Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory.

    A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer.

    I don't have to give you any reason as whether I see what you see as I've already made my position known.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Considering that writing had been left after the previous murder, I would say giving the walls in Mary’s room a good glance over would have been likely by those that were actually there, and that corner of the room is kind of the main focal point.
      Yet those in the room didn’t spot the initials, and if it’s meant to be so clear and obvious to us looking at a monochrome high contrast image in a book 100 years later, maybe it’s more likely that the initials weren’t there for all eyes to see in 1888, and the writer of the diary spotted it in a book 100 years later too.

      “I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever”

      How could he be so sure that his cleverness will ensure that they’ll never find it?
      How is it “too clever” to write it on the wall just above the corpse that everyone in the room will be staring at?

      Sounds like something written after the benefit of many years of hindsight to me.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory.

        A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer.

        I don't have to give you any reason as whether I see what you see as I've already made my position known.
        The good news (from my point of view) and the very very very very bad news (from your point of view) is that we have had this debate many times before and on numerous occasions posters who are known to be scrapbook detractors or simply ambivalent towards the scrapbook freely admit to being able to see exactly what you have decided you can't see.

        It's not just my opinion. The initials were first identified as part of Paul Feldman's research into the scrapbook and - once they were identified - it was easy to locate them, even in the very worst renditions of the infamous photograph. I am eternally grateful to Keith Skinner, though, for suggesting I look at Dan Farson's 1972 or 1973 rendition. That's the one I posted above. When you know where to look, they are simply blindingly obvious. The trick is allowing your brain to look so that you know where to look in future.

        Obviously - as I keep saying - we all understand why you have to keep 'not seeing the 'shapes' so many people can see so easily'. It's pure psychology. You fear the consequences of admitting, however reluctantly, however begrudgingly, "Okay, there are shapes which could be said to be an unclear 'F' and an unmistakeable 'M' and - yes - they are right next to one another, and in the right order, and represent the incarnation of the prediction made in the Victorian scrapbook".

        Come on, Fishy. Denial is embarrassing.
        Iconoclast
        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
        Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
          Considering that writing had been left after the previous murder, I would say giving the walls in Mary’s room a good glance over would have been likely by those that were actually there, and that corner of the room is kind of the main focal point.
          Yet those in the room didn’t spot the initials, and if it’s meant to be so clear and obvious to us looking at a monochrome high contrast image in a book 100 years later, maybe it’s more likely that the initials weren’t there for all eyes to see in 1888, and the writer of the diary spotted it in a book 100 years later too.

          “I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever”

          How could he be so sure that his cleverness will ensure that they’ll never find it?
          How is it “too clever” to write it on the wall just above the corpse that everyone in the room will be staring at?

          Sounds like something written after the benefit of many years of hindsight to me.
          Obviously, your post is full of assumptions and opinions, Yabs, so it offers little in the way of clarification.

          You say that the GSG would have prompted people to look at the walls for another message. If there was sufficient light in that tiny, dark room, then people may very well have looked and noted that there was no message so "Nothing to see here, let's move back to that butchered corpse lying on the bed, shall we?". Before anyone says that 'FM' was a message, please reflect on the sort of message anyone there at the time might have been expecting (the GSG was "The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing" - ever so slightly more to look for than a couple of letters that no-one was looking for).

          "Left it in front for all to see" (IIRC) Maybrick claimed, and in front he most certainly did with his wife's initials on the wall and her first initial carved so unmistakably into the flesh of her arm (Fishy will say he can't see it, mind).

          By the way, Yabs, if the initials weren't on the wall, how could the writer of the scrapbook spot them in a book 100 years later? A strange collection of juxtaposed thoughts there, I have to say. Are you sure you fully thought that one out?

          Finally, and I can't believe I have to say this yet again: if someone writes something in blood on a dirty wall in a dark room next to a body that has been half-destroyed, I would suggest that there is a very good chance that the human eye would not have the acuity to note it.

          Oh, but a cameraman's split-second flash would probably illuminate the scene sufficiently to see it in a decent rendition of the photograph - say a 100 years later or so.

