|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 30, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The 'FM' on Kelly's wall.:
Archive through April 30, 1999
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 05:13 pm |        | I keep thinking maybe it is true. If I'm right, the case has a no-brainer the size of the RMS Queen Mary in it.
David |
Author: Eric Vaughn
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 06:48 am | | Hello again. I'm back to loot more off of your treasured legend. This time I'll even contribute a topic or two.
The purpose of the leather apron? It rolls up nicely inside the jacket.Stealing people's vulvas, etc.,is a messy job. Yes,a vulva is not like a car radio,unless you have access to female corpses.The purpose of a liver?You really don't want to know that,dooya?
As to the FM on Mary Jane Kelly's walls, a murder or two ago, our boy shot his mouth off a bit too much and he had to cover it up. (I won't ruin it for you.) |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 01:09 pm | | It might be of interest to anyone who has not yet read "The Mammoth Book of JTR" to note a Ripper legend in the making. . .
We are told that the "FM" on Kelly's wall is smeared in blood (or, at least, we are led to assume this). However, in the essay "The JTR Whitechapel Murders" by Sue and Andy Parlour (pp. 259-279), the letters are now described thus:
"Scratched on the wooden panel on the far side of the bed were the letters 'FM.' Was this another teaser left by the killers pointing to the Freemasons?" (p. 276)
No documentation for this claim, of course, is given. Still, fascinating to see. Who knows? Perhaps in another five years or so, we might learn the letters were carved into Kelly's very flesh.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 08:34 am | | Hi C-M,
I don't think you'll have to wait 5 years. Alex Chisholm and I had a bit of a discussion about the FM some months ago on one of the Diary boards. We both independently had come up with the idea that an F was carved into Kelly's forearm. We concluded that hoax or not, the wording of the diary in respect to the murder made more sense if the "initial here and initial there" was taken to mean the F on the forearm - "in front for all eyes to see".
As for the FM on the wall, if you believe that it is an F and an M then you'd have to say it was either paint or smeared blood as there seems to be a trickle downwards from the top stroke of the rather doubtful F.
Dela |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 01:37 pm | | Dela -
Of course! I remember the discussion now. Well, we'll only have you and Alex to blame for this, of course.
The Parlours' essay really does need to be read, as they've wholly committed themselves to their tentative Gull/Stephen/Druitt theory, and even bring back some old favourites like the "rings and coins" at Chapman's feet in support of their thesis.
My curiosity is stoked, however, at how they decided the (IMHO nonexistent) bloody FM became scratched on the wall. How do you decide to say things like that - and without documentation? I'd say it boggles my mind, but I'm pretty much a confirmed cynic in the world of the Ripper.
Thanks again,
CMD |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 03:53 pm | | Hello, CMD and Dela:
Since the supposed "FM" on the wall has only been noticed in the photograph of MJK's death scene, we don't really know how it was put there, whether daubed, scratched, painted by Rubens, or whatever. I would assume that in the case of the Parlours it is probably just a case of loose phraseology and they probably meant daubed on the wall, in blood, like everyone else.
Chris George |
Author: Brandon Elkins
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 01:41 pm | | For more information, read "The Diary of Jack the Ripper." The "FM" left on the wall adjacent to Kelly's body may well have stood for "Florence Maybrick" as the Maybrick diaries attest to.
Regards to all,
Brandon Elkins |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 11:16 pm | | Howdy All!
I don't have much faith in the diary, sorry to say. I also don't think it likely that the Ripper would be painting his wife's initials (if in fact he had a wife) on the wall. Now his own initials makes more sense to me. Another taunt to the police. Frank Miles, anyone?
Cheers......Mike |
Author: wolf
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 05:56 pm | | One of the problems that I have with the FM "initials" in the Mary Kelly photo is what,exactly,are we looking at? Is this something on the wall of her room or something that was only noticable on the photo or glass negative,now long since gone. The "initials" are not that apparent unless attention is brought to them, then they seem to stand out but regardless I have a hard time understanding why the dozen or so policemen,and others,who had access to the room, fail to give any mention of them.
It could be argued that nobody paid much attention to the wall and therefore they were missed, but we know for a fact that at least one person did study the wall.Dr. Bond's report on Kelly,shows the observations of a trained forensic scientist,one whom Scotland Yard had absolute trust in as evidenced by Andersons request that he review the murders and submit a report.
Dr. Bond states "The wall by the right side of the bed and in line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of seperate splashes" Not even a remote hint of initials daubed in blood.
In 1892,when Kit Coleman,the reporter for the Toronto newspaper,The Mail,visited Millers Court,she entered a room little changed from the night of the murder,four years previous. She described gruesome "black stains" on the wall,again no initials or even a mention of them from the women that she interviewed there.
I suppose that one could argue some sort of coverup or an attempt by the police to hold back some information from the public that could be usefull later on,much like Paul Feldman's ludicrous belief that Inspector Abberline would hold back the all important clue that Catherine Eddowes was carrying an empty tin match box,but I find it hard to believe that not a word of this exists in any of the remaining Scotland Yard and Home Office files.Why would Dr. Bond exclude such evidence from his report that was not designed for public consumption.
Surely some thing would have leaked out or have been mentioned before 1988, when Simon Wood first noticedwhat looked like initials in the photograph.All in all, Isuppose that people will see what they want to see, especially if they believe that the "Diary" is genuine. |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 12:48 am | | Hi y'all & welcome to all newcomers.
WOLF: You made several good points - I hope some of the long-timers comment on them, especially the bit about the camera lens.
I looked at the infamous photo with a magnifying glass tonight. The wall is a massive inkblot - I saw a plethoria of initials, names & cavorting animals -- much the same grafitti that's found on bathroom walls in night clubs.
