|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:38 am: | 
|
I see my memory is wrong. I must have looked at the letters in Knight bcos it is a good size picture. I apologies for any confusion I caused. Still there ids an unlikly alternative!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:55 am: |
|
No problem, Jennifer.
I forgot how old James was in '88 on another thread yesterday. We all do that sort of stuff.
'Course neither of these things change the debate any, so we're still good.
Enjoy the approaching of summer,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:02 am: |
|
The forgers could just have easily have looked at the photo, thought they saw letters just like Knight and included it in the Diary. After all, people will see them there, just like the forgers did.
Once again, no letters of blood are mentioned in the diary as being on the wall. No one knows what 'Sir Jim' meant.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:32 am: |
|
Guys,
I believe that the letter F that we can see is in fact part of the door in the partition wall. I'm not sure about the M, but it's probably a splash of blood or something.
Caz,
You are right. I remember the diary only mentions that he left a clue there but as you rightly say, there is no mention of the actual letters in the diary.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
Guys,
I can see 'FM', 'HART', 'BARNETT' and I swear, if you look closely enough a 'MONTY WOZ ERE'.
Again, as Ive mentioned before many times, and totally concurring with Ally, if it did exsist how come its in no Police report, no memoires and has never been mentioned prior to someone named Sean picking up on it back in the early to mid 80s....if memory serves me right....which it may not be doing. OK certainly not known to the majority till the diary book was published.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end...
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi all
James could have written something like "Flo Is a Ho" which would have made more sense than "FM" if he was really trying to smear his wife.
I am glad that Richard has mentioned the washstand shown in the one sketch as being next to the bed in almost the exact same position where the infamous "FM" is seen on the wall in the well-known photograph. Another reason to believe the "FM" might not be an inscription that was actually there.
It is my belief that the washbasin was removed from between the bed and the partition in order that the photographer could shoot the smaller of the two photographs, from that side of the bed, looking toward the front door.
Best regards
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on April 26, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I agree entirely, the washbasin, must have at least been in the position sketched, at the time the sketch was drawn, one does not place such a object, in a less obvious position , if it was not there.
I agree that the rooms furnature was rearranged so that photographs could be taken with accuracy.
This is a vital point for discussion, as it would disprove the diarys authenticity.
I would suggest that the sketch was made by a police artist, when the body was discovered omitting the body on the bed, just the layout of the room.
Richard. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Well, it wouldn't prove or disprove anything about the diary, of course -- since the diary never mentions the "FM."
So why, you ask, are we talking about it?
Because both books which pimp for the diary being real do mention the letters and say that they are evidence of authenticity.
So, while it may not prove or disprove anything about the diary itself, it does tell us something about the books that claim the diary is real and the arguments those who write them were (and are) willing to make as if they were evidence.
As for the book itself, there's still no real reason at all to think it's anything but a forgery. But we've known that for quite some time.
In any case, thanks to Chris and Richard for raising the interesting question of the washstand's location. I wonder if that might help explain some of the staining on the wall.
All the best,
--John
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:19 pm: |
|
John,
I Would imagine if there was a washstand next to the bed nearest the partition, then there would have been a gap wide enough to use that facility, therefore the killer of Mary could have washed himself, and bloodstained water could have splashed onto the wall.
Although the room was small, we I feel have not had accurately placed the layout of the room, and the long shot photo gives us a false impression, as it shows us the bed was up against the partition, which i will dispute.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Interesting that you still feel it is 'vital' to disprove the diary's authenticity, despite John's repeated assurances on the matter.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Glad the matter of what the diary author doesn't claim to have left on the wall has finally been cleared up.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 7:21 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
My main intention was to make a remark about the washstand, there does appear to be some kind of letters on the partition, FM is the most likely at careful glance, I was simply remarking on , the position of the washbasin , being there, therefore any letters is irrelevant, as it would have no reference to the killer of kelly.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 7:39 am: |
|
Caz,
Just out of curiousity, if the diary isn't talking about letters on the wall, what do you think it may be referring to?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 7:42 am: |
|
Caz,
As I noted in my original response to your reminder, it wasn't a confusion for me at least. I was discussing the letters not because they were specifically referenced in the diary but because they were the thread topic and because they are used as evidence in favor of authenticity in both of the books which have been published arguing that the diary is authentic. What their invocation in those works demonstrates to readers is the quality of the arguments in those books and the desires of their authors, what they are more than willing to assert as evidence (and not anything specific about the diary text).
