|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |       |
Anthony,
I don't see any resemblence between the "M" on the wall and those on the watch or diary text at all. The "F" doesn't look like any in the diary text either.
Of course the writing on the watch and diary are NOT in Maybrick's handwriting, so I wouldn't put much weight in handwriting resemblence if you wish to push him as a suspect. The handwriting is one of the major flaws in the Maybrick hoax.
Frankly neither mark on the wall looks like an intentional letter to me.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Hi John,
Do you not think the ‘Maybrick’ scratched into the watch is at least a reasonable effort, when compared with the signature on Jim’s wedding licence?
The ks at the end of each are particularly alike and quite distinctive, I thought.
Meaningless, perhaps, but intriguing, assuming the faker didn’t have too much experience scratching letters onto gold, and making them legible when magnified sufficiently. How many gold watches could he have had to practise with, I wonder, before considering his work was up to scratch? And did he go to the lengths of finding this particular example of Maybrick’s signature before he set to work on Albert’s? Or did he just hope for the best, and try his hand at making scratches, before finding out what the diary handwriting style, or Maybrick’s, would actually be?
I’m just trying, as always, to make sense of all beliefs (especially when they concern at least one, if not two alleged ongoing conspiracies) by thinking them through and asking how far they actually work in practice before they hit potential snags that ought to give pause for thought, but all too often are shrugged off as unimportant, and simply wished away, in much the same way many valid objections to the various ripper theories are treated by their champions.
Just as it is right to demand a proper explanation from pro-diarists for the diary handwriting not looking like Maybrick’s, it should also be ok to ask for a reasonable explanation for how the alleged watch hoaxer is meant to have planned and executed the deed.
Love,
Caz
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Sgt. Hacker,
Thank You for the reply. This is Interesting !! I can,t really see the F to well. It looks like an F, but very faint. Was there any inquiries about the Initials FM before the Diary was published. Maybe it is a forger and he noticed them first. |
Greg Hutton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hello everyone, I've been lurking on this excellent site for a couple of weeks now and never ceased to be amazed at the knowledge of the posters on here. However, there are a number of things which sometimes appear to scream out at me regarding the whole JTR mystery. One such thing is the F M writing on the partition in MJK room.
Keeping in mind the room was part of the ground floor of the house and was only separated from the rest by what appears to be a door fitted into the space underneath the stairs. Would it not make sense that the initial M would have something to do with the owner (or a family member) of the property and the most likely person to have fitted it into place?
I would have thought that the door came from somewhere else in the house and already had the initials on it previous to being fitted as a partition, which is why there is no mention of them in any official documents.
Anyone know if McCarthy had a child with an F as a first name initial? |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Caz,
First off, I have to say that your book has by FAR the best picture of the scratches I've seen published to date. Kudos!
However, I have to say that I don't see much of a similarity between the 2 signatures.
1) Maybricks real signature is written in a slanting fashion which doesn't happen on the watch.
2) The "M"s are compltely different between the 2 sigs. The one on the watch is a wide and symetrical, while Maybrick's M is very stylized.
3) The "y" on Maybrick's sig has a very short tail, no loop. The "y" on the watch has a long, looped tail.
4) The "c" on Maybrick's sig doesn't descend at the top, whereas the watch "c" has a dip at the end of the upper portion.
5) The "k" looks similar superficially, but if you look carefully at HOW they were written, the similarity can be seen as just that. Superficial. The "c" on Maybrick's sig flows into the "k", whereas on the watch, the line at the end of the "c" stops, and the "k" is added as a seperate motion. (Or alternatively, a short left stroke was added to begin the "k".) There is also an odd stroke toward the upper left of the K on the watch that doesn't appear on Maybrick's sig. Frankly the only similarity I can see between the 2 at all is the loop to the right, and they are not all that simliar in execution. Maybricks loop goes back to the upper left to create the downward stroke, and the watch loop changes direction from left to right to create the tail on the right.
In short I don't think there's any similarity beween the two at all.
Anthony,
Thanks for your reply. I believe the supposed FM was first noticed by Simon Wood in 1988 (prior to the appearance of the diary) who brought them to the attention of Paul Begg. Whether the forger noticed then independently or somehow was made aware of Simon's findings is unknown.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Mr. Hacker,
Thank You, once again. I'm also wondering about the Initials on the Watch. It seems the author of the Diary liked playing " Little Games" and giving clues. " An Initial Here, and An Initial There". But he mentions nothing about the Watch. I'm beginning to believe maybe this Diary wasn't written by Maybrick. I'm sure he would mention something about that.