I have a question for Mary's Room Experts. Is the alledged FM on the wall - or on the sealed up door that originally linked the room with the rest of the house? How was that door sealed - Nailed shut or covered over somehow? Thanks.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 08:59 am | | Hi Ashling,
There's quite a bit of discussion somewhere here about all the initials on Kelly's wall. People who are more in the know than me sat that it seems that most of the published photos are copies of copies where people using them have previously written notes over the photos. Thus there writing has made it onto the print of the copy of the photo and these scrawlings have built up over the original image. Therefore it's highly dangerous to study the photo in most of the published books. Perhaps the only photo worth magnifying is the original itself.
Dela |
Author: Wolf
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 03:38 pm | | Thanks for the welcome, Ashling, I've actually been reading the casebook for about two months but wasn't keen on jumping in since a lot of it seems to be personal messages between people...sort of like what I'm doing now,so...anyway, I have never seen any mention of how the partition between Kell's room and the rest of the house was achieved, just that it was a wooden partition that seperated the two. I would very much doubt that anyone would know for sure.
As for Mathew's observation about the folly of using reproduced photographs inorder to make any sort of judgement on whether there are initials or not, I have to agree, but apparently a close study of the original photo has already been done.
Paul Feldman claims that he was able to obtain the loan of one of the original photographs from Scotland Yard's Black Museum. He states that with computerized aid, he was able to break the photo down into two inch squares and then blow up the squares for a closer look. He states that there was "no doubt, the initials were clear and precise."
I don't have a problem with the fact that something might be on the photograph, but wonder if some sort of marks were made on the negative. Either way I do have a problem with the supposition that the marks are not only initials, but the initials of Florence Maybrick.
I suppose that one could argue the fact that Maybrick did write the Diary, that he was the Ripper, that those are his wife's initials on the wall and that he was also a gifted psychic.
Gifted psychic?, of course, how else can you explain his extraordinary ability to record in his diary the very mistakes concerning Mary Kelly's heart and breasts that we had all made until the return of Dr. Bonds report in 1987. It is almost as if Maybrick was able to write his diary based solely on popular Ripper books, pre-1987, rather than on his fresh recollections. Quite a feat of psychic ability.
Wolf. |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 04:17 am | | Hi y'all.
DELA: Thanks for the photo info ... Glad to know I'm not halucinating. Such a simple explanation - One day we may look back and see JtR's identity was hidden behind a similarly tiny clue.
WOLF: Very interesting points - which I can't comment on yet ... Just started reading The Diary a few days ago.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Caz
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 04:33 am | | Hi Ashling!
I'd be very interested in your thoughts about the diary when you've read it through. I'm not trying to tell you something you don't already know, but try reading it through a few times, once with no preconceptions, once AS IF Maybrick wrote it, once AS IF Mike or Anne created the content, once AS IF the real ripper did the deed for some purpose, once AS IF written by person or persons unknown either in ancient or modern times. After all that (if you can be bothered!) read it through once more as objectively again as possible. This is what I did, and the jig-saw pieces began to fit nicely together. Yeah, my whole picture is probably eccentric, hard to swallow and no oil painting (unless you count the Monarch of the Glen, grin) but if a few more like-minded ripperphiles follow this path, we may eventually get the masterpiece (even if it's half a cow in aspic or something showing at the Tate!).
Will you give it your best shot? For yours truly?
Best wishes,
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leonard
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 06:50 pm | | Hello All:
I'm having a problem with the initial's "F. M." that were left on the wall in Kelly's room.
In A-Z, the initials are there but very faint but in the photo from "The diary of Jack the Ripper"
the appear much more pronounced.
So, do we have a case of photo enhancement or a retouch of the original photo or what?
The photo in the diary appears to be a second photo taken up closer to the body than the first as far as I can tell.
What light do you all think you can cast here. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 07:34 pm | | Sacre bleu !!!!
Do I hear a suggestion of impropriety regarding Harrisons book ? !!!!
This F.M. nonsense has been gone over..and over...and over...
Smears on a wall, faces in the clouds, shapes in a fire,.....the observer will see what you are led to see.
Vertical smears appeared following the doctors examination of the room if we are to believe Dr Bond, who stated quite clearly that the blood had struck the wall in a number of separate splashes.
So if we assume that the doctors work had priority then they would be allowed to do there exam.
Following which the photo's were likely taken which required room for the tripod setup etc.
The second smaller photo was taken from over against the partition, roughly where the rolled up 'blanket'? appears by Kelly's right knee (in the larger photo)
The bed must have been pulled away from the wall to get such an angle with the light from the open door showing up in the background.
The pubic area is left of centre in the smaller photo, with the inside of the left knee in the centre, and the table in the background.
But as to the F.M. - retouching ? enhancement ?
well, I won't touch that one :-) even though the motive is there.
I mean if Harrison wants the photo in her book then she wants you to see it ....doesn't she !!
Ok, then Leonard, thats my beam of light.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 09:49 pm | | Mr. Smyth,
Are those letters( FM ) visible in the photos
avaiable in the Casebook.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 11:13 pm | | Which Casebook Joseph ?
Rumbelows 'Casebook'
This site (Casebook)
or Casebook productions (don't think there listed yet)
In any version of the photo all you really see is a MacDonalds M or loupy smear with some barely discernable horizontal smears to the left of it.
Some say its an F mainly because thats what they want it to be.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 09:55 am | | G'day all,
I am reading the book 'The Whitechappel Horrors', which was first published in the 1920s, about 32 years after the discovery of the body in Millers Court. There is no mention of any letters on the wall, so I am convinced that 'photo-enhancement' is the answer!
LEANNE |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 02:53 pm | | Mr. Smyth,
Sorry for the ambiguous question.
I meant to say this site.
Thanks again.
Joseph |
|
|
|
|
