The Diary

[caz]

What marks are alleged by its author, that could only have been inspired by the MJK photo?

Read the thread.

Hi Phil,

I don't need to, I just needed to read the diary, which you admitted you had only read the once. That might explain why you can't simply tell me which marks feature in the diary, and why its author could not have written about them without having seen the MJK photo.

An initial here and an initial there, Phil. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what precisely the initials are meant to be at this point in the text, what they were supposed to be made with (blood? chalk? Biro? knife? engraving tool?) and, crucially, where 'here' is and where 'there' is. How do you know this is even a reference to MJK's room, and not a reference to initials scratched inside an old gold watch, for example, or embroidered on the 'whoring' mother's hanky?

Then perhaps you can explain what the 'it' is, that the author says was left in front for all eyes to see. No mention of initials (plural) here, no marks in blood on the wall, just an 'it'.

Finally, when it all becomes clear, you can go on to explain a) why the author could not have referred to an initial here and an initial there and a mysterious 'it' without reference to the MJK photo, and b) what you see in the photo that the author saw and exploited.

Thanks for your time. I'm all ears.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

It gives me real fits when anyone squeaks about there being no 'new' info in the diary. How could there possibly be any, when there are only two very simple rules here, that even a backward earwig could follow?

1) If there is something that can't be found anywhere outside the diary (the first and last alleged Manchester attacks; Mrs. Hammersmith; the whore's mole bonnet, to name but four examples), put it down to invention.

2) If it subsequently turns up, it wasn't 'new' information after all, so a hoaxer was able to find it too.

Another funny one is expecting the watch to tell us the initials of the alleged Manchester attacks. Whether these victims were invented, imagined or real, they were claimed as victims in the diary. But how was 'Sir Jim' meant to have found out their initials, if no report of these attacks ever appeared in the papers? The first victim is strangled and 'Sir Jim' presumes she is now 'with her maker'; the last is only left 'for dead'. Both could have survived and not reported the attempt, and it's not clear that a knife was used on either. Would reports of such attacks in Manchester necessarily have reached the Liverpool, London or national papers?

In short, it would have been a silly hoaxer who invented the initials for two invented victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

You are all quite self-delusional, you know that? Stand back from your obsession and look at it with the eyes of an impartial observer, or an academic.

Your "idol" simply won't stand the scrutiny.

I have still to hear of anything that a forger could not have invented.

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Solid points as always Caroline.

I find it interesting that the Diarist doesn't add to the Canonicals. As the Master Forger I am I'd have thrown in perhaps Annie Millwood, Emma Smith, Ada Wilson and of course Martha Tabram. Maybe for real chills and thrills I'd have given you all four and some "new" information to boot ! As is, the Diarist foreshadows the real C5 with a mere attempt in Manchester.

How disappointing.

But then again, the Diarist really wasn't writing for us, was he?

Hi All,

It gives me real fits when anyone squeaks about there being no 'new' info in the diary. How could there possibly be any, when there are only two very simple rules here, that even a backward earwig could follow?

1) If there is something that can't be found anywhere outside the diary (the first and last alleged Manchester attacks; Mrs. Hammersmith; the whore's mole bonnet, to name but four examples), put it down to invention.

2) If it subsequently turns up, it wasn't 'new' information after all, so a hoaxer was able to find it too.

Another funny one is expecting the watch to tell us the initials of the alleged Manchester attacks. Whether these victims were invented, imagined or real, they were claimed as victims in the diary. But how was 'Sir Jim' meant to have found out their initials, if no report of these attacks ever appeared in the papers? The first victim is strangled and 'Sir Jim' presumes she is now 'with her maker'; the last is only left 'for dead'. Both could have survived and not reported the attempt, and it's not clear that a knife was used on either. Would reports of such attacks in Manchester necessarily have reached the Liverpool, London or national papers?

