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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Victor]

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

Hi Sir RA,

I completely agree, there are no initials on the wall or in the photo, I was just looking for another explanation for the line in the Diary.

KR,
Vic.

[Kaz]

In all seriousness I am wondering something. Without the infamous diary and watch for evidence, what ties James Maybrick to the crimes?

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???

Wish I had lots of money and a Sherlock Holmes brain, I'd love to get to the bottom of this!

Ps, wheres SOOTH!?

[Jason]

that simon wood piece is very thought provoking to say the very least, just had a 15 minute scan of what he wrote and lets just say i will be setting an hour or two aside to read it fully.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Couldn't the initials be WM?

WM = "whoring mother"
WM = "Whitechapel Murderer"

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.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Nor would I try to, but I'm certain Tempus would point out that Maybrick's "whoring mother" could only refer to Florence Maybrick, and her initials are FM.

Tempus is allowed to see whatever he wishes, but even he can't change the text. Whatever is on that wall is probably an artifact of the photographic process. But it ain't in the Diary.

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

http://www.casebook.org/images/rip62-sample.pdf?

I have said elsewhere that the braggito of the diary and subtle clues are diametrically opposed to each other. I haven't changed my mind.

I believe performing literary criticism on the Diary leads to strange conclusions. What is the "real" Jack the Ripper Diary supposed to sound like? I think a lot of these guys are tigers in their minds and cowards in the real world.

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

I don't expect you to change your mind, Raven. In over a decade on the Casebook Diary threads - probably longer - I have never seen anyone change their mind. They start with their conclusion, and repeat and rinse again and again.

[Victor]

the wording was, and is:
An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother.

Couldn't the initials be WM?

WM = "whoring mother"
WM = "Whitechapel Murderer"

KR,
Vic.

[RavenDarkendale]

But you can't show me how "an initial here and an initial there" leads to "FM" on the wall.

Nor would I try to, but I'm certain Tempus would point out that Maybrick's "whoring mother" could only refer to Florence Maybrick, and her initials are FM.

I have said elsewhere that the braggito of the diary and subtle clues are diametrically opposed to each other. I haven't changed my mind.

Darkendale

[miakaal4]

Dredging the river Mersey might throw up Jim's knife, but there are probably hundreds of bits of metal in the area of Battlecrease and who would pay for such a mad scheme?
If Maybrick did it, there may be something else out there showing a link. The item in the lost property for a Mr Milbrac for example?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

True! But as Tempus has explained ad infinitum, the wording was, and is: An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother.

I know what the phrasing is. I've read the text more times than is healthy lol.

But you can't show me how "an initial here and an initial there" leads to "FM" on the wall.

All I am saying is that if we want to debate/debunk the Diary, let's not have it saying things it doesn't in fact say. There's enough that IS there to sustain a debate....