One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[FISHY1118]

Theres not one bit of proof that says James Maybrick or any one else for that matter wrote any intials on kellys wall. Period.[please dont tell me again its in his diary ffs its a fakeeeeeee ] as is the watch



Dont bother with the long drawn out reply , i read enough nonsense lately when it comes to certain suspects .

R.J , and you been at it for months, ive read all the post so as i said dont go over it again just for my benifit . Speculation Conjector Assumptions is all anyone has in their choice for JtR . Whatever makes you think Maybricks the guy, good for you. But please spare me the agony of telling me youve proved hi actually was.

[Iconoclast]

Theres not one bit of proof that says James Maybrick or any one else for that matter wrote any intials on kellys wall. Period.[please dont tell me again its in his diary ffs its a fakeeeeeee ] as is the watch.

Look, Fishy, it's you that's making the wild claims here so don't get on your high horse with me, mate.

I'll keep it simple if you don't have the interest in actually reading on the subject (as you confess to us): How do you imagine the author of the Victorian scrapbook, when referring for four consecutive pages solely on the subject of Mary Kelly's death scene, knew that they could insert the line "An initial here, an initial there, Will tell of the whoring mother" (who we know is Florence Maybrick) and - lo - her initials are there on Kelly's wall? You may not claim to see them but plenty of people accept that they are there so let's not pretend they aren't. No-one ever commented on those initials (Simon Wood saw other initials, not these) so how is it possible this fakeeeeeee could show such insight?

And, while we're at it, how on earth did the watch contain so felicitous a James Maybrick signature?

I do not offer these as proof of anything, but certainly as inexplicable aspects of the case if the case is a hoax - and aspects which need to be understood. All you got is the wild claim that's it's a all a fakeeeeeee.

Ike

[milchmanuk]

Its a toss up of the wackiest theorys, Organ Harvesting or F.M letters on kellys wall in blood .

not arguing that one is probably correctly said ,and every one here is doing the same for each there threads ,for how would we get definitive proof now.
our Jack is a crackpot ,
did he think every working day of his life of mutilation's so on ?
for him it was a thirst to quench .
and once drunk of how long before be in saturate once again .
every thing is wacky about it ,it,s like a worm on a hook once caught your going to swim around with this theory or that.

[rjpalmer]

And, while we're at it, how on earth did the watch contain so felicitous a James Maybrick signature?

The watch, Old Man, stinks to all the way to Denmark and there is little possibility that it can be genuine.

Why do I say this?

The scratched signature, naturally.

Its alleged similarity to known exemplars of Maybrick's bonafide signature cannot be considered as anything other than damningly suspicious, because (as you have so admirably argued in Society's Pillock) there is no reason to believe that Maybrick's private hand would look like anything like the one he used for public communications.

Your own arguments have done in the watch, Old Bean.

Or as Lord Hamlet once said,

"For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard..."

In the topsy-turvy, whacky world of Diary Belief, it is the alleged similarity of the watch's signature to Maybrick's own that must be considered wildly suspicious, just as it is the non-similarity of the diary's writing to Maybrick's own that is so wildly compelling.

Q. E. D.

[rjpalmer]

By the way, Ike--today is the 10th.

Only two months to the book launch where the public is promised definitive answers.

How are you feeling? Hopeful? Suspicious? Nervous?

[milchmanuk]

P.S. Just as Ike now believes he can see 'FM' on the backwall in Miller's Court, some people believe they can see two crucifixes hanging on Kelly's wall.

Of course, as one poster pointed out, if they were still nailed to Kelly's wall at the time of the infamous crime scene photograph, it is difficult to understand how Maybrick managed to steal them at the time of the murder.



The original thread can be found here:

Archive through August 12, 1999 (casebook.org)

hi
i have also read one thread some one mention this is a door. that's my first impression also
water marks and age old dirt more probable.
i think i read the cross was perhaps on the table and taken from there.
not nailed above the bed which should be above the head.
but still does look like two removed cross shapes.
but at the same time i could make out Madam Blavatsky between those crosses. Or the mother Mary.
who,s to say " Jack might of dabbed is finger here and there " .

[c.d.]

The crucifixes aren't really crucifixes at all but rather markers. A straight line drawn directly between the two crucifixes leads to the caricature of Sickert that is drawn on the wall. Plain as day.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It's hard to believe that Maybrick would go on a brutal killing spree as a result of Florence's infidelity when that infidelity was essentially brought on by Maybrick dipping his wick where it didn't belong.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

It's hard to believe that Maybrick would go on a brutal killing spree as a result of Florence's infidelity when that infidelity was essentially brought on by Maybrick dipping his wick where it didn't belong.

c.d.

I don't know, c.d.