Regards,
Anthony
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Anthony,
No problem. I'm always glad to help.
Personally I have no doubt that the diary was not written by Maybrick, but was written to echo the tone of some of the alleged JtR letters. (For example, from the Dear Boss letter, "You will soon hear of me with my funny little games.")
The initial mention in the diary seems to be clearly referring to the FM (The whoring mother). I've also thought it strange that the watch isn't mentioned in the diary anywhere if they were both geniune articles, or forgeries from the same source.
But to play devil's advocate, it could be that the diary is an geniune artifact, and the watch is a forgery. But I don't believe it for a second of course. :-) It does seem a good possibility that they were independent forgeries though.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi All,
How about an initial ‘here’ - ie in the watch the diarist is looking at as he writes - and an initial ‘there’ – ie at the scene of the latest murder?
No one could possibly place them together – MK scratched in a watch in Liverpool, and F, or FM, anywhere you like in that room in Miller’s Court. Another funny little game – oh what a joke. 
Just one possible interpretation, if the words in the diary and scratches in the watch were dreamed up by the same person.
As there is nothing to tell us, and no one to ask, what was actually implied by ‘here’ and ‘there’, when those words were chosen, we have to make do with our own imaginations.
Love,
Caz
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Caz,
That's a good point. Maybe his watch was his hidden secret. He could very well mean an Initial on the watch. i have to do some more research . Thanks, to all.
Regards,
Anthony |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
John,
Too much of a coincidence, it seems. Maybe the 100th anniversary of the Ripper Crimes sparked an idea into someone's head and they started making the Diary. It would probably take a few years to gather all the information. 1988 to 1993 is 5 years. Enough time to make a convincing forgery. It had me believing right away !
Regards,
Anthony |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hiya Caz,
That's a possible interpertation, but I find it a bit unconvincing.
Firstly it's "an initial here and an initial there", not "initials here and initials there". And there are clearly 2 initials on the wall whether it is "here" or "there" or both.
Also, accoring to the diary the initials will tell of the "whoring mother" (Florrie) and the initials on the watch refer to the victims, not Maybrick's wife.
Not an impossible interpertation perhaps, but it's a heck of a stretch.
Anothony,
Yep, I would think that 5 years is more than enough time to cook up such a forgery. Especially considering the glut of new JtR material that appeared around the centenniel.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Hi John,
But the wall doesn’t even get a mention in the diary, does it?
Neither is there much of a clue as to how the killer is supposed to have left an initial, or initials, at the scene.
But the diarist does write: “Left it in front for all eyes to see”, and: “I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whore’s flesh”.
Couldn’t the ‘it’ refer to the gash on Kelly’s forearm in the photo, that looks to the observer like a large letter F? I don’t mean the killer really carved this letter there, only that this could have been what the diarist saw and made use of. It certainly stands out far clearer to me than any supposed letters in blood on the wall, which would obviously be at the rear of the scene from the photographer’s point of view in any case.
Therefore the FM everyone pontificates about would be ill-described as either one intitial ‘here’ and another one ‘there’, or an ‘it’ at the front, from the point of view of anyone entering the room or taking the photo.
Put the emphasis on ‘rhyme’ rather than ‘flesh’, when he is supposed to be fantasising about what he’d like to try his hand at next time, and you have a progression: the rudimentary marks on Eddowes’ face; a letter F carved on the flesh of Kelly’s arm; whole words, perhaps, on his next victim?
The idea of scratching the victims’ initials into a watch was a good one, IMHO, whoever thought of it, since it ties in so well with this image of a territory marking, trophy taking and exploit-recording Jack. It’s the notches on the bedpost syndrome. He knows he must leave the victims and the scene and would like to leave a bit of himself there, and also have something with him when he is far away that acts as a constant reminder of his victims.
The initials in the watch would certainly ‘tell’ of the ‘whoring mother’ from the point of view of the Maybrick in the diary. He used Florie’s whoring as his whole justification for murder and mutilation. So he would have seen the initials as representing the direct consequences of Florie’s whoring ways, not the consequences of his own murdering ways.
Still too much of a stretch?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 20, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Hi, Caz:
You wrote:
"The initials in the watch would certainly ‘tell’ of the ‘whoring mother’ from the point of view of the Maybrick in the diary. He used Florie’s whoring as his whole justification for murder and mutilation. So he would have seen the initials as representing the direct consequences of Florie’s whoring ways, not the consequences of his own murdering ways."