As for anyone's further efforts to "disprove the diary's authenticity," I admire the task and encourage others to follow suit. This hoax has been around the fringes of Ripper studies for too long, and any person who comes around willing to work on behalf of making sure all those interested know that this book is only a hoax is doing a service for the integrity of the discipline.
Just because something has been shown repeatedly to be a fake does not mean that the debate is ever likely to end, of course. There will always be those who will carry on, working hard to keep hope alive in books, using things like grainy images of stains on the wall in a blurry old photograph, or theories of multiple personality disorders, or tales of mix and match watches, or the active rewriting of history, or any number of vague rhetorical questions, reached for stories, and desperate explanations, to make their case.
The subject of this particular thread is just one example.
Glad we could clear that up.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 27, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
Anything I say would be pure speculation, and there is no reason why my guess, based on the actual words used in the diary, is going to be any better than yours. I only have O level English and not much common sense to guide me. 
But since you asked for my opinion, I think the diary author could have had a bit of carving on flesh in mind when writing, or possibly even a hankie embroidered with a lady's initials left at the scene.
And talking of hankies, I certainly think it's possible that George Hutchinson gave a red one to gents he set up as customers for Mary. "Oh, I've lost my hankie", says she. "Here, my dear, have this red one", says gent. ("Ah, one of George's", thinks she, "he must be ok".) "Thanks, let me take you to my place, you will be comfortable". Off they toddle, for what she imagines will be a safe night of playing hide the sausage and win the rent money, and red hankie ends up at the crime scene, making the police take George's account very seriously, despite its obvious drawbacks.
In short, we could have two hankies in the room, according to the diary author - one George's (that he didn't need good eyes to know was red in the dark) and one belonging to 'the whore', or perhaps even 'the whoring mother'.
For me, the language doesn't strike the right note if the author was trying to imply that 'Sir Jim' daubed a bloody FM on the wall behind Mary's body.
Love,
Caz
X
PS But speculation is only for the brave or totally reckless!
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi all,
So the lesson here is that the diary's prose, like most fiction, often remains open to a multiplicity of possible interpretations. And the diary is particularly problematic in this sense, because it is written in such a sketchy and elliptical and incomplete and fragmented fashion, almost as if the writer was afraid of saying too much, of providing too many details, lest he get caught up when checked against history.
We know now, of course, that he needn't have worried, since even when he does get caught up (by breasts, tin matchboxes, lines of obscure poetry, even his own handwriting), it doesn't much matter, since there are always some (like the authors of the two books that cite the "FM") who are willing to rewrite history to suit their own readings and desires.
Of course, despite all the odd vagaries in the prose...
(and I've recently finished reading some private diaries from other writers, both amateurs and professionals, and overall they tended to be much less evasive in general, even for the reader who doesn't know the writer and even when the writer isn't allegedly confessing for posterity, which should make him even more likely to give details, one would think)
...despite all the deliberate mysteriousness, the plot of the diary proves to be very neat, almost melodramatic, beginning right before the first murder (even though it's supposed to be found in media res), and building to a well-situated dramatic climax and ending with a clichéd, film-like flourish with the death scene and the final farewell. Yes, it has all the earmarks of a crafted fiction where the author knows just what is going to happen before he ever starts writing; and, at the same time, it also has so few of the details one would expect to find in a first-person narrative of recent events as they happened.
Put all this together and once again it spells fake.
And one needn't be either brave or reckless to come to that conclusion. One need only read.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2004) |
Constance Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:19 am: |
|
Have a bit to add here. If you are to take a look at the diary, and to the entry James made about the Mary Jane Kelly murder in the diary, there is a reference in the diary to him leaving the initials. If you look at the text of the diary look at the following passage...
A whores whim
caused Sir Jim
to cut deeper, deeper and deeper
All did go,
As I did so,
back to the whoring mother.
An initial here and an initial there
will tell of the whoring mother.
Maybrick is telling us he left his wife's initials in this strain of the diary, and the text just before this tells us of Mary Jane Kelly's murder, and how he took the key to her room. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:17 am: |
|
Hi Constance,
And whose bonnet did 'Sir Jim' burn, I wonder?
MJK's?
A.N.Other's?
Or the whoring mother's?
