Upon reading the Diary again...

[caz]

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.

Hi Raven,

I would call them birds of a feather actually, apart from the handwriting question. The signature scratched crudely in the watch is, to my eye, remarkably similar to Maybrick's genuine signature on his marriage licence - quite a feat for anyone, particularly a modern hoaxer with the task of looking in the records for such a signature, finding it, then having the skill to copy it with their chosen engraving tool.

We don't know who JO was, but why assume that Maybrick would have 'invested money' and bought the watch? If he is meant to be a deranged killer, leaving his wife's and his victims' initials all over the shop, would he stop at nicking a gold ticker for the purpose of defacing it? One of the female staff at Battlecrease was engaged to a JO (John Over I believe), which is quite handy for a modern hoaxer trying to make 'Sir Jim' into an initial fiend and having to find a suitable watch. I could turn the question round and ask why a modern hoaxer would invest money in a gold watch with JO. On the surface (ha ha) that would seem to make no sense at all.

Incidentally, the victims' initials in the watch may be barely visible to the naked eye, but they are perfectly clear under magnification and the letters are not 'debatable'. There is no doubt that they are: MN, AC, ES, CE and MK.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I'm so sorry to hear about your cousin. I hope the people responsible for his murder will soon be convicted.

[Graham]

Hi Caz and Raven,

didn't Albert Johnson say that he bought the watch as an 'investment' for his grand-daughter? Maybe this is where Raven connected the word with the watch. Also, if I recall correctly, Albert wasn't aware of the nature of the scratches until a colleague of his at Liverpool Poly had a dekko at them under a microscope.

I always had the gut feeling that, whereas the 'Diary' as a former Maybrick possession is debatable, the Watch isn't.

Graham

PS: Raven, very sorry to hear about your cousin. A reflection of the world in which we currently live, sorry to say.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Caz and Raven,

didn't Albert Johnson say that he bought the watch as an 'investment' for his grand-daughter? Maybe this is where Raven connected the word with the watch. Also, if I recall correctly, Albert wasn't aware of the nature of the scratches until a colleague of his at Liverpool Poly had a dekko at them under a microscope.

I always had the gut feeling that, whereas the 'Diary' as a former Maybrick possession is debatable, the Watch isn't.

Graham

PS: Raven, very sorry to hear about your cousin. A reflection of the world in which we currently live, sorry to say.

Thank you Graham. Funeral is today, but it won't be over until the trials are through, and then the appeals. I hate it for Stevie's parents and grandmother, who is my Aunt Joy. Indeed a reflection of the times.

Actually I wondered about the watch being gold. Maybrick could easily purchased a much less expensive watch into which to carve the initials et al. So could any forger for that matter. And a forger probably would buy any watch he could find that might fit the bill of Victorian England. I believe the watch being forged is likely, but not to the point of valid evidence being impossible.

No the tone of the diary is that of a man who despite the mania and depression, the pain and the drug addiction, above all sounds like a man with pride in who he is. This sort of man might buy a gold watch, but would hardly want it carved with the wrong initials. However, (devil's advocate, as usual, showing both sides) Maybrick may have desired a gold watch and bought one that he could afford, possibly, even probably, a used one from a pawn shop, which would settle the matter of the JO.

God bless

Raven

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The watch is another bird altogether.

BTW Raven just dealing with the historical record a gold watch pops up at several points in the narrative.

One was supposed to be auctioned off with the contents of Battlecrease but didn't appear at the auction.

There's several others but the one that intrigues me the most is that involving George Ramsay Davidson Jr. who was Maybrick's closest friend. The guy apparently killed himself by walking into the surf. But in his room under his pillow was found a gold watch. I've got to dig out the details. But he killed himself in 1893 and we have that pesky H93 mark (a repair mark?) in the Watch. Perhaps he learned something unsettling.

Pure conjecture of course.

I believe also one of the servant's boyfriend had a gold watch that was reputedly from Battlecrease.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

No the tone of the diary is that of a man who despite the mania and depression, the pain and the drug addiction, above all sounds like a man with pride in who he is. This sort of man might buy a gold watch, but would hardly want it carved with the wrong initials.

But what you are saying here Raven is that the Diarist would slice up whores, but not deface a watch......

[Graham]

Incidentally, I understand that there's a very good chance that the Watch is in fact a lady's watch. Whose? Flo's? Maybe old Jim bought it for her, then at a later date said, "....and another thing, I'll have that watch back, as well!"

G

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Incidentally, I understand that there's a very good chance that the Watch is in fact a lady's watch. Whose? Flo's? Maybe old Jim bought it for her, then at a later date said, "....and another thing, I'll have that watch back, as well!"

G

It's not. Paul Butler has written extensively on this in the past both here and on the Forums. I don't have time at the moment to do a search.

BTW it wouldn't matter one bit to me whether it was or not, considering the purpose it was used for - but we might as well be clear on this.

