Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I left it there for the fools... (2)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hold on! I get this now. "I left it there for the fools. They will not find it." So, if the fools will not see it/find it... then those who do are intelligent...that means...the rest of us... are fools! It's a joke on us. I love it.

    Mike
    huh?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
      Hold on! I get this now. "I left it there for the fools. They will not find it." So, if the fools will not see it/find it... then those who do are intelligent...that means...the rest of us... are fools! It's a joke on us. I love it.

      Mike
      The Good,

      Where has all of this defensive, 'victim' mentality come from? No-one is having a pop at your intellect or anyone else's, and that includes James Maybrick writing 130-odd years ago about the police of the day.

      Making these throwaway, 'oh yeah, it was a big boy and he ran way' comments cheapens what I used to feel was a good argument you would usually make, however little I would agree with it myself.

      Tempus o'Revelat - our latterday oirish detective - has made an interesting observation about the Mary Kelly photograph, and you are so utterly prejudiced against the journal's authenticity that you cannot control yourself long enough to stop and reflect on at least the possible, if perhaps not in your opinion the probable.

      Unfortunately, when you react like this, it's like 'simulation' in sport (well, football). One minute the Premiership player is doing it, and the next every young lad on their school pitch is doing it. It doesn't make it right, and it ruins the game.

      As you know, I like a bit of good-natured banter, but not usually in the middle of a reasoned argument. Let's wait for things to quieten down before we beef it up.

      Tempus' point has been well thought out, and deserves an airing even if it is not as strong as he may have originally intimated.

      For the record, I think it is possible that Maybrick (assuming it were he) may very well have attempted multiple 'FM's, much as the journal's author attempts multiple versions of doggerel before settling on the one they like the most and moving on. In this way, if Maybrick it were, and such a message he was attempting, I do think it is perfectly plausible that he would write 'FM' on the wall, pose Ms. Kelly as if she were herself one large 'FM', and be more specific with an 'F' on her arm and a very crude 'M' to the side.

      Whether any or all of these things actually occurred are neither proved nor denied by your dismissive flippancy and - of course - you are welcome to it if that is your desire, but I think it is sad when a Casebook poster of some previous merit descends into antagonistic baiting.

      Obviously, I've done loads of it myself over the years, but do you really want to be as unpopular as I?

      Soothsayer
      Timeless Voice of Reason

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Soothsayer View Post
        The Good,

        Where has all of this defensive, 'victim' mentality come from? No-one is having a pop at your intellect or anyone else's, and that includes James Maybrick writing 130-odd years ago about the police of the day.

        Making these throwaway, 'oh yeah, it was a big boy and he ran way' comments cheapens what I used to feel was a good argument you would usually make, however little I would agree with it myself.

        Tempus o'Revelat - our latterday oirish detective - has made an interesting observation about the Mary Kelly photograph, and you are so utterly prejudiced against the journal's authenticity that you cannot control yourself long enough to stop and reflect on at least the possible, if perhaps not in your opinion the probable.

        Unfortunately, when you react like this, it's like 'simulation' in sport (well, football). One minute the Premiership player is doing it, and the next every young lad on their school pitch is doing it. It doesn't make it right, and it ruins the game.

        As you know, I like a bit of good-natured banter, but not usually in the middle of a reasoned argument. Let's wait for things to quieten down before we beef it up.

        Tempus' point has been well thought out, and deserves an airing even if it is not as strong as he may have originally intimated.

        For the record, I think it is possible that Maybrick (assuming it were he) may very well have attempted multiple 'FM's, much as the journal's author attempts multiple versions of doggerel before settling on the one they like the most and moving on. In this way, if Maybrick it were, and such a message he was attempting, I do think it is perfectly plausible that he would write 'FM' on the wall, pose Ms. Kelly as if she were herself one large 'FM', and be more specific with an 'F' on her arm and a very crude 'M' to the side.

        Whether any or all of these things actually occurred are neither proved nor denied by your dismissive flippancy and - of course - you are welcome to it if that is your desire, but I think it is sad when a Casebook poster of some previous merit descends into antagonistic baiting.

        Obviously, I've done loads of it myself over the years, but do you really want to be as unpopular as I?
        Huh? So sue me. I just thought silly ideas deserve a little return silliness. Is that so wrong? (rhetorical question)

        Mike
        huh?

        Comment


        • #19
          was the alleged F in the photo picked up or noted in the autopsy notes ? surely if it was as clear at the scene as it appears in the photo then it would have been worth noting ? i suspect it wasnt but that isnt necessarily to say it didnt exist as many modern day crime scenes have evidence that is found late to have been missed ie the Bamber gun silencers in the cupboard. Human error is not exclusive to the modern day when it comes to missing such things but i just feel that the location of the F on the left arm is unlikely to have missed if it was as clear as it seems.

          Comment


          • #20
            I give up!

