The Diary

[RavenDarkendale]

Erm....The F is not there because it is a trick of the camera or a mirage angle. Sorry, Phil, that is ludicrous! Everyone with a pair of eyes can see that there is a large incision on her arm in the shape of an F. This mark is an F whether you look at it from the front, it is an F if you turn it upside down (as I have done) and it is an F from above - as you can see from the upturned angle. If you are going to continue to ignore things that your own eyes can see, then what are you doing in Ripperology in the first place?
Also remember they didn't even mention there was a large incision on her arm. Even If we do not believe it is an F, we can surley all see that?

@ 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

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus - are you insinuating that the murderer, diarist had the power to direct how the PHOTOS were taken - or to ensure their survival?

If the pics had been taken from almost any other angle what you insist are deliberate clues left by the killer would either be invisible or obscure. How - if the "other" MJK pic had been the only one to survive - would anyone today have seen the "initials" etc? They would not.

The logical assumption is that diarist saw the usual MJK on bed pic, scoured it, found something he could use and bob's your uncle. end of story. The initials etc are entirely a perceptual thing, never noticed until someone LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE found those particular makes useful.

NOTE WELL - the police were in that room from the start, the body was autosied, yet NOT A SINGLE MENTION IS MADE BY ANY POLICEMAN of what you say is so obvious. So the deduction is they were not seen - probably because from any angle but that of the camera, they were not there in the form you insist on - it is a mirage, a trick of the angle.

Like the so-called "sphinx on Mars" remember that - a lot of foolish people weaved whole theories of civilisations, connections with earth, ancient astronauts, and millenial doom. When NASA photographed the same point again from a different angle it all dissolved into geologivcal rock formations and tricks of light. THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING THERE.

The mention of these non-existent "bloody graffiti" shows that the diary forger had seen the pic. This was not widely known of until (I think) Don Rumbleow found it in the 60s and had not been seen before. So to mention these marks, which only make sense in the context of the pic - proves the forgery to me.

Nuff said, case closed, bye.

Phil H

Phil, yet again your argument is clouded by your natural instinct that the diary is a forgery - even though you have absolutley no evidence for this.Your points about the photo prove this.

Do you not understand that the murderer is not doing this for a photograph! He is doing it for the people who would enter the room at the time! It is nothing to do with directing a photograph!

Secondly, what angle would you suggest a photographer takes it from? This angle is the natural angle as it shows all the body and also the view anyone would have had if they had wanted to view it once entering the room. Even the people looking through the window would have had the same view.

From your point of view it seems that you are insinuating that if the photo never existed then neither would the items in it; but just because it does, we have to ignore everything that is there!

The problem with anti-diarists, Phil, is that they have a very easy argument, all the time. If the photo exsists, then the diarist must have seen it and made it up from there. If it hadn't been taken, and the diary had still turned up, it is still a fake because there is no way of checking. Very, very, clever; but it will not work with me.

Why is it the logical assumption that someone found the intials and used it in the diary? If that is so, why then did he not use the most obvious FM on the wall? Why did he bother looking around the rest of the photo on the off chance of finding something else that looked like ann FM. Ridiculous!

Erm....The F is not there because it is a trick of the camera or a mirage angle. Sorry, Phil, that is ludicrous! Everyone with a pair of eyes can see that there is a large incision on her arm in the shape of an F. This mark is an F whether you look at it from the front, it is an F if you turn it upside down (as I have done) and it is an F from above - as you can see from the upturned angle. If you are going to continue to ignore things that your own eyes can see, then what are you doing in Ripperology in the first place?

How can three eminent doctors not notice an F on her forearm? Absolutely correct - they can't. But your reasoning incorporates the fact that if they didn't mention it, it cannot be there - even though you can see it with your own eyes. My reasoning dictates that I can quite clearly see the mark on her arm (F or not) and so the doctors who examined her must have deliberately withheld the information, or it has been lost to time. Remember, it is a well known that Baxter Phillips (I think) was not forthcoming with regards the injuries to the body at the inquest. This suggests he was withholding information, for some reason. Also remember they didn't even mention there was a large incision on her arm. Even If we do not believe it is an F, we can surley all see that?

The bloody marks do not exsist! How do you know? How are you in a positon to tell me something that I have researched does not exsist? Leave the bloody marks to me, Phil, they will be here soon enough.

Yet again, Phil, you have chosen to ignore all the questions I have put forward to you. Questions that need to be asked. I, in return, have offered up answers to yours (whether you agree with them or not) which are based on logic and fact.

The difference between you and me Phil is that, when confronted with a document that purports to come from the killer, I look at what the man says, and I research it to see if it is true. When he says that he has left something for me to find, where he has left it and what he has done with it, and when I look there, he is proved correct, I go: 'Ooo! That's interesting! He was right. Maybe there is something in this. Let's look at this more closely.' Whereas you go: 'Coincidence! Not true!' and basically bung it into the dark rescesses of Ripperology.

That is a sloppy attitude to take, by anyone's standard.



Kind regards,


Tempus

[Iain Wilson]

Oh, haven't you read the Jack Russell theory??

He wore a coat that made a noise when he moved - so he was "Jack the Russeller"!!! (sorry!)

ARGH. I laughed out at that. I feel dirty...

FC is interesting....check out where your respective football teams were playing that day...The nearest i can find for Wednesday is that they played Long Eaton in the F.A cup on the 5th of November 1888....plenty of time to get to Whitechapel and back...I suspect a local unknown London side.......Fulham?

You're missing the obvious Andy. Celtic FC were founded in 1888 and played their first match in May of that year, beating Rangers 5-2. Given that Celtic were founded as a charity to help (primarily) poor Irish immigrants, and that Rangers represented the establishment it should be BLATENTLY obvious that this was the work of a derranged Rangers fan (Mary Kelly was Irish after all) and that the FC stands for "F*** Celtic".

