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 Fiver View Post

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

    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.
    *cough*

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1-q5DosI-MvJEuyJ1ZaK_r6T4D8UKEaykKDd7WF9wQM.jpg?auto=webp&s=80b18e8ac108e5189378e42dfd3087bcaab8e22b.jpg
Views:	183
Size:	115.0 KB
ID:	771051


    Click image for larger version

Name:	0ce25efc-da5c-4e44-9b40-6fd7e07a9865.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	146.4 KB
ID:	771052

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1473854121.png?precrop=624,442,x0,y0&height=1360&width=1920.png
Views:	181
Size:	71.8 KB
ID:	771053
    Click image for larger version

Name:	0_Mercedes-Morrs-stalker-scrawled-confession-on-walls-in-lipstick-after-killing-OnlyFans-star-dad-cl.jpg
Views:	178
Size:	23.8 KB
ID:	771054

    Click image for larger version

Name:	tumblr_plpajqMlNi1y4kt1do1_r1_640.jpg
Views:	184
Size:	73.9 KB
ID:	771055

    Five minutes on Google Image search.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • Honestly, ero b, you should know better than to confuse these random blood spurts with meaningful patterns never mind actual letters!

      *cough*

      Bloody hell, that's contagious ...
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        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.
        The bible is full of inherent contradictions and also makes fantastical claims for itself. Any appeal to rational thought and inquiry will fall on deaf ears, because its converts are ironically arguing in bad faith. There is nothing to actually be achieved from these exchanges as any error exposed in the diary is simply handwaved by yourself as "human error", to the point that you have no reason to legitimately believe it's genuine. And I know, I know, your entire belief rests on the fact it has not been "incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably" refuted, but you have deliberately set your own impossible criteria. The errors, the handwriting, the provenance, the confession, none of these taken individually or collectively are enough to budge you, so nothing will. That's the point. That's the game you're playing.

        It's the intellectual dishonesty we regularly see from suspect-based theorists.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
          Five minutes on Google Image search.
          Next time you might want to spend ten.

          The "I Love You Nancy" photo is bogus.

          Yup, once again you fell for a hoax.

          Nancy Spungen died from a single stab wound to the abdomen, and no bloody message was written in the bathroom of the Chelsea Hotel.

          The photo is apparently 'artwork' created by a Sid Vicious fan, as an ironic commentary on his relationship with Nancy.

          My apologies for stopping by.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Yup, once again you fell for a hoax.


            Ouch!

            A blow below the belt





            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              Next time you might want to spend ten.

              The "I Love You Nancy" photo is bogus.

              Yup, once again you fell for a hoax.

              Nancy Spungen died from a single stab wound to the abdomen, and no bloody message was written in the bathroom of the Chelsea Hotel.

              The photo is apparently 'artwork' created by a Sid Vicious fan, as an ironic commentary on his relationship with Nancy.

              My apologies for stopping by.
              Oh dear RJ.

              This is ironic. I never said it was from the Sid and Nancy murder you assumed that. It is from a different murder scene but people have used the image to link it to that crime. It is taken from a police forensics file in Philadelphia and the murder was not made public of who.

              You should know better being a researcher.
              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                Ouch!

                A blow below the belt





                The Baron
                Once again you are a bit too quick with emojis obscure cartoon character man.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  Once again you are a bit too quick with emojis obscure cartoon character man.


                  Fiver wrote:

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

                  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.


                  We come to you and some quick lessons that will help you on the way:


                  1. First, read the post slowly, repeat this if necessary, try to understand it as possible as you can, and highlight the important points.

                  2. Second, don't feel ashamed to ask, if something the other poster didn't make clear enough for you.

                  3. Third, if you didn't agree with it (as is the case if poster was not a diary defender) it is ok, not a problem, don't feel threatened, take a deep breath, easy on yourself, it all good.

                  4. Forth, if you want to counter a post, then write something reasonable, something that may shed light on points the other poster may have not taken in consideration.

                  5. Fifth, think twice, more better , before you disagree with RJ Palmer.


                  Now we look at the "I Love you Nancy" picture you posted


                  -You don't know who is the victim.
                  -You don't know who is the murderer.
                  -You don't know if the murderer was a serial killer.
                  -The author of that message didn't write his name.


                  Defend at any cost didn't help you here.
                  You should master some new techniques.
                  It is a good time to start, and convert.


