Archive through June 15, 2000

** 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 June 15, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Markings on Mary Jane Kelly.: Archive through June 15, 2000

Author: George Sotiriou Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 07:30 pm
Markings on Mary Jane Kelly. After studying the case for about 3 years now I am no closer to a final result than when I begun. I have followed updates on the casebook, watched documentaries, read books which has helped further my knowledge but I still have no answer, like so many others others researching the subject . Reading through the victims profiles the most intriguing one is the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. She was the victim to be most savagely murdered by the hand of Jack the Ripper. I find her the most mysterious out of them due to the lack of knowledge about her real background. Kelly�s early history was that she was born in 1863 in Limerick and moved to Wales in her early childhood. Her father, John Kelly was a foreman in an ironworks in Carnarvonshire or Carmarthenshire. She married a collier named Davis or Davies when she was about sixteen (1879) but a pit explosion killed her husband 2-3 years later (1882). Kelly then became a prostitute in Cardiff. In 1884, at the age of 21, she moved to London to find work in a West End brothel were one of her clients asked her to accompany him to France. It does not seem she had a happy experience as she returned back to London two weeks later. This information cannot be guaranteed as truth as we have no evidence of marriage or death certificates or birth registers. While looking through the defunct Maybrick Diary book I was scanning through the photographs. Upon glancing at the Mary Jane Kelly picture something jumped out at me which I have never seen before. After taking a closer look at the photo my facial expression changed from puzzled to joy. I took a magnifying glass and placed over the picture to have a closer look at her mutilated face. In front of me were four letters which had been carved into her face. The letters all clear were F, I, V, E. It doesn�t take a genius to realise what this spells but I was shocked. Carved into her face was the word FIVE. I was excited to discover such a find, as to date, I do not think anyone has spotted this evidence. I kindly asked my father to have a closer look to and he agreed that he could see the word FIVE engraved into her face. So what does this find mean. With this we may now know that with Jack the Ripper leaving this impression on her face, he had murdered five victims. The only question which arises from this is which five? If you take Polly Ann Nichols as the first and follow through with the others (Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly) you have the five cononical victims. Some dismiss Stride as a victim because of the circumstances in her case. Stride was not mutilated like the others which was a form of trademark. If you withdraw Stride and introduce Martha Tabram as a victim of Jack the Ripper, then you still have five victims. If you remove Tabram and Stride from the list of casualties, you have to ask yourself who the other victim is. Elizabeth Stride may now not be discounted or Martha Tabram if we are to decide which of these fits into the picture. Who is to say that Jack the Ripper went on to add to his tally of scapegoats after the Mary Jane Kelly killing? Jack the Ripper may of left his mark on the face of Mary Jane Kelly to rectify that Stride was one of his encounters, which was not successful, to enable him to perform the double murder to satisfy his lust for blood. The trouble with discovering a new piece of evidence is that new arguments arise on the case. The Maybrick diary hardback edition published 1993. On page 285 paragraph 245 he writes: �I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me. I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh? I believe I will give it a try. It amuses me if nothing else. Life is sweet, very sweet. regret I did not take any of it away with me it is supper time, I could do with a kidney or two ha ha.� The first part �I left it there for the fools but will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.� This refers to the markings on the wall. The initials FM with reference to Florence Maybrick. Closer inspection reveals there are more letters on the wall and the F is in fact an E. I have studied it more closely and so far can make out along this section with the first letter an E, M, I, T. The word EMIT means in the english language � to give or send forth; discharge�. In Hebrew it means �to kill�. Spell it backwards and you have the word �TIME�. I do not know the reference at this stage as there are many more letters to decipher on the wall of Millers Court. My next dissertation will focus on more this matter. The second part which is more relevant to my research is �I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh? I believe I will give it a try.� If Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, he would of known that what he had carved on the face of Mary Jane Kelly was always feasible. I believe, as with many others that Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. To many written mistakes with this one to add. The evidence found in the photograph may help the cause or confuse the issue. I believe this find just furthers the research and study with more possibilities to which the five victims are. George Sotiriou (Known in the chatroom as Qbase by day and G in the evening) Please send your views to: george.gdesign@virgin.net
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 03:35 am
One question, Have you looked at other versions of the famous photograph too, and searched for it there again, preferably pre-diary versions? If so, could you please show it us there, maybe that's why the police conluded at the end there were never more than 5 victims. By the way Stride was not publicly doubted at the time of MJK-murder as a JTR-victim. So that could not have been the motive of the killer to carve FIVE into MJK's face. Greetings, Jill
Author: Oliver Franz Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 06:18 am
Hi, After reading Georges' post, I did some scanning and this is what I came up with. As you can see the FIVE is definitely there. I can't believe that nobody noticed it before. Question is: is it genuine or somehow been added to the photograph later (as in written on). At any rate, certainly a topic worth discussing. Here are my scans: Later, Oliver
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 06:35 am
Oliver, you can only upload JPEG or GIF files. Also there's a limit on the size of the picture. The picture you scanned, was it a diary-version or another?