(Not the mole one though - he was saving that for next time, but I don't know if Rose was wearing it when she was found. Young, like Mary, she got meat and potatoes instead of fish and potatoes for her last supper, and appeared drunk shortly before her murder, although no alcohol was found in her tummy - some common themes here. Were they offered a drink laced with drugs perhaps? Would our diary author have had any thoughts along these lines?)
Love,
Caz
X
PS Speculation is fun!
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 7:14 am: |
|
That reminds me,
Caz is right about one thing.
Speculation is fun, and easy when you are dealing with fiction.
History, of course, is a bit more difficult to deal with, which is why the diary allows for one and not the other.
Another sign of its artificiality.
Thanks,
--John
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 38
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 12:00 pm: |
|
someone posted on another thread that it may have been the initials of the police photographer who took the pictures and it somehow became "etched" on to the photo during the developing process or when copied. I'll go with that. Sounds far more authentic. By 1928 Miller's Court was demolished, so no-one could have got inside prior to 1993.
Busy Beaver  |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Ha, Ha! well said Monty....graffiti was left around as early as the 16th century,but not by too many drama queen serial killers though!
I think Scott Suttar is right with the initials showing F.M to be splashes of blood, on photo's blown up in different sizes, some photo's you don't make out any initials at all, personally i think it's just coincidence that an F.M shows up in a photo, and its just a combination of bloodstains and also damp staining as the partition is very heavily stained with damp (i would think it's damp anyway.) Also i'm doing some research in a few area's, i'm just waiting for the address to post off a cheque for a full tracing along with coat of arms on the name 'Mibrac', as soon as i have it i'll be posting it on the threat ' S.E. Mibrac' to clear up any confusion as to whether the name exists or not...not mentioning any names of persons on these threads of course.
Rudyard Kipling:
I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all i knew) their names are WHAT and WHY and When and HOW and WHERE and WHO. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Hi
has my imagination got the better of me or is there a H? (i won't say where in case it makes you imagine it too but I mean on the photo!)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
I don't know, Jen.
But I know that if you look at the upper corner of the back wall, you can see the faint outline of a small purple dragon.
It's a bit smudged, of course, but I'm sure it's there.
Always seeing faces in clouds,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Jenn and John (has a nice ring to it),
You'd better watch out looking too hard for these messages. You'll wind up in stockings and kilts, interfering with Olympic marathons.
Signed,
Another Crazy Irishman |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:09 am: |
|
John, David
Yes you certainly can and then we all know what FM stands for right?
But seriously I read somewhere (possibly up this thread somewhere?) something about it is possible something could be written on the back of the photo or some such thing. Is it the original photo that has been used or a copy etc?
Jenni
ps David - don't worry about crazy people trying to interrupt sporting events! It probably didn't happen because they read Maybrick threads (i hope!)!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:38 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
is it me (and it usually is) or does the 'f' or to be more precise first imagined mark actual continue onto Mary's body making it unlikely (to say the least) that it's written on the wall!?
Thanks
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi,
this one
'an initial here, an initial there would tell of the whoring mother' it would but there aren't any initials and even if there is a mark, how certain are you that JTR wrote it deliberately?
well i guess you could say that it means another initial but then youd have to agree with me that it doesnt say FM on the wall, wouldn't you?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:17 am: |
|
Jenni,
It doesn't say anything on the wall.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
--John (who thinks this thread is the funniest one of all, because it reminds him of kids looking at clouds -- "I can see a duck and horse and the profile of Abraham Lincoln...") |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:50 am: |
|
John,
didn't I just say that?
Jenni (wondering if she is seeing a different set of messages to others!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:34 am: |
|
The funniest thing of all is why anyone thinks it should say something on the wall.
Kelly's wall was not by any stretch of the imagination 'in front', where the diarist has Sir Jim leaving something.
Love,
Caz
X |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi Caroline, Jennifer, or John
When scrutinising the Mary Kelly photo, I definately see 2 'Ms' and 2 'Fs'. The wall one is obvious. The key is in the straight lines under the M and F.A squirt from an artery would certainly leave an underulating pattern. No one will ever convince me this was a fluke. The second M has been cut with a razor blade around Kelly's lips and nose.If you use the pencil of your editing function , you will clearly see the M. The other F has been cut on Kelly's forarm.