Interesting that you see it that way. The way I view the watch, it takes a more conservative approach to the murders than does the Diary. As I recall the scratches in the watch are "J.M." presumably for "James Maybrick" with the initials of the five canonical victims killed by the Ripper but no additional Manchester murders as mentioned in the Diary and the admission "I am Jack." The latter inscription is a departure from the way the Diary is written in that the writer never calls himself Jack until the signature at the end. Aren't I right? 
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on January 20, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi again John, Chris,
I meant to add that, of course, if the initials in the watch were put there by a bandwagon hoaxer, and therefore before he knew what was in the diary, then my ‘here’, ‘there’ and ‘everywhere but the wall’ speculation goes out of the window.
Chris,
I don’t know what you are on about. You have a copy of our book with a photo of the watch that shows the signature ‘J.Maybrick’ as clear as day (not that it matters, just pointing that out for the record), but how is the ‘I am Jack’ inconsistent with the diarist’s declaration at the end? You can't assume a specific order or timing for the scratches.
I qualified my speculation by explaining that this would be how I imagine the diary author saw the initials in the watch if he created both artefacts.
Since the Maybrick of the diary would almost certainly not have learned the initials of the other victims he recalls having attacked, the absence of them in the watch is not surprising, whether both watch and diary were created by the same person or not.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 20, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hi, Caz
Sorry, dearie. Don't have your book with your pic in front of me. I'm writing from memory. In any case, I would submit to you again that the scratched "I am Jack" in the watch is a departure from the way the Diarist seemingly carefully does not reference Jack or the Ripper until the very last page of the Diary. I would say that was planned. You are going to disagree with me, yet again (!), but I would maintain that it is a strong indication that writing in the Diary and scratches in the watch were created by different people.
All the best
Chris |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi again Caz:
Hmmmm, this is a good one I must say:
"Since the Maybrick of the diary would almost certainly not have learned the initials of the other victims he recalls having attacked, the absence of them in the watch is not surprising, whether both watch and diary were created by the same person or not."
Well, yes, exactly so, because the so-called Manchester murders were mythical and made up by the hoaxer of the Diary. For the other murders, in the East End, he or she only had to open a modernday book on the Ripper crimes. 
All the best
Chris |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Hello Caz,
Do you still stand by your statement made on the casebook the 23rd September 2003 regarding..
Billy Graham, Tony Devereaux and Gerard Kane.....
"Ah, if only there was the tiniest scrap of evidence that these three all knew one another".
Andy P. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
hi caz
i thought the photo of mary kelly was puiblished at the time
jennifer |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi Andy and Sue,
Although , not connected with this thread, could you please inform these boards, , the story behind the picture of millers court , which was described in your book, as a rare photo.
There has been a lot of opinion, refering to this photo, was it , or wasnt it?.
An explanation, for that photograph, would I am sure would be appreciated, by a vast number of readers, and as you obtained that photograph , for you book , which I Will go on record as saying was excellent, could you enlighten us , with your honest recollections, of how you obtained this print, and its authenticity.
regards Richard. |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Caz,
"But the wall doesn’t even get a mention in the diary, does it?"
Nope. It sure doesn't.
"Couldn’t the ‘it’ refer to the gash on Kelly’s forearm in the photo, that looks to the observer like a large letter F? I don’t mean the killer really carved this letter there, only that this could have been what the diarist saw and made use of. It certainly stands out far clearer to me than any supposed letters in blood on the wall, which would obviously be at the rear of the scene from the photographer’s point of view in any case."
The gash on Kelly's forearm always looked like defensive wounds to me, thought I guess it's possible that the diarist was referring to thatm.
"Put the emphasis on ‘rhyme’ rather than ‘flesh’, when he is supposed to be fantasising about what he’d like to try his hand at next time, and you have a progression: the rudimentary marks on Eddowes’ face; a letter F carved on the flesh of Kelly’s arm; whole words, perhaps, on his next victim?"
That would make sense, he was running out of room on the watch! :-)
"The idea of scratching the victims’ initials into a watch was a good one, IMHO, whoever thought of it, since it ties in so well with this image of a territory marking, trophy taking and exploit-recording Jack. It’s the notches on the bedpost syndrome. He knows he must leave the victims and the scene and would like to leave a bit of himself there, and also have something with him when he is far away that acts as a constant reminder of his victims."
