The Diary

[Stephen Thomas]

I am in Ripperology to discover the identity of the murderer and to bring some justice to the women who were so cruely murdered.

Hello Tempus

No, you're not. You are 'in Ripperology' to try to prove that your favoured suspect Maybrick is JTR and are using classic 'mad scientist' logic to this end. There simply is no 'F' or 'FM' carved on Kelly's arm so why are you saying there is?

[RavenDarkendale]

At the end of the day, it's either genuine or it's a fake. The one thing it isn't, IMHO, is proof that Maybrick committed the Whitechapel Murders.

Regards, Bridewell.

@Bridewell

Not exactly that simple. Long line of possible scenarios:

1) The Diary is genuine, written by James Maybrick who was the Ripper
2) The Diary was written by James Maybrick, who angry with his wife flaunting her affair, fantasizes about the Ripper
3) The Diary was written by the Ripper, and Maybrick has nothing to do with it, JtR learning about the Maybrick mess through gossip
4) The Diary was faked by a contemporary who knew Maybrick was the Ripper
5) The Diary was faked by Florence's lover, hoping to implicate Maybrick
6) The Diary was faked sometime between 1888 and 1921 just for the hell of it
7) The Diary is a modern fake that was so well done it confounds even the experts
8) And speaking of point 7, we would have to add bullet points for every person involved who might have faked the Diary

It being real or faked has thus layers of truth or deception. I stand by my own statement that nothing is impossible to fake given time, resources, and skill. I believe it could be faked, and lean towards point 6

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hello Tempus

No, you're not. You are 'in Ripperology' to try to prove that your favoured suspect Maybrick is JTR and are using classic 'mad scientist' logic to this end. There simply is no 'F' or 'FM' carved on Kelly's arm so why are you saying there is?

Stephen, now you are not only ignoring things that are right in front of your eyes, you are now telling someone whom you have never met before what they think and feel. Incredible!

Mad scientist logic equates to seeing something with my own eyes and merely stating what it looks like, does it? Think about what you are saying, Stephen, it is only yourself that you are fooling.

Yet again you fail to answer any of the questions put to you because if you did stop and think for a second, you would have to come to the same conclusion I have.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[DVV]

It's really time to take your pills, mate.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

@ Tempus

For the sake of argument, let us say that the F is there on her arm. Even with this accepted as fact, I do not see why the writer of the Diary put so much stock in it being a clue. There were no suspects with the initials FM. So are the police supposed to connect the clue to Maybrick by saying "You know, James Maybrick's wife is named Florance and I understand they're having a rocky marriage. We need to get Maybrick in for questioning."

If the Diary is genuine and Maybrick thought himself so very clever why not a J instead of an F and the M highly defined? The writer of the Diary thinks he left the clue so obvious, yet it would take a leap of logic to infer the Ripper's identity from that upside down F.

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

God It's nice to see someone asking sensible questions on here!

The reason why Maybrick leaves FMs everywhere is because the diarist clearly states that the Mary Kelly reminds him of his wife. That is why he leaves FMs everywhere - in this case - and not JMs. This clue is just one in a long line of clues he has left for the police (The Vs on eddowes is face and the items at Chapman's body - which not only included a torn piece of envelope with the letter M on it, but also a suggested J).

Also - and you'll have to take my word for this RavenDarkendale, sorry - I am coming from a point of view that I am aware that there are other writings in the room that other people may not be aware of. Therefore, the FM that is in the front (although extremely important), is not the be all and end all of my argument. It is merely one major factor.

Secondly, you are missing the point of Maybrick's intention. He does not care if the police find the item or not; he is merely teasing them with clues. The whole thing is about testing their intelligence to see if they can find it, rather seeing if they can actually work out who's initials they stand for. If they find the thing, he is likely to be a bit miffed, but no harm will come of it because, as you say, in all likelyhood they will not understand to whom the initials refer. If they do not find them, then Maybrick can have a jolly good laugh at them for completely missing something that is staring them right in the face.
Remember the mocking tone of the diary, RavenDarkendale - he pokes fun at the police all the way through.

