|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Mitchell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:36 am: |       |
Dear All,
With a 5 year old child and a hectic job, I get about an hour a week to trawl through the message boards, so apologies if this one has already been done to death.
I can't get my head around the sheer implausibility of the letters 'F' and 'M' appearing in that order on Mary Kelly's wall after her (or her friend's, if you subscribe to that theory) murder. Those letters may have been there for five years before the murder, but the mere fact that they were at all - for me - causes a major problem for the 'hoax' theorists.
If the diary were a modern forgery (and it seems unlikely that it wasn't modern IF it is a hoax - largely down to details such as the 'empty tin box' and 'Kelly's' heart being removed, et al.), then the hoaxer knew about the letters on the wall, and potentially used this as a starting and defining point for the hoax.
My question is, when did the letters first get identified as 'F' and 'M'? I believe they were noticed in the mid-1970s, but not then identified as 'F' and 'M'.
For the record, I feel the diary is constructed (and I use my words carefully) in such a way that it really does favour belief rather than disbelief (I know the balance shifts easily as soon as vested interest rears its head). For me, the 'FM' on the wall is just one significant coincidence too many - where good fortune for the mooted forger takes serendipidy to quite another level. The forger or forgers really shouldn't have spent so much time and effort on such a small financial return as this. If they did it for the money, with luck like theirs, they really only needed a single lottery ticket and a single lottery...
Please don't leave me in the sad ranks of the single post!
Tom Mitchell |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
I'm probably going to get some flack for this,
but....Im not a Maybrickite. I dont think the diary is authentic, by any means. My point is that I find it hard to believe that the killer would have written his wife's initials in blood on the wall next to a victim. That is what the diary claimed, I believe. To me it just makes absolutely no sense. But that is just my humble opinion. I have no clue what it means or how it got there, but it could mean a hundred different things.
I think that the F.M. has a better chance of meaning "fish market", but Im not a Barnettite
either. Im only kidding on the fish market part. haha. Ok, now your not the lone poster.
Best Regards.
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Tom,
Near where I live, a number of people woke up a couple of years ago and, on their drive to work, saw the image of the virgin Mary in colored outlines on the windows of a glass office building. It was, of course, just a shape produced by the staining of the sprinkler system's water on the glass, but that didn't stop thousands of people from driving from states all across the US to worship at this new shrine (where vendors were soon selling plastic rosaries and other holy souvenirs). Finally, just this year, someone smashed the window. By that time however, a ministry had bought the building and was using it as a factory to make the rosaries.
Once a few people "saw" the image, lots of people did.
You and I can recline on a grassy hillside and stare into a blue sky with white clouds and I can suggest to you that this cloud looks like a sheep or that cloud looks like the bust of Voltaire from that Dali painting and you'll see it, if I do my job well.
Needless to say, no one ever saw any FM in the Kelly picture until after the diary came out. Then the idea got into a book (which wanted desperately for the diary to be true) and off we went, all via the power of suggestion.
There are stains on the wall. Once you think you see letters, there's no way I can convince you that you don't. But you don't.
Still, if you believe that the diary is in fact referencing the letters that you believe are on the wall, then there are only two choices, either the killer wrote the diary and it's authentic or the diary was forged after the 1970s (when the picture first became widely published). An unchallenged expert has listed this fact among his arguments proving that the diary is either real or could only have been forged after the 50s (because of the absence of the Smith and Tabram murders), the 70s (because of your letters and the reference to the photo), and the 80s (because of the line that appears both in the police report unavailable to the public until then and in the diary).
So if you believe in the letters, you must believe that either the diary is real or it was forged after the 1970s.
Now there are plenty of reasons not to believe it's real (see the detailed readings of its ahistorical textual moments and provenance problems on the other boards around here).
So that leaves us with very limited options for our conclusion.
But don't take my word for it -- read all the readings of the diary here -- of the many details it gets wrong, of the perfectly possible modern sources, of what's missing, of the devastating handwriting problems, of the history of the quoted poem, of all the rest, and then see what you really think.
And remember that the letters on the wall phenomenon is easily explained in a way that says nothing about the diary needing to be real.
Still, read on, Macduff and enjoy.
