The Diary

[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

[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?

[Archaic]

re: Mary's Chemise

Why is the chemise on top of a body that has been clearly mutilated? Was it there before the mutilations were carried out, or was it placed there after?
If it was there whilst the mutilations were carried out, why is it still nicely in position, with no sign of cut marks or any kind of disturbance?

Answer these questions please!

Hi Tempus. I'll try to answer your questions.

Yes, the chemise was there the whole time. A flimsy little cotton chemise probably was not going to slow the killer down at all.

Why do you say the chemise has "no sign of cut marks or any disturbance"? If you look at the crime scene photograph, you'll see it's possible that the killer removed Mary's breasts right through her chemise. Or he may have pushed it up to make those cuts and pulled it down again later. We simply don't know.

As for not being disturbed, the chemise is clearly bunched up above the area of her pelvic mutilations.

It's very difficult for normal people to try to think like a perverted serial killer, but we have to try to look at the crime from the killer's point of view if we want to better understand what the killer was doing and why. You seem to want pat answers that are 'logical' when regarded from the viewpoint of your Maybrick theory, but where's the logic in slaughtering a young woman and taking her body apart with a knife? We are obviously dealing with Abnormal Psychology here- behaviors that are about as far as you can get from the norm. It's really very difficult to try to get inside the head of a brutal killer. It's uncomfortable, unpleasant, and often sickening. It involves stepping out of your comfort zone.

Maybe the killer was actually titillated by the poor little chemise. Maybe leaving it in place added an extra fillip of pleasure for him.
Yeah, it's not a black lace bustier and a g-string, but this was 1888, when just seeing a lady's fully clothed ankle was considered sexy! A chemise was an intimate piece of a woman's apparel. Bras didn't come in until the 1920's, and prostitutes like Mary seldom wore a corset or underwear.. frankly, they just got in the way of business.

Here's another possibility- the killer might actually have asked Mary to leave her chemise on because he liked it! God only knows what turned him on and why.

Either way, once he had slit her throat, do you really expect him to stop what he's doing, put down his knife, and attempt to remove a sleeved garment from a bloody corpse lying on a bed? At that point I don't think "interruptus" would have appealed to him.

I think he also probably used the chemise to help mop up the excess blood, so he could get a better view of his "work" as he went along.

If it wasn't there all the time, then why did the killer waste time moving the thing back on top of the body, when his sole purpose is to kill her and then escape?

Why on earth do you say that? If his "sole purpose" was "to kill her and then escape", why didn't he just slit her throat and leave? Why bother to inflict all the grotesque mutilations??

In fact, that odd statement of yours would seem to negate your own theory- that the killer chose to hang around carving the alphabet into Mary's corpse.

Not trying to be argumentative, but you asked for answers and I've merely attempted to supply them.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Bridewell]

@ 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

Hi Raven,

Indeed. How does the letter 'F', even supposing it's really there, prove that the killer is named James Maybrick? One leap of logic to state that it is a carved 'F', another to state that this is what the diary writer was referring to, and a third to state that the 'F' stands for Florence, not to mention the biggy which states that, because the diary purports to have been written by James Maybrick, he must have written it or even that, because the diary writer claims to have committed the murders, he must actually have done so.

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.

[andy1867]

[QUOTE=Tempus omnia revelat;240393]

Andy - You cannot see an FM? Fair enough! That is your opinion. But you cannot see an F? I'm sorry Andy, but we all know what an F looks like from a very early age - and that looks like one. Sorry.

Once again everybody is skirting round the issue of clear crime-scene evidence: If it is not an F, then what is it and why did the murderer waste his time creating a cut of that shape, size, and depth?

Why is the chemise on top of a body that has been clearly mutilated? Was it there before the mutilations were carried out, or was it placed there after?
If it was there whilst the mutilations were carried out, why is it still nicely in position, with no sign of cut marks or any kind of disturbance? Why did the killer not just move out of the way? Are you saying he cut round it?

If it wasn't there all the time, then why did the killer waste time moving the thing back on top of the body, when his sole purpose is to kill her and then escape?

Answer these questions please! I have! If you can't be bothered to, then please don't knock people who are attemting to shed new light on an area of the crimes that should have been dealt with yonks ago!


Kind regards,


Tempus

don't be so condescending mate...sure everyone knows what an "F" looks like, everyone also knows what a cut looks like...is every straight incision now an "I"?....I'm not knocking anybody....I'm telling it how I see it...you are telling it how you see it/...We see it differently...Its called debate...you call it knocking ... The chemise...is simply thrown in a random fashion as I see it...it could have landed anyhow...you think it was placed, thats your opinion , I happen to disagree...thats obviously me knocking...if it was a game of Dominos...I'm pretty sure it would be you...
Regards
Andy

[RavenDarkendale]

@ 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

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=andy1867;240353]