Next: The diarist does not state that the F and M are obvious, he merely says that they are there for 'all eyes to see', which does not mean that they can be easily spotted. He states, quite clearly, that they they are 'there for all eyes to see' but that people will not be able to see them because he has been 'clever' with them. This means that he has done something to them so that they will be harder to spot. Remember that when he states that people will be unable to spot them, he is not referring to you an I, one hundred years later, but he is referring to the police and officials of the time who he has absolutley no faith in. This, again, is mentioned many times throughout the diary.

At the end of the day Raven, all I am doing is interpreting three lines in a diary, that a bloke who says he is Jack the Ripper has written (and that I have absolutely no reason for disbelieving), and showing you and everyone what he is referring to. When I look where he states there's something, low and behold there is one half of what he is telling me is there - the F. The other half people may not understand, either because it is to difficult for them to comprehend, or because they simple do not want to understand. But again, I have explained this. If people can still not understand why a piece of clothing should not be on top of a body that has been clearly mutilated - and, as it is, there then should be a reason for this - then I cannot help it.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Phil H]

That is why he leaves FMs everywhere

EVERYWHERE?

Name one other occasion outside Miller's court?

Why is there no contemporary evidence of these writings being identified - by policemen who were on site and could look more closely than we.

Without the photo we would not even know what the diary was talking about. Hence (QED) the diary entry MUST post-date the ability to see the picture which was recent.

It is pro-diary fanatics that need to look at the artifact and recognise its clear modernity and how facile a forgery it is. They should, IMHO be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

It's really time to take your pills, mate.

Yet another pathetic reply from a someone that belongs to a group of people who wish to ignore things to suit there own ends.

Do not worry DVV, I shall be back to annoy you and all your anti-diarist friends with even more proof.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[miakaal4]

I cannot understand how one can read the diary and then say, with their hand on the heart, it is a "facile forgery". Which is also saying that half a dozen real experts don't know their jobs, and dozens are lying their heads off for no profit.
The diary was written by an evil man, who had information he could not have had unless he was the killer. Perhaps it is just that some people prefer to chase the tail?

[Tempus omnia revelat]

That is why he leaves FMs everywhere

EVERYWHERE?

Name one other occasion outside Miller's court?

Why is there no contemporary evidence of these writings being identified - by policemen who were on site and could look more closely than we.

Without the photo we would not even know what the diary was talking about. Hence (QED) the diary entry MUST post-date the ability to see the picture which was recent.

It is pro-diary fanatics that need to look at the artifact and recognise its clear modernity and how facile a forgery it is. They should, IMHO be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Phil H

Phil, read what I have said correctly. When I say everywhere, I am referring to the bedroom of Mary Kelly. Do not act. You know perfectly well what I am saying.

Your second point, Phil, has already been answered. I cannot keep going over things that have already been explained to you. Look at my previous posts.

Your right, Phil - we would not know what the diarist was talking about if we did not have the picture; but why does that necessarily mean that the diary must post date the image. Again you are coming from the point of view that the diary is a fake and that without the photo that part of the diary would not exsist. You have absoultely no evidence to substantiate that claim.

You are also failing to note that, leaving the diary aside, there is still something in the photo that looks like an F and a piece of chemise on top of her body that needs to be explained. So what are they doing there?

Oh, I'm forgetting, it is all to do with a matter of camera angles and saying things in crime scenes don't really matter, isn't it? Sorry.

The only people perverting the course of justice, Phil, is people like you who continually shove important historical documents to one side because you cannot be bothered to - or rather don't want to - explain things.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I cannot understand how one can read the diary and then say, with their hand on the heart, it is a "facile forgery". Which is also saying that half a dozen real experts don't know their jobs, and dozens are lying their heads off for no profit.
The diary was written by an evil man, who had information he could not have had unless he was the killer. Perhaps it is just that some people prefer to chase the tail?