In my experience philandering men often fail to be accepting of the same in their female partners.

Hypocracy is alive and well even now, so I'm sure it was even worse in the LVP where male and female roles were clearly delineated and the female role involved selfless child rearing, hearth tending and submission to her husbands will.

Yawn!

[c.d.]

Yes, you are quite right, Ms. Diddles. I was merely pointing out that Maybrick himself was the cause of her infidelity.

As an aside, I highly recommend "The Four Winds" by Kristin Hannah. Fictional account of what a woman went through during the Dust Bowl and The Great Depression in 1930s America. Fantastic book.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

The watch, Old Man, stinks to all the way to Denmark and there is little possibility that it can be genuine.
Why do I say this?
The scratched signature, naturally.
Its alleged similarity to known exemplars of Maybrick's bonafide signature cannot be considered as anything other than damningly suspicious, because (as you have so admirably argued in Society's Pillock) there is no reason to believe that Maybrick's private hand would look like anything like the one he used for public communications.
Your own arguments have done in the watch, Old Bean.
Or as Lord Hamlet once said,
"For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard..."

Ah but here's the rub Captain Shakespeare - one's handwriting, of course, can fluctuate, but you and I both know that one's signature yields not. One is not scribbling one's signature in a rougher hand simply because no-one is to see it. It remains what it is, evolving only little over the years.

But you knew that, didn't you, Shylock? Or is there no quality of mercy you would spare me?

In the topsy-turvy, whacky world of Diary Belief, it is the alleged similarity of the watch's signature to Maybrick's own that must be considered wildly suspicious, just as it is the non-similarity of the diary's writing to Maybrick's own that is so wildly compelling.
Q. E. D.

Q.E.D. my arse, RJ. God has given you one face, and you make yourself another. You have - knowingly - twisted the simile to your less than artful advantage. Let's not prove our point on signatures, Old Fruit - let's consider whether there is merit in the underlying claim, that one's handwriting for one's own eyes can differ markedly than that when for others.

A while ago - perhaps a year or so now - I had intended to put out an appeal to our dear readers to see if they had contemporaneous examples of both types in their own hands where the style was markedly removed one from t'other (I'd still be keen to see examples, by the way - email me at historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com if you want). Before I asked, however, I thought I could actually check my own as I still had notebooks of swiftly scribbled thoughts from back in about 1990 and - crucially - had some essays from about that same time. How did they compare, I wondered? So I dug them out, and this is what I found:

1990 - Scribbled swiftly for my eyes only



1990 - Written for someone to read



Apologies that they're both very small - I must have saved them as lightweight JPGs - but I assume you'll note the point. A sample size of just one and we already got our result.

Just saying ...

Ike
Probably Related to The Bard

[FISHY1118]

Look, Fishy, it's you that's making the wild claims here so don't get on your high horse with me, mate.

I'll keep it simple if you don't have the interest in actually reading on the subject (as you confess to us): How do you imagine the author of the Victorian scrapbook, when referring for four consecutive pages solely on the subject of Mary Kelly's death scene, knew that they could insert the line "An initial here, an initial there, Will tell of the whoring mother" (who we know is Florence Maybrick) and - lo - her initials are there on Kelly's wall? You may not claim to see them but plenty of people accept that they are there so let's not pretend they aren't. No-one ever commented on those initials (Simon Wood saw other initials, not these) so how is it possible this fakeeeeeee could show such insight?

And, while we're at it, how on earth did the watch contain so felicitous a James Maybrick signature?

I do not offer these as proof of anything, but certainly as inexplicable aspects of the case if the case is a hoax - and aspects which need to be understood. All you got is the wild claim that's it's a all a fakeeeeeee.

Ike

12 years and 9032 post later , what does that tell you Ike ? I sure know what it tells me . Just looking back to where it all begain it didnt take long ,post Number #11 in fact, to sum up what this topic and suspect is all about .

That, im almost positive is just 1 out of 100,s ,and 100s, of post that offer a valid reason/s why this whole saga is just not worth any further attention .

But you go right on believing his that the man that committed the acts of terror in 1888 is your man , youll be in good company with many others who rest their heads on the pillow at night believing its actually ''their'' man who was the killer and not yours .



[ ? ] Insert every other suspect . Good luck convincing them all they are wrong .

[Iconoclast]

12 years and 9032 post later , what does that tell you Ike ? I sure know what it tells me . Just looking back to where it all begain it didnt take long ,post Number #11 in fact, to sum up what this topic and suspect is all about .

Post #11 was a balanced effort which was one of the first to touch - without perhaps knowing it - on probability theory: the notion that if too many things seem to point one way then it is reasonable to infer that it is that way.

In a moment of unusual largesse, I'm willing to say that post #9,042 was also a balanced commentary (unusual for the commentator) albeit not one which favours my argument, of course.

