The Diary

[Steve S]

Just a point of semantics.......We see on here a lot of "The Diary says"..Well actually it doesn't.....A interpretation may well say,but that's not the same thing.....IE,the diary does NOT say "I wrote FM on the wall"...........

Steve (who has no axe to grind,but likes to be precise....)

[Phil Carter]

The experts are the people who have said on record that they think the diary is older than 1987.

Somwhat circular thinking and thus self-fulfilling!! Besides given when Rumbelow found the picture the diary could date from the late 60s.

And there is an F carved on the leg. Maybrick says he "Left it in front for all to see".

Give me one shred of evidence from 1888 that it WAS seen by police or those conducting the autopsy.

He then wonders if he can carve a verse into his next victim.
As there would be no next Kelly, why would he say that? As a forger I mean?

Do I have to explain it to you? Anyone can write that? It's like beginning in media res (in the middle of things, should you not be latinate) because pages are missing from the front of the forgery. It provides for a sense of continuity rather than ending - what one would expect...

Please, please, you seem like a nice man, be less credulous.

Phil H

Hello Tempus,

Phil H is bang on, above, again, as he has been throughout this thread. Sorry.

I have, valiantly and patiently, read through your postings. It reminds me of the way in which the "Van Gogh" poster writes. One hopes that the coincidence is merely that.

Your argumentation is, for the most part, based on old material with very little actual fact to back up the theory that this particular person murdered 5 women. There is no evidence to show Maybrick being anywhere near any of the murdered women on any of the nights in question. On top of that, at no time has his description matched any of the varied descriptions given by the known witnesses.

Whoever thought of combining James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper deserves a medal for ingenuity... but sadly there isnt a scrap of evidence of linkin the man. The diary is NOT evidence. Like it or not.

Ipso facto. Produce EVIDENCE. Then I will read on further. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There is nobody with a complete set of brain cells who believes the "Maybrick Diary" is genuine.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Do not worry DVV

For My Bricks ? Not like me.

I shall be back

McArthur said I shall return

to annoy you

You amuse me

and all your anti-diarist friends

We'll get together at our club next Friday. Please join

with even more proof.

Take more pills, mate

[andy1867]

Stephen, now you are not only ignoring things that are right in front of your eyes, you are now telling someone whom you have never met before what they think and feel. Incredible!

Mad scientist logic equates to seeing something with my own eyes and merely stating what it looks like, does it? Think about what you are saying, Stephen, it is only yourself that you are fooling.

Yet again you fail to answer any of the questions put to you because if you did stop and think for a second, you would have to come to the same conclusion I have.

Kind regards,


Tempus

Is that not exactly the same as you have been doing Tempus?
You are insisting things are there..that us other poor mortals cannot see....you can't debate the facts without seemingly throwing your chemise outta the pram....hardly any other bugger can see what you seemingly see...you'll have to deal with it mate...
Regards
Andy

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Tempus

If your mind is really open, not set in a "this is the way it is" attitude, I would like your opinion of these points I wrote to 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



@ miakaal

The experts are the people who have said on record that they think the diary is older than 1987.
And there is an F carved on the leg. Maybrick says he "Left it in front for all to see". He then wonders if he can carve a verse into his next victim.
As there would be no next Kelly, why would he say that? As a forger I mean?
Maybricks next victim was by that standard almost boring for him.

Where do you find an F of any kind on the leg?!! In some of the old black and white prints, an FM seems to be on the wall above the leg nearest the wall. This doesn't show in the sepia photograph, nor in the enhance one by Amberlime. What can be interpreted as an upside down F on the arm is in them all, right up front.

God Bless


Raven Darkendale

[andy1867]

@ Tempus

If your mind is really open, not set in a "this is the way it is" attitude, I would like your opinion of these points I wrote to 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



@ miakaal



Where do you find an F of any kind on the leg?!! In some of the old black and white prints, an FM seems to be on the wall above the leg nearest the wall. This doesn't show in the sepia photograph, nor in the enhance one by Amberlime. What can be interpreted as an upside down F on the arm is in them all, right up front.

God Bless


Raven Darkendale

Could anyone point me in the direction of these photos...I'm surely looking at the wrong ones....how many is there>

[Archaic]

re: Mary Kelly Crime Scene Photos

Hi Andy.

If you go to the Casebook Photo Archive you'll find the pics.

Look on the left side of your screen; you'll see a list that starts with 'Introduction'. Towards the bottom you'll see 'Photo Archive'. Click on that.

Next click on 'Canonical Victims', then 'Mary Kelly'.

You can also go to the heading 'Victims' (second heading, right under 'Introduction'.) Click on 'Mary Kelly'. You'll see text, photos & numerous Casebooks links concerning Mary.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Archaic

[miakaal4]

Well Miakaal4 strikes again, just when I had decided to write nothing unless I was sure it was right, I get a leg mixed up with an arm. Should have called myself idiot4. Okay well the mark is on the LEFT and FRONT of the arm. There is a big F high on the wall, and an FM low on the wall. Maybrick is always moaning about forgetting his chalk, because of his need to leave "funny little rhymes" . In this case he used a knife and blood.