What half a dozen experts? Do tell? And to say they are lying there heads off for no profit. Think again about that one again miakaal4.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Phil H]

I cannot understand how one can read the diary and then say, with their hand on the heart, it is a "facile forgery".

Read it. There is NOTHING in it that adds to our knowledge of the murders.

Which is also saying that half a dozen real experts don't know their jobs, and dozens are lying their heads off for no profit.

I recall that 20 years ago many prominent Ripper authors signed up to a gagging aagreement just to get to see the diary in advance of publication. I was shocked then, but not really surprised.

In the art world experts are often wrong, misled or whatever. Judgements are reversed, new views taken on board. In history, experts constantly change their views. Most of the judgements made are just that.

The diary was written by an evil man, who had information he could not have had unless he was the killer.

Be PRECISE please - what NEW information did the diarist reveal that ONLY he could reveal?

Phil, read what I have said correctly.

I did. It is you who are confused and woolly.

When I say everywhere, I am referring to the bedroom of Mary Kelly. Do not act. You know perfectly well what I am saying.

Everywhere means everywhere. But if we restrict our reference to the room - why did NO policeman at the time EVER refer to these so obvious markings? Tell me please, were there markings on the window wall of the room, or the fireplace wall? the camera cannot see those, but if the markings were EVERYWHERE they should surely be there too?

Your second point, Phil, has already been answered. I cannot keep going over things that have already been explained to you.

So you don't want to debate the point - I'll take it then that you are avoiding answering my question.

Your right, Phil - we would not know what the diarist was talking about if we did not have the picture; but why does that necessarily mean that the diary must post date the image.

1) No contemporary evidene other than the diary and the picture are relevent - no one independently menations the alleged markings. You thus have to contemplate cover-up or that the markings are subjectively perceived in the pic.

2) from the time of MM to recent times (Rumbelow) no one saw the pic. So any reference to markings in any written source would have made much sense unless very explicit. So the diary entry ONLY makes sense if one knows the pic is there to confirm the alleged marks.

3) the markings appear placed (if true - which I do not accept) so that they would be visible to the photographer. It follows that if he had taken the picture from any other angle he would have missed them. the obvious place to put a mark would be above the behead - which is indeed much more accessible.

4) the alleged markings make most sense if we assume that they are perceived in the picture and not real. that is confirmed by the fact that they were not visible to those in the room, and appear in the pic. It is in effect proof that the diarist/forger saw the pic, looked for things he could refer to and then mentioned them. He knew that people would then go back to the pics and if they perceived them too, be amazed. But it is false logic.

QED the diary is later than the publication fo the MJK pic.

Again you are coming from the point of view that the diary is a fake and that without the photo that part of the diary would not exsist.

That ALL the diary would not exist.

You have absoultely no evidence to substantiate that claim.

I have just set it out so that even YOU can understand.

You are also failing to note that, leaving the diary aside, there is still something in the photo that looks like an F and a piece of chemise on top of her body that needs to be explained.

Nope. No need to explain chemise and no "F" except subjectively. I have been studying history for years and have learned to be very sceptical of claims such as you make.

Oh, I'm forgetting, it is all to do with a matter of camera angles

Think it through.

and saying things in crime scenes don't really matter

If something in the crime scene MATTERED wouln't it have been mentioned at the time? The police were so short of clues that an obvious set of initials would have been commented on. Look at the discussion of Scwartz' testimony and the meaning of "Lipski". I say again there is NO contemporary mention of the alleged markings in existing records, memoirs etc. Yet many other minor details are on record. tell me why that is?

The only people perverting the course of justice, Phil, is people like you who continually shove important historical documents to one side because you cannot be bothered to - or rather don't want to - explain things.

Total nonsense. I am applying the usual historical method applied internationally throughout the academic world. it is for diaryist to prove the provenance and authenticity of their artifact to the general acceptance of their peers before suggesting we buuild anything on it. That has not yet been done.

I am applying basic logic to the premises you assert and finding deep fault. I am comparing yor claims with recorded official files and finding you wanting.