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:14 am
ALL, MORE AND MORE BACKED UP Have chatted about this also with George, the first who posted his finding. He has also seen it on other versions, and will try to post it on them too. The 'FIVE' is not done by pencil, it is carved. Me and someone else have tried to check it out for ourselves, so far I have not been able to enhance the picture more than anything blurry. But even on a small scale picture you can notice a darker area, where George had found the 'FIVE'. More and more this fact seems to be backed up. Go take a look, and post your findings here. One big question: did the police know about it then?
Author: Oliver Franz Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:49 am
Jill, the pictures I posted were GIF files. I guess they were too large. I'll try it again later. To answer your question: I scanned it from a paperback edition of Paley's "The Simple Truth". The picture in the book is rather small, but when scanned at 300dpi and then reduced to normal size, one can make out a bit more detail than on the one that is found on the casebook. I think what's really needed here is for someone with access to the originals to make a high-resolution scan of them. The increase in detail and therefore information would be significant. Later, Oliver
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 11:09 am
Before we jump off the edge of the earth on this, let's keep a few things in mind: 1. Victim's bodies were scrupulously examined and analyzed by a number of competent people, and the alledged face carving was never mentioned. 2. Old photographs play tricks. And, they also can be airbrushed. 3. Finding an obvious physical clue this late in the game smacks of "too good to be true." 4. People are notoriously gullible. 5. Using a good magnifying glass on versions in both the A-Z and Sugden, I can just barely make out the shape of the "E" there--not the other letters. This much surely could have been purely a trick of the light. 6. We have had a century of anagrams, false confessions, false accounts, false Diaries, and other false clues. David
Author: George Sotiriou Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 03:30 pm
A reply to Mr David M.Radka. It seems that it is yourself who is jumping ahead. When I found this I was shocked and surprised to find this. I studied and looked at this photograph many times and asked many people I knew to make a fair judgement. They all agreed that they could read the word FIVE carved into the face of Mary Jane Kelly. I used a very powerful magnifying glass first to eastablish this reading and then scanned in for clearer judgement. I used the picture in the Maybrick diary because it was the best print available used in print for a book. The picture in question comes from the Public Record Office in Kew. This is attached to a black card with the second photo showing the different angle of the shot of the table. There is another print available in the same office showing a tear towards the bottom left of the bed. These pictures can be found in Philip Sugdens 'The Complete History of JTR' and Paul Begg 'JTR The Uncensored Facts'. Both pictures are identical for what I have seen. You can see in both versions that the word FIVE is quite visible and is not a trick of the light. I would look a bit harder before you question it. I knew 2 years ago about this find and have done nothing about it till now. To say I am gullible is quite rude. I respect your opinion, don't get me wrong, but what I believe to have found is FACT and has not been doctered in any way by myself. If your saying it has been airbrushed in, then tests will have to be made on the photo's in question. I have a lot of people backing me on this and it has caused quite a stir in the discussion room. I, personally, in my opinion, am not wrong on this find. I believe you will agree in time. Regards, George Sotiriou.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 03:56 pm
I believe George has made an extremely important find here , to me the letters seem extremely clear in the blown-up picture and there can be no doubt what the word is. Now we have this information we must look again at certain aspects of the case. (i) It seems unthinkable that the police or the surgeons would not have seen this message , or the messages on the walls which are now coming to light. Therefore , as I have said before , there has been at least a limited police coverup over the Kelly case. This needs to be investigated further. (ii) We know that the Ripper did leave messages for the police to find now. Thus we should perhaps look again at the Eddowes facial mutilations in a new light - some message may be contained within them. And the Goulston Street Graffiti - we should look at that again too. (iii) EVERY DETAIL of the case should now be looked at again , to see what it can tell us ; positioning , location , wounds etc. Because the Ripper was lucid enough to leave a message for his hunters once , he may have done so in every aspect of the case and with every victim. (iv) We can now understand how McNaughten knew there were five victims of the Ripper and five only. It seems McNaughton knew who they were too so perhaps he had information as yet unrevealed to us. I hope this doesn't sound too overenthusiastic but , like Jill and George , I am extremely excited by this development. A trick of the light ? No way , thats a coincidence I will NOT accept. I believe this is genuine. Somewhere out there may be a secret police folder with the details of the Kelly murder in it , hidden away until the time is right for all to be revealed. Lets hope that time is soon. Jack , we just got a step nearer to catching you !