All the best,
--John
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
I couldn't care less about the diary, but as far as the letters "FM" is concerned, there is absolutely no indications on that they ever existed. They are not mentioned in any police reports (merely one paper article, which means nothing) and to interpret any kind of letters from probable blood stains or dirt, is doomed to failure.
I have never managed to see them myself, and for those who do, I believe it's just simply an illusion. Just another attempt to see signs and ritual patterns in everything that has to do with the Ripper case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:20 pm: | |
I basically never go to the Diary section of the site, but the title of this thread stood out.
I just don't see the FM on the wall. I don't think it really exists as actual writing that existed at the time of the murder. I think someone imagined it up at some point like an inkblot test from poor quality copies of the photo. And, just like finding skulls in icecubes that are supposed to be subliminal marketing, once the image is pointed out by someone, you continue to see it even if it's not really there.
So, from my viewpoint anyway, if the FM is mentioned in the diary it was definitely written in modern times.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 12:44 am: | |
I had this post up on screen a few hours before I replied to it, so I missed all the prior responses. I didn't mean to repeat what your posts said without acknowledging them. Now my post seems kind of redundant...
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Hi
i thought that FM was sighted by knight as meaning free masons before the diary, so its not like it was invented bcos of the diary. The idea existed (obviously i am relying on memory here!!!!) I agree that it is dubious however, I can equally make if you like it say EM what could this stand for Edina Monsoon!!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
Never mind, Dan.
It was a well articulated post anyway, and I agree with it. It was hardly redundant.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
Well, if the "FM" was sighted by Stephen Knight, there would be even more reasonable grounds to find it dubious.
I'm surprised Cornwell didn't mention it and tried to link it to Sickert as well.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
Hey Jennifer,
Could you cite that part of Knight for me? I don't recall reading it.
Just curious,
--John (who thinks maybe the Ripper was a Steely Dan fan)
PS: In any case, as you suggest, the phenomenon's explanation would still be the same. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
John,
A Steely Dan fan is quite possible, although I've always seen him as a follower of either Nirvana, Metallica or Alan Parson's Project (no harm intended to the fans of those; I like Alan Parsons myself).
At least I don't think he would be into John Denver or Gilbert O'Sullivan ...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Glenn,
Just to explain for everyone, the Dan had a hit with a song called, "FM."
And just to clear up who saw what when, let's go to Paul Feldman first (since he knows everything).
"Since 1975, when Donald Rumbelow first had the photograph published in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, nobody had ever noticed these two initials. I was later to learn that Simon Wood had, in 1988, noticed the presence of letters, but not the two initials 'FM' together." (Feldman, 71-72)
And Shirley writes,
"In 1988 the crime researcher and writer Simon Wood mentioned privately to one of our consultants that in a photograph of the dead Mary Jane Kelly on her bed there appeared to be an initial on the wall." (Harrison, 100-101)
Wood apparently only "saw" an "M," (the book uses the singular noun), but Shirley was happy to add the "F."
And then she writes,
"This photograph of Mary Jane Kelly has been reproduced in countless books, yet the 'fools' never found it. To be fair, only n Stepehen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution was the picture reproduced well enough to show the initials of Florence Maybrick."
So that's how these things happen. Someone says, to the people publishing the diary, "Look, I see an 'M' on the wall there."
And we're off.
Incidentally, neither Shirley nor Paul mention if Knight saw anything at all -- just that the picture was printed in his book.
In any case, did you know that as you go through all the theme parks and hotels in Disney World, there are small Mickey's head shaped designs built in a hidden fashion into everything? They are sprinkled into the iron lattice work and carved into the fake rocks and the sides of buildings and the backs of chairs, etc. all very small and hidden, and one game you can play if you get bored is to spend a day finding as many as you can. Try it next time you're at the parks. At least these hidden symbols are really there.
I'll be there in a week's time myself. We can all do it together if anyone is interested in showing up.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 25, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi John,
Ah, yes of course. "FM"... Had forgotten about that one; I just have the very early records. Ha! Clever indeed...
Well, I've never been to Disneyland (or US, for that matter), and due to physical reasons I can't attend such long plane trips, so I'll have to pass. But I get your drift.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
John and Jennifer
On the old boards the "FM = Freemason" equation is attributed to The JTR Whitechapel Murders (p. 276), which didn't appear until after the diary was published.
