One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

But that is like asking how did the face of Jesus get on a grilled cheese sandwich? You are assuming that it is actually the face of Jesus before you even begin with no evidence to back up that assumption.

c.d.

Jesus appears to be doing quite a lot of baked appearances on this forum at least. Seems a popular go to for those promoting the idea of seeing things that are not there.

Except something is there. The M has been spotted by many observers at this stage - but those who wish to brand Ike a loon must be disappointed that Simon Wood can no longer claim he was the only person who spotted it. He may have been the first. He may have even changed his mind. But respectable researchers such as Fido and Begg both felt they too could see the M.

The diarist references the initials plurally. An initial here an initial there. Even without the preceding F on the wall we still have the carved arm F and the wall M. It still matches the diarist’s words.

I cannot believe for one second the likes of Begg or Fido or Wood being part of any hoax and they are all highly respected researchers.

Being devils advocate - could they have inadvertently assisted the hoaxer? But as the only candidate we consistently have is Mike Barrett - I find that hard to believe.

I feel this at the very least must rule Devereux, Bongo and Anne completely out of the running. How could any of those individuals have known this? Who would have told them?

[c.d.]

Except something is there.

Agree completely. Something is there on the wall just as there is something on the grilled cheese sandwich. But what in both instances is actually there? That is the pertinent question.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Except something is there.

Agree completely. Something is there on the wall just as there is something on the grilled cheese sandwich. But what in both instances is actually there? That is the pertinent question.

c.d.

With the appearance of Jesus on the grilled cheese sandwich, c.d., there is no rational explanation for why it would be there so one would naturally turn to pareidolia for the most obvious explanation.

With other examples of patterns appearing from out of what is potentially just chaos, we cannot turn to pareidolia as a catch-all explanation until we have explored alternative, more likely possibilities. In the case of Florence's initials on Kelly's wall, there is a possible explanation (I avoided the temptation to stick in there 'rational' for fear that the argument gets lost in a torrent of abuse which takes the discussion off tangent) in the shapes being initials. What is more likely, that we are seeing actual initials or random blood splatters which have articulated themselves confusingly as if they were familiar letters from the English alphabet? Well, it is for the individual to decide.

I am one such an individual and I have concluded that the phrase in the Maybrick scrapbook can be tied directly to those shapes and that therefore they must be actual initials. Others will obviously differ. What I would say, however, is that - if they are not initials consciously put there - it is another of this case's many miracles that they appear to be where the Maybrick scrapbook appears to predict they could be found.

The only 'reasonable' solution to this dilemma is that a hoaxer somehow identified those letters pre-1992 and then had the brilliant idea of backward-engineering a hoax from them as first base. He or she would have had to have identified the 'FM', then thought of Florence Maybrick (perfectly possible - we are in Liverpool here after all), then thought to use her husband James as their foil for Jack, and then - and here's the really really difficult bit - managed to find a candidate who just kept on working as Jack every time any additional piece of detail in his life was uncovered, including discovering that 'James' marries neatly with 'Juwes' in the GSG amongst a whole host of additional convenient established facts about James' life (that is, in summary, that he had clear means, motive, and opportunity).

I'm uncomfortable with any theory which requires such miracles to be a requisite part before they can properly function so I'm far more inclined to say that the Victorian scrapbook which was produced for the public in 1992 was almost certainly the real deal. I have no axe to grind so I'm willing to accept that this was the case until it is shown unequivocally otherwise which - of course - 30 years of desperate trying have singularly failed to achieve. At that point, I will move on, no tears shed, having enjoyed the journey, and completely unphased by the revelation that I had been so very wrong.

Cheers,

Ike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Ike,

As I'm rarely on here these days, and have no personal "favourite" "suspect"... I'd like to quote something you said...

Quote

I wonder which version of the photograph they were looking at, by the way?

Unquote

And there, I suggest, is your answer to the whole business. Because the Original MJK1 certainly does not contain any initials, nor the Original MJK2 for that matter. So, the "version" you ask about, is clearly not one of the original two photographs.

Whatever the answer you come up with, it won't help your theory one jot. Because if the initials aren't on the original photographs... It must mean....??


Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Ike,

My problem is that it seems two different questions are being conflated and being turned into an if A then B argument. The first question should be does there "appear" to be the initials F. and M. on the wall? I can only speak for myself but I would say yes. The second question should be does that mean then that they are actually the letters F. and M.? The answer to that question to me should be no. And if the answer is no then I think the next step is to ask what could account for the "appearance" of said letters. I think pareidolia is a very reasonable answer. Now does that mean they are in fact pareidolia and not actual letters? No. That can't be proven. Nor can simply making the argument that letters can be seen prove they are in fact actual letters.

As for the grilled cheese sandwich, Jesus said there will be signs. Now he can be seen in a grilled cheese sandwich. If that ain't a sign I don't know what is. But isn't that like using the diary to prove the letters are there and then using the letters to prove the diary is authentic?

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike,

As I'm rarely on here these days, and have no personal "favourite" "suspect"... I'd like to quote something you said...

Quote

I wonder which version of the photograph they were looking at, by the way?