Author: Roger O'Donnell Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 04:10 pm
George, Please for give the liberty i have taken with your copyrighted picture. I state here that the modifications i have made no way infringe on your copyright, and I make no claim,explicit or implied to ownership of either the original or modified picture. I have done this purely to allow others to see the F-I-V-E. As to whether it is a real artifact, or simply the human mind making patterns ('methinks tis like a weasel...') I cannot say which it is and would not care to make judgements without the original to hand. I hope you take this offering in the spirit it is made, that is to take the discussion forward Roger
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 04:51 pm
All, David - Who is to say the police did not surpress this information? You did not find the word FIVE neither in Sugden or A-Z. Well look again, I have studied both tonight. All - Having the A-z right in front of me, and can see it without the need of a magnifying glass. Although I've used it to see if it was a trick of the light. The crossings of the 'I' and the 'F' are the incisions Bond remarked on: the ones that crossed the lips and the chin. The 'E' is where the nose should have been, also a remark by Bond. I have checked Sugden too. This picture is in a less good shape. Whatever you can see as supposed writing on the wall in other pics, I can not find there, either because they become splashes of blood, as Dr.Bond remarked, or because it were jsut blobs that were perceived by us as 'lettering'. But even in this picture the carvings, making up the word 'FIVE' still exist. I admit the 'V' has gone a shade lighter, but is still there. The 'Lettering' are incisions, remarked on by Dr.Bond in his report. They are not made by George, they were done by the perpretator. They follow the perspective and even form of the face. Now the discussion stays open if these were intentionally done to make the word 'FIVE' or is it our mind playing tricks? The carvings are across the middle of the face of MJK and in line with the pose. They are actually in line of how someone entering the room could immediately read something, if he dared to. I also have presented the magnifying glass to my father, only saying to him that he take good look and to tell me what he saw. I did not tell him what he should look for, I did not tell him about this finding before he answered my question, and I did not tell him even to look for a word. He first saw the 'I', the 'V' and the 'E' as '5/c', but corrected himself and said no 'I see FIVE'. Now this last, together with Simon, George, ... only proves of course that many people perceive the carvings as the word 'FIVE', it does not scientiffically proof they were meant to be 'FIVE'. How can this prooved? By two ways: either we find intern notes from Bond, or by exhumation of MJK. These carvings must have touched the bone, except for the 'I'. A forensic athropologist would find them immediately. What is the importance of the 'FIVE'. As Simon says, it means that at a certain moment, JtR was giving clues, playing with the police. If he did it with MJK, he did it with others too. I remember very well how I discussed the injuries on Eddowes. She was given a clowns face (sorry checked for lettering Simon, but could not find it), and I asked about Kosher killing. It could present the Goulston grafitti in an other light... The other impact is that it definitely means that MJK was nr.5, whoever the previous 4 were. The last is on his character, or if you will his profile. What it has no impact to: It does not mean that after Kelly he wanted to stop. It does not definitely include Stride in. It gives us no identity about the killer himself. Jill
Author: Oliver Franz Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:05 pm
2nd try: hope this works, Oliver
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 08:39 pm
Then I saw her face-- Now I'm a Believer! Not a trace-- Of doubt in my mind! I'm in love! LOVE! I'm a Believer! Just couldn't leave her 'till she is mine. --The Monkees David
Author: Diana Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:22 pm
I believe I can detect a numeral 5 as well just to the left of the V.