It's often said that Simon Wood saw the "FM" in 1988, but apparently what he saw was some different letters on the wall.
I hope it's in order to post this extract from a message posted by Martin Fido in May 2001, which clarifies this:
I have to say I doubt whether the forger had any awareness of the supposed initials on the wall at all. They were first pointed out to me before the emergence of teh diary by Simon Wood, who saw completely differentletters and thought a completely different name was being started. (I don't say what, in case Simon ever wishes to publish). In the earlyish days of my acting as 'advisor' to Shirley, I mentioned Simon's observation to her, since I knew that 'an initial here an initial there' and such things were proving puzzling. I also remarked that I couldn't yself detect the letters Simon saw (which may have been in a different position) but I did think I could see an M and an E. Before long the E was an F - and whaddya know: even John Omlor missed the fact that I'd doctored the photo to identify myself before embarking on forgery.
Chris Phillips
[John - I'd posted this before seeing your earlier response. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the different accounts, which look a bit like the beginning of a game of Chinese whispers. Only to be expected where the Diary is concerned, I suppose.]
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 25, 2004) |
Tom Mitchell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
Thanks to all who replied.
I take the point about seeing what you want to see if you are sufficiently motivated to do so. I accept that - in truth - I would be disappointed were it to transpire that the letters were only there in my ambition rather than Mary Kelly's room. That's because I want to believe that the book is for real - so I accept all that.
But here's the rub. Even accepting the capacity of the human brain to deceive itself for the purposes of convenience, I can see those cursed letters - in both the standard photograph (it's still quite pronounced 'when you know what you're looking for' [John, I know, you don't have to point out the psychology of that statement!], and in the blow-up shot (Harrison's Diary, first edition, Hyperion). Of particular note is the rising second crest of the 'M' - it is entirely consistent with Maybrick's noted 'M's.
Once again, I accept that I have a real urge to believe the diary is real, which makes me a poor judge of the evidence. Nevertheless, I am in no doubt that there are excellent grounds for believing that - amongst other possible permutations of letters on the wall (none of which I can see, but maybe because I don't want to see them) - the letters 'F' and 'M' are discernible. It puts me in mind of that old line, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you". Just because I have a huge urge to believe that those letters are there doesn't mean they aren't there. These are not transient rays of light falling on glass, nor passing clouds in Edinburgh's beautiful Sunday morning sky right now (you guys will see it in a few hours, I hope). These are perfectly discernible markings on a photograph taken by the police (albeit in another age). They are faint, and yet entirely readable (especially - though not solely - once blown-up). They should not be written off as quasi-religious invention. Those who believe those letters are there are - I hope - reasonably rational judges who just happen (like everyone who posts to these sites) to have a particular feeling for the truth or otherwise of this issue. The letters are there, and (suspending the temptation for disbelief long enough to accept this non-trivial assumption) they point (as John suggests) to either the veracity of the document or to a very modern forgery. This, it seems to me, returns us to the challenge of my original post: If the letters on the wall cannot be written off as merely a psychological need to see something which fits the theory, then the diary either is true or is a modern forgery (or, less likely, is a Victorian forgery created by a policeman with inside knowledge of the crimes and their sites). If it is, then, a modern forgery, the forger has either built his or her or their case around those letters on the wall (which he or she or they first saw - as John says - ahead of everyone else) which in itself would be an awesome feat as either they would have had to spot something like them and 'inspire' us to believe they were there, or else they would have had to see what actually is there ahead of everyone else. Either way, the forger either built the hoax around those letters, or else had the five-leaf clover luck of the Irish when the letters were eventual 'spotted'!
I love this site and I certainly will follow the myriad threads which are woven here. Overall, though, the weave is producing a very clear pattern, and it looks awfully like the letters 'F' and 'M' on a blood-stained wall to me. Really!
