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

[RavenDarkendale]

Hang on a bit.....Even if one accepts the theory of initials left in the room....Why do they have to be in the area covered by the photo?..And if they ARE in the photo for all to see,why did it take so long before anyone did....?

They don't necessarily but what could be more front than beside the bed?

@ Porky Man

=Porky Man: the FM appears 3 times, as well you know. there's the one on the wall, there's the more tenuous one you identify (not knocking it, just stating a fact), and there's the fact that MJKs body was left in an FM shape (the arm is across the body in a very implausible way if it wasn't staged that way, and her legs form a very plausible M).

Thank you. I'm glad someone besides me noted the staged position of the body to form an M

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...e/05-mar10.jpg

Now an aside: The C5 murder sites can be connected to form an M. It has been said by those who espouse the Royal Conspiracy theory that the M was for Masons. Could it have stood for Maybrick? As the diary is still unproven one way or another, and the M formed by the murder sites can also be a W for Walter Sickert, a five point star, occult, and various other shapes de3pending on how you connect them, we will likely never know...

God Bless

Darkendale

PS Sorry I was out of touch for a bit, my first grandson was born in Nashville on Tuesday 11/6/2012.

[Steve S]

Hang on a bit.....Even if one accepts the theory of initials left in the room....Why do they have to be in the area covered by the photo?..And if they ARE in the photo for all to see,why did it take so long before anyone did....?

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=caz;245561]No need to shout, Tempus.

I have read the diary you know - several times. You keep concentrating on that photo if you must; I prefer to take in the bigger picture and consider this man, supposedly obsessed with initials: those of his victims (scratched in his watch) as well as the 'whoring mother' who is blamed for the bodies piling up. All those initials, taken together or separately, are effectively 'telling' of Florie's infidelity. She is the whoring mother who gave birth to 'Sir Jim's' dastardly deeds.

We must all concentrate on that photo, caz, because the writer of the diary has specificallty stated that he has left you something in that area.

So you agree that the whoring mother is Florence? Therefore, the initials that he has left consitute the letters FM. Which is what I have been saying all along.
I don't know what's real in the photo and what's a photographic effect, so I wasn't giving my opinion on that. All I'm saying is that our diarist must have chosen to leave things vague, or it would have been spelled out for us, and you would not now be trying to convince everyone that only your interpretation can be the correct one.

You may not know what is real and what is an effect, but I do. The F on her arm is not an effect, caz. It is a real incision made by the murderer. The chemise is not an effect, it is an actual item left by the murderer in that room. I am not talking about smudges or shadows that can be interpreted as shapes, I am talking about actual items created by the killer.

My interpretation is the correct one because it is a deliberately created FM and it is exactly where he said it would be - the front. Forger or not, caz, this is what the diarist is referring to. Whether you like it or not.

You might well be right about an F shape carved into MJK's arm (by accident or design). I first discussed this possibility years ago, when I suggested that the diarist was referring to this when 'Sir Jim' fantasised about carving his funny little rhyme into his next victim's flesh (where changing the emphasis to 'rhyme' from 'flesh' would imply he had carved something shorter into MJK's flesh). But what if this were proved just a trick of the light and not a deliberately placed F at all? At any time another photo could have surfaced to put paid to the whole idea. So we must ask ourselves why the diarist was so careful not to write anything too specific about the various 'clues' left behind.

There is no way you can carve a shape like that on someone's arm without meaning to. It's simple. To call it a trick of the light is to have very little understanding of an actual crime scene. As I have said before: no one is arguing that the cuts above the F are actual cuts, but because this one looks like an F, everyone starts going into ridiculous mode. This is a cut. End of story.

I have already stated that I believe 'the funny little ryhme' bit refers to the F.

Again, caz, you fail to appreciate the significance of the chemise and the reasons why it is where it is. This is exceedingly important to the whole thing.

Kind regards,



Tempus

[caz]

No need to shout, Tempus.