I would say this to you and everyone else who thinks the case against Maybrick has provable or even just reasonably proven counters to it, the counters to it are not proven and in many cases are just matters of opinion which should count for nothing in this court or indeed any court. But they do count in the minds of those who wish the Victorian scrapbook away, and they should not. Opinion counts for nothing and must not be calculated. We must only calculate the evidence, and the pros and cons remain:

Pros
1) The scrapbook author points us to look into Kelly's room and suggests we might find multiple examples of his wife's initials there and - lo - when finally we looked, there they were (on her wall, together, on her arm as an 'F', in her legs as an inarticulate 'M' or in her chemise if you wish to concur with the much maligned and missed Tempus Omnia Revelat). This is the link between the scrapbook and the actualité and no-one should think it is just the sort of thing which happens without cause (it is not - you cannot predict it and expect it to be there unless you know it was there).
2) The watch in Maybrick's name bears his signature and it is immediately recognisable as that with which he signed his marriage licence.

Cons
1) Baxendale decided the ink of the scrapbook was fully soluble though he completely forgot to mention he was checking for this in his 'report' which he then had to report again. Was Baxendale checking the right material this second time? Was it fully soluble because it had just come to light (and oxygen) after 103 years? Can such a document be expected to fully bond with the paper just eighteen short months later, by the time of the Leeds report?
2) The Good Lord Orsam claims that the expression "one off instance" could not have been used in that context in 1888 or 1889.

Though you might think that there are a long procession of other 'cons', you will find that they are all based upon opinion. My brilliant Society's Pillar deals with them all, one by one.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

By the way, Ike--today is the 10th.

Only two months to the book launch where the public is promised definitive answers.

How are you feeling? Hopeful? Suspicious? Nervous?

Hi RJ,

Come, come, young man. Are we not also awaiting your explanation of how Robbie Johnson managed to obtain Maybrick's signature? I think your followers deserve to know how Robbie contrived so remarkable a conjuring trick, don't you?

As I recall (vaguely), your theory is that Robbie was scamming Albert in much the same way that Mike and Anne were scamming each other? Such a parcel of rogues in a nation, all scamming away, none of them trustworthy, like the bloody Vikings, each with an axe to grind over someone's fragile head. And yet previously so thoroughly ordinary in the hoaxing department?

As I understand it, Anne Graham contributed to Chris Jones' much-heralded End of Days book due out in September and I understand further that Keith Skinner was asked to write the Introduction. I don't know if he did, but with contributions from Graham and Skinner (inter alia, I assume), one must have high hopes that the pursuit of my brilliant 2025 Society's Pillar is soon to be made utterly redundant and I can get on with helping Mrs I grow her hydrangeas in the garden ...

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Post #11 was a balanced effort which was one of the first to touch - without perhaps knowing it - on probability theory: the notion that if too many things seem to point one way then it is reasonable to infer that it is that way.

In a moment of unusual largesse, I'm willing to say that post #9,042 was also a balanced commentary (unusual for the commentator) albeit not one which favours my argument, of course.

I would say this to you and everyone else who thinks the case against Maybrick has provable or even just reasonably proven counters to it, the counters to it are not proven and in many cases are just matters of opinion which should count for nothing in this court or indeed any court. But they do count in the minds of those who wish the Victorian scrapbook away, and they should not. Opinion counts for nothing and must not be calculated. We must only calculate the evidence, and the pros and cons remain:

Pros
1) The scrapbook author points us to look into Kelly's room and suggests we might find multiple examples of his wife's initials there and - lo - when finally we looked, there they were (on her wall, together, on her arm as an 'F', in her legs as an inarticulate 'M' or in her chemise if you wish to concur with the much maligned and missed Tempus Omnia Revelat). This is the link between the scrapbook and the actualité and no-one should think it is just the sort of thing which happens without cause (it is not - you cannot predict it and expect it to be there unless you know it was there).
2) The watch in Maybrick's name bears his signature and it is immediately recognisable as that with which he signed his marriage licence.

Cons
1) Baxendale decided the ink of the scrapbook was fully soluble though he completely forgot to mention he was checking for this in his 'report' which he then had to report again. Was Baxendale checking the right material this second time? Was it fully soluble because it had just come to light (and oxygen) after 103 years? Can such a document be expected to fully bond with the paper just eighteen short months later, by the time of the Leeds report?
2) The Good Lord Orsam claims that the expression "one off instance" could not have been used in that context in 1888 or 1889.

Though you might think that there are a long procession of other 'cons', you will find that they are all based upon opinion. My brilliant Society's Pillar deals with them all, one by one.

Ike

So what you really saying is everyones elses supect is wrong is that it ?