                  Have a good and rich day Mr. erobitha.



                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    you have deliberately set your own impossible criteria. The errors, the handwriting, the provenance, the confession, none of these taken individually or collectively are enough to budge you, so nothing will. That's the point. That's the game you're playing.

                    It's the intellectual dishonesty we regularly see from suspect-based theorists.


                    EXACTLY!


                    They ask for something like this:


                    "If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax"


                    They want something so blatantly stupid that no half-brained hoaxer will ever make!

                    Even the dramatically terrible 'Poste House' and 'tin match box empty' errors were not enough for them.

                    In reality though, they will not bet their money on the diary being authentic.




                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • 1) If we want to be anal which seems your preferred mode Baron - FM is not James Maybrick leaving his name is it? It is simply a clue.
                      2) The point being made by me is serial killer or not, murderers do leave messages and clues on walls. It is not purely in bad detective fiction but happens more than perhaps the poster realised. The serial nature makes not a jot of difference to that point. This is not something that separates serial killers from normal murderers
                      3) RJ is not god. He has got the odd thing wrong. No shame in that as you say. It happens to the best of us
                      4) Lastly who is threatened? I believe Maybrick was JTR. Am I 100% certain the diary is genuine? No. Do I believe the initials are there? Yes.

                      As much as you and your pals want to kill this whole debate stone dead - you can’t because nuance shows it is not stone dead.

                      Have a lovely day cat man.
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                        EXACTLY!

                        They ask for something like this:

                        "If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax"

                        They want something so blatantly stupid that no half-brained hoaxer will ever make!

                        Even the dramatically terrible 'Poste House' and 'tin match box empty' errors were not enough for them.

                        In reality though, they will not bet their money on the diary being authentic.

                        The Baron
                        The so-called fatal flaws in the scrapbook are - without exception - simply matters of incomplete analysis and data or simply ambiguity. Which is why I mentioned Liverpool Football Club. Why is the reference to 'Poste House' not unerringly fatal in the way reference to 'Liverpool Football Club' would be? Well, ambiguity. Why is the provenance not unerringly fatal? Because we have insufficient data to properly understand it. 'Tin match box empty' is ambiguity - it's not unerringly clear that it is a fatal mistake. The issue of 'Kelly's breasts' (my apologies to anyone who might be too sensitive to read such terms and feel that their use is a potential 'disgusting' disgrace) is an ambiguity - Lord, the author even gets it right for goodness sake! So we are not to expect 'blatantly stupid' (unless you are describing posters themselves, it seems) but we are to accept that which is unproven. Clearly (given how long I've been at this), I won't be giving up the debate any day soon whilst the criticisms thrown at the scrapbook are not incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable facts which refute the diary.

                        If all you can do is present aspects of the scrapbook which are ambiguous or lack sufficient data for clarity - perhaps frantically trawling the literature to find a book which says something you can cling on to so that the hoaxer's library has to have been groaning under the weight of the slightly more than three books the self-interested Harris wanted to argue for - then you are not making your case.

                        Why are you not making your case? Because for every event or circumstances or scrapbook entry which you all-too determinedly argue is the fatal error there are events and circumstances and scrapbook entries which point towards authenticity. The biggest, the best, the most on-the-record, the least ambiguous, and the most directly supported is James Maybrick placing his wife's initials around Kelly's (Is it okay to mention her name, I wonder, or will that be too invasive of her anything but private death?) room. Although we only have the one photograph to work with, in that small slice (oh, hope that hasn't turned anyone's stomach) of the scene, we can identify her initials together on the wall just as Maybrick predicted, and also as clear an 'F' on her arm as you could hope to see along with a couple of inarticulate 'M's in her clothing (as demonstrated by Tempus Omnia Revelat) and in her pushed-up legs (apologies, it's gross, I know - do you need some water?).

                        And here's the rub. There will be at least one post to follow from someone calling me an idiot for even suggesting that Jack the Ripper would leave his wife's initials at the scene. Or will ask why he didn't leave his own initials (well he would if that had been the point!). Or will ask why he wasn't more clear in his clues.

                        The answer: Hangman's noose, and context. The vast majority of posters treat Jack the Ripper as if he was the abstracted character from Victorian history which time has morphed him into. I treat him as a living, breathing killer with a twisted agenda. That allows me to understand his actions in context. That allows me to accept that maybe the GSG was never meant to be read literally - but, wait, 'The James are the men that will not be blamed for nothing' doesn't make sense! As if the literal version does! Dear, dear, dear.

