The Diary

[Sally]

What?

No Sphinx on Mars?? I'm devastated.

Does this mean no WWII Bomber on the Moon, either?

[Phil H]

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

[Sally]

Tempus

Sally, the only person who is devoid of logic is you.

Generally speaking, not. Nope, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

The chemise should quite clearly not be there, or in that indivdual shape, because the woman has just been murdererd in a frenzied attack. She has just been gutted! Can you not see the wounds either side - and I dare say under - the material? How on earth did they get there? Are you saying the murderer cut round the material as he was mutilating her? Why did he just not chuck the material to one side?

Sigh...

Let's look at what you say Tempus.

Woman has been murdered - yes, I think we can all agree on that - unless anybody wants to suggest that her injuries were self-inflicted? No?

I'm not sure I'd be surprised if they did, you know.

In a frenzied attack? Ah, well, now that's more difficult to ascertain. Obviously, some part of the killer's experience in Kelly's room included deliberation, and yes, display. Kelly is obviously displayed. IF the chemise is 'not where it should be' then perhaps it is part of that display.

Pretending that a) we can know why that might have been and b) that Maybrick carved a letter 'F' in Kelly's arm is nothing short of ludicrous.

The whole argument is the same as the left arm.

It does seem to be, yes.

[Stephen Thomas]

So where is this 'F' on Kelly's arm?

[Iain Wilson]

Erm...Iain! That is what I have been trying to say all along! The only difference is that you are saying he put it there to pose the body, whereas I am saying he used it to create the M.


At last!

You misunderstand me.

I don't believe that the chemise has no business being in the photograph. I'm simply offering up two rational explainations for its presence.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Perhaps if it wasn't on during the attack he put it on afterwards? After all, we know that he was fond of posing his victims. Or, it was left on during the murder - to be honest it is very hard to tell what state it is due to the nature of the photograph.

Erm...Iain! That is what I have been trying to say all along! The only difference is that you are saying he put it there to pose the body, whereas I am saying he used it to create the M.


At last!

[Iain Wilson]

The chemise should quite clearly not be there, or in that indivdual shape, because the woman has just been murdererd in a frenzied attack. She has just been gutted! Can you not see the wounds either side - and I dare say under - of the material? How on earth did they get there? Are you saying the murderer cut round the material as he was mutilating her? Why did he just not chuck the material to one side?

Perhaps if it wasn't on during the attack he put it on afterwards? After all, we know that he was fond of posing his victims. Or, it was left on during the murder - to be honest it is very hard to tell what state it is due to the nature of the photograph.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Exactly what I was going to type, but you beat me to it! Was there an inventory list of "things that should and shouldn't be found in east end hovels" that this chemise somehow violated?



This goes straight back to the various points raised by other posters previously. The diarist is able to look at the material concerning the crimes and work any form of fiction he wants around them. Just because something is stated in the diary doesn't mean it's true!

No. But it does mean that this diarist not only had the fortune to have something akin to and FM on the partion wall of Kelly's bedroom - incidentally the exact intials he needed to create that part of the diary - but also to have this so-called unknown murderer carve something on her forearm that looks like and F - but which isn't - and then a piece of chemise still on the body so that the whole thing ends up looking like yet anopther FM.

And besides - for the millionth time! - if James Maybrick did not leave those items, then what are they there for? What does the F stand for? And, if you don't believe it is an F, then what is it? Why did your suspect take the time an effort to stop, control himself, and then cut an incision of that depth and shape if he didn't intend to?


Answers, please! And lets not have the stupid cop-out of 'it's a coincidence'.



Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus



Oh dear. I'm afraid that I think your argument is very silly. None of what you say will withstand the tiniest little drop of logic. If you truly believe this nonsense, and are not simply having a laugh, then I'm sorry. Really.



Rot. But first things first. I am not 'an anti-diarist' I am an adherent to logic and rationality. The good thing about those little things is that they are always constant - they don't have to be changed to 'suit' any argument, because they inform the bleedin argument to begin with.

Now let me ask you - what are you talking about? What shouldn't be where they are? And who says that they shouldn't? You? Utter nonsense, totally devoid of any rationality or logic.

What has almost certainly happened here is that the diarist (or faker, if you prefer) has seen the crime scene photograph of Kelly and had a little fun. Can you prove otherwise? Of course, you cannot.



Right. I've read your 'arguments' - and you accuse others of 'shoddy' thinking?

Incredible.

Sally, the only person who is devoid of logic is you. The chemise should quite clearly not be there, or in that indivdual shape, because the woman has just been murdererd in a frenzied attack. She has just been gutted! Can you not see the wounds either side - and I dare say under - the material? How on earth did they get there? Are you saying the murderer cut round the material as he was mutilating her? Why did he just not chuck the material to one side?

And this, of course, is to completely ignore the markings that are present on the material, that show this material was deliberately compressed. Show this material to any half decent crime-scene expert and the will tell you the same.

Come on, Sally, think. Are you saying it was there all the time or not? If it was there all the time, then why didn't he not move it? Why did he bother to cut round it? Why is the chemise slam bang in the middle of the left arm and the left thigh? Why isn't it strewn all over the place covered in blood and containing clear knife cuts?

If it wasn't there when he carried out the mutilations, then why did he place it back on the body? The whole argument is the same as the left arm.

