The Diary

[miakaal4]

Hiya Cog,
I don't think the Diaryist cared, or was in anyway referring to the veiw from a photograph, how could he know one would be taken at all? None were taken of the other women in situ, only in the morgue.
Any reference to "front" could mean it was in the open, easy to find. But, it seems the police couldn't see the wood etc.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hiya Cog,
I don't think the Diaryist cared, or was in anyway referring to the veiw from a photograph, how could he know one would be taken at all? None were taken of the other women in situ, only in the morgue.
Any reference to "front" could mean it was in the open, easy to find. But, it seems the police couldn't see the wood etc.

Firstly, He wasn't referring to the photograph, miakaal4, he was referring to the MJK murder scene as he left it. This FM has nothing to do with the photograph. If the photograph had never been taken it would still have exsisted. The fact that someone took a picture of the actual scene, so that we could all view it over a hundred years later, is just a fortuitous occurrence.

Secondly, the referrence to the front does not mean anywhere in the open. For starters, as I have said before, the focus of the room for the murderer is the body on the bed. That is what he want's to draw your attention to, miakaal4; it is what he wants you to see. Any FMs would be placed in the vicinity of the body. Anyone wishing to view this body would have either have had to have looked through the broken window pain, or entered through the doorway and looked to their right or turned to their right. Either way, the view they would have had would have been virtually identical to what we see in the photo. As such, you can use this photo to look for the front and the FM.

Another point to understand is that the writer of the diary underlines this word 'front' twice. This gives the word 'front' emphasis, miakaal4. By doing this the diary writer is saying that what he has left for you isn't just in a general forward direction (i.e anywhere you happen to look - foreground or background), he is saying it is in the front (i.e., the foreground).

Now, looking at the body on the bed, where do think the foreground is?


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Cogidubnus]

As far as we know, this is the only picture taken with the body in situ.

Hi Dale

MJK3 ?

Now, looking at the body on the bed, where do think the foreground is?

Hi Tempus

If I'm looking from the largest, uncluttered, spacious, part of the room (the natural place for onlookers to gather) I'm looking from the foot of the bed and the foreground is adjusted accordingly

All the best

Dave

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi Dale

MJK3 ?



Hi Tempus

If I'm looking from the largest, uncluttered, spacious, part of the room (the natural place for onlookers to gather) I'm looking from the foot of the bed and the foreground is adjusted accordingly

Sorry, I completely disagree. If you wanted to look at the body the only way of doing so is in the way I have stated in my previous post. Why would anyone bother to go to the foot of the bed when they could have just seen the body by walking in the room and turning to the right? There is, after all, no photo showing the body from the foot of the bed; there is, however, one showing it from the side angle. This is the natural angle to take the picture from because it shows the majority of the body. The foreground is located there, I can assure you.

All the best

Dave

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Cogidubnus]

Left it in front for all eyes to see

Look...why is the word front used? Is it in the context "it's right in front of you"? If so, then in front of what? If not, then just what front is indicated? Up-front of course is a far more modern context, but I don't think it's a place your theory wants to go!

All the best

Dave

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Look...why is the word front used? Is it in the context "it's right in front of you"? If so, then in front of what? If not, then just what front is indicated? Up-front of course is a far more modern context, but I don't think it's a place your theory wants to go!

All the best

Dave

'Left it in front for all eyes to see.'

In order to make sure that all eyes can see it, it has to be in a place where you can guarantee they will look. Anyone's eyes would, naturally, go straight to the body on the bed. Therefore, anything that is located in that room would have to be in and around the body, otherwise there is a danger that it it would be missed.

Secondly, and I'll say it again, if you use my front as the diarist's 'front' then, when you look there, you can clearly see there is something that looks like an FM. That is why it is the front!

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Cogidubnus]

Because I say it is...

Secondly, and I'll say it again, if you use my front as the diarist's 'front' then, when you look there, there is something that looks like an FM. That is why it is the front!

Is the exclamation mark meant to denote an acknowledgement of the humorous circularity of this argument? If not, I don't see how you have the front...

All the best

Dave

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Is the exclamation mark meant to denote an acknowledgement of the humorous circularity of this argument? If not, I don't see how you have the front...

All the best

Dave

Stick to the argument and not the punctuation, Cogidubnus. If you want to go off topic, do it with someone else.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Porky Man]

'Left it in front for all eyes to see.'

In order to make sure that all eyes can see it, it has to be in a place where you can guarantee they will look. Anyone's eyes would, naturally, go straight to the body on the bed. Therefore, anything that is located in that room would have to be in and around the body, otherwise there is a danger that it it would be missed.

Secondly, and I'll say it again, if you use my front as the diarists 'front' then, when you look there, there is something that looks like an FM. That is why it is the front!

Kind regards,


Tempus

the endless pointlessness of this argument is what turns people off to the naval-gazing obsessiveness of the ripperologist.
what does it matter what the writer exactly meant by 'front'. do you really think he was intending a legally-watertight definition of every word he wrote.
he just wrote what he wrote, whether he was the murderer or not. to think the diary can stand or fall on such an arbitrary point is self-indulgence and vanity.
the author of the diary means he left something very visible to him. it is no surprise to me at all that it was the initials of his wife. if it was his initials that would be far too dangerous and he presumably did not actually want to get caught. he just enjoyed the thrill of leaving clues even if those clues weren't so obvious that they ended up being missed at the time of the crimes.
tempus - don't get bogged down by this sort of sideshow. you make huge sense. stick with the key stuff because youre on the right track here.

[Cogidubnus]

Stick to the argument and not the punctuation, Cogidubnus. If you want to go off topic, do it with someone else.

But I did stick to the argument, and made a point...which you just evaded...It's the front because you say it is...and apparently for no other reason...you just acknowledged that.

Now do you have anything more worthwhile to add or are you finished here?

All the best

Dave

[Porky Man]

But I did stick to the argument, and made a point...which you just evaded...It's the front because you say it is...and apparently for no other reason...you just acknowledged that.

Now do you have anything more worthwhile to add or are you finished here?

All the best

Dave

tempus - focus on the problem not the flame war.
dave likes a laugh and a wind-up, no harm in it, but dont waste your energy trying to win every point.
wars are won by those that win the right battles not the most battles.

[Cogidubnus]

New mantra

Kind-hearted and gentlemanly...kind hearted and gentlemanly...

All the best

Dave

[RavenDarkendale]

Kind-hearted and gentlemanly...kind hearted and gentlemanly...

All the best

Dave

And patient, very, very patient. Although continually repeating things doesn't make them any more true or false than they already are.

I'm reminded of a discussion of evolution versus creation on another forum. In the end nothing was resolved, both camps were calling names, and the few of us who believed that God created everything thing and then allowed the properties of evolution to shape them were ridiculed by both sides.

It's a lot like trying to speak English to one who only knows Greek. No matter how loud each speaker is, they cannot cross that language barrier by sound level...

God Bless

Darkendale

[Trevor Marriott]

The Diary

Hi All

I have a question regarding the affidavits of Barrett. In one He says. “ On Wednesday 18th January 1995 a number of people went to his house. He says he was pressurised by them and goes onto to name them Keith Skinner was one. He describes the other three as Shirley Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, ‘he was an Independent Adviser’. Who never spoke.

Was this independent advisor ever identified ?

[Ally]

It was a minder for the Cabal. Like Scientologists, no high-ranking member of the Cabal is allowed out without a chaperone, lest they have an independent thought and break ranks.



(Apologies to the board and Keith Skinner for the irreverence but I just could not resist. I tried, but I was weak.)