|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |       |
Now this one is certainly not a problem for the diary.
I mean sure, we know that the diarist claims to have left Kelly's breasts "on the table" and all the police records and historical documents report that they were not in fact on the table, but....
He forgot! Yeah, that's it.
It's so obvious. He forgot what he did with them. You know, what with being a drug addict and all and in the throes of murderous craziness...
Well, all right, maybe he wasn't actually in the throes when he was remembering it for the journal writing moment, but he forgot then, too. Of course.
Oh yeah, and then, because he forgot as he was writing in his own "private" journal (meant to be read later by the public), he went and looked up what the newspapers had said about where he left them so he could get in right in his diary. Yeah, that's it.
Or maybe he didn't forget but just, you know, somehow remembered it wrong.
I mean, after all, he did say something about "feet" later, even though he crossed it out, so it must have been the real killer who knew subconsciously that he left them not on the table despite actually saying that he left them on the table, which he didn't.
Yup.
No doubt.
It's easily explained, you see.
--John (feeling better about the book now) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
No! Wait!
I take that all back.
He didn't forget at all.
He did leave them on the table!
It's history that's wrong.
See, the real killer had it right all along. And this is even more proof that the diary is by Maybrick, because only he would know that he really left them on the table despite all the historical records and testimony.
And the diary shows us something here that only the real killer would know!
It corrects history. The breasts were by the table. They must have been, really, and history must have gotten it wrong. It happens all the time. So this little discrepancy is not only not proof of anything, but it may actually be an argument in favor of the diary being real!
Excellent.
--John (feeling much better now) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
What was on the table John?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Jennifer,
I'm at school at the moment and don't have the relevant report handy, but if you check your copies of the police and coroner documents you'll find the location of the breasts (neither of them on the table) and which specific pieces of flesh were on the table.
Of course, to believe the diary, you have to believe history was wrong (without any real reason to do so other than one's own desire just to believe the diary).
That's not reading -- that, as our mascot Figment would remind us, is simply Imagination.
But it's not unusual around here.
--John
Figment, by the way, has his own music -- a theme song which is perfectly suited for Diary World. If you go to his home page, you can hear it there. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
John,
I have been, its fantastic. Will figment be coming out next dita day?
i try not to believe history is wrong - I often believe it to be biased but thats for another day.
School John, never mind,
Anyhow,
I will go look in MRs Evans and Skinners book
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:02 am: | |
Hi Jenn,
History can get it badly wrong, of course, but in this case I do believe Bond knew his breasts from his elbow.
Whether a serial killer, dosed up on arsenic, however, can get it wrong (or confused, and initially taken in, by what he reads in the next morning's newspapers - when they get things wrong) is something perhaps only a serial killer who gets dosed up on arsenic would be qualified to know.
And even if he knows he can get things wrong, his twisted ego might not allow him to admit it.
Me, I couldn't possibly say, with a straight face, that I am qualified to know such things, and if I guessed I admit I could very easily be wrong.
But you have a perfect right to believe that being wrong is not one of John's faults.
Take care.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Hi again Jenn,
The infamous killer, Albert Fish, spent a day abducting, killing and cutting up a little girl and, while the body parts were still in the room, had the distinct impression that he had just killed a boy.
Fish got it wrong - in a way that most of us would find incredibly hard to believe. But imagine if the body had never been identified, and the post-mortem report had been withheld from the public for many a long year, and the newspapers at the time had reported the discovery of a body, or even a boy's body, because they didn't know, or got it wrong, and Fish's own impression remained with him as a result.
Imagine if Fish had kept a diary, in which he confessed: 'I cut the boy up and kissed his flesh', and further on: 'I thought of taking a lass, but the lad he was there, so I stripped him bare'.
Post-mortem emerges years later to reveal boy as girl - and whoops a daisy! Fish is declared innocent, on the strength of his own balls-up, and history is wrong.