          PS Someone once posted in response to this point about the cameraman's flash something along the lines of, "If the flash lit up the room, how come no-one saw the initials?". It's still one of my Top Five Totally Stupid Comments ever made on this website, the t'other place, and indeed pretty well everything I've ever read, anywhere, ever ...
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
          Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            Obviously, your post is full of assumptions and opinions, Yabs, so it offers little in the way of clarification.

            You say that the GSG would have prompted people to look at the walls for another message. If there was sufficient light in that tiny, dark room, then people may very well have looked and noted that there was no message so "Nothing to see here, let's move back to that butchered corpse lying on the bed, shall we?". Before anyone says that 'FM' was a message, please reflect on the sort of message anyone there at the time might have been expecting (the GSG was "The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing" - ever so slightly more to look for than a couple of letters that no-one was looking for).

            "Left it in front for all to see" (IIRC) Maybrick claimed, and in front he most certainly did with his wife's initials on the wall and her first initial carved so unmistakably into the flesh of her arm (Fishy will say he can't see it, mind).

            By the way, Yabs, if the initials weren't on the wall, how could the writer of the scrapbook spot them in a book 100 years later? A strange collection of juxtaposed thoughts there, I have to say. Are you sure you fully thought that one out?

            Finally, and I can't believe I have to say this yet again: if someone writes something in blood on a dirty wall in a dark room next to a body that has been half-destroyed, I would suggest that there is a very good chance that the human eye would not have the acuity to note it.

            Oh, but a cameraman's split-second flash would probably illuminate the scene sufficiently to see it in a decent rendition of the photograph - say a 100 years later or so.

            PS Someone once posted in response to this point about the cameraman's flash something along the lines of, "If the flash lit up the room, how come no-one saw the initials?". It's still one of my Top Five Totally Stupid Comments ever made on this website, the t'other place, and indeed pretty well everything I've ever read, anywhere, ever ...
            Funny how phillips looked at the very area and didn't see anything. You're argument about it being too dark is total rubbish and I'm sure you probably know it. There was a door to open, window. How did kelly live there - crawl around on all fours becuase it was so dark. How did abberline take an inventory of the room in total darkness or the camerman set up his gear. Nonsense Ike, total nonsense.

            I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

              The good news (from my point of view) and the very very very very bad news (from your point of view) is that we have had this debate many times before and on numerous occasions posters who are known to be scrapbook detractors or simply ambivalent towards the scrapbook freely admit to being able to see exactly what you have decided you can't see.

              It's not just my opinion. The initials were first identified as part of Paul Feldman's research into the scrapbook and - once they were identified - it was easy to locate them, even in the very worst renditions of the infamous photograph. I am eternally grateful to Keith Skinner, though, for suggesting I look at Dan Farson's 1972 or 1973 rendition. That's the one I posted above. When you know where to look, they are simply blindingly obvious. The trick is allowing your brain to look so that you know where to look in future.

              Obviously - as I keep saying - we all understand why you have to keep 'not seeing the 'shapes' so many people can see so easily'. It's pure psychology. You fear the consequences of admitting, however reluctantly, however begrudgingly, "Okay, there are shapes which could be said to be an unclear 'F' and an unmistakeable 'M' and - yes - they are right next to one another, and in the right order, and represent the incarnation of the prediction made in the Victorian scrapbook".

              Come on, Fishy. Denial is embarrassing.
              The only embarrassing thing here Ike is the complete utter waste of time spent on James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper with no proof he actually was .

              9400 post about a fake diary and some scribble on the back of a watch .

              If it was all true ,you Ike would be dining with Royalty and Presidents for solving the world's most notorious crime serial killer .

              Let me know when you get an invite.
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • I don't know how many more times it has to be said the light in the room must have been poor.

                There were two small windows, most likely covered in grime. In an enclosed courtyard with limited sunlight.

                The main door was opposite a brick wall which was part of the passage.

                The front door, when opened, went to the bedside table. That would block the light from one of the windows, which likely cast a shadow across the head of the bed and therefore, the wooden partition door on the other side of the bed.