Unquote

And there, I suggest, is your answer to the whole business. Because the Original MJK1 certainly does not contain any initials, nor the Original MJK2 for that matter. So, the "version" you ask about, is clearly not one of the original two photographs.

Whatever the answer you come up with, it won't help your theory one jot. Because if the initials aren't on the original photographs... It must mean....??


Phil

Hi Phil,

It ain't so easy as that - if it were, the discussion really would have been over that evening in the City Darts pub.

The initials 'FM' are visible on both versions - MJK1 and MJK2 - but one appears to be rendered much better than the other which is, presumably, why I asked the question you quoted (as it is easier to see the initials in the one compared with the other which might explain certain people having difficulty seeing them).

Cheers,

Ike

[Harry D]

If the camera had been slightly lower, the "FM" never would've been seen. Neither would the other letters you can make out.

[c.d.]

The initials 'FM' are visible on both versions - MJK1 and MJK2 -

Except that they are not. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Change it to the initials F. and M. appear to be in both versions. This is why this whole argument is so convoluted and won't die.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

The initials 'FM' are visible on both versions - MJK1 and MJK2 -

Except that they are not. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Change it to the initials F. and M. appear to be in both versions. This is why this whole argument is so convoluted and won't die.

c.d.

Hello c. d,

Thank you for that confirmation. I thought my old memory was going for a minute!

Phil

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

My problem is that it seems two different questions are being conflated and being turned into an if A then B argument.

Be careful, c.d., not to turn something which seems conflated to you into something which is conflated for all. I see no conflation.

The first question should be does there "appear" to be the initials F. and M. on the wall? I can only speak for myself but I would say yes.

That is the intellectual honest answer, c.d. - it is patently obvious to more than simply I that those letters appear to be on Kelly's wall.

The second question should be does that mean then that they are actually the letters F. and M.? The answer to that question to me should be no.

So - to be clear - the critical bit of this latest quotation is "to me". You are welcome to your opinion and as long as you don't draw conclsuions on the back of your opinion, you will not incur a burden of proof.

And if the answer is no then I think the next step is to ask what could account for the "appearance" of said letters.

Yes, but only if you are pursuing your opinion as the correct case. There is a truth there, and you are now operating as though yours needs to be explained which is absolutely fine but please remember it is your truth not everyone's truth.

I think pareidolia is a very reasonable answer.

Fine. You don't need to support this with any evidence and there is no burden of proof.

Now does that mean they are in fact pareidolia and not actual letters? No. That can't be proven. Nor can simply making the argument that letters can be seen prove they are in fact actual letters.

That's right, c.d., all we can do is draw inference from whatever else we know is true. So, what do we know is true? Well, we know that the Maybrick scrapbook predicts that Florence Maybrick's initials have something to do with Kelly's room so we can say that - if we can see those letters in Kelly's room - that implies either confirmation that the author knew what they were talking about because they put them there or else it implies that a hoaxer saw those letters on Kelly's wall and worked backwards from there to create a hoax where James Maybrick was the fall guy yet again. A third option is that the hoaxer just wrote what they wrote completely without reason and yet somehow or other what they wrote was supported by the Kelly photograph (but no-one is going to sign-up to that one, surely?). It's really just about which version you find to be the most rational.

As for the grilled cheese sandwich, Jesus said there will be signs. Now he can be seen in a grilled cheese sandwich. If that ain't a sign I don't know what is.

I do so hope that's a joke, c.d., and not an argument?[/QUOTE]

But isn't that like using the diary to prove the letters are there and then using the letters to prove the diary is authentic?

Remember, c.d., we've agreed that we cannot prove that the letters are there. We can only say with any certainty that Florence's initials appear to be there. If her initials appear to be there, it is a smoking gun that would test the best of lungs because it is so unlikely that they would be there if the scrapbook was a hoax (unless you plump for version 2, above).

We cannot use the diary to prove that the letters are there, but we can certainly use the prediction in the diary that they would be associated with Kelly's room as a reason to check if there is any evidence that they are there and - if there appears to be that evidence - to draw rational inferences from that.

And that, dear readers, is why I will plump for version 1 every time.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The initials 'FM' are visible on both versions - MJK1 and MJK2 -

Except that they are not. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Change it to the initials F. and M. appear to be in both versions. This is why this whole argument is so convoluted and won't die.

c.d.

Visible and appear are effectively synonyms here, c.d., so - if you prefer it, yes, they appear to be there.

[Iconoclast]

If the camera had been slightly lower, the "FM" never would've been seen. Neither would the other letters you can make out.

Harry, I'd hate to think you'd post that without there being a point, but I don't think I can spot it.

[Iconoclast]

Hello c. d,

Thank you for that confirmation. I thought my old memory was going for a minute!

Phil

I think you are misunderstanding the point c.d. was making there, Phil. Read his post again.

[Harry D]

Harry, I'd hate to think you'd post that without there being a point, but I don't think I can spot it.

It's all bit too convenient, isn't it? Just like the diary itself.

[Iconoclast]

It's all bit too convenient, isn't it? Just like the diary itself.

Great logic, Harry.

Maybe if the camera had been higher, we'd have seen "I am Lechmere" in blood?

You can only deal with what you've got.