Nah, could never happen in real life - could it?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Caz
Imagine if Fish had kept a diary, in which he confessed: 'I cut the boy up and kissed his flesh'
To change the subject slightly, how many cases do you know of in which murderers kept diaries in which they recorded details of their crimes?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Excuse my confusion but on another thread Chris TG stated that a lack of arsenic would have made James act weirdly but arsenic in the right dose would have been what kept him feeling ok.
Do you think James stopped to the next morning to write his diary after the papers had come?
Now, now, I never said John was right or wrong, I just said I had been to look at the website he keeps mentioning.
The other thing I realise I don't know is where MJK's breasts actually were.
Cheers
Jennifer
ps interesting case.
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Hi Jen,
They weren't on the table.
Of course, the diary gets that wrong.
So let's see, why would the real killer get the details of his own murder wrong in his own privately written confession?
a.) Because he didn't write it.
b.) Uh, because maybe he forgot, within the same 24 hours, since he was so drug crazed and everything. Yeah, that's it. And so he wrote the wrong thing in his diary -- but that's ok because he could have written anything in his diary and it wouldn't mean anything because he was a drug crazed serial killer after all.
One of these answers makes simple common sense.
The other is a desperate reach to find an excuse when the text does not match the historical record.
It's the same sad excuse always offered when the diary turns out to get the historical details wrong.
What forger could have possibly dreamed of such an audience?
What forger could have possibly imagined that they would get all sorts of stuff wrong in the diary, but it wouldn't matter, because their readers would just excuse them, saying "Hey, James could have written anything, historically correct or not -- he was a drug crazed serial killer after all"?
What forgers could have dreamed that their job would be made so easy by a readership that would check the details of their work against the historical record, see that they clearly and repeatedly didn't match, and then, instead of saying "this book is a fake, it is inaccurate, it is in the wrong handwriting, it is anachronistic, it has no provenance, and it doesn't stack up as a historical document" -- instead of arriving at that obvious conclusion when the details don't match the record, they say "well, he was a drug crazed serial killer so the historical record is really sort of irrelevant, he could have written anything, true or false."
Forget history, we are being told, use your imagination.
Why are we being told this?
Because history demonstrates the book to be a fake.
So imagination is all they have left.
I wrote this yesterday on another thread.
It now seems appropriate here, too.
These were the luckiest forgers in the world.
Why?
Because rather than check the document against history, rather than check the document against the real Maybrick's handwriting, rather than check the document against the letters the writer claims to have written, rather than check the document against all the historical records, rather than check the document against what did nor did not actually exist at the time, rather than check the document against any of these valid and verifiable pieces of data and evidence, there are some here who would prefer simply that we "use our imaginations."
But it's a sad and deceitful game and it should sway no one.
The diary has no provenance, is in the wrong handwriting and routinely gets it wrong historically, including having the killer cite an official document he could not possibly have seen, including reproducing the same mistakes found in modern books, including getting the details of the crimes and of the killer's family wrong.
This is all because the book was not written by the real James Maybrick. I realize that makes too much sense for some, it's too obvious, it's too simple.
But it is nonetheless the truth.
And everyone here knows it.
Everyone. 
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Hi, Caz
I don't want to go too far off-topic here, but I've seen you reference Albert Fish before as an example of how a murderer can become confused. When you write that he confused the sex of one of his victims, which are you referring to?
Cheers,
Dave
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi Dave,
12 year old Grace Budd.
'Finally, orgasm racked the absurd old body.
When it was done, Fish leaned heavily against the round table with his eyes closed. When he opened them, the parts of the body still were there and Fish could not remember what it had been. He felt it must have been a boy. Yes, a boy; that was it.'
From The Cannibal: The Bizarre True Story of Albert Fish, by Mel Heimer
Yes, I realise the author must have relied on the killer's word for the above, so he might have been inventing his mistake over the sex of this victim, for some reason best known to himself. But we would still be left with a killer making a false claim during a confession.
