Tweet
I should think so too, Phil. Personal conviction and blind faith are much better..... surely??? 
-
-
Sally, I prefer blind conviction and personal faith - it helps one blend in on Casebook so much better.
Phil HComment
-
Originally Posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
I wonder what you would say if I was to show you another FM, written on the partition wall of Mary kelly's bedroom, that no one has seen before. I mean I know what Phil would say: trick of the light! or some such nonsense, but it would be interesting to see the excuses then.
Have you listened to anything I say? I have spotted the FM on the wall in black and white prints. For example here
Faint but legible on the wall. But in this enhancement by Amberlime
it doesn't show so much. Why would an enhancement fail to make the FM more legible? Just asking. You could make a case for it to be still there, but in the enhancement it doesn't come across as deliberate like in the b&w, it's more like eyes finding familiar shapes in the wall patterns.
But I did see that FM as well as you did. As I have said elsewhere, the tone of the diary runs from bravado to depression. The man was obsessed with his cleverness over other people. If this is truly Maybrick writing, a possibility one cannot just dismiss, I think he would have had the stones to mark the wall JM.
For me the FM is misleading, requiring the diary for an explanation. The overall tome of the diary is so narcissistic the FM would be explained only by the writer thinking, "I wrote on the wall and left marks that mean something to me and me alone. Stupid peelers won't figure this out! Ha Ha!" Maybe... Maybe not...
Devilishly nteresting though
God Bless
Raven DarkendaleLast edited by RavenDarkendale; 10-20-2012, 12:45 AM.And the questions always linger, no real answer in sightComment
-
Regarding Maybrick being "clever", he writes it many times, and sometimes it is not clear what he has been clever about. I was assuming that he was congratulating himself for not getting caught, however I am starting to believe it was about not being recognised or described by witnesses.
When you consider the description of a suspect having a black moustache and sandy eyelashes, it does sound a bit wrong.
And consider the Astrakhan man who Hutchingson saw. The wannabe Sherlock gave him a good looking over, describing him from spats to curled up moustache. What did the man do? He didn't hide his face, he didn't stop and demand to know what the other was looking at, but he stared right back at Hutchingson and walked on. A brutal (run of the mill) killer would surely have been aggressive. A serial killer not wanting to be identified might try to hide his face. But a man in disguise would want his appearence remembered.
Alight moustache blackened, eyebrows even. Skin tone darkend, different hats, coats boots, whatever. The fact is that most of the witnesses say the guy was between 5'5"-5'8" this could easily be misjudged by the hat, meaning he could have been about 5'6" every time?Last edited by miakaal4; 10-20-2012, 11:45 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by RavenDarkendale View PostOriginally Posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
I wonder what you would say if I was to show you another FM, written on the partition wall of Mary kelly's bedroom, that no one has seen before. I mean I know what Phil would say: trick of the light! or some such nonsense, but it would be interesting to see the excuses then.
Have you listened to anything I say? I have spotted the FM on the wall in black and white prints. For example here
Erm..yes I have. I was referring to a completely different FM, Raven.
Faint but legible on the wall. But in this enhancement by Amberlime
it doesn't show so much. Why would an enhancement fail to make the FM more legible? Just asking. You could make a case for it to be still there, but in the enhancement it doesn't come across as deliberate like in the b&w, it's more like eyes finding familiar shapes in the wall patterns.
The two photos that you have shown links to are not the greatest, Raven. The enhancement, for a start, shows the background completely out of focus. Its whole purpose is to show the mutilations to Kelly in more detail, not to show the detail of the partition wall. The other one is a normal black and white image. Black and white film has a slight sensitivity to the infrared spectrum and, depending what film you use, this can give you differing results (particularly if it has been obtained from the original in the PRO). Therefore, some photos may show things on the partiton wall that others do not. Add to this the effect of lighting conditions, and so on, and any number of results can be obtained. That does not mean, however, that what they are showing you is not there (as some people would have us believe), it merely means that it is harder - but not impossible - to decipher what is actually there.