In short, it would have been a silly hoaxer who invented the initials for two invented victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

For a forger to throw in additional murders would be foolhardy - he would be ASKING for those to be scrutinised particularly closely - and his material might not stand up to new research, or the existence of material he had not read.

The REAL killer could, of course, add to the canonical list (or leave murders out) with complete assurance because he KNEW the circumstances. He would be oblivious to being found out, so would not have played safe.

There is a fascinating technique used by people such as "diaryists". I first came upon it in a book about the two Edwardian ladies who claimed to have seen ghosts at Versailles. It was a sensation in its day. The technique is to claim that something would be almost impossible to verify, and then - low and behold - you stumble across the evidence. The casual reader is amazed and feels this MUST sustain the author's claims. The careful reader looks deeper and sees HOW the book has been constructed.

Were the diary genuine, I repeat what I have said before - we would be finding verification on every side of previously inexplicable events or facts. Looking into the claims we would find, again and again, that an address checked out; a timing was indeed correct, that a newspaper report that seemed strange in fact fitted the diary account perfectly. But I have seen and heard none of that.

To the informed reader the so-called "diary" is gobsmackingly underwhelming in all those areas.

To any reader who was around in the 70s when Knight's book came out - we are armed with scepticism and trained to look below the surface. He set out what he claimed were "facts" which not only proved false, but were used misleadingly and in the knowledge that that was so. we ain't gonna be fooled again.

Finally - the burden of responsibility for proving beyond any shadow of doubt that the so-called "diary" is genuine, rests on its advoctaes. That is wholly consistent with the approach for any new-found or reinterpreted art work, historical object or literary manuscript. That has not been achieved to date.

Unless or until that is done (to GENERAL - and not simply diarists satisfaction), the rest of us, solid students of the case, have no requirement upon us, to accept, give the benefit of the doubt to, consider, believe, or in any way take into account this alleged evidence. It remains in limbo.

Full stop, period.

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

For a forger to throw in additional murders would be foolhardy - he would be ASKING for those to be scrutinised particularly closely - and his material might not stand up to new research, or the existence of material he had not read.

Unwise to pick Maybrick then, eh? Talk about a potential minefield.

[andy1867]

I am insisting things are there that you poor mortals cannot see? Andy (and others, for that matter), if you can't see the chemise that is quite clearly on top of the body, and that that cut looks like a letter F, then I suggest you book an appointment with your local opticians.


Kind regards,


Tempus

My Specsavers is right next door to the psychiatrists....wanna meet for a coffee?

[Bridewell]

Proof?

Yet another pathetic reply from a someone that belongs to a group of people who wish to ignore things to suit there own ends.

Do not worry DVV, I shall be back to annoy you and all your anti-diarist friends with even more proof.


Kind regards,


Tempus

Even more proof. Gosh. How exciting! More than what exactly?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

Unwise to pick Maybrick then, eh? Talk about a potential minefield.

Unless, of course, he has read-up well on Maybrick. It's a case that is well documented. Even I had heard of Mrs M before the diary appeared.

Besides as far as I know the alleged "diary" does not match M's known handwriting.

Phil H

[The Good Michael]

FM is clearly evidence that Fu Manchu was not just a Rohmer novel, but a real, diabolical criminal mastermind.

Mike

[Bridewell]

Two arguments which seem to feature often in Diary threads are pretty much these:

No-one has proved the diary to be a hoax - therefore it's genuine.

&

No-one has proved the diary to be genuine - therefore it's a hoax.

Neither, in my view, has any real validity. The issue has to be proven one way or the other. It is, however, the positive asserter - the person who claims the diary to be genuine - who has to prove his or her case, not just in his or her own opinion, but under the scrutiny of peer review. That's how it has to be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

Excellent. That seems to nail our dilemma.

If I was contemplating the purchase of a unique historical artefact—say a "Da Vinci" painting or "Rodin" sculpture—I would expect the seller to provide me with bullet-proof certificates of scientific and artistic provenance.

