What. Other Than Diary and Watch, Points to Maybrick As JtR?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Coincidence's, many of them, but nothing more.

the DIEGO LAURENZ letter, whitechapel (liverpool), the lost property, the initials, his London link. Just a few off the top of my head... Seeing as there is so many I'm surprised more work hasn't been done, unless they have and they've ALL lead to dead ends???

There is a lot of work being done. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the Diary isn't in James Maybrick's hand....so researchers are looking at possible authors and their connection to the "real" Maybricks.

For my money the one thing that is hardest to explain away is the "May" telegram. I went into it at some length at York.

[Kaz]

There is a lot of work being done. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the Diary isn't in James Maybrick's hand....so researchers are looking at possible authors and their connection to the "real" Maybricks.

For my money the one thing that is hardest to explain away is the "May" telegram. I went into it at some length at York.

Glad to hear that. Not kept updated for many months so don't know about this 'May' telegram (unless I did and forgot)..

Theres a more recent thread that proves alot of the handwriting (letters) resembles James's. Why would a serial killers handwriting remain static anyway? Mine doesn't and I'm not one.... I don't think.

[RavenDarkendale]

Greetings, Sir Robert

Simon Wood has seen a lot of things in these photographs as well.

Indeed he does. I disagree with him, especially on the "murder weapon" showing in the photo. Were it there, I am certain this wold have been mentioned.

And what are the subtle clues to which you refer??

Ah! This has been the bone of contention between Tempus, bless his heart, and myself. The subtle clue would be the FM markings on the wall (real or imaginary) and the FM formed by positioning body parts (ditto).

For this to be a clue, it would be very subtle. How would an investigator possibly tie those initials back to Maybrick? If they were there, which I don't question you can see them provided you are looking for them, wouldn't a smart investigator be looking for a man with the initials FM? How would they possibly say something like: "By Jove, Watson, I have it! The man we are looking for killed because his wife played the whore! You know who fits these clues? James Maybrick! His wife is to my certain knowledge named Florence!"

The reason I say the writer would be more direct is because he crows about how clever he is. This is the bravado of a person who would inject himself into the investigation, drop broad hints, brazenly write his initials in the victim's blood, and write to the police. Not a clue that depends on whether or not the diary is genuine. No Maybrick for a suspect, no meaning to the FM if it was clearly marked in five foot letters. Which it isn't.

I have stated and will again that there is no question of the letter F on the arm of the body in Miller's Court. The M, whichever one you see, or all of them, are definitely subject to interpretation. I also pointed out that we have quite a few suspects on the list whose first or last name begins with F, which James Maybrick doesn't. It would be more reasonable to suspect someone with an F actually in their name than one that would require a J or M.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The reason I say the writer would be more direct is because he crows about how clever he is. This is the bravado of a person who would inject himself into the investigation, drop broad hints, brazenly write his initials in the victim's blood, and write to the police. Not a clue that depends on whether or not the diary is genuine. No Maybrick for a suspect, no meaning to the FM if it was clearly marked in five foot letters. Which it isn't.

The Diarist also says things like "One day God will answer to me." (I find this a striking phrase, but that's me.) There's a lot of bragging and posturing; interesting since Maybrick was always living above his means. But the real Jack the Ripper was a coward killing the most vulnerable prey. So I don't take literally a lot of stuff the Diarist wrote. He didn't "spread Mayhem" across the land except on Casebook message boards.

I have stated and will again that there is no question of the letter F on the arm of the body in Miller's Court. The M, whichever one you see, or all of them, are definitely subject to interpretation.

I see what you are talking about with the F on the arm, although I personally wouldn't try to opine on whether or not it's an artifact of the photograph, the way the blood seeped, or actually there. I am not poo-pooing it, just wondering if it isn't like seeing shapes in clouds.

[Brenda]

.

The one thing I find interesting is how the prior pages of the diary are torn out. That could mean anything....yes, even that it was purchased somewhere years later. But it could also mean that the writer was at some point keeping an "honest diary" with lots of details that would have identified him. Then he tore those out out to record his breakdown.

But in all honesty, I believe the diary was written by someone in an attempt to clear Mrs. F.M.'s name. I just do not believe she killed Maybrick. but...that's another thread.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

How about there ain't no initials on that wall?

No that anyone cares, but I wouldn't count on the "whoring mother" being Flo. Flo's mother was a real piece of work. The "actual" Sir James married Florence thinking he was going to get his mitts on her mom's money. Didn't pan out.

Robert, you seem to be confusing the issue for yourself. Did the writer of the diary leave initials in the room of MJK or not. If he did, then how did he create them and where did he place them. If he didn't, then why does he say that he has?

