked people who don't normally post to post so who am I to criticise what I get?

I love your dismissal of 'my theory'. It's a 'theory' held by far more people than simply me. And even those people who do not subscribe to the 'theory' express no difficulty in seeing the letters. That's because they are very obvious in almost every copy you could see - including books with no axe to grind (such as Farson in 1973) and even in those books which very much do have an axe to grind and attempt to grind it (such as both Sugden and Marriott publishing post-diary). So your critique of 'my' theory is unsupported by both the evidence and the unaffected eyes of many who read and comment on this issue.

Just a few points of note:

1) The actual image used was originally from a poster called Tempus Omnia Revelat who was pointing out that Maybrick had left more than one example of his wife's initials.
2) The image has been used many times here on Casebook: Jack the Ripper and on countless other websites and published in a huge number of printed texts on the case.
3) It is true that it is 'disgusting' that we continue to pore over this and other Ripper-related death photographs, just as other death scenes are photographed and occasionally published, but it is also disgusting that a killer got away with murder so - by discussing the specifics of the murders - we at least can attempt to bring some closure to those unfortunate victims.

Erm ... welcome to the thread, by the way!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

First the full and better quality image




And here is a zoom in



Here one can see it clearly not manufactured.

There is no letters here, you cannot draw an F or an M without intentionally ignoring and dropping out other lines in the picture.

What a terrible, deformed and cetomorphic proof diary defenders use to confirm authenticity.

The Baron

I actually laughed out loud at your latest post, Baron!

Many thanks for posting such good examples of Florence Maybrick's initials! (Or was I really the only person who had no problem seeing them in both versions?).

Ike
Thinking 'If Only There Was An Emoji For Side-Splittingly-Funny Posts'

[Aethelwulf]

I actually laughed out loud at your latest post, Baron!

Many thanks for posting such good examples of Florence Maybrick's initials! (Or was I really the only person who had no problem seeing them in both versions?).

Ike
Thinking 'If Only There Was An Emoji For Side-Splittingly-Funny Posts'

I can only think you've suffered a serious blow to head at some point and it has affected your ability to think rationally. There is a reason people refer this as the 'loser diary thread'.

[Iconoclast]

I can only think you've suffered a serious blow to head at some point and it has affected your ability to think rationally. There is a reason people refer this as the 'loser diary thread'.

Well, 1.2million views and climbing. Being the 'loser diary thread' clearly appeals to more people than any other thread!

PS I see you are active on a number of other threads - presumably ones not for losers - so you aren't actually the sort of poster I was attempting to encourage to post after all. Listen, feel free to go back to the chats about whether Mrs Mortimer farted whilst the kettle boiled, or how big the flower was on Stride's coat, or if it was cold in November in the LVP. Some of us are actually trying to solve the case (which possibly explains your post's deeply unpleasant hostility).

[Harry D]

He certainly said he left them on the table and he also said he thought of leaving them by Kelly's feet. You might have decided it suits your argument to assume that he stole both thoughts from Ripper texts, but the fair-minded would say that that's just an assumption you are making.

That's correct. I am not giving the diary points for getting basic facts about the murders WRONG. I leave that kind of backwards logic to you.

No we aren't - you are. I'm going on the facts and the one which proves Maybrick was Jack the Ripper was his leaving his wife's initials in blood on Kelly's wall and telling us about her initials in the scrapbook.

Are these the same bloody initials that completely eluded the investigators and photographer who were at the crime scene?

Investigators who, having encountered graffiti in the previous murder, would've surely been aware of the possibility of more messages left by the killer?

Of course, everyone who was physically there completely missed this vital clue, unlike those gawping at grainy 100+ year old photographs, who were certainly not victims of pareidolia *cough*

[Iconoclast]

That's correct. I am not giving the diary points for getting basic facts about the murders WRONG. I leave that kind of backwards logic to you.

Are these the same bloody initials that completely eluded the investigators and photographer who were at the crime scene?

Investigators who, having encountered graffiti in the previous murder, would've surely been aware of the possibility of more messages left by the killer?