                Blood dries a dark brown on wood. It would be seen as the usual grime to the naked eye in a dark room.

                When the flash ignited, it caught the initials.

                When the blood was applied, there would have been ample light from the fire, and the blood would have been bright red.

                Under intoxication, it is completely feasible Maybrick assumed what he could see clearly at the time would be the same in daylight.

                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                  I don't know how many more times it has to be said the light in the room must have been poor.
                  There were two small windows, most likely covered in grime. In an enclosed courtyard with limited sunlight.
                  The main door was opposite a brick wall which was part of the passage.
                  The front door, when opened, went to the bedside table. That would block the light from one of the windows, which likely cast a shadow across the head of the bed and therefore, the wooden partition door on the other side of the bed.
                  Blood dries a dark brown on wood. It would be seen as the usual grime to the naked eye in a dark room.
                  When the flash ignited, it caught the initials.
                  When the blood was applied, there would have been ample light from the fire, and the blood would have been bright red.
                  Under intoxication, it is completely feasible Maybrick assumed what he could see clearly at the time would be the same in daylight.
                  Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.

                  When your argument is reduced to 'The evidence you cite does not exist', you know that you are dealing with too pre-determined a mind to make any serious progress or advance a case for or against. The almost insane determination to melt-down the evidence so that it appears absent is the hallmark of a mind which has an agenda and agenda are very dangerous when assessing what is true and what is not true.

                  For my part, if someone can give sensible answers to how Florence's initials could even vaguely appear on Kelly's wall given the prediction made in the scrapbook, and if someone could give a sensible reason for James Maybrick's signature being in Albert Johnson's gold watch, I would be willing to concede that the case for authenticity is massively weakened. There would remain a circumstantial case, but the overall case would be little better than speculation whereas - as things stand - we have a scrapbook and a watch which have never been categorically proven to be hoaxes and that sort of evidence cannot be melted down however much hot air the claimants breathe upon it.
                  Iconoclast
                  Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                  Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                  Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                    You're argument about it being too dark is total rubbish and I'm sure you probably know it.
                    There’s no probably about it. Of course, he knows it is total rubbish.

                    If you notice, Ike is constantly accusing others of not giving their honest thoughts and opinions about the Maybrick Hoax—ie., a behavior popularly known as ‘projection.’

                    According to Ike, Stewart Evans, Melvin Harris, etc., didn't really believe the Diary was a modern fake. They saw the Diary as a devastating rival to their own theories--a severe challenge to their very survival as historians of the case.

                    And so, too, Martin Fido. Again according to Ike, Martin was secretly tortured by doubts about the diary's authenticity—but had to guard his academic reputation by saying otherwise…even in private letters.

                    Similarly, ya'll don't really believe there's no 'FM' on the wall...you're just deathly afraid of admitting it. Otherwise, your heads would explode.

                    Of course, these are merely the paranoid ravings of someone who has trained himself to constantly say and write things that he couldn't possibly believe; only a person who has made disingenuousness a constant mental habit would believe that everyone else has done so, too—and even go so far as to project this mental feebleness onto honest and honorable men like Evans, Fido, Harris, etc.

                    But then, that's the psychology of "projection."

                    I don’t know if it is still a thing, but back in the day these types would gather in one corner of Hyde Park and stand on soap boxes for several hours. It was a strange type of public masochism; the jeering of the crowd only seemed to encourage their eccentric ideas, thus further solidifying their insane beliefs. I have often wondered if Richard Wallace ever found a single supporter for his Lewis Carroll theory, or whether he toiled away in a bitter isolation that, thankfully, Iconoclast doesn’t need to experience. In this age of the internet, fellow kooks can now find one another very easily and form small support networks, so at least Ike is not dangerously alone in his delusions as others have been in the past. The isolated eccentric is at risk of falling into depression but if there are two or three fellow savants to bolster his courage, his lectures are a harmless enough pursuit, and we don’t need to worry too much about him.​ He has H***** and F** and O** to listen to his theories with enraptured ears, whereas Wallace apparently only had his long-suffering wife. The poor woman must have damaged her retinas with constant eye rolling.