Trying to get clear and concise photos of the markings on that partion wall, raven, is incredibly difficult, but, as I say, not impossible. Believe me, I know, because I have photos in my possession that show clear writing on much of the panelling. I am, However, trying to get this writing into a much clearer definition in order to post it on here. This takes time.
In the vicinity of the - supossed - FM on the wall, there are many different marks and words placed there; these cross one another and, therefore, make it extremely difficult to separate one strand of lettering from another. The writing on the upper parts is not so crowded.
But I did see that FM as well as you did. As I have said elsewhere, the tone of the diary runs from bravado to depression. The man was obsessed with his cleverness over other people. If this is truly Maybrick writing, a possibility one cannot just dismiss, I think he would have had the stones to mark the wall JM.
For me the FM is misleading, requiring the diary for an explanation. The overall tome of the diary is so narcissistic the FM would be explained only by the writer thinking, "I wrote on the wall and left marks that mean something to me and me alone. Stupid peelers won't figure this out! Ha Ha!" Maybe... Maybe not...
As I have said, raven, the phrase 'I left it there for the fools' does not refer to the FM on the wall. It refers to the one I have shown you. If you read the three lines correctly, you will understand this.
Devilishly nteresting though
It certainly is.
God Bless
Raven Darkendale
Kind regards,
TempusLast edited by Tempus omnia revelat; 10-22-2012, 10:51 AM.Comment
-
-
@ Tempus
A) You have a diary you cannot prove to be genuine that says Maybrick left a clue for all to see, doesn't mention an FM at all
B) I concentrated on the F because you felt it was so important, and because the F is highly visible. As for an M formed by the chemise, I don't see it. The marks on the wall, yes I see them. The chemise is a matter of interpretation that I cannot see. This is not because of my thought that the diary COULD HAVE been forged. I am well aware that it cannot be proven a fake. I do stand by my statement that anyone as egocentric as the writer of this diary would not leave subtle clues as he feels he is so clever that he cannot be found out.
C) Check here: http://forum.casebook.org/images/sta...n/post_old.gif
As I recall the diary writer only said he left "his mark". Was it the face cuts? Perhaps. And perhaps his signature was the double slashing of the throat which Polly, Annie, and Catherine all shared.
You seem to feel that unless I completely share your views I am wasting my time, and yours for that matter in replying. I cannot, and I repeat, cannot prove you wrong about the diary. But I don't think the evidence is there to prove you right either. If I felt at all that it could be proven either way, I'd say so.
I came on this forum to discuss victims, motives, suspects, evidence, etc. I've talked with you a bit because I have read the diary transcript and have seen the facsimile. I've read at least two author's books on the subject, and one or two who strongly disagree. I cannot go with either as I truly believe that the verdict on the subject should be NOT PROVEN
Hoping no hard feeling will be between us, certainly none on my part.
God Bless
Raven DarkendaleAnd the questions always linger, no real answer in sightComment
-
I agree with you, and I don't see how it could be argued otherwise. Clearly it has been lol.....Originally posted by RavenDarkendale View Post
I think the only thing I would add is that many of the objections to the Diary have contained a great deal of sound and fury, looking superficially impressive but not standing up to any in depth probing. Would I like a clear provenance? Who wouldn't? But if the damned thing was stolen out of Battlecrease that's just never going to be in the cards. Up until very recently you've even had people arguing over the provenance of the Swanson Marginalia. No one will ever be satisfied with the story of the origins of the Diary, nor the Watch, even though common sense suggests they both emanated from Battlecrease at around the same time.Managing Editor
Casebook WikiComment
-
-
I would love to know what Maybricks brothers were looking for when they ransacked the house. I get the feeling that either Florence said something perhaps while in a "swoon" about the Diary, or Mrs Yapp knew something, that caused the search. But it may not have been the diary it could be something else they were looking for. As they got rid of everything emptying the house, it is unclear if anything was found.