I agree that it was a good idea, but not for quite the same reasons... The physical watch is easily dated as victorian, and scratches cannot be scientifically dated with any degree of certaintity. Much safer than dealing with inks or paper where there are many more ways of tripping yourself up.
"The initials in the watch would certainly ‘tell’ of the ‘whoring mother’ from the point of view of the Maybrick in the diary. He used Florie’s whoring as his whole justification for murder and mutilation. So he would have seen the initials as representing the direct consequences of Florie’s whoring ways, not the consequences of his own murdering ways."
I'm sorry, but it still seems a stretch to me. However, if we're going to assume for this exercise that both artifacts are geniune that it's certainly a possibility. To assume both are genuine we already need to make several leaps of faith to get around the diaries factual errors. I suppose that if we're going to accept he forgot where he placed MJKs breasts that this doesn't seem to be quite as much of a strech by comparison.
Regards,
John |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
Hello Richard,
Only to happy to inform you of how we obtained the picture that features in our book of Millers Court.
We spent 5 years researching for our book, (during which we owned and ran a busy East Coast hotel). We spent a lot of time in various libraries etc. With regard to that particular photo we can only repeat what we were told. The photo, if my memory serves me correct, was obtained from the Bancroft Road library collection. We also spoke to Frank Gardner (an artist of international fame)who allowed us to use his painting of the Houses of Parliament for our book. Frank was at one time the City of London art and photo historian and also worked for De La Rue the banknote engravers of which Frank was one. Frank Gardner had seen that photo and said it was taken prior to Dorset Street being demolished circa 1936. The photo was most probably taken by a vicar of Christchurch Spitalfields, as one was known for keeping photographic records of the area. He went on to say Dorset Street had been bombed during the first world war in a German Zeppelin airship raid on London in 1916.
Mind you I wouldn't be surprised if it turned up somewhere else with another caption, which is the way with most aspects associated with JTR.
Thanks for the remark re book. Hope this helps.
Andy.
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 486
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Was just looking at the photo of Mary again after what John said about her arm. It does look like an upside down F. I then looked again at the wall. I think that the supposed F on the wall isn't a splash of blood but is actually part of the door, although I don't know about the M but I always have trouble seeing that anyway. If the look at the square shapes of the door it does look like it could be part of this.
Sarah |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Hi, Andy and Sue:
As you may know, the supposed picture of Miller's Court in your book has been the subject of discussion on these boards and in the JtR chatroom previously. Specifically, the late Adrian Phypers (Viper) and I discussed it and we decided that the hem of skirt on the woman in the center of the court is too high and that she is evidently wearing a wristwatch. Thus, we decided that to all appearances this seems more a picture of some other court in the 1940's, say, by which time Miller's Court had been demolished. I believe there was also a question of the height of the buildings, your photograph showing as I recall a building of three stories high whereas the buildings in Miller's Court were two stories high.
In regards to your question to Caz about whether there is any proof that Billy Graham, Gerard Kane, and Tony Devereaux knew each other, we can take it as proved that Devereaux and Kane knew each other since Kane witnessed Devereaux's will. However, I am not sure there is any proof that Billy Graham knew Kane or Devereaux. Another witness to Devereaux's will was an Anne Graham although I believe it has been established that this is not the woman who now calls herself Anne Graham, Billy Graham's daughter and author of The Last Victim, who would have been calling herself Anne Barrett at the time of the will signing, in any case.
All the best
Chris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hi Andy ,Sue,
Many thanks for the reply, until It is proven
otherwise, I will consider it a picture of millers court dated mid 1920s .
It certainly does not look a photo of the 1940s, regardless of other opinions, i would say it is a 1920s photograph.
Thanks again.
Richard. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
Hello Chris,
Yes The picture is open for discussion. But later additions were added to many houses in the East End. This was in order to 'cram' in as many people as possible, you only have to look at some of the 'then and now' pictures in Winston Ramsey's book. If you look closely at our picture it is only the last house on the left that has been extended upwards, and this is very feasible. On the house next door you can make out the eaves (the roof line)of the house above the front door. On the right of the picture you can see what looks like the area where the tap and sink were also.The picture also matches illustrations of Millers Court drawn at the time. Regarding the woman wearing a wristwatch.This is not that unusual, I have my grandmothers wristwatch which was a 21st birthday present and she was born 1896 in Buckle Street just off Leman Street. It could also be a mourning band as these were often worn on the wrist. (In fact the woman looks a bit like my Nan!).
But as I said all aspects of JTR are open to many interpretations.
Andy. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