                    At least this platform gives Ike something to occupy his mind between the devastating but monotonously predictable losses of the Heart of Midlothian F.C. And next up is the mighty Celtic. It's going to be a rough week for Ike. Let us give him our emotional support, even if his theories are so bat guano crazy that even he couldn't possibly believe them.​

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      The only embarrassing thing here Ike is the complete utter waste of time spent on James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper with no proof he actually was .

                      9400 post about a fake diary and some scribble on the back of a watch .

                      If it was all true ,you Ike would be dining with Royalty and Presidents for solving the world's most notorious crime serial killer .

                      Let me know when you get an invite.
                      To be fair, FISHY, one could say the same about anyone ever suspected, and 'the complete utter waste of time' invested in them by other posters, with no proof that any were involved in the murders.

                      The entire suspects section would soon become redundant if nobody gave it the time of day.

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        I don’t know if it is still a thing, but back in the day these types would gather in one corner of Hyde Park and stand on soap boxes for several hours. It was a strange type of public masochism; the jeering of the crowd only seemed to encourage their eccentric ideas, thus further solidifying their insane beliefs. I have often wondered if Richard Wallace ever found a single supporter for his Lewis Carroll theory, or whether he toiled away in a bitter isolation that, thankfully, Iconoclast doesn’t need to experience. In this age of the internet, fellow kooks can now find one another very easily and form small support networks, so at least Ike is not dangerously alone in his delusions as others have been in the past. The isolated eccentric is at risk of falling into depression but if there are two or three fellow savants to bolster his courage, his lectures are a harmless enough pursuit, and we don’t need to worry too much about him.​ He has H***** and F** and O** to listen to his theories with enraptured ears, whereas Wallace apparently only had his long-suffering wife. The poor woman must have damaged her retinas with constant eye rolling.

                        At least this platform gives Ike something to occupy his mind between the devastating but monotonously predictable losses of the Heart of Midlothian F.C. And next up is the mighty Celtic. It's going to be a rough week for Ike. Let us give him our emotional support, even if his theories are so bat guano crazy that even he couldn't possibly believe them.​
                        I was going to ask who H*****, F** and O** are meant to be, and why their names are not fit for RJ's readers to see, but then I thought what the hell?

                        I can see why RJ has moved his operations from 'the other place', where a modicum of decency and respect towards the opinions of other posters has recently been called for. His latest rant here smacks of more bile and desperation than I think I can ever recall seeing before.

                        If RJ genuinely believes that Ike needs 'our emotional support', then his attitude stinks.

                        And it's Newcastle United F.C. by the way, who are currently third in the Premier League table, so it's going to be anything but a 'rough week' for Ike in that respect.
                        Last edited by caz; 05-02-2023, 12:02 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • A morning cup of coffee just wouldn't be the same without having to stumble upon more of your gaslighting, Caroline.


                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          I can see why RJ has moved his operations from 'the other place', where a modicum of decency and respect towards the opinions of other posters has recently been called for. His latest rant here smacks of more bile and desperation than I think I can ever recall seeing before.
                          Was it me who 'moved my operation' over here?

                          Hmm. Let's see.

                          Looking up at this thread, I see that it was you who revived the conversation last Saturday after it had been dead-in-the-water for days without any interest at all in the topic. Some backwards psychoanalysis about Anne Graham which summoned my name even though I specifically asked you to leave me out of your bizarre theorizing.

                          I didn't bother to respond, nor will I do so now, though I surely could.

                          Then a couple of days later, Ike pops in with more repetitive nonsense about initials in the arterial spray and grime and mildew in a grainy photograph.

                          But whatever...still no response.

                          If Thomas/Ike wants to see fairies at the end of the lawn, that's his business--I didn't correct him.

                          I only briefly and finally pointed out his ongoing habit of calling people liars--Martin Fido, Stewart Evans, Maurice Chittenden, and now those who won't admit to seeing the 'FM.'

                          Is that what you call a "modicum of decency and respect" to fellow posters? Implying they are liars?

                          Had you read the rules of conduct at the 'other place' this behavior is strictly prohibited. I quote: "Don't accuse people of lying or deliberately misleading."