If you don't believe that any FMs occur in MJKs room, then what you are saying is the the writer of the diary is a liar, therefore, the diary is a forgery.

This is very simple. The writer of the diary states that he has left you something in the front (an FM). He tells you that he has been clever with it. All you have to do is work out where the 'front' is and look there.

I have shown you where the front is, Robert. I have shown you a cut on Kelly's arm that looks like an F; and I have shown you three other items, two of which shouldn't be there, that create something aking to an M right next to it. If you don't believe me, Robert, then you are merely disbelieving the diarist. That's up to you.


It seems to me that some pro-diaryists seem to be retracing their steps with regards what has been stated before. Even the original diary team came to the conclusion that the diarist was referring to an FM (although they got the wrong one) in the room. If we are going to start debating simple things like that, then we may as well go back to the beginning and try and find another writer for the diary itself. This is ludicrous.

If this diary is genuine, then of course he staing that the initial is FM! Who else do you think the whoring mother is?

If it is a forgery then, again, the forger is talking about the initials of Florence. Otherwise, what's the point of faking a diary around James Maybrick.

I'm starting to come down on the side of Phil now. At least he acknowledges that in order to fake a diary around the MJK photo, there has to be something in it that looks like an FM in the first place.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Tempus

Just a question, not an argument for or against the diary, but has it been checked for trace evidence, fingerprints, DNA, etc, as Patrica Cornwell has done with the JtR letters? She basically proved Sickert wrote some of the letters attributed to JtR, which still falls short of proving Sicket WAS JtR. There were multiple authors who sent letters, most just for the hell of it.

Trace evidence would go a long way in proving the diary either genuine or fake. I doubt the writer wore gloves, and pens being what they were then, inky prints or partials were common. DNA could possibly be there as well.

Again, this is just a question of is there any chance of trace evidence, not an argument for or against the diary.

And hey, I meant that "bless his dear heart" in my post. You try hard to focus on real issues, you always argue from an evidence viewpoint. If we disagree, we remain friendly.

Take care, mon ami

Darkendale

[Tempus omnia revelat]

@ Tempus

Just a question, not an argument for or against the diary, but has it been checked for trace evidence, fingerprints, DNA, etc, as Patrica Cornwell has done with the JtR letters? She basically proved Sickert wrote some of the letters attributed to JtR, which still falls short of proving Sicket WAS JtR. There were multiple authors who sent letters, most just for the hell of it.

I'm pretty sure they haven't, Raven. Maybe Sir Robert knows better. Doing any type DNA or fingerprint analysis on this document would be difficult. Firstly, the document has been handled by countless people over the years, and so wading through all the different strands would be difficult. Many of the original traces could have been obliterated over time. Secondly, of course, you need a good source to match it against, which is again tricky. I'm not saying it couldn't be done (and I, for one, would like to try it. Especially on certain sections that seem to have been overlooked) but it would be difficult.

It is debatable whether PC's DNA evidence proves that Walter Sickert sent letters police (although, my own personal belief is that he did). It was, after all, only Mitochondrial DNA they found. Having said that ,I have, however, often thought of applying it to Maybrick and the letters at the PRO.

Trace evidence would go a long way in proving the diary either genuine or fake. I doubt the writer wore gloves, and pens being what they were then, inky prints or partials were common. DNA could possibly be there as well.

Again, this is just a question of is there any chance of trace evidence, not an argument for or against the diary.


I think there is every chance of trace evidence being found as long as it is applied to the right areas and uses a reliable source. However, I do think it would need someone with more money than I have at the moment to find out. Lol

And hey, I meant that "bless his dear heart" in my post. You try hard to focus on real issues, you always argue from an evidence viewpoint. If we disagree, we remain friendly.

Indeed we do, Raven. I always enjoy your posts.

Take care, mon ami

Darkendale

Take care too, Raven.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

This is very simple. The writer of the diary states that he has left you something in the front (an FM). He tells you that he has been clever with it. All you have to do is work out where the 'front' is and look there.

The Diarist at no point says he has left FM anywhere. FM is not mentioned in the text.

So explain to me why the Diary's legitimacy hinges on this, as opposed to the small matter of the handwriting(s) not matching what we know of the "real" Sir James ??

[Tempus omnia revelat]

The Diarist at no point says he has left FM anywhere. FM is not mentioned in the text.

So explain to me why the Diary's legitimacy hinges on this, as opposed to the small matter of the handwriting(s) not matching what we know of the "real" Sir James ??