[RavenDarkendale]

But what you are saying here Raven is that the Diarist would slice up whores, but not deface a watch......

Not at all. He would deface the watch, but it would be engraved with his own initials.If his sole purpose was to deface the watch, why gold? Why not a less expensive one he could afford to have engraved? But if he bought the watch, as I suggested, at a pawnbroker's, then the wrong initials are explained. Anyone who killed as JtR did would be capable of anything.

[Iain Wilson]

Thank you, Livia and Sir Robert. 4 people have been arrested and charged with murder 1 in Stevie's death. May justice prevail.

God bless

Raven

That's good news. Let us all know how it goes.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

As I said, Tempus, the eye finds shapes where it wants. I actually found quite a different M formed by the body, and much more defined that this one.

If you think that is much more defined, then that is up to you. My M is deliberately formed, right next to a large F on her arm and exactly where the diarist said it would be, Raven.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/05-mar10.jpg

Now, this one also depends on a piece of chemise to draw attention to the line of the last stroke in the M.

But what you are failing to appreciate that in order for this piece of chemise to be there it has to have been deliberately placed there. That means the murderer had a reason for doing so. And his reason would seem to be to form something that, coincidentally, looks exactly like an M. This M being right next to a clearly carved F on her arm.

I am not blind to the possibility that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I think perhaps you are blind to the fact that someone else could have been. You argue that the FM is deliberate, the diary confirms it, so ero, it must be.

But again what we then say is instead of believing that this FM was placed there by the writer of the diary, an FM that only the diary writer knew about, and that no one else did until I showed you - after reading the lines properly - we say that it was placed there by some complete unknown killer who probably never even existed. How does that make more sense than believing it was someone who knew it was there all along? Nobody else did.

I cannot that this as proof positive when the diary cannot be proven, and the FM (or FM's, as there seem to be more than one set) is subject to the view of the person who discovers it.

There is nothing subjective in what I say when you understand the reason behind the placements of these items.

That is a large wound on her arm in the shape of an F. Fact!

The left forearm has been placed back on top of the body on purpose. Fact!

Likewise the chemise has also been placed on top of the body after the mutilations where carried out. This means the murderer had a reason for doing this. Fact!

These items form something that looks like an FM. Fact!

They are placed precisely where the diarist said they would be. Fact!

I think, my friend, that we are at an impasse. Neither of us is going to budge from our convictions. But may I say I have enjoyed our little debates. Time for me to move on and debate others over their suspects.

God bless and keep you

Raven

Again, what seems to be misunderstood here is the fact that I AM NOT TELLING YOU IT IS AN FM, THE WRITER OF THE DIARY IS TELLING YOU. I am merely showing you what he is claiming to be an FM - and, whether you like it or not, it does look like one.

If you are anti the diary you can dismiss it all you like. Say it is down to interpretation, that it is there but the diary writer simply forged the diary around it, or whatever. But if you are a pro-diarist then you have to believe what the man is telling you, otherwise the whole provenance of the diary - and your argument - falls to pieces. That means that when he tells you he has left you a set of initials in the front you have to believe whatever is there is what he is referring to. If you don't, you are merely saying that he is a liar and the diary is a forgery.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Tempus

1) I an not anti-diary nor am I for it
2) I knew about those FM's years ago
3) If you think the M you posted and drew is more defined, I'm not going to argue the point.
4) If the diary was forged, the forger saw the FM in the picture and included it in the diary. If the diary is genuine, then there needs no explaining, the diary does that.
5) I have stated multiple times that the F on the arm is unquestionable.
6) I have stated multiple times that FM is there if you look for it. If you do not look for the M the F remains unquestionable.
7) I cannot support or tear down a document that remains questionable. There exists the possibility the diary is genuine. There exists the possibility of fraud. I'm not going to call either correct, it is unproven. In law, at least here in the States, unproven means the defendant ( in this case, James Maybrick), goes free, innocent until proven guilty.
8) Liar is a term I do not use. The writer of this diary records what he wishes to say. If there is fraud, he meant to be fraudulent. If this is the real deal, these are his real thoughts. Why would I call either a liar? They have recorded what they intended to write.
9) I get the fact that you are serious about this diary and your belief that it solves the case of JtR. I have to question unproven evidence. There isn't a suspect on this entire forum that can be proven JtR. That is why they are suspects, and not JtR.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Tempus omnia revelat]

@ Tempus

1) I an not anti-diary nor am I for it

I never said you were anti the diary. I was speaking generally.

2) I knew about those FM's years ago

What FMs?

3) If you think the M you posted and drew is more defined, I'm not going to argue the point.

It is more defined because mine is exactly where the diarist said it would be, it is next to a large F on her arm and it is constructed deliberately. It is NOT, like the one you have picked out, down to interpretation. These items were deliberately placed there by the person who was in that room, and they form an FM. Your example, besides the fact it doesn't even show an F, is made up of angles and random objects. The FM that I have shown you is not.