If you read my other posts I have been a stickler for the fact that evidence cannot be set aside for the convenience of theory and that contemporary views cannot be ignored. I am applying the reverse edge of the same approach to the diary - it is not evidence and cannot be taken into account until it is both accepted as such by the field and priven to be authentic in terms of provenance and forensic testing. Both are basic and essential.

Phil H

[Tempus omnia revelat]

I cannot understand how one can read the diary and then say, with their hand on the heart, it is a "facile forgery".

Read it. There is NOTHING in it that adds to our knowledge of the murders.

Which is also saying that half a dozen real experts don't know their jobs, and dozens are lying their heads off for no profit.

I recall that 20 years ago many prominent Ripper authors signed up to a gagging aagreement just to get to see the diary in advance of publication. I was shocked then, but not really surprised.

In the art world experts are often wrong, misled or whatever. Judgements are reversed, new views taken on board. In history, experts constantly change their views. Most of the judgements made are just that.

The diary was written by an evil man, who had information he could not have had unless he was the killer.

Be PRECISE please - what NEW information did the diarist reveal that ONLY he could reveal?

Phil, read what I have said correctly.

I did. It is you who are confused and woolly.

When I say everywhere, I am referring to the bedroom of Mary Kelly. Do not act. You know perfectly well what I am saying.

Everywhere means everywhere. But if we restrict our reference to the room - why did NO policeman at the time EVER refer to these so obvious markings? Tell me please, were there markings on the window wall of the room, or the fireplace wall? the camera cannot see those, but if the markings were EVERYWHERE they should surely be there too?

Your second point, Phil, has already been answered. I cannot keep going over things that have already been explained to you.

So you don't want to debate the point - I'll take it then that you are avoiding answering my question.

Your right, Phil - we would not know what the diarist was talking about if we did not have the picture; but why does that necessarily mean that the diary must post date the image.

1) No contemporary evidene other than the diary and the picture are relevent - no one independently menations the alleged markings. You thus have to contemplate cover-up or that the markings are subjectively perceived in the pic.

2) from the time of MM to recent times (Rumbelow) no one saw the pic. So any reference to markings in any written source would have made much sense unless very explicit. So the diary entry ONLY makes sense if one knows the pic is there to confirm the alleged marks.

3) the markings appear placed (if true - which I do not accept) so that they would be visible to the photographer. It follows that if he had taken the picture from any other angle he would have missed them. the obvious place to put a mark would be above the behead - which is indeed much more accessible.

4) the alleged markings make most sense if we assume that they are perceived in the picture and not real. that is confirmed by the fact that they were not visible to those in the room, and appear in the pic. It is in effect proof that the diarist/forger saw the pic, looked for things he could refer to and then mentioned them. He knew that people would then go back to the pics and if they perceived them too, be amazed. But it is false logic.

QED the diary is later than the publication fo the MJK pic.

Again you are coming from the point of view that the diary is a fake and that without the photo that part of the diary would not exsist.

That ALL the diary would not exist.

You have absoultely no evidence to substantiate that claim.

I have just set it out so that even YOU can understand.

You are also failing to note that, leaving the diary aside, there is still something in the photo that looks like an F and a piece of chemise on top of her body that needs to be explained.

Nope. No need to explain chemise and no "F" except subjectively. I have been studying history for years and have learned to be very sceptical of claims such as you make.

Oh, I'm forgetting, it is all to do with a matter of camera angles

Think it through.

and saying things in crime scenes don't really matter

If something in the crime scene MATTERED wouln't it have been mentioned at the time? The police were so short of clues that an obvious set of initials would have been commented on. Look at the discussion of Scwartz' testimony and the meaning of "Lipski". I say again there is NO contemporary mention of the alleged markings in existing records, memoirs etc. Yet many other minor details are on record. tell me why that is?

The only people perverting the course of justice, Phil, is people like you who continually shove important historical documents to one side because you cannot be bothered to - or rather don't want to - explain things.