What I wanted to say is that everybody on these boards seems only to think that the letters relate to Maybrick and his wife Flo.I have been studying hard on ripper suspects, and have been looking with interest on the William Gull theory involing the 'Freemasons'. There are dozens of what you would call little clues on the masons plot - which at this stage can't be prooved or disprooved. Has anyone considered that the FM is not related to Maybrick , but the FREEMASONS?
Thanks, Stuart |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
This is the trouble, isn't it?
If the killer carved an initial, or initials, in Kelly's flesh, no one close to the body at the time seems to have noticed anything.
And even if a detail like this could have been missed, yet claimed by some to be visible in the photo, the initial(s) could stand for absolutely anything.
I can no longer look at the photo without seeing the large F on Kelly's arm. But since no one appears to have remarked on it at the time, I assume the photo plays tricks on some of us, and that anyone examining the body would have seen it as a random injury.
Love,
Caz
X |
SJR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Stuart,
For the first time in a long while someone is thinking outside the box. F and M does not have to mean Florence Maybrick. Yet the letters are there, twice now by your accurate find.
The major problem with this being left by the Freemasons is that there is no reason to commit these murders in secrecy to protect another secret, then leave clues leading back to them.
Once that is understood the solution of the letters becomes rather simple.
STAN RUSSO |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
HI STAN,
I have thought of exactly that point before.Most of the Freemason clues which have sufaced have been small and obscure , if indeed this theory is culpable. Seeing as though the people involved obviously did not want to get convicted and hanged, they would not have overtly advertised the point that they were Freemasons.I would say that the exact result they wanted was as you say, to protect a secret. But, they may have wanted to leave a clue- NOTHING THAT WOULD STAND UP IN COURT- or lead the police to their doorsteps, but lets people on the outside looking in discern that " Freemasons did this so dont mess with them"
Thanks , Stuart |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 132
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Stuart,
You're missing what I believe is the point here.
There is no reason to conceal a secret by revealing your own group as the murderers. That would only call attention to your group and eventually that secret may be found out.
First, the secret really didn't have to do with the Freemasons, although in the disproved theory they are asked to help protect the secret. Why would the axiom "Don't mess with them" come into play? It wouldn't.
Once you get past the romanticism of the Freemasons saving the Royal secret theory the F and the M come into play and help provide an answer as to their purpose. First, however, you must let the Freemasons having any active part in the murders go, or else you can never get to the next step, understanding the F and the M.
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Personally, I see a duckie and chicken and the profile of Abraham Lincoln in the photo.
I wonder what that means?
Amused by the cloud reading,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 133
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
John,
It means, as usual, that you're not helping.
Yes, we all get it. You hate the diary. You hate it so very very very much. I think it's obvious to everyone by now.
So let's try and move forward from your devout hatred of an obviously forged document to actually learning from some information, rather than hearing that clouds amuse you.
STAN |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Stan,
Actually, this has nothing to do with the diary.
It has to do with people "finding" stuff in blotches and shadows on old photos and then pretending that what they've found means something. I'd say the same thing to those people who think they see the letter "C" on one of the rocks in a NASA photo proving that the moonwalk was faked on a soundstage (I can send you the URL with the photo and the theory).
It's exactly the same thing that happens when little kids look at clouds, except the children don't try and build theories from the shapes they find in the sky.
And it is amusing, especially to someone who lives in the home state of the "Virgin Mary on the building glass wall" and the "Virgin Mary on the half a grilled cheese sandwich." Down here we're used to this sort of thing, and that's why we can only laugh.
All the best,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 134
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
John,
Well at least this recent post is a step up from most of your posts, which display an ominously sarcastic "better than you all" tone.
Just because you don't see the letters does not mean they are not there. In fact, I've never seen the letters, and I am only trying to take information and work forward, trying to straighten out a newcomer in his earnest but flawed post, not laugh at people who don;t agree with you or see things exactly how you see them.
I guess this is where the case is going - straight sideways - people who mock for their own pleasure - people who still try - and people who just give up.
I'll keep trying. Let's see if you keep mocking.
STAN |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Stan,
You write:
Just because you don't see the letters does not mean they are not there...
Yeah, that's what the "moonwalk was faked" crowd usually says, too.
Faith is a powerful thing.
Carry on,
--John
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 135
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
John,
You write:
You write:
I know what I wrote sir. I know because I just wrote it and it is posted directly above. there's no need to remind me or the world of it. It is right there up above.