You're not telling me that nobody else can see that?

[Victor]

FC is interesting....check out where your respective football teams were playing that day...The nearest i can find for Wednesday is that they played Long Eaton in the F.A cup on the 5th of November 1888....plenty of time to get to Whitechapel and back...I suspect a local unknown London side.......Fulham?

FC - French Connection?? In the UK? Oh FCUK!

[Bridewell]

1888 Diaries

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.

[Sally]

Andy, Raven -

It's pictures in the fire, clouds, etc.

The idea that murderers/conspiracists leave this sort of 'clue' is a non-starter.

They are always cryptic - the first problem. A person who leaves a clue wants to be discovered. Thus, leaving a clue so cryptic that it is invisible for (often) several hundreds of years does not serve the clue-leaver at all.

They are always obscure - Why is that? Why, that is because they are not real in the vast majority of cases, but a product of wishful thinking and woolly logic.

I would blame Dan Brown, were it not for the fact that Baigent and Co. got there first.

[RavenDarkendale]

I don't think, in all seriousness (a rare commodity for me) that an argument for an 'F' on Kelly's forearm can realistically be maintained.

There are other marks, apart form the 'F' on the arm. We could also see a 'C' if we chose to.

Initials CF? FC?

Perhaps that's the real clue to the identity of the murderer. Or perhaps the marks on the right calf are some sort of code?

Now that we have two initials we can build a story around them, propose a new suspect perhaps. We can see what we want to see once we allow our imagination to take hold.

Hi Sally

Now that you mention it, it could be a backwards "G" on that leg. It really resembles teeth marks to me. If we stare at the body long enough we are liable to see whatever we want. I see a pitiful woman who used to be alive and in one piece, butchered by some creep.

God Bless

RD

[andy1867]

I don't think, in all seriousness (a rare commodity for me) that an argument for an 'F' on Kelly's forearm can realistically be maintained.

There are other marks, apart form the 'F' on the arm. We could also see a 'C' if we chose to.

Initials CF? FC?

Perhaps that's the real clue to the identity of the murderer. Or perhaps the marks on the right calf are some sort of code?

Now that we have two initials we can build a story around them, propose a new suspect perhaps. We can see what we want to see once we allow our imagination to take hold.

FC is interesting....check out where your respective football teams were playing that day...The nearest i can find for Wednesday is that they played Long Eaton in the F.A cup on the 5th of November 1888....plenty of time to get to Whitechapel and back...I suspect a local unknown London side.......Fulham?

[Sally]

Straws..

I don't think, in all seriousness (a rare commodity for me) that an argument for an 'F' on Kelly's forearm can realistically be maintained.

There are other marks, apart form the 'F' on the arm. We could also see a 'C' if we chose to.

Initials CF? FC?

Perhaps that's the real clue to the identity of the murderer. Or perhaps the marks on the right calf are some sort of code?

Now that we have two initials we can build a story around them, propose a new suspect perhaps. We can see what we want to see once we allow our imagination to take hold.

[andy1867]

Oh, haven't you read the Jack Russell theory??

He wore a coat that made a noise when he moved - so he was "Jack the Russeller"!!! (sorry!)

shoulda been a coat that rippled mate....
But seriously its so subjective this..its like the murder sites forming a pattern...you go on forever...

[RavenDarkendale]

The point remains that in the photogragh of Mary Kelly there is a large F on her forearm and a piece of her chemise lying on top of her body that shouldn't be there.

Hi Tempus

You did see this thread, right?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5841

F on forearm? You mean the blood marks that might be interpreted as an upside down F? Stretches it just a bit, doesn't it? In some old, and poorly printed, black and white photos of the scene, an FM shows on the wall, and you would expect them to show more clearly in an enhanced photo would you not? They don't even appear, nor in the sepia original that Aberlime used.

The chemise lying on top: You think it shouldn't be there because the breasts were removed? So? The cloth had plenty of blood and goo to stick it in it's place, whether placed there intentionally by the murderer or accidentally brushed into place by a movement of the murderer inadvertently. Maybe even the photographer stuck it there to help focus on the grisly scene. Who knows?

Any shape seen in photos is most likely caused by the mind's recognition of familiar shapes, such as the Virgin Mary in a water stain on the ceiling. Now if the marks in the Miller's Court crime scene were like William Heirens' message written in lipstick on the mirror of his second of victim: 'For heaven's sake catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself", then we might have a clear case of the killer leaving a clue. As it is, any clue left in Miller's Court resembling an FM for Florence Maybrick is pure speculation.

God bless

Raven Darkendale

[Sally]

The WWII bomber and the London bus on the moon are real enough, Sally. They belong to Elvis who has a mansion there.

Phew! I was worried for a second there...

I understand that some believers in the diary also live on the moon!

Ah. That explains it - what with all those wonders up there, a few initials at a crime scene must seem very mundane. That's where we Diary Disbelievers are going wrong.

We've lost our sense of wonder?

[Phil H]

Oh, haven't you read the Jack Russell theory??

He wore a coat that made a noise when he moved - so he was "Jack the Russeller"!!! (sorry!)

[andy1867]

I honestly can't see any of this MF, chemise stuff on the photos..and I'm trying to look for it!...would not the killer have made it more obvious if he wanted to leave it for posterity?..I can make out HMV for some reason...is there a suspect called Jack Russell at all?

[Phil H]

The WWII bomber and the London bus on the moon are real enough, Sally. They belong to Elvis who has a mansion there.

I understand that some believers in the diary also live on the moon!

Phil H