                          And yet, we get this from Ike:

                          "Diary detractors and diary supporters alike 100% understand why you have to say that you can't see the 'FM" that is so patently obvious to everyone else. You can't admit to seeing them because you'd have the extremely taxing problem of having to come up with a plausible reason for why the rest of us can see them so easily"

                          Translation: the other poster is lying.

                          So, as is so often the case, is it perhaps possible that you have it backwards once again and it was Thomas who 'brought his operation' over here, where he can engage in these antics?

                          As for the moderators needing to step in, wasn't it Ike who nearly had the Maybrick thread permanently shut down after a torrent of filthy language?
                          ,
                          Let's see, now did it go?

                          THIS FORUM AS A REPUTATION FOR GOOD RESEARCH, I WILL NOT SEE IT DESCEND INTO THE USE OF INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.

                          SO IF YOU WANT THIS THREAD TO REMAIN OPEN, AND I AM MINDED JUST TO CLOSE IT, BEHAVE.

                          But anything to score a point against a perceived enemy, eh?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            To be fair, FISHY, one could say the same about anyone ever suspected, and 'the complete utter waste of time' invested in them by other posters, with no proof that any were involved in the murders.

                            The entire suspects section would soon become redundant if nobody gave it the time of day.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            That is a complete and utter cop out.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              I can’t speak for Orsam, but why would I care that Dodd had some work done on his house on 9 March 1992? He seems to have been a man that had quite a lot of work done on his house.
                              This reminds me of the old expression: 'don't care was made to care'. I suspect RJ would care very much indeed about the evidence that the "old book" was found on that day.

                              You seem to be overly impressed that this happened on the same day that Barrett found a sympathetic literary agent—an activity that could have been spread out over several days or weeks. We don’t know how many ‘misses’ Mike may have made—only the one ‘hit,’ so there’s also an element of confirmation bias, coupled with the rather blasť fact that some electrical work commenced at the same time. As the diary does not mention floorboards, there is no 'coincidence' except what your own mind invents.
                              RJ simplifies all this in his mind, because he would really, really, really have liked just the teeniest bit of evidence that Paul Dodd's house had 'quite a lot of work done' over the weeks, months and up to two years prior to the storage heater job on the first floor, which began on 9th March 1992 and ended three months later. RJ would also really, really, really have liked just the teeniest tiniest speck of evidence that Mike was doing the rounds with his Jack the Ripper diary - or at least the idea for it - 'over several day or weeks' prior to the date of his call to the London agent. Just one person recalling a single attempt prior to 9th March by some bloke with a Liverpool accent, to tempt them with Jack the Ripper's diary, and RJ's worst nightmare would have been quickly forgotten. "Out damned sparky, out I say!"

                              RJ is the one whose mind seems to be desperately inventing undocumented work in Maybrick's old home, and similarly undocumented talk of a diary by Jack the Ripper, before 9th March 1992, which does suggest that he protests too much by insisting it is no more than 'one of those things' that Mike just happened to be tempting a London agent with Maybrick's Battlecrease memoirs [while only claiming to have Jack the Ripper's diary] on the same day that an electrician living on Fountains Road had been sent to help out in the house where Maybrick just happened to have been living when this diary was supposed to have been written, between February 1888 and May 1889.

                              RJ's cherished idea of this being 'one of those things' - like a Martini moment that could happen anytime, any place, anywhere - might have stood a better chance had there not been a wealth of accompanying circumstantial evidence against it, and had there been anything at all going for it, in terms of prior knowledge by anyone on the planet, including Mike and Anne, that Jack the Ripper's diary was already 'a thing' by sunrise on 9th March 1992.
                              Last edited by caz; 05-02-2023, 04:47 PM.
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                                That is a complete and utter cop out.
                                How so, John? I don't argue for Maybrick as the ripper, or Bury, or Lechmere, or Druitt, or Kosminski, or... I could go on, but surely you get the general idea.

                                I just wondered why FISHY singled out the tiny number of Maybrick theorists for his comments.

                                Where was the 'cop out'?

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X