                        I'm not writing this for you - The Baron - because you have descended into a rather surreal taunting style which is eating-up any credibility you may have originally had. Nope, I'm writing it for everyone else in the vague and very vain hope that you might extract the literal from your preconceptions and seek to understand Jack in context, even if some of that context has to be inferred now that we have been handed the name of the killer, James Maybrick.

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                          Then come back Lady when you can support your claims that Mike was merely lying, that the stain caused by Anne dropping a kidney according to Mike was certainly a glue, that the two kidney stains talked about at different occasions must have been one and the same and not two different marks on different pages.


                          I am not the one who brought those cut stories here to demonstrate Mike was a liar [as if proving him a liar means he cannot be a hoaxer] I didn't published a book with RJ Palmer, I didn't pretend I know the inside story, but I know one who did, and I know his co-author has those tapes.


                          Don't do the donkey work Caz, just sit down and dream that we will all take your words for everything you through on the way.






                          Wrong, after +20 years you still at the beginning, and you cannot see the information except from your fixed and one sided perspection, that Mike couldn't ever have faked the diary.

                          He dropped mentioning it because it dosn't prove either way they faked the diary, Anne could have dropped a kidney on the diary whether they faked it or not. whether it was authentic or not.






                          How about you advice him to tell the truth ?!
                          It is not always about proving oneself right or defend at any cost, you should remember that.




                          The Baron
                          Dearest Baron,

                          These public displays of adoration and affection are highly flattering, but I fear people will talk and I'm a happily married woman.

                          My better half may not be of noble birth. He isn't a Baron. He isn't a Count - with or without a silent o. But l'm his lady, and alas, I can never be yours.

                          Besides, I think the Maybrick case can do without another Baroness called Caroline.

                          He's not a Baron, a Lord or Count,
                          Nor yet a foreign bragger.
                          But I'm his Lady and he's my man,
                          And we met at the old Cloak & Dagger.

                          Love and kisses,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Dearest Baron,

                            These public displays of adoration and affection are highly flattering, but I fear people will talk and I'm a happily married woman.

                            My better half may not be of noble birth. He isn't a Baron. He isn't a Count - with or without a silent o. But l'm his lady, and alas, I can never be yours.

                            Besides, I think the Maybrick case can do without another Baroness called Caroline.

                            He's not a Baron, a Lord or Count,
                            Nor yet a foreign bragger.
                            But I'm his Lady and he's my man,
                            And we met at the old Cloak & Dagger.

                            Love and kisses,

                            Caz
                            X


                            Will you then honor me with your hand for a dance?


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                              The so-called fatal flaws in the scrapbook are - without exception - simply matters of incomplete analysis and data or simply ambiguity. Which is why I mentioned Liverpool Football Club. Why is the reference to 'Poste House' not unerringly fatal in the way reference to 'Liverpool Football Club' would be? Well, ambiguity. Why is the provenance not unerringly fatal? Because we have insufficient data to properly understand it. 'Tin match box empty' is ambiguity - it's not unerringly clear that it is a fatal mistake. The issue of 'Kelly's breasts' (my apologies to anyone who might be too sensitive to read such terms and feel that their use is a potential 'disgusting' disgrace) is an ambiguity - Lord, the author even gets it right for goodness sake! So we are not to expect 'blatantly stupid' (unless you are describing posters themselves, it seems) but we are to accept that which is unproven. Clearly (given how long I've been at this), I won't be giving up the debate any day soon whilst the criticisms thrown at the scrapbook are not incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable facts which refute the diary.

                              If all you can do is present aspects of the scrapbook which are ambiguous or lack sufficient data for clarity - perhaps frantically trawling the literature to find a book which says something you can cling on to so that the hoaxer's library has to have been groaning under the weight of the slightly more than three books the self-interested Harris wanted to argue for - then you are not making your case.

                              Why are you not making your case? Because for every event or circumstances or scrapbook entry which you all-too determinedly argue is the fatal error there are events and circumstances and scrapbook entries which point towards authenticity. The biggest, the best, the most on-the-record, the least ambiguous, and the most directly supported is James Maybrick placing his wife's initials around Kelly's (Is it okay to mention her name, I wonder, or will that be too invasive of her anything but private death?) room. Although we only have the one photograph to work with, in that small slice (oh, hope that hasn't turned anyone's stomach) of the scene, we can identify her initials together on the wall just as Maybrick predicted, and also as clear an 'F' on her arm as you could hope to see along with a couple of inarticulate 'M's in her clothing (as demonstrated by Tempus Omnia Revelat) and in her pushed-up legs (apologies, it's gross, I know - do you need some water?).