What one needs to do, is find the place where the diary was kept immediately after it was taken.
Judging by the history of the two items it seems like they may have been kept together or taken together. Was there anything else?
If so, can the diary give a clue? And if the Baroness was the person who had the diary immediately after Florence arrest, did she have anything else?Comment
-
Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
Hi, miakaal4.
One thing I did notice about the diary - which may or may not have something to do with it's origins - is that on the front (could be back) cover there is a circular blister mark. This gives the impression of something having been stored on top of it, like a paint tin or some such item. Seeing as how Anne Graham said (truthfully or not) that the diary - at one point - had been stored behind a bedside table in one of the bedrooms, it could point to an earlier storage place for the diary. It is just a thought.
Kind regards,
TempusComment
-
Sorry, RvaenDarkendale, but he does mention an FM.
Just Raven, please. Or Dale, which is my first name.
If you read that section of the diary properly, you will see this. Secondly, there are quite clerly marks and items that form things akin to FMs. It is a simple logical step.
Page number of the diary please for this reference, if it's there I will find it.
I felt the F and the chemise were equally important, Raven. In fact, the chemise is, technically, even more important than the F. It is deliberately placed right next to the F and, therefore, requires an explanation. Sorry, this is simple stuff again.
Again, Raven, to suggest the diarist wouldn't leave subtle clues, when they are all over the murder scenes, is a little contradictory.
If I take the position the diary is fake, then it would be contradictory indeed. But taking the tone of the writer of the diary, and with my experience in dealing with people with a wide variety of mental problems ( I have seen it all in the hospitals which I pray I never have to see again!) subtle is not the word that comes to mind. Besides a clue that depends on the diary for conformation is no clue. Suppose the diary had never been discovered. Would there be any reason to suspect Maybrick at all? Without Maybrick as a suspect, the FM markings do not relate easily to other suspects, do they?
So it goes like this:
For want of a diary, James Maybrick loses his suspect status.
For want of a suspect, the FM markings have no explanation.
For want of an explanation, the FM marks have no value as evidence.
Everything thus hinges on the diary
Perhaps you would consider clarifying just how the chemise forms an M? As I say I cannot see it even with a big magnifying glass. Obviously, you can, as I don't feel you would say something you didn't believe to be true. That is to your credit.
C) Check here: http://forum.casebook.org/images/sta...n/post_old.gif
I'm not sure what point of the diary you are referring to here, Raven. The only time he says he left 'marks' was when he was referring to the killing of Catherine Eddowes. I am talking about the MJK murder. The marks he talks about are of course the marks on Eddowes' face, what else could they be, especially if this is a forgery.
Yes, and the link is about Eddows. It shows how the "inverted V's" that you wish to believe form an M, could have been caused by the first attempt to slice off Eddows' nose. If Maybrick is going to be the suspect, then more than MJK has to be discussed. Which was the point I was making.
Not true, Raven. I have said many times that people have a perfect right to their views, but that goes both ways, Raven. The difference is that I offer up actual evidence (whether you understand it or not) and debate it there on. Other people (I'm not talking about you here) just simply wade in with ridiculous arguments that they have not thought through; and whilst they are perfectly entitled to those views, don't expect me to not challenge their views and keep just quite. That is why the diary has remained on the backfoot for so long. There has been more evidence offered up to prove the diary is real, Raven, than there has been to prove it a forgery. But, as the antis say, it is not their job to prove it a fake - which is very convenient.
Yeah, that is always the problem, whether we are talking this diary or the existence of God. The naysayers say it is up to believers to prove the point. They just say no way, and go on. A cross to bear, unfortunately. I am not trying to prove the diary fake. I believe in the possibility of anything being true, and likewise anything being false.
There is no hard feeling, Raven. We are here to discuss things. If we were to ever meet, I'm sure we would have a great time debating each others points of view.