I'm not going to rule out the possibility of human error, confusion, self-delusion, fantasy or knowingly false claims, appearing in any killer's recorded thoughts.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 71
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
“The diary has no provenance, is in the wrong handwriting and routinely gets it wrong historically, including having the killer cite an official document he could not possibly have seen, including reproducing the same mistakes found in modern books, including getting the details of the crimes and of the killer's family wrong.
This is all because the book was not written by the real James Maybrick. I realize that makes too much sense for some, it's too obvious, it's too simple.
But it is nonetheless the truth.”
I wonder just how much more of this sort of clap-trap we need. I also wonder who John is trying to convince. He seems to have convinced himself at least. Congratulations John.
This sort of inflated nonsense is, or rather has, become extremely boring, repetetive and has no basis in any facts whatsoever.
John thinks he knows it all, but he makes it quite clear that he really doesn’t.
Both John and Chris have their JTR down as a man who acted like some sort of an automaton with a photographic memory. A man incapable of making a single human error. Chris tells us one minute that the diarist makes a mistake in getting minute details of Eddowes possessions right, but that he makes a mistake in NOT getting details of the Kelly crime scene right. Double standards or what? And John just goes along with it.
You would think from reading that last post that the diary was peppered with mistakes. It isn’t, and I don’t know who John thinks he’s fooling. We can all read, and are quite capable of checking the facts ourselves thanks.
Does he mention the number of times the diary gets it so very right? Of course not. The hoaxer just copied those bits out of books. He didn’t bother to copy the other bits where he gets it so wrong with as much care I suppose.
John tells us that the diarist cites a document he couldn’t have seen. What? If he was the killer he didn’t need to have seen it. If he was a hoaxer on the other hand then he did. Anyone who trys to pretend that this document, (the inventory presumably), was cocooned in mothballs unseen for a century hasn’t the slightest idea of how the British Civil service works.
The diary sometimes does not match the historical record. Fact. Is the historical record correct in every aspect? Highly unlikely. No two JTR books even from the most respected of authors agree on all the details of the case. Chapman’s farthings are a good example. New things are cropping up all the time to change our views on what actually did or did not happen.
John knows the diary is a fake. John thinks he knows everything down to the contents of the Maybrick household bookcase. He doesn’t you know. I suggest he leaves the rest of us out of his silly games.
Perhaps I can save John the time and effort by writing out his next posting for him. The formula is pretty well worn by now.
Have a good weekend one and all.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 7:35 am: | |
Ah, excellent.
Another post from Paul that has not a single piece of evidence anywhere in it that even remotely suggests that the real James was the killer or that the real James wrote this book.
I write post after post listing all the many things the diary has gotten wrong, all the many ways it conflicts with the record, all the many ways it has the killer saying impossible things all the many problems with all the handwritings involved in the mentioned documents and, of course, its complete lack of any provenance, and all I get in return are that my posts are repetitive (of course they are, they are discussing the actual evidence, all of which tells us the book is clearly a fake) and maybe history was wrong.
I offer evidence.
He offers dreams and wishes.
If only history and the record and the known facts were wrong, then the diary might be right!
If only...
Again, these are the luckiest forgers in the world to have found so desperate and gullible a readership.
We are told that the real killer wouldn't have needed to see the police document to cite a line from it.
So apparently, James was not only a murderer but a telepathic one at that.
But Paul is right about one thing. Some modern sources, it turns out later, printed the facts wrong.
And you know what?
Those are the among very same mistakes the diary often makes.
Fascinating.
Oh, and saying the diary gets lots of things right and only some things wrong is not an argument for authenticity.
In fact, it's an argument against authenticity.
Since one of the ways authenticity is determined is to check the document against the data, the record, and the known facts and see if it gets anything wrong.
And it does.
Lots.
Everything from the handwriting to what the killer could and could not have read from what files the killer might have seen to incorrect facts about the murders and his own family to the letter writing problems to having the killer drink in a place that did not exist at the time but does now to all the rest.