            I knew as soon as I posted this that you would not understand it. I'm so sorry that you feel this way. I suggest that you all go back to your favoured suspects and spend the next one hundred years Not discovering who the killer is. I feel sad that I haven't convinced you of what is clearly there. All I can say is that I will return within in the next couple of months with more proof that James was involved in the crimes.

            I would, however, like to say a few things before I go:

            Whether you like it or not, that is an 'F' on her arm; it has clear right angles cut into it. In order to make these the killer would have had to have stopped and controlled himself, therefore meaning that this cut was deliberate. The chances of him creating cuts like this by simply slashing at her arm are so great as to be absurd.

            Secondly, this peice of chemise was deliberately placed there; it has clear compressed finger marks in it. It did not grow legs and decide to move there by itself; therefore, it has been placed there for a reason, like the forearm. The fact that it has been placed next to the 'F' is too much of a coincidence.

            To answer Bridwell's questions, briefly: 1) There is not enough room on the arm to carve both initials and, 2) I have told you that the killer was trying to be clever. Carving both letters on an arm or section of the body is not clever - anyone would spot it.

            To answer your second point. You are quite correct that a forger could've noticed the 'FM' and created that part of the diary around it, but you are missing two important points. Firstly, whether a forger spotted it or not, the fact still remains that there is something that looks like an 'FM' exactly where I say it is in the picture. This picture is not a fake!
            And this brings me onto the second point, rather nicely: how much luck would a forger have had to have had, after deciding to create a diary around James Maybrick, to realise that there 'just so happens to be' a large 'F' on her forearm, and something next to it that looks like an 'M' -not to mention the several other features that also look like 'FMs' around the room. These, of course, being - conveniently - the two exact initials he needs for Maybrick's wife, Florence. I'm sorry, but we are entering into the realms of a fantasy even greater than the ones you claim for the diary.

            To answer Livia's point - and ChrisGeorge's. It does not pre-suppose any such thing. The'FM' was placed there for the benefit of the police at the time, not for a bunch of Ripperologists over one hundred years later. He was challenging them to find, just like he challenged them to work out why he left the items around Chapman's body, and the 'V' marks on eddowes face. We are just lucky enough to have the photograph to discover it.

            At the end of the day, The diarist/James Maybrick is the only person to explain to you the reasons behind these killings. He is the only person to tell you why the items were arranged around Chapman as they were. He is the only one to explain to you why there were 'V' shaped marks on the face of Catherine Eddowes, and why there just so happen to be things that look like 'FMs' scattered all over the room of Mary Kelly's bedroom. No matter who you believe the killer to be: Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Deeming, you still have to explain why these particular people stopped in the miidle of what they were doing and did these things. Whether you like it or not, The diarist/James Maybrick is the only person to have done so.

            Good luck with all your future research. I hope you find what you are looking for.

            Kind regards,

            Tempus
            Last edited by Tempus omnia revelat; 05-01-2012, 01:36 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              An initial here...........

              I have seen a number of books with photo's of the Kelly murder scene, most of which were published prior to the Maybrick diary furore, and in many of these like it or not, there is the distinct mark on the panelling behind Kelly that more than resembles the initials "FM".
              "The Secret of Prisoner 1167" is one that springs to mind.

              Comment


              • #22
                The Goodmichael,


                What 21st century technology are you referring to? This cut can be seen in any of the photos, not just mine.


                Kind regards,

                Tempus

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi Tempus.

                  i love casebook, there are people on here who are willing to put their heads above the parapet and propose sometimes outlandish and sometimes possible theories. I am just one of those who will read and make my own mind up ( without resorting to sarcasm or crude remarks ). Hope you havent been offended by anything i have remarked upon, please keep up the good work and trust me when i say that your work in terms of convincing people on here was never going to be easy....especially when it comes to maybrick and the diary ! he is slightly more likely to be JTR on here than the Duke of Clarence ( but only very slightly !! ). I am intrigued by what you have suggested thus far, especially with regards to the handwriting and the stoke newington post card. I may need slightly more convincing with the FM and photo but thats not to say i cannot be convinced.

                  regards

                  Jason

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi Tempest

                    Great work. Very thought provoking. Hang in there and keep digging into the theory you are working on. Above all else please don't stop posting your work on Casebook. I've worked for a lot of different people during my career in the Navy and days in the Pentagon. When I ran into sarcasm during a policy brief it was a sure bet I'd stepped on someone's rice bowl and they were too lazy to argue the facts. Sarcasm is great in a pub but its a bully tactic when you are working...and there is no room for bullies in a life raft.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
                      I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.

                      It is not difficult to decipher these lines; you simply have to read them properly.

                      Tempus
                      Hi Tempus,

                      I see it differently.

                      "All eyes" refers to the Masonic "all-seeing eye".

                      The mark isn't an "F".... it's the symbol for PI (3.14 - the time he killed her).