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

There will be no justice...there will be closure,,,, but only for us on here......this is simply an exercise in "Who dunnit"...sure we can all climb to the moral high ground , but are we being honest with ourselves?
If its Maybrick, what do you propose...some sort of Justice ala Oliver Cromwell...?
Theres nowt wrong with debate....thats all this is , some folk see your ideas as flights of fancy....you see Phils as maybe a closed mind...but you have to go with both, if that brings brickbats instead of bouquets...head down, keep going....I can honestly see no FM...no F ..no nothing in the photographs...so I will simply go with the known facts...sure i'm interested in conjecture, but I don't believe the Diary to be genuine...its too pat...its too easy...
"I am jack the ripper"...oh...thats that then...I honestly don't think we will find out like that...I honestly don't think we will ever find out...
regards
Andy

Andy - You cannot see an FM? Fair enough! That is your opinion. But you cannot see an F? I'm sorry Andy, but we all know what an F looks like from a very early age - and that looks like one. Sorry.

Once again everybody is skirting round the issue of clear crime-scene evidence: If it is not an F, then what is it and why did the murderer waste his time creating a cut of that shape, size, and depth?

Why is the chemise on top of a body that has been clearly mutilated? Was it there before the mutilations were carried out, or was it placed there after?
If it was there whilst the mutilations were carried out, why is it still nicely in position, with no sign of cut marks or any kind of disturbance? Why did the killer not just move out of the way? Are you saying he cut round it?

If it wasn't there all the time, then why did the killer waste time moving the thing back on top of the body, when his sole purpose is to kill her and then escape?

Answer these questions please! I have! If you can't be bothered to, then please don't knock people who are attemting to shed new light on an area of the crimes that should have been dealt with yonks ago!


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

This post is quite the stupidest I ever saw on a JTR internet site.

Why Stephen? Do tell? I was replying to RavenDarkendale, because he had asked a genuinley interesting -and relevant! - question (which is more than most people have done on here). The reply I gave him is perfectly sensible suggestion based on what the diarist says.

Yet again we have a reply to someone who is genuinley trying to decipher clear crime-scene clues that offers absolutely nothing to the debate except typical anti-diarist fobbing off.

What a pathetic post! Tell me why that is a stupid post, Stephen. Come on! Let's argue the facts!


Kind regards,


Tempus

[DVV]

This post is quite the stupidest I ever saw on a JTR internet site.

Why don't you print it, Stephen ? For the sake of... hmmm.... I let you decide.....

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Seconded.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

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

I am perfectly prepared to listen to other peoples points of view. That is why I have answered every question put to me. I am not, however, able to listen to people when their only argument is to dismiss everything in front of them and say it is a trick of a camera angle, or it is a mirage, or that it does not matter. That is what I mean by sloppy - and it is!


The reason why it is not a plain upright F is explained within the three lines of the diary: I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.

The diarist wished for the FM to be there for 'all eyes to see', as he puts it, but also to be difficult to spot, so that he could tease the police or officials of the time. That is why he writes 'but they will never find it. I was to clever.'

The only way someone could place a set of initials right in the front of people in that room, so that it was there for all eyes to see, and yet make sure that no one could see it, is if they created the FM in an unorthodopxed fashion. i.e., in this case, by creating the F by carving it on her arm - instead of simply writing it. Creating the M out of unusual materials, so that it would be there, but not instantly recognisable. And, lastly, by turning the whole initial upside down, or, actually, by creating it from his point of view. This way, the initial is there for all eyes to see, it is in the front, but they will never find it because he has, as he says, been clever with it.


Raven, if the F is in the report, then that proves my point nicely. The only real reference to the mutilation on this arm occurs when Dr Thomas Bond states:

'Both arms and forearms had extensive and jagged wounds.'

If this mark is referred to by that, then they definitely withheld the evidence. This mark is not a jagged wound: it is a large chunk out of her arm in the shape of a letter F; you can clearly see the right angles in it. That means that it was a controlled and deliberate cut. Any doctor worth his sort would have had to have realised this - even if they did not think it was an F;he would have had to have mentioned it in his report. So why did they not mention it?
Remember we are dealing with a group of doctors who had the same skill and level of intelligence as Dr Brown. The same Dr Brown who examined the body of Catherine Eddowes and confidently proclaimed that the murderer had cut two upturned triangular flaps into her cheeks. So if Dr Brown can recognise a triangular shape as small as that, why couldn't these three doctors recognise that a large incision on Kelly's arm had the form of a letter F and that it contained controlled right angles? If they did not think it was an F, then why did they not say 'There was a large incision on Kelly's forearm that gave the overall impression of a letter F'? Which there clearly is! Despite what Phil, and everyone who shares his opinion, would have us believe.

This post is quite the stupidest I ever saw on a JTR internet site.

[andy1867]

[QUOTE=Tempus omnia revelat;240338]RavenDarkendale, I am in Ripperology to discover the identity of the murderer and to bring some justice to the women who were so cruely murdered.