If you had read the post further you would have seen that I clearly stated I have never seen the letters, but there are people who have, like researcher Simon Wood in 1988,who has not used them to try an advocate any theory whatsoever. You probably don't know who Simon Wood is because it's not the actual case that interests you, but the 'alleged' diary.
But it clearly shows where you stand along that that line - mocking me for daring to answer a newcomer's questions and set himstraight.
As far as faith, it's a real shame you don;t see the cruel irony here. I DO NOT SEE THE LETTERS, yet I have the ability to analyze a situation based upon their presence, if they actually do appear. You however, are so sure that the diary is fake, without the actual proof needed, that all you are relying upon is FAITH. FAITH that you actually could never be wrong. Truth is you're probably not wrong, the diary is in all likelihood an outright fake.
So to use an OMLERISM - LUCK IS A POWERFUL THING
because all you have is FAITH.
I will carry on, just as sure as you will mock on, and continue to try your best to keep this case at a dead standstill.
STAN |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
First of all, Stan, I prefer to cite the specific passage to which I am responding. It's common scholarly practice. The fact that you take umbrage at it indicates more about your attitude as a reader than it does about me as a writer.
Second of all, I wasn't saying you see the letters. I was saying the phrase you wrote was the same thing the moonwalk crowd writes and the same thing the people who see the Virgin Mary in the grilled cheese sandwich always say. I mock them, too. And I am quite happy doing so. "Finding" letters in photos of moonrocks and corpses or the Blessed Virgin on building windows or in luncheon items is just a bit goofy. It was this sort of general goofiness I was discussing, not whether you see the letters.
Third of all, there is evidence, actual textual evidence, and lots of it, that indicates that the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick -- so that is not merely a question of faith. Consequently, there is no irony.
Fourth of all, it would be "OMLORISM."
And is that a smug tone of moral superiority and "I'm better than you are because at least I don't mock and I am trying" that I hear in your post?
Be careful, lest you commit the very sins you so passionately decry in others.
Enjoying this a great deal,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 136
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
John,
You Wrote:
Just kidding, I'm a dumb guy and don't act scholarly.
It's a problem of perception. We both see the same exact thing and totally see it 2 different ways.
I chose to offer an answer to Stuart's query while you chose to poke fun at his even daring to include something such as the 'F' and the 'M', which you obviously don't see, so they must not exist. Different approaches.
I believe the Maybrick Diary to be a forgery, based on my own analysis, while you seem to KNOW it is, based on obvious reasons that should have ended the debate upon those reasons having been made clear. Different analyses.
You feel its fun to mock and poke fun at certain people. I love tormenting stupid people. Big Difference there, when some of these people are trying to learn and ask questions, rather than praying to "Virgin Mary" potato chips in South America. I hope you see the difference.
Like most problems with this case we see things from different angles. Good luck with your angle. I don't see it leading anywhere though, but then again I could be wrong.
STAN |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Stan,
Once again, I wasn't even poking fun at Stuart. I was poking fun at the whole "find the pope in the pizza" mindset involved here.
And I was doing that only because it's funny, the same way the "moonwalk photos have a C in them" crowd and the "Madonna on the wall" crowd are funny.
And, as I said, this has nothing to do with the diary.
It's the whole "secret squirrel hidden messages found in blotches on old photos" nonsense that amused me here. Heck, I didn't even mention the Freemason stuff.
But thanks, I've had a fine time.
All the best,
--John
PS: Ain't no one's angle "leading anywhere" around here the last time I looked. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 137
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
John,
Silly me then. I just assumed since you posted your mocking in this discussion that it was meant to contribute or actually "not contribute" to the actual discussion. That's my bad. it was meant just as a general mocking and for that I apologize for calling your general mocking into question within the framework of an actual discussion of certain elements of the case.
I would also like to thank you for responding to my statements about Simon Wood discovering the letters in 1988, four years before the Maybrick Diary, and to the obvious reasons why the Diary is indeed 100% fake. These of course are of no importance to you. Don't feel too bad, they are of no importance to most people.
Silly little things like progressing the case along are of no importance, at least to most of the followers of the case. Not me.
So let's discuss the Freemasons for one moment. Even you can't claim that they have no part within the framework of the case. Let's say for one second that there actually is a 'F' and a 'M' on the wall. Do you realize the implications? No, you do not. The reason why you do not is because you choose to mock rather than to analyze. The 'F' and the 'M' on the wall would shed a whole new light on the Goulston Street Graffito and maybe start progressing the case forward.