Thus we have a great deal of evidence that the book's a fake.
And, as we can see from Paul's post above, no evidence whatsoever that the book is real.
A great deal of evidence versus none.
That's pretty simple math, even for me.
I'm sure it is for almost everyone here, too.
Have a fine weekend indeed,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Paul
You may not agree with those of us who believe there's clear evidence that the diary is a fake, but it's rather strange of you to pretend that you don't understand the arguments, when we've been over them in such excruciating detail.
You speak as though John and I are the only people who think the diary is a fake. On the contrary, nearly everyone who has looked into the subject in any depth shares the same opinion. It's just that John and I (and a few others) are the only ones who are still arguing the case on these boards. All the rest have decided it's a waste of breath trying to talk sense to people who are determined to hold on to their belief no matter what the evidence. (I suspect they're right, but here I am.)
By the way, one thing puzzles. In previous discussions you acknowledged that you found "tin match box empty" a difficulty. Now you seem to pour scorn on the very idea it could be a difficulty. What changed?
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Thanks, Caz
I haven't read that book, but it does sound like an invented detail since Fish met Grace at her parents' home and took her away on the pretext of going to his niece's (I think) birthday party. His original intent was to abduct one of the Budd sons, but changed his mind when he saw Grace--maybe that's where Heimer came up with the boy/girl confusion you reference. Since Fish spent at least a few hours with Grace (who I've read was wearing a dress), I don't think he could have been confused over her sex, and the quote you supplied sounds like a bit of dramatization and not part of a confession. Admittedly I haven't read the book or Fish's confession.
Thanks for looking that up for me.
Cheers,
Dave |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
I think I probably mentioned this on another thread.
Perhaps, perhaps there is a slim possibility that in his highly theatrical and unconvincing drug crazed murderous state James The Ripper forgot exactly what he did with various bits of his latest victim. Perhaps!
But (didn’t you just know there would be a ‘but’) isn’t it even slightly strange that the EXACT mistake he makes about the location is the EXACT mistake books about Jack have been making right up until the Bond report was made fully public?
Further more the Diary also makes other mistakes EXACTLY like others that have ALSO appeared in print. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Matt,
now you mention it - yes!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Caz
You must have missed my question.
To change the subject slightly, how many cases do you know of in which murderers kept diaries in which they recorded details of their crimes?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
I didn't miss your question, Chris, I just thought it was an inanely irrelevant one.
How many cases do you know of in which anyone, be they serial murderers, hoaxers of ripper confessions, or humble investigators, think and act in an identical fashion, or are identically motivated?
Even identical twins have their unique aspects.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Caz
From your non-answer, I take it you don't know of another case of a murderer detailing his crimes in a diary.
Many thanks for that. Chalk up yet another extremely uncommon - and therefore unlikely - occurrence for the diary.
Chris Phillips
PS This stuff about all murderers being completely different seems to be the new mantra. Who'd have thought my question stemmed from Caz's attempt to justify the diarist's strange forgetfulness by - wait for it - comparing it with another murderer's!
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 09, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Chris,
Well, I'm not surprised, are you?
There are two things we have plenty of around here.
Pieces of evidence that demonstrate the diary is obviously a forgery and questions Caroline will not or cannot answer.
I wonder if there's a connection?
--John |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
From an earlier post
“You would think from reading that last post that the diary was peppered with mistakes. It isn’t”
and
“Does he mention the number of times the diary gets it so very right? Of course not. The hoaxer just copied those bits out of books”
Ok point given the diary is not ‘peppered’ with errors and yes it gets things ‘so very right’ it is not the QUANTITY or errors or correct points that is the issue it is the CONTENT. The things the diary gets right and the thing it gets wrong are from the SMAME books.
Without sounding like as stuck record (for those under 30 a record was like a big black CD) where the diary is in error it can always be traced to popular myth that has infested the case over the last 100 years or so.