There will be no justice...there will be closure,,,, but only for us on here......this is simply an exercise in "Who dunnit"...sure we can all climb to the moral high ground , but are we being honest with ourselves?
If its Maybrick, what do you propose...some sort of Justice ala Oliver Cromwell...?
Theres nowt wrong with debate....thats all this is , some folk see your ideas as flights of fancy....you see Phils as maybe a closed mind...but you have to go with both, if that brings brickbats instead of bouquets...head down, keep going....I can honestly see no FM...no F ..no nothing in the photographs...so I will simply go with the known facts...sure i'm interested in conjecture, but I don't believe the Diary to be genuine...its too pat...its too easy...
"I am jack the ripper"...oh...thats that then...I honestly don't think we will find out like that...I honestly don't think we will ever find out...
regards
Andy

[DVV]

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

Wow.
But are you sure you are "in Ripperlogy" ?

[Tempus omnia revelat]

@ Tempus

Not denying the mark on her arm can be taken for an upside down "F". If he were leaving this mark for those who discovered the body (and who did you think took the photograph?) why not a plain upright "F".

And I do believe that slashes on the arms are in the coroner's report. This could be a slash with blood flowing into the two points of the "F".

What are YOU doing in Ripperology if someone that disagrees with you is said to have "a sloppy attitude"? Perhaps you are clouding your own argument because you cannot even concede the possibility of a forgery. An good investigator makes his or her own mind up, stands by what they say, (as you have done) but doesn't loose sight of possibilities. You believe the diary to be genuine. It could be. I think it could be forged. It could be. I will allow you your right to believe and Phil the right to call it an out and out fake.

God Bless

RD

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

I am perfectly prepared to listen to other peoples points of view. That is why I have answered every question put to me. I am not, however, able to listen to people when their only argument is to dismiss everything in front of them and say it is a trick of a camera angle, or it is a mirage, or that it does not matter. That is what I mean by sloppy - and it is!


The reason why it is not a plain upright F is explained within the three lines of the diary: I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.

The diarist wished for the FM to be there for 'all eyes to see', as he puts it, but also to be difficult to spot, so that he could tease the police or officials of the time. That is why he writes 'but they will never find it. I was to clever.'

The only way someone could place a set of initials right in the front of people in that room, so that it was there for all eyes to see, and yet make sure that no one could see it, is if they created the FM in an unorthodopxed fashion. i.e., in this case, by creating the F by carving it on her arm - instead of simply writing it. Creating the M out of unusual materials, so that it would be there, but not instantly recognisable. And, lastly, by turning the whole initial upside down, or, actually, by creating it from his point of view. This way, the initial is there for all eyes to see, it is in the front, but they will never find it because he has, as he says, been clever with it.


Raven, if the F is in the report, then that proves my point nicely. The only real reference to the mutilation on this arm occurs when Dr Thomas Bond states:

'Both arms and forearms had extensive and jagged wounds.'

If this mark is referred to by that, then they definitely withheld the evidence. This mark is not a jagged wound: it is a large chunk out of her arm in the shape of a letter F; you can clearly see the right angles in it. That means that it was a controlled and deliberate cut. Any doctor worth his sort would have had to have realised this - even if they did not think it was an F;he would have had to have mentioned it in his report. So why did they not mention it?
Remember we are dealing with a group of doctors who had the same skill and level of intelligence as Dr Brown. The same Dr Brown who examined the body of Catherine Eddowes and confidently proclaimed that the murderer had cut two upturned triangular flaps into her cheeks. So if Dr Brown can recognise a triangular shape as small as that, why couldn't these three doctors recognise that a large incision on Kelly's arm had the form of a letter F and that it contained controlled right angles? If they did not think it was an F, then why did they not say 'There was a large incision on Kelly's forearm that gave the overall impression of a letter F'? Which there clearly is! Despite what Phil, and everyone who shares his opinion, would have us believe.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Carol]

What I always find puzzling is the difficulty which James Maybrick had (in 1888) in locating an 1888 diary in which to record his 1888 diary entries. I can see how getting hold of an unused 1888 diary would pose a problem many years later - but not in 1888.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

When I first joined Casebook in August 2008 I did so because of my newly awakened interest in The Diary. I had just read Anne Graham's book 'The Last Victim'. Up until then I knew hardly anything about JTR. I had written down various thoughts I had at the time. One of them was about the cut out pages at the beginning of the Diary and the mention by the Diarist about 'items going missing' at his office and the trouble he was having with the young clerk asking where these items were.

In my notes I have wondered if the missing items were a piece of chalk and the book the Diary was written in. Did the young clerk use the book as a postage stamp album, for example? The Maybrick office would no doubt receive many letters from America.

What if Maybrick, while in his office, had had a sudden urge to put his feelings and crimes in writing and the only thing available that was suitable was this 'album' of the clerk's? He could easily have cut out the used pages.

The piece of chalk? My imagination had to work a bit more for this explanation. Did some offices at that time have a small blackboard on the wall for employees to write down when they left the building and when they returned?

Just a few thoughts from an old lady still sitting on the fence.

Carol