There's no reason why a hoax cooked up in 1972 couldn't have surfaced 20 years later. As I say, I'd incline to a later date, but 1972 is the absolute earliest I believe it was written; it was only in 1972 and afterwards that all the necessary "ingredients" could have been feasibly assembled.
How tedious, but here we go: Or at the time of the murders, of course. What are we doing now, just assuming that it was a hoax, proven and nailed?
A diary confessing to the murders was a forgery, et cetera ...
I need to re-enter this debate, it is clear to me. I'm away for about 12 hours and all manner of bollocks goes unchecked. Absurdities, one might say.
How tedious, but here we go: Or at the time of the murders, of course.
One of the key ingredients to any diary are the words used. Several phrases in the diary were not in common circulation (in the sense in which the diary uses them) until several decades after the time of the murders. One could explain away one such instance as an "early coinage" on Maybrick's part, but the presence of at least three such phrases ("top myself", "spread mayhem" and "one off") occurring in the same comparatively short text, decades before they came into common use, stretches credibility.
Another important ingredient to any diary are the events described. I'll refer you back to the recent discussion on "an initial here, an initial there" in this thread, and how this could be seen to indicate that the diarist had in mind the MJK1 photograph. Caz doesn't see it that way and, as ever, does so based on sound reasoning; however, I still believe that there's a strong probability that the "FM" in MJK1 inspired the "initials" referred to by the diary.
Thus we have at least three words/phrases used in a 20th century sense, and at least one event (the planting of initials at the scene) which could reasonably be seen to have been based on the awareness of an artefact which only gained wide public circulation in 1972. Neither of these could have been known at the time of the murders.
Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Last edited by Sam Flynn : 08-16-2017 at 11:54 AM.
Sorry if this has been brought up before but from World Wide words - One-off -
A one-off was just a single item, used in particular to refer to a prototype. The first known example appeared in the Proceedings of the Institute of British Foundrymen in 1934: “A splendid one-off pattern can be swept up in very little time.” (The reference is to a casting mould formed in sand.)
Almost fifty years after Maybrick allegedly wrote it in his diary.
I'm glad Ike the Humble is back to sort out some of these errors. Here's an example of his ruthless logic:
"the likelihood of finding Elvis in the toast by chance alone only holds for toast, snowy mountains, cloud formations, and all other endlessly-repeated phenomena. The principle cannot be adopted for single incarnations, and clearly that is what the photograph is. There are not a hundred, thousand, million, or billion examples of photographs of Kelly and her bedroom wall. Excluding the ill-lit pile of viscera on the table, there is just the one. Elvis isn’t in the toast here, but James Maybrick is very firmly in the frame, and therefore rightly in the dock."
And that is why nobody is too worried about the Return of Ike: Faulty logic.
There is one sky. On a given day a large number of clouds form, change, and pass away in that one sky.
There is one MJK2. But the question is not how many photos MJK2 is, but how many interpretable marks are there in that one photo. Your comparison is entirely faulty and illogical. The Casebook copy of MJK2 is made up of over 6 million pixels. Two of us on this thread have already demonstrated that we can look at these vague marks and honestly discern the presence of what look like letters or initials in those marks. There are more, but I stopped because I felt I'd made my point. Each of these letters is at least as discernible as the supposed F. I honestly cannot see the F, though I can see how a criss-cross of vertical and diagonal blood marks can be interpreted by the willing as an M.
But hey, even with your faulty logic, welcome back Ike x
however, I still believe that there's a strong probability that the "FM" in MJK1 inspired the "initials" referred to by the diary.
Initials which, I might add, are explicitly said to "tell of the whoring mother", namely Florence Maybrick. So, clearly, the diarist is telling us that he left an "FM" at the crime scene. Come in, MJK1, your time is up! (And your time, incidentally, is post-1972)