I have read the diary you know - several times. You keep concentrating on that photo if you must; I prefer to take in the bigger picture and consider this man, supposedly obsessed with initials: those of his victims (scratched in his watch) as well as the 'whoring mother' who is blamed for the bodies piling up. All those initials, taken together or separately, are effectively 'telling' of Florie's infidelity. She is the whoring mother who gave birth to 'Sir Jim's' dastardly deeds.

I don't know what's real in the photo and what's a photographic effect, so I wasn't giving my opinion on that. All I'm saying is that our diarist must have chosen to leave things vague, or it would have been spelled out for us, and you would not now be trying to convince everyone that only your interpretation can be the correct one.

You might well be right about an F shape carved into MJK's arm (by accident or design). I first discussed this possibility years ago, when I suggested that the diarist was referring to this when 'Sir Jim' fantasised about carving his funny little rhyme into his next victim's flesh (where changing the emphasis to 'rhyme' from 'flesh' would imply he had carved something shorter into MJK's flesh). But what if this were proved just a trick of the light and not a deliberately placed F at all? At any time another photo could have surfaced to put paid to the whole idea. So we must ask ourselves why the diarist was so careful not to write anything too specific about the various 'clues' left behind.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

[QUOTE=caz;245451]Why 'lucky', if these FMs are really there in the photo for all to see? The hoaxer could simply have seized the opportunity to exploit them in a diary claiming that James Maybrick was Jack and murdered the women because of Florie's known infidelity - ingenious.

But they are still in the photo, so who left them there?

Except that no FMs were exploited in the making of the diary, or the hoaxer would have written "I left the initials F and M all over the place, yet nobody even noticed them, I was too clever".

The diary author was only 'lucky' in the sense that the initial left here and the initial left there are not spelled out, explained or given actual locations. Not so ingenious, if FMs had been described in detail and later shown to be nothing but photographic effects.

Oh dear. If you seriously think that that FM in the 'Front' is a photographic effect caz, then that is up to you. To say that no locations are actually given when he clearly says the 'front' for one of them is to ignore everything the man states.

How can you say that he does not refer to FM? He does not say his name is James Maybrick but you've all come to the conclusion that's who he is.

This is starting to become ridiculous. So let's go through it again, shall we?


When murdering MJK the diarist clearly states that she reminds him of the whore:

'she reminded me of the whore. So young, unlike I.'

So who do we think this 'young' whore is? It's Florence, isn't it? Especially if the diary is a forgery. So, in the mind of the diarist, the murder of MJK is focused on Florence, his wife. Next we have...

'An initial here and an initial there will tell of the whoring mother.'


So, reading this, we can now say that he has left us some initials of the whoring mother in the room. But who is the whoring mother? Well, seeing as how

a) Florence is a mother.

b) Throughout the diary he refers to her as the 'whore' or the 'bitch' and,

c) We now know that Kelly reminds him of his wife.

we can be pretty sure that this is a reference to Florence. Now, what are Florence's initials again? That's right...FM!


We also have further confirmation when he writes:

'All did go, as I did so, back to the whoring mother...'

Who exactly do we think he is returning to after he leaves London? It's Florence. This is simple.


Again, caz, if you think the diary is a forgery then those initials have to refer to Florence, otherwise what's the point of the diary.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[caz]

Why 'lucky', if these FMs are really there in the photo for all to see? The hoaxer could simply have seized the opportunity to exploit them in a diary claiming that James Maybrick was Jack and murdered the women because of Florie's known infidelity - ingenious.

Except that no FMs were exploited in the making of the diary, or the hoaxer would have written "I left the initials F and M all over the place, yet nobody even noticed them, I was too clever".

The diary author was only 'lucky' in the sense that the initial left here and the initial left there are not spelled out, explained or given actual locations. Not so ingenious, if FMs had been described in detail and later shown to be nothing but photographic effects.

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

@ 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

[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