                      The "M" is a math term for "the slope of the line". Look at how the ankle is posed: the slope is where the tattoo is.

                      Blow up that tattoo: that's where your message is.


                      -Bill

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
                        I give up!
                        Tempus
                        Really? And lose the Soothsayer Garter? You've only just got it, man!

                        Nil desperandum, Sir Tempus o'Revelat. At least you've added to the canon of our possible answers which is more than most have done (Caz has had a few goes - I loved her explanation of 'Christmas save the whore's mole bonnet' on another site, for example). Generally speaking, we get long, fallow periods of inane rambling (usually from me) interspersed with invective from the Naysayers. You've offered real insight with the Stoke Newington postcard (superb work), and your 'FM' has merit, although your 'M' - let's be honest - is a wee bit tangential. The key thing is that you are actually attempting to add to our knowledge.

                        Keep the faith, Sir T., and fly the flag. We should never back down even when we feel we're backed against a wall and the rifles are getting loaded. Keep fighting until the day they finally fire!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          [QUOTE=Soothsayer;218810]Really? And lose the Soothsayer Garter? You've only just got it, man!



                          Hi Tempus!

                          Don't you dare give up on us! Mr. Soothsayer, (my employer), to my knowledge, has never awarded the ancient Soothsayer garter to anyone before on such short acquaintance.

                          I'm looked on as a bit of a nutter myself in some quarters and I've never even seen Mr. Soothsayer's garter.

                          Welcome to 'The Think Outside the Box Club'! Our numbers are growing all the time, and, as Mr. Soothsayer has often said (I think it was him) - 'If you can't join them, beat them'.

                          Carol

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [quote=Carol;218822]
                            Originally posted by Soothsayer View Post
                            Really? And lose the Soothsayer Garter? You've only just got it, man!



                            Hi Tempus!

                            Don't you dare give up on us! Mr. Soothsayer, (my employer), to my knowledge, has never awarded the ancient Soothsayer garter to anyone before on such short acquaintance.

                            I'm looked on as a bit of a nutter myself in some quarters and I've never even seen Mr. Soothsayer's garter.

                            Welcome to 'The Think Outside the Box Club'! Our numbers are growing all the time, and, as Mr. Soothsayer has often said (I think it was him) - 'If you can't join them, beat them'.

                            Carol
                            Well I certainly shall from now on!

                            PS Shouldn't you be pouring my evening sherry, young Carol? You probably work 20 hours a day and I probably don't pay you, but - if I did - I'd expect you to earn your money, you know!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jason View Post
                              Hi Tempus.

                              i love casebook, there are people on here who are willing to put their heads above the parapet and propose sometimes outlandish and sometimes possible theories. I am just one of those who will read and make my own mind up ( without resorting to sarcasm or crude remarks ). Hope you havent been offended by anything i have remarked upon, please keep up the good work and trust me when i say that your work in terms of convincing people on here was never going to be easy....especially when it comes to maybrick and the diary ! he is slightly more likely to be JTR on here than the Duke of Clarence ( but only very slightly !! ). I am intrigued by what you have suggested thus far, especially with regards to the handwriting and the stoke newington post card. I may need slightly more convincing with the FM and photo but thats not to say i cannot be convinced.

                              regards

                              Jason
                              Hello Jason

                              I agree that adventurous and new ideas can be useful to further the field and provoke us to think differently about the case. However, I would submit to you that totally outlandish and unworkable ideas such as those that have been suggested here recently at Casebook that the murderer was Vincent van Gogh, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, or Robert Louis Stevenson, are not in the least helpful but more in the category of time wasters. This forum and the serious people who frequent it deserve better!!!

                              Best regards

                              Chris
                              Christopher T. George
                              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                              just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                              For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                              RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post

                                However, I would submit to you that totally outlandish and unworkable ideas such as those that have been suggested here recently at Casebook that the murderer was Vincent van Gogh, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, or Robert Louis Stevenson, are not in the least helpful but more in the category of time wasters. This forum and the serious people who frequent it deserve better!!!
                                You need to define outlandish I suppose. In my mind, this FM thing is also outlandish and does nothing to further the case. If these incidents were brought up and then quickly dismissed, we could say that the case is furthered by quick removal of dross, but is that really what we want? Every day the study of Jack the Ripper becomes more and more like a ghost hunting exercise. I'm sure we will one day have people posting EVP files and claiming they are the voices of victims calling for help. I may be a skeptic... scratch that, I am a skeptic about many things and I believe historical inquiry should be that. We don't often see the kind of nonsense...er ...fantastic theorizing in other historical studies. Even Dracula has lost all the fantasy elements and we've boiled the legends down to a Wallachian prince who may or may not have done the terrible things he was accused of, but at least we've put a name and a history to the phantoms. I guess I'd like to see something similar happen here, but not in such a weird and illogical manner... according to my way of thinking, mind you.

                                Mike
                                huh?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X