LOL. Very likely! But probably a raised voice or so during the debate. I couldn't see us ever resorting to name calling and vitriolic language. Life is short, my cousin, 38, was murdered yesterday. Too dang short for harshness over suspects in a over 100 year old murder spree.
God Bless
Raven DarkendaleAnd the questions always linger, no real answer in sightComment
-
Respectfully Sir Robert, that is only common sense if you first take as a given they are both genuine. The diary I find improbable, but not impossible.Originally posted by Sir Robert Anderson View Post
The watch is another bird altogether. Why would Maybrick invest money in a gold watch that doesn't have HIS INITIALS engraved on it? His name is scratched inside, true. But JO on the outside? Why? The scratches of initials inside are far from perfectly clear, but could be interpreted as the initials of the C5, that much is true. I am Jack is there. What cannot be denied should never be swept under the rug. The marks are there, when, how, and by whom is a more nebulous task, which comes down to "we don't know for certain", another "unproven" verdict.
Now here in the interests of fairness I'll play devil's advocate. If as some have said a forger took the names from the newspaper why are they numbered one through five? The newspaper reported Polly Nichols as the 3RD victim, after Smith and Tabram, and listed Mary Kelly as the 7TH victim. To get the C5 in that order the forger would have had to get his info from Scotland Yard, where 5 and 5 alone were stressed. At least research what is available before presenting a theory, please!
The watch I find to be extremely unlikely. I concede the possibility, the probability is higher for the diary than the watch.
Here is a thought, for what it is worth. Pawnshops were known to scratch marks inside of pawned watches. As I said the letters in the C5 initials are debatable. Could be the watch was pawned five times at five different pawn shops. But whoever scratched James Maybrick and I am Jack did so with only one purpose: Either it WAS Maybrick and he had something to do with JtR (which would help the diary), or the person who made these marks wanted the watch to be identified with Maybrick, perhaps to add credence to the diary. It's a leap of faith either way.
God Bless
Raven DarkendaleAnd the questions always linger, no real answer in sightComment
-
Just Raven, please. Or Dale, which is my first name.
Raven it is then. I never presume to shorten people's names inless they allow me. even screen names.
Page number of the diary please for this reference, if it's there I will find it.
Raven I can give you the page numbers and the lines.
Pg. 249
'An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother.'
'I left it there for the fools but they will never find. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.'
These lines are very easy to decipher if you just use common sense and logic. The same logic and common sense, incidentally, that we all used in the beginning to actually work out who the diary's writer purported to be.
If I take the position the diary is fake, then it would be contradictory indeed. But taking the tone of the writer of the diary, and with my experience in dealing with people with a wide variety of mental problems ( I have seen it all in the hospitals which I pray I never have to see again!) subtle is not the word that comes to mind. Besides a clue that depends on the diary for conformation is no clue. Suppose the diary had never been discovered. Would there be any reason to suspect Maybrick at all? Without Maybrick as a suspect, the FM markings do not relate easily to other suspects, do they?
No, there wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been the ripper. After all, I keep on hearing that, in all probability, Jack the Ripper was some complete unknown, so if the diary had never been found, that would've made Maybrick even more of a likely suspect in the eyes of certain people, wouldn't it? The fact that the FM doesn't relate to any other suspect, should set alarm bells ringing, Raven. If it doesn't relate to any other suspect, then who does it relate to? It is in the picture. Perhaps it could be the chap who has been telling you he is JtR all along. The one who's handwriting looks like the letters of the time, the one who gives explanations for items at crime scenes that no one has given before, and the one who has so many coincidences surrounding him, that it is starting to become ridiculous when people say we should ignore this document.
Again, Raven, it all depends on the individual, what type of mental illness they have, and how badly they suffer from it. To make rash judgements like 'someone with a mental illness wouldn't be that subtle' is a little ludicrous. Trust me, I have a mental illness, and I can be more than subtle if I need to be.
People that are taken into hospital because of a mental condition, Raven, are there because there illness has got to a point where they can no longer cope with the outside world. There mania, depression - or whatever - has reached the extreme. You cannot apply to someone who has not reached that extreme - for whatever reason - the same attributes as someone who has. Subtlety is perfectly viable in someone of this nature.