Author: Diana Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:51 pm
Since Dr. Ind is a surgeon I would really like to see his opinion on the "five". One who makes a living (forgive me Dr.-- I mean no disrespect) cutting human flesh would have a better idea as to whether this is a chance grouping of globs of tissue or if it is deliberate.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 10:20 pm
Hello George Sotiriou and everyone: I'm sorry since I realize there is a lot of excitement over George's theory that there may have been the word "Five" carved in Mary Jane Kelly's face, but I really do think this is almost undoubtedly a nonstarter as a theory. You are taking a three-dimensional object, the mutilated face, and making a conclusion based on a photograph that reduces everything to a single plane. I really think that it is the light and shadow and the perspective that gives the impression of a ragged "Five" among the facial mutilations. Remember the story that NASA had photographed a human face on Mars? I really think this finding is in the same sort of category. Sorry to be a spoilsport! Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 10:24 pm
Crosses on the wall picture very small shadows here and there letters everywhere magnify and see F. I. V. & E. No tricks of shade & light it's obvious I'm right. How could they not see its plain to you & me. letters, numbers, names, we love these silly games. Can anyone not see an 'F' an 'M' a '3' her stocking holds a clue a '5' a '7' a '2'? rotate the pic & then we start all over again. ----------------------------- Seriously people, you all have a wonderfull sense of humor.....if you want to study a picture of Kelly on the bed with none of the misguiding shapes & shadows then there's a brown & white version that is more true to life. Shadows in a black & white will create lots of images that can be interpreted falsly in any way you choose. It's purely in the eye of the beholder. For those who ask "how come they didnt see it at the time?" the answer is 'because THEY were looking at a bloodied corpse NOT a 112 yr old black & white photograph'....in short, they didnt see IT, because IT was not there. Thanks for an entertaining 20 mins.... Regards, Jon
Author: NickDanger Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 10:38 pm
Hi all, Thank you Chris George, you've beaten me too it again. I have been shocked at how many otherwise sensible people have jumped on this and rocketed off out of the atmosphere. I have examined the photos with a magnifying glass and I can only concur with Chris' remarks. In fact, in looking at the examples posted on the message boards, I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested that it spells 'Pizer' or spotted a weeping Madonna. I believe this flash in the pan is a chimera and I hope that those whose enthusiasm has run away with them will return to the planet earth and evaluate this subject in a more calm and reasoned manner. Best regards, Nick
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 10:46 pm
I�m sorry, folks, but I�m with David � his first post I mean, not the later monkey business � and Chris, Jon and Nick on this one. It seems we�re all crawling out of the woodwork at the same time. While I accept that it�s possible to perceive this lettering, particularly in the poor quality �diary� representation, magnifying the much clearer, though smaller image in the A-Z and other sources seems to confirm that this lettering is simply a montage of unrelated markings. Perhaps Stewart, who possesses the best copy that I am aware of, would be kind enough to post an enlarged image, and settle the matter to general satisfaction. Best Wishes alex
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 11:23 pm
Much like so called subliminal advertising or the giant carved human head on Mars, people will see things that aren't there, it's the way the brain operates. It tries to make sense from random and confusing objects. Oh, I see shadows on the photo of Mary Kelly's face all right, and they may look like the word FIVE, or PIVE, or P4V2, or P4VE, etc, etc. As David has pointed out, several police and medical experts had examined Kelly's face, both in the room and during the autopsy and no mention was ever made of words carved into the body, (just as there were no words, letters, numbers, sentences, in whole or in part, jokes, ditties, limericks or dirty drawings, written or drawn on the walls of #13 Miller's Court.) But wait a minute, we have the all encompassing "conspiracy theory" to explain that. Ah yes, the all encompassing "conspiracy theory" that enables everything to be possible but with absolutely no proof offered that it actually existed. Dr. Bonds medical notes on the state of the body in situ, his autopsy notes and his special report to Anderson were not meant to be viewed by anyone other than selected persons. We only got to read the body in situ and autopsy report when they were returned to Scotland Yard in 1987, before that we had no clue as to what he had observed. We still don't know what Dr. Phillips thought but given this secrecy or at least security with which these documents were held, why would they not contain evidence of the "conspiracy"? Any words carved into Mary Kelly's face, or printed in blood on the walls, could safely be included into these official reports because you or I were never meant to see them. And considering the fact that the special report given to Dr. Anderson included opinions on the killer as well as the crimes, would not Dr. Bond have theorised on the meaning of such mutilations or was Anderson out of the conspiracy loop and therefore had to be left in the dark? Wolf.