Of course, everyone who was physically there completely missed this vital clue, unlike those gawping at grainy 100+ year old photographs, who were certainly not victims of pareidolia *cough*

Look pareidolia up before you use it again. I don't think you'll use it again in this context *cough*.

Mary Kelly's room may have been the brightest room in the world, but I suspect it probably wasn't. It was down a vennel into a close which may not have had much (if any) natural light. I don't know, in truth, so I'm surmising and I'm totally open to correction. Someone cleverer than I noted a long long time ago that the photographer's flash would have brought fleeting light into what may have been a relatively dark room.

You know what's frustrating here? It's the lack of concrete facts to support the case against Maybrick. James Maybrick answers the big questions about why Jack struck and where Jack struck and why he wasn't caught and answers the small questions such as the purpose of the GSG and why the apron wasn't left until so long after the 4th canonical murder. With James Maybrick in the frame, we can understand the letters and the rhymes, and the this and the that. James Maybrick makes sense as Jack the Ripper (even if it turns out one day that he wasn't). No other candidate comes anywhere near Maybrick.

I often think that there is a fear of the case being resolved which makes posters cling desperately to the literal interpretation of events because these have shown time and time again to be worthless in our pursuit of a resolution to this case. So - for example - 'Juwes' has to be 'Juwes', it cannot be seen as a cipher for 'James'. And anyone suggesting otherwise has to be accused of being - and I quote - "stupid, bone idle, lazy, ridiculous" when in reality what is happening is that 'groupthink' is using terms such as 'doublethink' to compromise perfectly reasonable arguments which sound worryingly as though the pursuit might actually be over at last.

Sadly, Martin Fido (RIP) set the ball rolling in that department as far back as Feldman's video, but fortunately Colin Wilson was on hand to offer the detective's open-minded honesty in considering all possibilities and not being fixated on a single, monochrome view of the crimes.

Just saying *cough*.

[Harry D]

Look pareidolia up before you use it again. I don't think you'll use it again in this context *cough*.

It's when you see patterns, objects or meaning in random places.

Such as the obscured initials of a Liverpudlian cotton-merchant's wife on the grimy backwall of a prostitute's hovel.

[Iconoclast]

It's when you see patterns, objects or meaning in random places.

Such as the obscured initials of a Liverpudlian cotton-merchant's wife on the grimy backwall of a prostitute's hovel.

Pareidolia is almost always related to seeing face patterns - it's thought to be an evolutionary advantage which is fairly obvious to imagine. I can't find any examples of it relating to letters, but I can't deny that its definition could include such acts so I'll have to concur.

Fortunately, using the term in this context does not mean it is used correctly. This is because you do not know for certain that what we are referring to are not Florence Maybrick's initials drawn in blood on Mary Kelly's wall, and no amount of suggesting otherwise will make it less likely that it is.

[Fiver]

I often think that there is a fear of the case being resolved which makes posters cling desperately to the literal interpretation of events because these have shown time and time again to be worthless in our pursuit of a resolution to this case.

Ah, the ever popular fallback position of theorists who fail to provide convincing evidence or reasoning. Most of the facts are "worthless in our pursuit of a resolution to this case" That does make them not facts, nor does it mean anyone is clinging desperately to the facts.

So - for example - 'Juwes' has to be 'Juwes', it cannot be seen as a cipher for 'James'.

Lets look at the theory that the Goulston Street Grafitto said 'James', not 'Juwes'

1) None of the people who recorded the grafitto thought it said 'James'. Since it was written in a "round hand", i.e. cursive, one person misreading 'James' as 'Juwes' is possible. Multiple people making the same mistake is very unlikely.

2) "The James are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." is nonsense.

3) Real serial serial killers almost never write anything on the walls. It is far more common in detective fiction.

4) The Goulston Street Grafitto may have nothing to do with the Ripper killings.

5) There is more than one suspect with the name James. In the incomplete suspect list I that link we have James Connell, James Green, James Hardman, Henry James, William James, James Johnson, James Kelly, James Maybrick, James Munro, Thomas James Sadler, James Shaw, James Kenneth Stevens, and James Wilson.

6) Even the handful of serial killers who write things on the walls don't write their names on the wall to leave clues for the police. That only happens in detective fiction. Bad detective fiction.