The first book I ever read on the Ripper was Don Rumbelows Complete JtR, the black cover edition from the late 70s. In the photo section in the middle was the classic Millers Court picture with the caption ‘… her breasts kidneys (etc) are ONTHE TABLE”.
Ok years late it turns out that was wrong, a press invention perhaps, so all the books since about 1988 have put that fact right.
Unfortunately for our sloppy forger they only seem to have skimmed some of the later books and concentrated mostly on Dons book. So lo and behold the diary comes along and Jim the Ripper has gone and made the same mistake that authors have repeated many many years after his death.
Not only is the man a killer but a psychic killer to boot.
The quantity of error is irrelevant, if we were to discover a diary purported to have been written by Cleopatra, a diary that science was as yet unable to disprove, and if it were correct in every respect except one small mention of her brand new Audi TT would we then say ‘but everything else is right so it must be true’ Its like the fake well or spring that cartographers put into maps to spot plagiarists.
If an unproved historical document repeats just ONE modern error, then it is undoubtedly a fake. And the diary repeats MORE than just one. Please for heaven sake read it again read an early Rumbelow then read Phil Sugden you will see where these errors are sourced.
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
If the diary had said, ‘threw them on the floor’ or ‘left them under the bed’ than that would have been interesting, and may have given us pause for thought and reason to question Dr Bonds report,.
However it doesn’t say either of those places or indeed any of the other myriad of places the killer may have deposited flesh.
The diarist instead chooses to get this piece of information wrong in a very specific way, in exactly the same way that both press reports and books since have done. The diarist repeats a historical sourced canard. It isn’t just different to the historical facts, it wrong in a specific way. Not just once either, but those other repetitions of Ripper myth belong on a separate board.
There was something highly deliberate in the way the killer placed those parts of Mary’s body. It was done with forethought and quite deliberately. Yet, Jim the Ripper forgets. Its not even as an aside the diary mentions it, it remarks ‘Kissed them for a while’ and ‘thought they belonged there’ these are highly detailed and deliberate actions, yet apparently he was quite in error he didn’t think they belonged there he instead thought they belonged somewhere else.
Oops I forgot.
Mind you it must be hard to keep track of things when you are, like James, writing in someone else’s handwriting. One of at least 4 or 5 handwritings he owned. Is there any record of Jim having 4 or 5 hands? That would nail it for me.
Oops sorry wrong discussion.
It’s hard to keep track of which of the many things wrong with the diary that I am supposed to be addressing. Surely if this were a genuine document there wouldn’t have to be so many things that need excusing? The providence, the ever changing story of where it came from, the fact it’s a photo album and not a diary, the totally disprove handwriting, the claim to have written letters known to have been written in another hand. The many ahistorical mistakes, the lack of anything outside of already available detail. The fact that James was much older than any of the witnesses put the Ripper.
Hang on though in the face of all this evidence the fact is James Maybrick DID sign some of his letters ‘yours truly’ just like Jack. What powerful evidence that is.
If you want wishful thinking and making the evidence fit the case then look no further than the central pictures in the book The Diary of Jack the Ripper. Here we see a picture of James and a witness drawing of the Ripper which do look very similar. Only it isn’t James Maybrick its Michael Maybrick and the witness was Matthew Packer a highly unreliable witness who almost definitely never saw the Ripper. Force that glass slipper on! Make it fit! Siphon the evidence and include only those things that support your case.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Thanks, Matt, for the reading and the details.
Yes it's amazing how many of the mistakes that do indeed pepper this obvious forgery can be found also in modern sources. You should read what Ryan misleadingly says about Michael Maybrick's work and then read the diary.
Perhaps you have.
And the killer was apparently psychic in other ways, too.
Just for instance, "apparently" he knew telepathically what it said in the police files on the crimes word for word and "apparently" he knew that there would be a pub in Liverpool someday (many years after his own death) called The Poste House and spelled just that way and written just that way.
Pretty damn amazing killer, if you ask me. He knew all this stuff telepathically, but he couldn't remember the details of his own crimes or his own family life.