                              And here's the rub. There will be at least one post to follow from someone calling me an idiot for even suggesting that Jack the Ripper would leave his wife's initials at the scene. Or will ask why he didn't leave his own initials (well he would if that had been the point!). Or will ask why he wasn't more clear in his clues.

                              The answer: Hangman's noose, and context. The vast majority of posters treat Jack the Ripper as if he was the abstracted character from Victorian history which time has morphed him into. I treat him as a living, breathing killer with a twisted agenda. That allows me to understand his actions in context. That allows me to accept that maybe the GSG was never meant to be read literally - but, wait, 'The James are the men that will not be blamed for nothing' doesn't make sense! As if the literal version does! Dear, dear, dear.

                              I'm not writing this for you - The Baron - because you have descended into a rather surreal taunting style which is eating-up any credibility you may have originally had. Nope, I'm writing it for everyone else in the vague and very vain hope that you might extract the literal from your preconceptions and seek to understand Jack in context, even if some of that context has to be inferred now that we have been handed the name of the killer, James Maybrick.

                              Ike
                              But you are side-stepping a fairly major issue. You and the diary club are saying the letters are clear on a grainy B&W photograph. So how would they have looked on that morning in November 1888 - crystal clear to the naked eye no doubt. So why does no one mention them? As I said earlier, Phillips mentions the wall area and blood patterns - no mention of letters. They would have been seen as a major clue. No mention. At all. Ever. You wonder why people slate this thread - your Juwes-James interpretation is so daft it is hilarious, yet the frightening thing is that you appear to be deadly serious.

                              You wonder why this thread has X million views - it is because people like to look at it and weigh some of the more serious questions in life, like: is it possible to wet oneself by simply laughing to hard?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                Interesting points Ike, and para phrased like you say. I appreciate "FDC" wants to remain anonymous, but in the grand scheme of things, can you expect those conclusions to be taken seriously, or respected seriously?

                                They're good points, (also in the grand scheme of things, Mike talked arse about many things but dropped some massive clues), but those specific points highlighted in blue are solid enough, if FDC is even reasonably well versed in forging documents.

                                I reiterate, Ike, they are good points, if you can qualify FDC. Otherwise, he's your mate in the pub.

                                (Just to reiterate, given that this is a Maybrick thread, the points raised by "FDC" are good ones, but without knowing"FDC"s credentials they're open to debate. Regardless, the points raised RE mineral oil etc are valid. Does this apply to MB's affidavit? Well, yes, but he was a drunken liar who said lots of ****?, so FDC's analysis is based on his statement being truthful, which it isn't. It's Mike Barrett. So it's diary QED.)

                                (And to double reiterate, so I don't get hell for this, it's how others view your post Ike, not me. I personally think Mike talked total arse while pissed up with Gray, but it doesn't mean he wasn't behind it)

                                Heads up Ike! Snipers on the parapet!
                                Hi Al,

                                I wonder what credentials people should have expected Mike Barrett to have, before accepting his claims to have had anything to do with adapting the scrapbook which houses the diary text?

                                Of course, Mike never even hinted at the scrapbook being obtained as late as 31st March 1992, and adapted in double quick time for Anne to pen the text into 63 of the surviving unused pages over the famous eleven days, so it would be ready to show off in London on 13th April without it stinking of freshly treated cricket bat and smearing 'unbonded' ink all down Doreen's cream two-piece.

                                So while Mike did indeed talk total arse about most things diary related - and watch related it has to be said - he left the worst example of it to the Diary Creationist Faction - the DCF - who had to invent the only auction date that would work with Mike's order for the tiny 1891 diary, which would be about as much use for anyone faking Maybrick's diary as a bicycle would be to a fish.

                                And nobody wants to talk about the old glue staining Alec Voller observed on top of a dot of the diary ink, months after Mike had sworn his affidavit of 5th January 1995. If Mike had obtained this old glue for the purpose of fooling the likes of Voller, what a pity he forgot to mention it when it might have made all the difference.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 10-19-2021, 10:04 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X