Robert, the writer of the diary tells you he has left you the intials of the whoring mother in the room. Who do you think the whoring mother refers to? Even the original diary team worked that one out. Couple that with the fact that you can see things in the room that look like FMs and it doesn't take much working out.

How did you work out the diary writer purports to be Maybrick? How do you know Bunny is Florence? These things are worked out by common sense and logic, Robert.

Your belief (and mine) in the diary's authenticity relies on this FM, Robert, because the writer of the diary has stated that he has left you something (an initial) in the front. That is the front! If there is nothing there, or you believe there is nothing there, then you are saying that the writer has lied. Therefore, how can you have any faith in what he says in the rest of the diary? Fortunately for both of us, though, there just so happens to be something that looks like an FM precisely where he said there would be.

You either believe the diary writer or you don't, Robert. If he says he's left you something in the front, it seems stupid to me to not try and look for it if you can. Luckily, we can!

At the moment you seem to be arguing with not just me and the original diary team over the interpretation of these lines, but also the diarist himself.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Porky Man]

Robert, the writer of the diary tells you he has left you the intials of the whoring mother in the room. Who do you think the whoring mother refers to? Even the original diary team worked that one out. Couple that with the fact that you can see things in the room that look like FMs and it doesn't take much working out.

How did you work out the diary writer purports to be Maybrick? How do you know Bunny is Florence? These things are worked out by common sense and logic, Robert.

Your belief (and mine) in the diary's authenticity relies on this FM, Robert, because the writer of the diary has stated that he has left you something (an initial) in the front. That is the front! If there is nothing there, or you believe there is nothing there, then you are saying that the writer has lied. Therefore, how can you have any faith in what he says in the rest of the diary? Fortunately for both of us, though, there just so happens to be something that looks like an FM precisely where he said there would be.

You either believe the diary writer or you don't, Robert. If he says he's left you something in the front, it seems stupid to me to not try and look for it if you can. Luckily, we can!

At the moment you seem to be arguing with not just me and the original diary team over the interpretation of these lines, but also the diarist himself.


Kind regards,


Tempus

tempus - the FM appears 3 times, as well you know. theres the one on the wall, theres the more tenuous one you identify (not knocking it, just stating a fact), and theres the fact that MJKs body was left in an FM shape (the arm is across the body in a very implausible way if it wasnt staged that way, and her legs form a very plausible M).

he certainly did leave it in front for all to see - at least 3 times (maybe more).
focus on the problem not the flame war. how could one obscure candidate for JtR have so much going for him. it is beyond the realms of reason to think a forger could be so fortunate.
just keep solving the case not trying to win every battle.

[Cogidubnus]

I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...repeat after me, I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...

All the best

Dave

[Porky Man]

I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...repeat after me, I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...I must be kind-hearted and gentlemanly...

All the best

Dave

i think you flatter yourself if you think your forebearance makes you kind-hearted and gentlemanly.
fire away if you have a point to make - dont spare the rod on my account.
my point was to tempus alone not to the common man, to not be distracted from what he is achieving by engaging in meaningless debate. he is clearly making grounds and makin a difference. more than most hav evr done anyway.

[Cogidubnus]

What forebearance Porky? I offer none, bar that of one, hopefully kind human being, towards another...

Who is this "common man" you so clearly spurn?

All the best

Dave

[Tempus omnia revelat]

tempus - the FM appears 3 times, as well you know. theres the one on the wall, theres the more tenuous one you identify (not knocking it, just stating a fact), and theres the fact that MJKs body was left in an FM shape (the arm is across the body in a very implausible way if it wasnt staged that way, and her legs form a very plausible M).

he certainly did leave it in front for all to see - at least 3 times (maybe more).
focus on the problem not the flame war. how could one obscure candidate for JtR have so much going for him. it is beyond the realms of reason to think a forger could be so fortunate.
just keep solving the case not trying to win every battle.

my point was to tempus alone not to the common man, to not be distracted from what he is achieving by engaging in meaningless debate. he is clearly making grounds and makin a difference. more than most hav evr done anyway.

Thanks Porky Man.

Actually, I have identified another FM on the wall. I'm hoping to share it with you all soon.

You are quite right in saying that no forger could be so lucky, that is why I argue my points so strongly, and I will continue to do so. The luck this so-called forger would have needed has gone well beyond the boundries of a simple 'three-book' mock-up.

I may seem as if I am trying to win every battle, Porky, but I am not. I am merely engaging in conversation with like-minded people. I know what I have found is correct and I try to make people understand it. If they do not, then that is up to them. I do not let those discussions, however, interfere with the rest of my research.


Kind regards,


Tempus