The Diary

[DVV]

It's an addictive thread, thanks to your posts.
Even better than watching Benny Hill on youtube.

[Phil H]

My arguments, alas fall upon deaf ears.

Your entire argument rests on the fact that the whole diary is forged around the photo of Mary Kelly.

At least you have understood THAT!! though I think that is only part of the problem with the diary. It didn't convince me when first published and I have seen no argument to change my mind since.

The onus is on "believers" to prove provenance and genuineness and they have failed to do so in every way. I always thought the diary was "too good to be true" it adds not one iota to our understanding of the case (other than in ways a screenwriter could manage). That fact makes it all the more a case of I'm not accepting anything 'til it's proved 200% to be genuine. the more coincidental a find seems, in art or history, experience shows the more likely it is to be false.

PERHAPS BECAUSE THE WRITER WAS THE MURDERER AND ACTUALLY IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME!

Or because he has seen the picture.

That picture includes things apparently that, despite all the reminscences, all the detail we have of it, was unseen by any of the police officers on the day or at the autopsy afterwards, and that HAVE TO BE VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PICTURE TO MAKE SENSE.

It's you who need to wake up, not me.

You are not talking sense, logic or anything like reason.

Phil H

[caz]

Just a point of semantics.......We see on here a lot of "The Diary says"..Well actually it doesn't.....A interpretation may well say,but that's not the same thing.....IE,the diary does NOT say "I wrote FM on the wall"...........

Steve (who has no axe to grind,but likes to be precise....)

Just what I was going to say, Steve.

It would help enormously if those who talk down to others about the (obvious) need for evidence to support their arguments were to take their own medicine and read the damned thing before posting rubbish about what's in it and what isn't.

One can disagree wholeheartedly with another's interpretation, but it's pointless if it's not based on actual quotes from the diary, preferably with reference to the surrounding context.

People who have never read the diary are regularly misled by others who can't be bothered to read the relevant passages before commenting.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

People who have never read the diary are regularly misled by others who can't be bothered to read the relevant passages before commenting.

For heaven's sake, why would anyone want to waste their time reading that rubbish more than once?

[caz]

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.

Hi Phil,

Which diary entry would that be then? What marks are alleged by its author, that could only have been inspired by the MJK photo?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

People who have never read the diary are regularly misled by others who can't be bothered to read the relevant passages before commenting.

For heaven's sake, why would anyone want to waste their time reading that rubbish more than once?

I rest my case.

[Steve S]

In my case..Cos it's an interesting puzzle in it's own right............I'm not sure exactly what it is,but I'd like to know.........

[Phil H]

What marks are alleged by its author, that could only have been inspired by the MJK photo?

Read the thread.

[ChrisGeorge]

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!

Is it pedantic to point out that the Diarist doesn't talk about leaving FMs. What he or she writes is that they left "an initial here and an initial there". All of this was discussed here on the forum years ago, e.g., in a 2004 thread.

Chris

[Stephen Thomas]

Tempus is well aware that he/she is talking bollocks.

This is an example of the behaviour of Jung's 'Joker' archetype.

Notice that the 'F' moves from an arm to a leg in just a few posts.

[Jason]

goodness me , this thread is more entertaining than Question time with a panel consisting of Germaine Greer, Bernard Manning, Peter Tatchell and Jim Davidson.....keep it up chaps and chapesses...

[Phil Carter]

Tempus is well aware that he/she is talking bollocks.

This is an example of the behaviour of Jung's 'Joker' archetype.

Notice that the 'F' moves from an arm to a leg in just a few posts.

Hello Stephen,

Some people would give an arm and a leg for this eFFin' diary to be genuine.. and do things just for a laugh to see how far they can push people. Jung's joker indeed my friend. Good point.

It's all efffffffffffin' nonsense. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Did you know...Sickert by the way, who's daddy was Danish, plays a name game too.. because the Danish (and Norwegian) for "sure",.... is "sikkert"..
for safety's sake that is.. "for sikkerhets skyld".

An anagram of Maybrick is Y I'M R BACK... not that it matters but it might convince a few FFF'ers, a few MMMMM'ers, a few FM'ers and even a few MF'ers.

JAMES MAYBRICK.......I'M JACKY'S BEAMR ..