Such provenance hasn't been provided with "Jack the Ripper's Diary" which, if genuine, certainly counts as a unique historical artefact.

At best it's provenance has remained kinda, sorta, maybe.

If the "Diary" had been demonstrably genuine, by now it would have been snapped up at a substantial price and placed in a private collection, and not become the subject of idle, ill-informed chatter by unsuspecting dimwits at £14.95 a copy.

Caveat Emptor.

Regards,

Simon

[Steven Russell]

Another funny one is expecting the watch to tell us the initials of the alleged Manchester attacks. Whether these victims were invented, imagined or real, they were claimed as victims in the diary. But how was 'Sir Jim' meant to have found out their initials, if no report of these attacks ever appeared in the papers? The first victim is strangled and 'Sir Jim' presumes she is now 'with her maker'; the last is only left 'for dead'. Both could have survived and not reported the attempt, and it's not clear that a knife was used on either. Would reports of such attacks in Manchester necessarily have reached the Liverpool, London or national papers?

I take your point here, Caz.

Here are my views on the "initials" for what they are worth:
1) The chemise business - too daft to laugh at.
2) The upside down F on the arm - this could have been made by a sort of sawing motion travelling along the arm from the wrist side to the elbow side, a bit like how the kebab man cuts off strips of doner meat. The upright is made as the killer pushes the knife away from his body (twice) and the cross bars are made as he draws the knife back towards him. It's all part of a disgusting, frenzied attack and there need not be a conscious attempt at an upside down F.
3) The F on the wall - this is faint even on the most persuasive versions of the photo and I have serious doubts about its actually being there.
4) The M on the wall. I find this the most persuasive of the four. However, if its there and if it's a deliberately formed M, surely it's more likely to stand for Mary than anything else. A bit of drunken doodling done who knows when by the lady herself perhaps.

As usual, pure conjecture. Any thoughts?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

It would be impossible to argue with your assertion here. Of course the default position should be that the Diary (and the Watch) are not the work of Jack the Ripper, nor James Maybrick. Personally, as I said at York, I believe we will never know with certainty the identity of the creator.

But as I also said, the providence is pretty much what we'd expect for something like this. It was almost certainly stolen out of Battlecrease, and while it was there it wasn't a point of family pride, handed down through the generations on solemn occasions with pictures and fireworks. It was hidden somewhere.

It is what it is, and some of us find the story of the Diary over the years, the actual Maybrick case itself, and analysis both scientific as well as textual fascinating. It is neither better nor worse than any other aspect of the Case. There are at any given time plenty of Casebook threads that I find ludicrous, and I don't go around disrupting them because the boards are meant for discussion, not insults. If I see no point in a thread, I just choose not to participate. Somehow the standards of behavior in Maybrick threads seem to be different.

Two arguments which seem to feature often in Diary threads are pretty much these:

No-one has proved the diary to be a hoax - therefore it's genuine.

&

No-one has proved the diary to be genuine - therefore it's a hoax.

Neither, in my view, has any real validity. The issue has to be proven one way or the other. It is, however, the positive asserter - the person who claims the diary to be genuine - who has to prove his or her case, not just in his or her own opinion, but under the scrutiny of peer review. That's how it has to be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Here are my views on the "initials" for what they are worth:

2) The upside down F on the arm -
3) The F on the wall -
4) The M on the wall.

As usual, pure conjecture. Any thoughts?

Best wishes,
Steve.

Please excuse my chopping of your post. Now that you have called my attention to it, I do see what you are referring to on Kelly's arm. I am in no position to opine whether it's "really" there or in our mind's eye.

The whole "FM on the wall" debate has always turned me off. It's almost certainly an artifact of the photograph itself and more importantly, the Diarist makes no claim whatsoever of leaving "FM" "F" or "M" anywhere in the room or on Kelly. It's just not in the text.