We can't let that happen though can we John? That would be a shame. Perhaps less mocking and more openmindedness may lead somewhere? As we know, this mocking others and bringing up parallel garbage such as "Virgin Mary" pizzas, the Son of Sam's dinner recipes and crap that has no bearing on this individual case isn't getting us anywhere.
STAN |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Stan,
You assumed that my original message "was meant to contribute or actually 'not contribute' to the actual discussion."
Well, the odds are that one of those is probably right.
And if you can explain to me how anyone supposedly "finding" alleged secret squirrel letters in the blotches and shadows of an old photograph "advances the case," then you're a better man than I am. It seems to have exactly the same effect as finding a "C" on the moonrock in a NASA photo -- it displays the desire of the viewer more than it tells us about the photo or the case.
So I see no reason to participate in your fantasy based hypothetical.
But go with it, if you'd like. At least you'd be in interesting company here on the net. I can send you the homepages of the moonwalk guys and the website that bought the grilled cheese sandwich.
And trust me, you don't want to hear my thoughts on the Freemason conspiracy stuff. Honest. And I won't give them -- if only because I don't want to get in too much trouble.
Smugly yours,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 138
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
John,
Like most conversations - going nowhere. You hear Freemasons and your mind shuts off. You hear Diary and your mind shuts off. It's a good way to really keep the case at a standstill. And keep throwing in those sidebars - they really help too.
Two different goals, and you're right - I won't dismiss a hypothetical if i can learn from it, unlike yourself who will shut his mind off at the slightest mentioning of something he has made his mind up on. I wish I had your passionate determination. Life would be easier.
And as usual an attempt to help a newcomer to the case has turned me sour to the attitudes of those on the boards. nobody gives a rat's ass about solving this case. It's pathetic. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Stan,
Actually, my mind is going a mile a minute -- not that anything in it is especially coherent. But it's certainly the opposite of "shut off." As for the diary, my mind likes to side with the evidence and with logic and with simple common sense. Call me crazy.
As for your general comments concerning "the attitudes of those on the boards," I do hope you aren't lumping everyone here in with me or suggesting that my attitude in this particular discussion about "seeing" secret squirrel letters in this photo is in any way indicative of "the attitudes of those on the boards." When you say things that begin with "nobody" referring to the contributors here, you are reducing everyone and all their work and all their attitudes all down to my attitude in this particular discussion. That's not fair to them. Hell, it's not even fair to me, but I don't mind.
But you are right about one thing. I don't particularly care about "solving the case," as I have said many times here. I never have. My interest in this whole subject lies elsewhere. And the desire driven acts of reading found here and the psychology of people "seeing" hidden letters in old photos and building theories around these amazing "visions" are both just small elements of that individual fascination.
Still, even if I am pathetic, surely "it" (whatever it might mean) is not.
Right?
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
I love diary world, i swear it is truly the happiest place on earth!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
I was only saying this was a possibility, and not my stated belief. I am not a huge fan of Maybrick as the ripper.This diary is the only evidence on him, and the case around the diary, and the diary itself, are full of holes.I do stand by the fact that I see these letter signatures.To proove my point, I'll state my oppinion on other topics. No, there is no 'C' on that moon rock.If the moon landing was faked, it sure fooled the astronauts, they thought it was real enough. The face on Mars is clearly rough terrian. The words ' No Pope' were not written on the stern of the Titanic.
However, this is different. Many serial killers leave signatures - that is a known fact. This was at the end of a series of horrible murders.If you ask me, this killer liked to communicate.
1. the ostentatious display of the insides and organs of victims is communicating.
2. The attack on Kelly's face is communicating.
3. Ripper letters(which ever ones were his) is communicating.
4. " The juwes will be blamed for nothing" is communicating.
So given that, I would actually take the 'F' and 'M' quite seriously as another form of communicating.I will always stand my belief that the killer did not want to get caught - of that I am certain. But deep deep deep deep deep down in the nether regions of his phsycology, he wanted to leave something cryptic, that when the smoke of the murders had cleared, someone might piece together.Is there anyone alive on this planet, in any occupation, whether chef, artist ,politician,builder, bussinessman ect, who does not want their work recognised? Oh, and by the way, I assume there was a reason to all of this - he didnt just wake up one day and say " this looks like a bit of fun". |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
hello
Is this (the above discourse) what people mean by when they say a thread was hijacked?
Just curious
Lars |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