BAH humbug morelike!

best wishes

Phil

[Tempus omnia revelat]

My arguments, alas fall upon deaf ears.

Your entire argument rests on the fact that the whole diary is forged around the photo of Mary Kelly.

At least you have understood THAT!! though I think that is only part of the problem with the diary. It didn't convince me when first published and I have seen no argument to change my mind since.
The onus is on "believers" to prove provenance and genuineness and they have failed to do so in every way. I always thought the diary was "too good to be true" it adds not one iota to our understanding of the case (other than in ways a screenwriter could manage). That fact makes it all the more a case of I'm not accepting anything 'til it's proved 200% to be genuine. the more coincidental a find seems, in art or history, experience shows the more likely it is to be false.

No, your right, Phil - it doesn't add one iota to our understanding of the case. Especially if we ignore every explanation that it gives to you about things that are at actual crime scenes (including things in front of your own eyes). We are proving things, Phil, you just don't understand the significance of them.

Again your point of view comes from the fact that the diary is a forgery. What your argument relies on is a coincidence of circumstances and an individual belief that things don't matter because people don't mention them. Even though, one we can see them in the picture ourselves, and two because we know full well that much of the writings and testimony of the people that were present has been lost. If, indeed, they were written down in the first place.

You are aware, I take it, that there was an inquiry led by the police force - at around the same time as the coroner's inquest - thats sole purpose was to deal with evidence relating to the identity of the murderer. We have little or no information about what happened at this inquiry. If the remainder of the Phillips' information relating to the rest of the mutilations to the body (that for some strange reason were not mentioned at the coroner's inquiry) didn't appear at coroner's inquest, it could mean that they were deliberately kept back for this 'police inquiry.' That means that the information regarding these injuries could well have related to the identity of the murderer.

It's you who need to wake up, not me.You are not talking sense, logic or anything like reason.
Phil H

Again, Phil, you talk of logic, reason and sense without actually using any of these things yourself.

A forger decides to forge - or at least makes the final decision to forge a diary - not on information that he can gleen from all the other aspects of Maybrick's life, but on the sheer chance that a camera angle has created something that looks like an F on her arm, and some unknown murderer has decided to place a piece of chemise - very kindly - on top of her body so that it just so happens to make something that he can use as the M. Why he doesn't use the more obvious FM on the wall is anyone's guess.

Are you seriously saying that that is a more plausible argument than me simply stating the obvious: that there is a deliberate cut on her arm in the shape of a letter F (which it is - A DELIBERATE CUT!) and that that chemise should not be there? Regardless of whether we are talking about Maybrick or not, Phil, these things have to be explained with something more than 'It's a camera trick,' or 'no one mentions it, so it cannot be important'.

Phil, you have not answered my questions on the F because you simply do not know. If it is a trick of a camera angle, then which bit is to do with the camera angle and which bit is really there? Or are you saying the whole thing is to do with the angle?

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus is well aware that he/she is talking bollocks.

This is an example of the behaviour of Jung's 'Joker' archetype.

Notice that the 'F' moves from an arm to a leg in just a few posts.

So, I am well aware that I am talking bollocks because I simply follow a diary that has never been proved a fake, and then relate to you, and give explanations for, things that I can clearly see (and so can you) are there with my own eyes. Interesting interpretation

I have never once stated that there was an F on the leg. You know very well what miakaal4 meant when he said that. Stop joining the pedantic brigade!

In fact, miakaal4 makes a very interesting point, in regards this. The diarist states after the intial section about the FM that, 'I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little ryhme on the whores flesh.' If the accentuation is placed on the 'funny little rhyme'(or ,indeed, just the rhyme) part of the sentence, then the whole thing reads as if the diarist is saying that he has already carved something on her arm (i.e., the F) and now he's wondering if he can carve an entire rhyme on the body of his next victim/s.



Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Is that not exactly the same as you have been doing Tempus?
You are insisting things are there..that us other poor mortals cannot see....you can't debate the facts without seemingly throwing your chemise outta the pram....hardly any other bugger can see what you seemingly see...you'll have to deal with it mate...
Regards
Andy

I am insisting things are there that you poor mortals cannot see? Andy (and others, for that matter), if you can't see the chemise that is quite clearly on top of the body, and that that cut looks like a letter F, then I suggest you book an appointment with your local opticians.


Kind regards,


Tempus