Total nonsense. I am applying the usual historical method applied internationally throughout the academic world. it is for diaryist to prove the provenance and authenticity of their artifact to the general acceptance of their peers before suggesting we buuild anything on it. That has not yet been done.

I am applying basic logic to the premises you assert and finding deep fault. I am comparing yor claims with recorded official files and finding you wanting.

If you read my other posts I have been a stickler for the fact that evidence cannot be set aside for the convenience of theory and that contemporary views cannot be ignored. I am applying the reverse edge of the same approach to the diary - it is not evidence and cannot be taken into account until it is both accepted as such by the field and priven to be authentic in terms of provenance and forensic testing. Both are basic and essential.

Phil H

Phil, I simply cannot be bothered to argue with someone who fails to listen to anything I have said.

I know what I mean by everywhere. I was simply referring to the fact that he had placed not just one FM, but several FMs (as he clearly states) in and around the area of the body. Stop being pedantic!

If you really think you do not need to explain things that should not be there then I feel sorry for you. Again, it is only you who are cheating yourself. The fact that you state that you are an historian, and yet advocate completely ignoring things that are in front of your own eyes, is staggering.

Again, the difference between me and you, Phil, is that you seem to rely on other people mentioning things in order for them to be relevant, whereas I look at things myself and come to my own conclusions. You say you are applying logic to your arguments - your are not. You are relying on other people to tell you what is there and what is not, even when you can see that that is not the case.

No one mentions the F so it does not matter or it cannot be there. Ridiculous! No one mentions the chemise, so it cannot be important. Ridiculous!

You are comparing my claims to official files and finding deep fault with them. But you are not comparing my claims to the actual photograph and using your own logic!


Just answer one simple question, Phil: how do you think the chemise got where it is? You will agree that it did not materialise from nowhere, yes? Or that it grew little legs and walked there of its own accord? So how did it get there? Answer, Phil. If we have to get there by doing it in stages, I then so be it.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Phil H]

Again, the difference between me and you, Phil, is that you seem to rely on other people mentioning things in order for them to be relevant, whereas I look at things myself and come to my own conclusions.

The difference between you and me sunshine, is that I deal with evidence and flag up speculation where I indulge it. You, as your ill-based posts demonstrate, jump to conclusions and indulge in asserting what you want to believe NOT what can be demonstrated and gain peer acceptance. It is for you to PROVE your points, not for me or others to accept them at face value.

The low quality of thought of many diary enthusiasts indicates the level of support it garners, frankly.

Given your condescension I will only respond to one other issue you raise in your post.

What is there in the picture was there, unless the whole picture is a forgery which raises other questions!! But the alleged markings may well be subjective BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT COMMENTED ON AT THE TIME BY THOSE WHO WERE THERE. if they are/were so clear it is for you to explain that. Otherwise the inference must be that markings which you say are so clear were not clear to those there at the time.

[miakaal4]

The experts are the people who have said on record that they think the diary is older than 1987.
And there is an F carved on the leg. Maybrick says he "Left it in front for all to see". He then wonders if he can carve a verse into his next victim.
As there would be no next Kelly, why would he say that? As a forger I mean?
Maybricks next victim was by that standard almost boring for him.

[Phil H]

The experts are the people who have said on record that they think the diary is older than 1987.

Somwhat circular thinking and thus self-fulfilling!! Besides given when Rumbelow found the picture the diary could date from the late 60s.

And there is an F carved on the leg. Maybrick says he "Left it in front for all to see".

Give me one shred of evidence from 1888 that it WAS seen by police or those conducting the autopsy.

He then wonders if he can carve a verse into his next victim.
As there would be no next Kelly, why would he say that? As a forger I mean?

Do I have to explain it to you? Anyone can write that? It's like beginning in media res (in the middle of things, should you not be latinate) because pages are missing from the front of the forgery. It provides for a sense of continuity rather than ending - what one would expect...

Please, please, you seem like a nice man, be less credulous.

Phil H