So it goes like this:
For want of a diary, James Maybrick loses his suspect status.
Not at all. It is true that without the diary we would not have known of Maybrick, but that does not mean he could not have been the ripper. Especially when you have FMs in actual photgraphs and letters picked out by the original diary team that match his handwritting.
For want of a suspect, the FM markings have no explanation.
Precisely. That is why Maybrick is such a good suspect: because he actually gives you an answer for these things. No one else can.
For want of an explanation, the FM marks have no value as evidence.
Everything thus hinges on the diary
Clear letters left by a killer at a murder scene (Maybrick or not) have no value in a murder case where you have been trying to work out the killer's identity for over a century(?)!n I'd think about that one again, Raven.
Perhaps you would consider clarifying just how the chemise forms an M? As I say I cannot see it even with a big magnifying glass. Obviously, you can, as I don't feel you would say something you didn't believe to be true. That is to your credit.
Raven, The chemise forms the M along with the outer left arm and the inner left thigh. The killer brought the chemise back over the body and placed it directly at the mid point between the two, to create the middle 'V' part of the M. This is why the material is compressed. This happened not only as he was placing the chemise on top of the body, but also when he scrunched the material up into the desired shape. The M he created is actually more of an outline, Raven.
This is incredibly difficult to explain to someone on a forum thread, Raven. But I will try and post a clearer explanation for you.
C) Check here: http://forum.casebook.org/images/sta...n/post_old.gif
Yes, and the link is about Eddows. It shows how the "inverted V's" that you wish to believe form an M, could have been caused by the first attempt to slice off Eddows' nose. If Maybrick is going to be the suspect, then more than MJK has to be discussed. Which was the point I was making.
Thanks, Raven, but I have photographs of the original at home.
The chances of creating two V marks by slicing of here nose is remote, Raven. The force with which one would have needed to cut the nose off would have been completely uncontrollable. The cuts start above the nose and so, in order to cut the whole nose off, the force of the follow through would have carried the blade much further than what we see on the diagram. The marks are far too neat and tidy for me; they are on the same level and have a controlled feel and look to them. If one V was further down than the other, or bigger, or slightly askew, I might be convinced; but, as I say, they both seem pretty controlled to me.
There is no hard feeling, Raven. We are here to discuss things. If we were to ever meet, I'm sure we would have a great time debating each others points of view.
LOL. Very likely! But probably a raised voice or so during the debate. I couldn't see us ever resorting to name calling and vitriolic language. Life is short, my cousin, 38, was murdered yesterday. Too dang short for harshness over suspects in a over 100 year old murder spree.
I'm sorry to hear that, Raven. Truly I am. I enjoy your questions and the debates we have. They are most refreshing. I hope they will continue.
God Bless
Raven Darkendale[/QUOTE]
Kind regards,
TempusLast edited by Tempus omnia revelat; 10-24-2012, 10:25 AM.Comment
-
Words and phrases of interest.
This is just from the first few pages of the diary.
"Decision regards the children." Because Florence will be dead?
"Revenge" "Campaign". Denoting a plan already formed and its motivation?
"Opportunity is there of this I am certain". Has done some field research?
"I shake with the fear of capture!" So, he knows he is doing wrong.
"Not to think of the children". He has decided not to worry about the cost to his children, as a result of his actions/ the thought of them prevents the 'killer' inside him from emerging fully?
"I felt nothing". After strangling Manchester whore. Was he being honest here? Could he not feel anything or was he pushing any guilt away? Why mention it?
Then we have a strange set of sentances that hide an important question, but also illustrate his mind jumping from topic to topic.
"I will take the bitch tonight".
"I need to take my mind of the nights events".
"The children are well".
What event/s was he referring to? The Manchester W? Was guilt creeping back?
Just some stuff to think over...for those who have an interest.
Comment
Comment