Wow. 
This book is so obviously a fake, was so clearly written by someone other than the real James Maybrick, so explicitly conflicts repeatedly with the history, the data, the evidence, the handwriting and everything else, that the only really shameful part of all this is that anyone saw fit to publish it as a serious document in the first place.
Now, as a fiction...
Incidentally, not only does the diary get all this stuff wrong, but there is NOTHING in it that is verifiable and that would be considered new knowledge or knowledge which would have been unavailable to a modern forger.
Nothing.
Not a single piece of verifiable new information anywhere in its pages.
And there is NO evidence anywhere on the planet in support of it actually being real. Only excuses why the evidence that tells us it's not might actually just be a remarkable string of impossible coincidences.
Gee, there really is a pub with exactly that name? Amazing.
Gee, that's exactly what the police list says? Amazing?
Gee, the guy who brought us the book is the only one who can identify the source of five unidentified words in it, and he can't tell us exactly how he knows them? Amazing.
Gee, the very things the diary gets wrong are exactly the same things that modern books have gotten wrong as well? Amazing.
Gee, the handwriting isn't even anything like the supposed author's and the book has no provenance whatsoever?
Well, shoot. But that's ok -- it's still real.
Why?
Well, of course! Because it's amazing!
At least they are always good for a laugh.
--John
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 8:07 am: | |
Like everything in diary world, yes there could be an explanation why and how the diary gets this bit wrong, if only it was the only place it was a bit wrong.
The thing is we are looking at each problem individually and to be fair each problem may have an explanation
I cannot think of any other historical document that has needed its protagonists to desperately scurry around trying to explain so many contentious points away.
Yeah Jim the Ripper could have meant a different Poste House
He or we could have been wrong about the rings and coins at Annies feet
He could have been wrong about where he placed various bit of Mary Kelly
He could have been wrong about either taking or not taking Mary Jane’s heart away with him.
Joe Barnett and we could all be wrong and Jim the Ripper could have had the lost key to Millers Court.
He could have made all of these mistakes in exactly the same way that authors in the early to mid 20th Century would.
Every letter and Will that James wrote in his life could have been forged by his brothers and the only true example of his handwriting that is authentic could be in the diary.
Every serious researcher at the time and since could be wrong and all the Ripper letters could have been written by the killer, even the original ‘Dear Boss’ letter and the ‘Lusk letter’ which are plainly from different sources and in different hands, styles and syntax.
James could have had no clue what his brother did for a living.
He could have somehow seen the police report on what was found upon Catherine’s body and remembered the line about the empty tin box, (quite a feat considering his memory was, according to the diary camp, awful).
He could be forgiven for forgetting all of these things but not for, on his deathbed misspelling his daughter’s middle name.
He could somehow be connected with a scrap of paper Annie picked up in her lodgings.
He could have scrawled the initials FM on the wall in such a way that they would remain invisible until the photo had decayed enough over 100 years to reveal them.
James could have suddenly out of the blue taken up murder in his fifties, like almost no other killer before or since. James could have some how appeared to be younger to the witnesses who describe the Ripper as much younger than James 50 odd years.
He could have decided to write a diary in the back pages of a scrapbook and torn the front pages out.
But seriously could ALL of these circumstances be true?
What all of them?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
Now, I'm not usually one to activate Maybrick threads without a reason and today I only have a semi reason so please forgive me!
on another thread I said i didn't think we anti diarist were concentrating on the points that were strongest, so lets start here with one of the stronger points.
FACT - yes I'd go that far - the breasts were NOT NOT NOT on the table. How do you explain that the diarist was JAck The Ripper if they didn't know this FACT!?
Right,
that's that one, what else?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Is there anyone trying to explain that the diarist was Jack the Ripper?
Love,
Caz
X
PS All breast-related arguments have surely already been done to death here. Why not read the thread again before you decide if they are really worth chewing over yet again - the arguments, not the breasts. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