This is rapidly digging me into an early grave. Phew!


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Iain Wilson]

Now let me ask you - what are you talking about? What shouldn't be where they are? And who says that they shouldn't? You? Utter nonsense, totally devoid of any rationality or logic.

Exactly what I was going to type, but you beat me to it! Was there an inventory list of "things that should and shouldn't be found in east end hovels" that this chemise somehow violated?

What has almost certainly happened here is that the diarist (or faker, if you prefer) has seen the crime scene photograph of Kelly and had a little fun. Can you prove otherwise? Of course, you cannot.

This goes straight back to the various points raised by other posters previously. The diarist is able to look at the material concerning the crimes and work any form of fiction he wants around them. Just because something is stated in the diary doesn't mean it's true!

[Sally]

Tempus

Sally, what are you talking about? I am arguing that Maybrick left a blatant clue to his identity because one I have a diary that - and I'll say it again for the millionth time - that no one has proved a fake that says he left it, and two because when you look at the picture there is a large F on her forearm where the man says there's one. Can you not see this with your own eyes, for God sake?! It's an F! In order to make this mark, whoever did it would have had to have stopped an made controlled cuts in her arm. There are clear right angles there! These are not random slashes - surely you can see that?

Oh dear. I'm afraid that I think your argument is very silly. None of what you say will withstand the tiniest little drop of logic. If you truly believe this nonsense, and are not simply having a laugh, then I'm sorry. Really.

The problem we have here is you anti-diarists completely failing to take notice of things because it suits your argument. This is a crime scene Sally, and, as such, everything in it needs to be explained. Especially when you have two items in a room that have absolutely no reason to be where they are - unless the murderer specifically wanted them to be there. Therefore, the murderer (whoever he was) had a reason for placing them there. Up till now the only person to give you a reason for thi IS THE DIARIST! Whether you like it or not.

Rot. But first things first. I am not 'an anti-diarist' I am an adherent to logic and rationality. The good thing about those little things is that they are always constant - they don't have to be changed to 'suit' any argument, because they inform the bleedin argument to begin with.

Now let me ask you - what are you talking about? What shouldn't be where they are? And who says that they shouldn't? You? Utter nonsense, totally devoid of any rationality or logic.

What has almost certainly happened here is that the diarist (or faker, if you prefer) has seen the crime scene photograph of Kelly and had a little fun. Can you prove otherwise? Of course, you cannot.

To suggest these items are just wishful thinking is incredibly shoddy thinking, and will not help the cause of Ripperology any further, I'm afraid.

Right. I've read your 'arguments' - and you accuse others of 'shoddy' thinking?

Incredible.

[Stephen Thomas]

The point remains that in the photogragh of Mary Kelly there is a large F on her forearm

No there isn't. You're just making stuff up as you go along,

[DVV]

Was JtR James Maybrick or Vincent Van Gogh ?
I'm undecided.
Ok, James had a watch. But Vincent was red-headed.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Phil. Why do you insist on calling it a fake? You have no evidence at all. I'm sorry.

ROT, Nonsense and false logic. It is for those putting forward a new piece of evidence to prove (gain peer recognizance) of the provenance, genuineness and reliability of the new material. With the dairy this has NEVER been done. That is simple, standard historical method.

Other students of the case have no need to give any attention to the diary UNTIL and UNLESs you have done that.

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.

Why should not the chemise be there. the "F" is purely subjective.

And they form something, whether you like it or not, that is akin to an FM.

Akin?!!!!!! - Prove that it is what it is and not coincidence.

I have to say that Maybrick must be p****** himself laughing, if he's looking down on us right now; because he's telling you where something is, I'm then showing you with an actual photograph, and you still don't believe it! LOL

Please, can we drop the puerile and start to act like adult students of the case following accepted procedure and norms of academic research.

Phil H

Phil, if you can't see why that piece of chemise shouldn't be there, then I fear for you in your further investigations. There is no point in me wasting time explaining it here as you clearly won't be able to grasp something that is very simple indeed.

Please prove the FM is not a coincedence. So what you are saying then, Phil, is that some unknown murderer made deliberate cuts (not slashes) on her left forearm and this just happened to end up looking like a letter F. He then dumped a piece of her chemise on to of the body an the thing landed in the exact postion so that the whole thing created something akin to an FM. Are you serious? That senario is even more ludicrous than the one you say I'm proposing! Logic and intelligence should tell you it is not a coincidence.

Your point about no new evidence is eronious. Apart from all the coincedences that were brought up during the original investigtation, I have already placed on here a postcard that is quite clearly in the same handwritting (or, at the very least, incredibly similar) to the handwriting of the diary. No one has done this before. This, of course, is not to mention the 17th of September examples I have placed on here and the FM which you completely fail to grasp. No new evidence? Well, yes...maybe if you ignore everything that is offered up, yes.

And Phil, the only people who are acting purile in all of this are the anti-diarists, because they continue to keep knocking and arguing new evidence whenever it arises. You have no argument of your own.

How about you tell us who your chosen suspect is and show us some evidence. The mere reason you can knock people like me Phil is that we offer you up things to knock down. You have nothing to offer in return.



Kind regards,


Tempus

[DVV]

It should have been a S actually but Maybrick lisped