Tweet
Originally posted by Steven Russell
View Post
-
if you were alive in 1888 then i guess the local plod might be interested in speaking to you.......so yes i guess you might be a suspect
-
Hello, Jason.Originally posted by Jason View Postif you were alive in 1888 then i guess the local plod might be interested in speaking to you.......so yes i guess you might be a suspect
But I wasn't alive in 1888 and that's my point. Perhaps the diarist wasn't either. That would not preclude him or her from offering up plausible explanations.
e.g. a modern forger could have said stuff like:
1) The woman in Mitre Sq. said my breath smelled so I cut off her nose,
2) The one in Hanbury St. had on revolting striped stockings, and
3) I encountered a dog in Goulston St. which barked and sniffed at the apron.
By Tempus-type logic, we might conclude:
1) Wow! Eddowes' nose was cut off and now we know why,
2) Wow! Chapman was wearing striped stockings. More factual accuracy!, and
3) Wow! No one has ever mentioned the dog so this must be information only the killer would possess!
The truth is that everybody knows about the nose (sorry) and stockings, and I made the dog up. Ditto the motivation for the rhinoectomy[?]. Simple. Doesn't prove a thing except perhaps my imaginary forger has read a book or magazine article. Or watches the telly.
Best wishes,
Steve.Last edited by Steven Russell; 10-03-2012, 09:22 AM.Comment
-
Regarding the scratches...
Hi there, Phil you were saying about how the watch scratcher got the initials from books etc. Well why not from the news papers at the time? He could have scratched the watch after the third or fifth kill. Why or how would he know their names? If a man were to ask a prostitute her name as the strolled to the dark place, she might say anything, including "Call me whatever you like!" However as the newspapers began to ID the vics, he scratched them on the watch...?
Comment
-
I just find it too coincidental that he lighted on precisely the same initials as are widely recognised and used today.
Phil HComment
-
but if the diary is as old as the crimes themselves ( which has yet to proven is not the case as far as i am aware ) then you would still be considered worth having a chat with......if the diary is not as old as that, then everything you say above is correct.....but there lies the problem ! frustrating when we can pretty much accurately age anything, from human remains to rock, but a few sheets of paper and ink are beyond our capabilities. Until that day arrives, we shall continue on and on.....Originally posted by Steven Russell View PostComment
-
misidentification
Hello Miakaal.
"However as the newspapers began to ID the vics, he scratched them on the watch..."
Of course, both Liz and Kate were misidentified initially. It would make the gravy thick had Elizabeth Watts or Mary Anne Kelly been engraven in the watch.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Likewise. This is a strong indicator that the watch post dates that discovery of the MM and our understanding of the C5.Originally posted by Phil H View PostComment
-
Now, recall I find the watch totally unreliable as evidence, and yet...
@ miakaal4
The papers at the time listed Polly Nichols as the 3rd victim of the "Whitechapel Murderer" (later to be named JtR) and Mary Jane Kelly as the 7th. If the person placing initials in the watch got the information from the newspapers, isn't it logical that there would be two more sets of initials?
God Bless
Raven DarkendaleAnd the questions always linger, no real answer in sightComment
-
But despite all that...
The diary, whether genuine or fake, provides us with something incredibly valuable. As does Cornwell's ludicrous attack on Walter Sickert, awful movie versions of comic books, and derivative TV detective stories. It is sensational enough to transcend the realm of the armchair detective and Casebook reader and make it into the living rooms of the general public.
No matter how erroneous or questionable the theories may be, they still raised the profile of the case massively in the minds of all those people who maybe - just maybe - have an old dusty box of papers in their attic.
So while we continue to debate the provenance and authenticity of the book itself, it's worth raising our caps to it simply for increasing the likelihood that one day someone will discover a vital clue in a box of old papers and not throw it away, all because they remembered seeing a TV programme about some scouser and his diary.
Just a thought
JohnComment
-
["all because they remembered seeing a TV programme about some scouser and his diary.
Just a thought
John[/QUOTE]
lots of scousers have a diary, doesnt mean that it makes it memorable....my own diary, and i am a scouser, is as dull as they come....though not as dull as my manc friends diary though....Comment
-
Excellent points, John. The same could be said for Stephen Knight's book.
Considering the watch:
1) Why is it engraved with "JO" and not "JM"? One would have thought Maybrick would not have used a watch with another man's initials engraved on the front. Nor does the argument that JO was a later owner stand up in my view. I find it very unlikely that Maybrick would have had a watch (and one which meant something to him since he took the time to mess about scratching initials inside) without having JM engraved in the place reserved for the owner's initials.
2) If both watch and diary are genuine, why are there no initials in the watch to correspond to the diary's two alleged Manchester victims? If you're going to boast, why give yourself short shrift?
3) Is it possible that aged brass particles were discovered in the scratches because the scratcher used an aged brass tool?
Best wishes,
Steve.Comment
-
lots of scousers have a diary, doesnt mean that it makes it memorable....my own diary, and i am a scouser, is as dull as they come....though not as dull as my manc friends diary though....[/QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason View Post["all because they remembered seeing a TV programme about some scouser and his diary.
Just a thought
John
Maybe if your diary makes you out to be Simon Cowell's love child and they make a documentary about you your luck in that regard may change
JohnComment
-
Phil. Why do you insist on calling it a fake? You have no evidence at all. I'm sorry.Originally posted by Phil H View Post
None of this seems to be sinking in, does it? Whether or not someone made all these things up or not is irelevent. 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. That, I think you'll agree, is fact! Whether someone spotted these items and faked that part of the diary around them is, again, irrelevent. The fact remains that they are still in the picture! And they form something, whether you like it or not, that is akin to an FM. If it is a forgery, then it is a combination that no one, apart from the diarist, has spotted before. That is something New and something that needs to be investigated, not just ignored like the anti-diarist brigade seem to be suggesting.
If Maybrick was not the killer then what - or who - does the F stand for, and why did this unknown killer place the chemise, purposely, on top of the body - right next to the F - so the whole thing ended up looking like an FM? The diarist is the only person to tell you the reasons for this. He is the only person to give you a reason for not only the identifiable F, but also the reason behind the chemise.
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
The police of the time were right on top of it, and now so are you.
Good luck Phil. You continue with your research, and I shall continue with my mine.
Kind regards,
TempusLast edited by Tempus omnia revelat; 10-03-2012, 02:42 PM.Comment
-
Maybe if your diary makes you out to be Simon Cowell's love child and they make a documentary about you your luck in that regard may change
John[/QUOTE]
who is that ? it isnt steven gerrard is it ?Comment
-
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 HComment
Comment