Tom |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Tom, Even accepting the capacity of the human brain to deceive itself for the purposes of convenience, I can see those cursed letters - in both the standard photograph (it's still quite pronounced 'when you know what you're looking for', and in the blow-up shot (Harrison's Diary, first edition, Hyperion). Of particular note is the rising second crest of the 'M' - it is entirely consistent with Maybrick's noted 'M's. OK - if you say so. I have studied several versions and copies of the Miller's Court photograph, also blown-up ones, and I can't make out any letters whatsoever. Seems like I need new glasses, then ...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Tom,
Yea man, they are indeed visible...Im looking at them as we speak. But I dont think Maybrick put them there. They are supposed to be initials of his wife, so the diary claims. But they are discernable if you u look closely. Trust me,
Im not a Maybrickite and I see them. So dont feel so bad, ok. If the killer hated Mary so much, it could stand for F*** Mary! But I doubt it.
FM BABY!!!!! 
Steely Dan....I like that, John, that was good.
Glenn, you should come to the US, its nice here...Not that its not nice in Sweden.
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
I know, Paul, but I have problems with my inner ear and the air pressure, which makes it rather difficult to board such a long flight - not to mention the strain in my already non-exsiting economy.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's nice in the US.
And I STILL can't see the bl**** letters!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Don't worry about it, Glenn,
They are only "there" once you think they are there, as Martin's post demonstrated long ago. And once you think they are there, there's no convincing people that they aren't, because they can see them there -- like that puff of white smoke and shadow of a gunman in the blurry photo of the fence behind the grassy knoll (but with far less corroborating evidence to support them in the case of our "letters").
It's all desire and a very old photograph and together that does not, under any circumstances, equal evidence.
Tom is right, "These are not transient rays of light falling on glass, nor passing clouds in Edinburgh's beautiful Sunday morning sky right now."
No, they are blurred stains on a wall in a grainy old photo -- but the phenomenon remains the same. And it certainly cannot be counted as material evidence of anything in any rigorous or reliable way.
My business is the relationship between reading and desire. It's what I do for a living. And this is all perfectly understandable, believe me.
Just as it's perfectly understandable that those who have faith in the letters, who "see" them, like those who "saw" the Virgin, those who had faith, could not be convinced otherwise.
In good faith,
--John
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
I perfectly agree, John. Bless you.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 221
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
A random collection of shapes resolving themselves into something identifiable is a common enough occurrence, as John has pointed out. One of the more famous examples was that of first Giovanni Schiaperelli and then Percival Lowell in the late 19th discerning a number of intersecting lines on the surface of Mars that became the famous "canals" of the red planet. Of course, certainly Lowell and others that followed him wanted desperately to believe there was life on Mars. Point made, I hope.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
Hi,
I Can make out the letters FM, but only since it was mentioned in the diary that they were there, never before, so good eagle eye spotting.
What still intriques me , is the actual layout of Kellys room.
Do any of us know for sure that the sketch made at the time, was accurate or not, the one i am refering to is the one showing a washstand placed up against the partition to the right of the bed, precisely where the FM is situated, if the washstand was a fixture in that position, the killer could not have written anything.
Of course the said item could have been moved from the right corner of the room, and the bed moved closer to the door, in order to photograph from the left.
I feel that at one point who ever sketched her room was not imagining positions of furnature, and was drawing from visual knowledge.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Everyone so far on this thread has missed one very simple but salient point - the diary does not mention any letters on the wall, F, M or anything else.
'Sir Jim' left 'it' in front, whatever 'it' might mean, and wrote of an initial 'here' and an initial 'there'.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 6:59 am: | |
Indeed, Caz,
But since the FM question was the thread topic, it seemed only fair to respond to Tom's thoughts about "seeing" them.
Of course, there's no reason to conclude that the diary was talking about the FM. However, that's precisely what at least two books supporting the case for authenticity decided to conclude.
Now then, what were we saying about desire?
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 554
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
Tom, John, et al.,
1. I seriously doubt that the police, who were actually in the room, would have missed writing on the wall if it were actually there. Therefore, whatever people are seeing from the shadows, grains of the photo can reasonably be concluded to be wishful thinking.
2. The suggestion on an initial here and an initial there in the diary would first of all seem to indicate that the letters would be spaced out, which I don't believe that those who can "see" the FM claim them to be. 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.
3. Why would James have written a clue of FM? That's not really a clue. If he were saying, hey, I m doing to her what I want to do to my wife, then it is still less a clue than a manifestation of his darkest fantasies, and I doubt he would have referred to it as "a clue".
Anyway,
Just my two bits.
 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