4) If the diary was forged, the forger saw the FM in the picture and included it in the diary. If the diary is genuine, then there needs no explaining, the diary does that.

But in order for a forger to forge a diary around an FM, there must be something in it that looks like an FM, so why can't it just be that - An FM! Especially - and I'll say this for the millionth time - when it is created by the murderer purposely placing those items on the body. If it is not an FM then you have to explain why some other unknown killer did those things whilst not meanng to create an FM.

5) I have stated multiple times that the F on the arm is unquestionable.

So what does it stand for? And why is it right next to something that forms and M?

6) I have stated multiple times that FM is there if you look for it. If you do not look for the M the F remains unquestionable.

But you cannot have F without the M if it is Maybrick. That is why the chemise is so important. Because when you realise it has been placed there on purpose, right next to F, and that it forms an M, the whole idea of interpretation goes out the window. The chances of any murderer doing this, when he didn't mean to, and it ending up looking like the exact initials some forger needed to fake the diary are astronomical.

7) I cannot support or tear down a document that remains questionable. There exists the possibility the diary is genuine. There exists the possibility of fraud. I'm not going to call either correct, it is unproven. In law, at least here in the States, unproven means the defendant ( in this case, James Maybrick), goes free, innocent until proven guilty.
8) Liar is a term I do not use. The writer of this diary records what he wishes to say. If there is fraud, he meant to be fraudulent. If this is the real deal, these are his real thoughts. Why would I call either a liar? They have recorded what they intended to write.

Of course. But if you believe the writer of the diary is the murderer, then you have to come from the standpoint that what he says is true. Therefore, if he states that he has left you an initial in the front, and he hasn't, then he is a liar. Either because it is a forgery or because he hasn't left it there. Unfortunately, though, there is something that looks like an FM precisely where he says there is, so if you don't believe it is an FM (from a pro aspect), the diary is a forgery.

9) I get the fact that you are serious about this diary and your belief that it solves the case of JtR. I have to question unproven evidence. There isn't a suspect on this entire forum that can be proven JtR. That is why they are suspects, and not JtR.

But there is more against Maybrick than anyone else. And I will continue to furnish people with such evidence. It does, however, take time - and money. LOL

God Bless

Darkendale

Kind regards,


Tempus

[caz]

4) If the diary was forged, the forger saw the FM in the picture and included it in the diary.

Hi Raven,

That's not technically correct. There is nothing in the diary that its author (whoever it was and whenever they were writing) could not have written without reference to the photo or any supposed F or M at the scene, either on the wall behind the bed or 'in front'.

An initial here (singular) and an initial there (singular), plus an it of some description (again, singular) left in front somewhere for all to see.

But where is 'here'? And is 'there' right next to it or somewhere else entirely? And what and where is 'it'?

These remain the unanswerable questions without being able to ask the author what the hell they were thinking of (in more ways than one ) when they put pen to paper.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi Raven,

That's not technically correct. There is nothing in the diary that its author (whoever it was and whenever they were writing) could not have written without reference to the photo or any supposed F or M at the scene, either on the wall behind the bed or 'in front'.

An initial here (singular) and an initial there (singular), plus an it of some description (again, singular) left in front somewhere for all to see.

Two singulars make a plural, caz. Lol Sorry, but that means he has left at least two initials for you to find. The 'it' is an initial because

a) The three lines come directly after he talks about the initials.

b) becuase later he talks about carving something on her arm (the F - one half of the initial). And,

C) when we look at the exact place he states he left something there is something that looks like an FM.


But where is 'here'? And is 'there' right next to it or somewhere else entirely? And what and where is 'it'?

There 'here' and 'there' are various positions around the body of MJK. That is the focus of the room for the killer, caz. After all, these words are contained in the section that deals with the murder of MJK. Couple that with the fact that when we look at the photo we see things that look like FMs (whether you think they are or not) and it does not take a genius to work out what he is referring to.

The 'it' is in the 'front', caz. That's what the writer of the diary tells you. You can easily work out where the 'front' is if you use common sense.

These remain the unanswerable questions without being able to ask the author what the hell they were thinking of (in more ways than one ) when they put pen to paper.

Not at all.

Love,

Caz
X

Kind regards,


Tempus

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Raven,

That's not technically correct. There is nothing in the diary that its author (whoever it was and whenever they were writing) could not have written without reference to the photo or any supposed F or M at the scene, either on the wall behind the bed or 'in front'.

An initial here (singular) and an initial there (singular), plus an it of some description (again, singular) left in front somewhere for all to see.

But where is 'here'? And is 'there' right next to it or somewhere else entirely? And what and where is 'it'?


Love,

Caz
X

And I'm not questioning the wording of the diary. It is when people have pointed out the F on her arm (clearly defined) an F on the wall (faint) at least 3 kind of subjective M's, that "an initial here and an initial there" can be interpreted as the FM.

The entire mess over the diary will never be over because no one can prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Backatcha

Darkendale