[RavenDarkendale]

@ miakaal4

Look at this thread

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

The upside down F is clearly visible, and is in the original sepia print. But now show me the FM on the wall. Oh, I've seen them in the poorly printed black and white pictures. But in this sepia and the enhanced photo, they are not there.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=Phil H;240675]Again, the difference between me and you, Phil, is that you seem to rely on other people mentioning things in order for them to be relevant, whereas I look at things myself and come to my own conclusions.

Phil, don't call me sunshine, there's a good chap!

The difference between you and me sunshine, is that I deal with evidence and flag up speculation where I indulge it. You, as your ill-based posts demonstrate, jump to conclusions and indulge in asserting what you want to believe NOT what can be demonstrated and gain peer acceptance. It is for you to PROVE your points, not for me or others to accept them at face value.

You deal with evidence do you. I think not. No one who deliberately ignores evidence in an actual crime scene photo, to suit there own ends, can justify saying they deal in 'evidence'.

No one is jumping to conclusions, Phil, it is only you who are doing that. I am merely stating valid points around what can be actually scene. It is you who dismiss them by coming up conclusions based on no evidence at all: It is all to do with camera angles, the chemise doesn't matter. Really, Phil!

The low quality of thought of many diary enthusiasts indicates the level of support it garners, frankly.

'The low quality of thought of many diary enthusiasts indicates the level of support it garners, frankly.' I think I will refer you to some of your arguments I pointed out above, Phil, on that point.

Given your condescension I will only respond to one other issue you raise in your post.

What is there in the picture was there, unless the whole picture is a forgery which raises other questions!! But the alleged markings may well be subjective BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT COMMENTED ON AT THE TIME BY THOSE WHO WERE THERE. if they are/were so clear it is for you to explain that. Otherwise the inference must be that markings which you say are so clear were not clear to those there at the time.[/QUOTE

Phil, I have already answered all these points before. Your whole argument rests entirely on the fact that the F on the forearm was some kind of trick of a camera angle and, therefore, not visible to the people of the time. This is clearly not the case. I have been a photographer for many years, Phil, and I know this is no trick of a camera angle, or a mirage. Those marks are actually on the arm! They were actually made by someone in that room! I have even shown the photo to certain acquaintances of mine, who are doctors, and they confirm the same: i.e. that it is a controlled cut in the shape of a letter F.

Again, (rather cleverly, Phil) your point entirely concentrates on the F, and fails to mention the M and the obviously placed chemise that creates it. You will, I think, agree with me that the chemise is not a trick of a camera angle? so what is it doing there?



Kind regards,


Tempus

[Phil H]

No point in continuing this, "sunshine" - since you are clearly deaf to argument.

I have simply argued that a crime scene photo, should not take precedence over the silence of those on the spot or at the autopsy and who evidently saw nothing..

Secondly that as the diary appears to relate to the photo the only logical conclusion is that the diary was composed AFTER the photo was made public. Otherwise how could the writer know what the "chemise" did or did not do in it. Your words destroy your own argument.

That's it - Signing off.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=Phil H;240829]No point in continuing this, "sunshine" - since you are clearly deaf to argument.

The only person who is deaf to the argument is you phil. Your entire argument rests on the fact that the whole diary is forged around the photo of
Mary Kelly. A photograph that you, on your own admission, say has nothing in it except a mark on her arm that because of a camera angle looks like an F. So, in other words, we only have the diary because of a dodgy camera angle.

Perhaps you could explain then, Phil, which precise part of this mark is real and which part of it is to do with a camera angle. Or are you saying the whole thing is to do with angles?

The diarist des not talk just about an F, phil, he talks about an FM. Therefore, you have to take into consideration the chemise as part of the initial. That is not a trick of a camera angle, Phil. It is there and it shouldn't be. Again you keep on ignoring things to make your own point more valid.


[B]I have simply argued that a crime scene photo, should not take precedence over the silence of those on the spot or at the autopsy and who evidently saw nothing..[/b]

Not when one, you can see something is amiss with your eyes. Two, when we know full well that much of the documentation is missing from the archives - including two reports from doctors who were either at the scene or at the autopsy. And three, you are failing to grasp the idea that police and officials do withhold evidence from time to time, in certain cases. It is well known that Dr Phillips was not exactly forthcoming, with regards the mutilations of the body, at the inquest.


[b]Secondly that as the diary appears to relate to the photo the only logical conclusion is that the diary was composed AFTER the photo was made public.[/B]

Erm, WHY? That only works if you are coming from the point of view that it is a forgery. Again, clouded!

Otherwise how could the writer know what the "chemise" did or did not do in it. Your words destroy your own argument.

PERHAPS BECAUSE THE WRITER WAS THE MURDERER AND ACTUALLY IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME! Come on, Phil!

That's it - Signing off.[/quote]


Kind regards,


Tempus

[DVV]

The more idiotic you are, the more you should save space

[Tempus omnia revelat]

The more idiotic you are, the more you should save space

Do actually say anything that is relevant, DVV? If you don't wish to discuss things in the correct manner, then why do you keep coming on this thread?

God! Even Phil puts up an argument!

Kind regards,


Tempus