Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 07:30 pm |        |
Good evening Joseph.
If I understand you correctly you asked if the photo of Kelly's body on the bed, here on the Casebook is clear enough to discern the blood smears (FM) that are refered to on the wall.
The image is not clear enough.
But the image is much clearer in several books, but all you can really see is the loupy 'M' which could quite easily be the a visible portion of the tips of a pair of ears,....like of Bugs Bunny.
Nah!!!! ...whatzzupdoc !!!
Regards, Jon. :-) |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 07:46 pm | |
Hello Mr. Smyth,
Thanks for the info.
If it wouldn't be to much trouble, could you tell me which books the clearer images can be found.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 08:12 pm | |
Joseph
The best reproduction I've seen is still the one in Begg's JtR, A-Z
The loupy smears are on the rear wall ...if you look at her left hand/wrist and just above on the wall very slightly to the right, but just almost hidden by the bed, you'll see some faint streaky marks.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 08:21 pm | |
Mr. Smyth,
Thanks, you been a big help.
Joseph |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 02:31 pm | |
| The height of the alleged initials on the wall appear to be no more than 2 to 2-1/2 feet above the floor. The killer would have to have reached over the body from the left side of the bed to scrawl the letters. The only other way to write the initials at their alleged location was to move around to the other side, between the bed and the wall, possibly push the bed away to make more room, then squat down in a pool of blood to write. But if he wanted to leave a written token behind, why not do it in a less awkward manner, say higher up on the other wall, directly above the head of the victim for all to see? |
Author: Sara
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 02:48 pm | |
Greetings Jon, Scott - I agree Begg's photo is most conducive to "seeing" letterforms, and thank you for succinctly speculating on how such "initials" could have been formed. I am a very visually oriented person but, I've been wondering if I needed special glasses or certain pharmeceuticals to actually see them - without taking a certain leap of imagination.
All the best, Sara |
Author: Robert Crawford
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 08:07 pm | |
It only stands to reason that if those letters were smeared on Kelly's wall, next to her body, that someone, most likely a policeman, would've noticed it right off the bat.
Of course, discrediting the initials and their alleged resemblance to Maybrick's handwriting would somewhat weaken the veracity of the Diary, wouldn't it? ;-)
Robert Crawford
http://members.tripod.com/~Sci_Fi_Man/index.html< |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 16 September 1999 - 06:44 am | |
Hi, all:
Leanne pointed out that I should more correctly post the following observation here than on the Joseph Barnett board, so here goes--
I have noticed something interesting in Bruce Paley's book, "Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth." In the paperback Headline edition opposite p. 175 appears a sketch entitled "The Murdered Woman's Room." This sketch show a washstand with a washbasin in the corner where the infamous "FM" can be seen (or not seen, depending on your preference) in the classic photograph. This would seem to imply, if the sketch is correct, that the washstand may have obscured the corner to make it impossible for the murderer to scrawl the letters on the wall, or indeed for blood to splatter in the corner of the room where the alleged "FM" was later noticed. Possibly this washbasin was removed before the big photograph was taken and possibly to enable the smaller photograph to be taken from that side of the bed.
In confirmation of this observation that the corner where the "FM" was later noticed contained a washstand is this wording from The Standard" of November 12, 1888: ". . . the bed upon which the body was stretched. . . was placed next to a disused washstand in the corner behind the door, and opposite the two windows. . ." While "behind the door" could be read as that the washstand was literally behind the door, it could also be read as meaning that the bed and washstand would be behind a person entering the room as they advanced toward the fireplace opposite the door. That this is the correct interpretation is evident if we note the wording that the bed and washstand were said to be "opposite the two windows."
If as I assume, the sketch of the interior of 13 Miller's Court may be correct, that the washbasin was in the corner of the room by the bed, as seemingly confirmed by the wording of the report in "The Standard," this appears to be another nail in the coffin of the Diary. That is, Mr. Maybrick could not--as Shirley Harrison claims in her book "The Diary of Jack the Ripper"--have daubed the FM on the wall because the washstand was in the way. It seems that the Maybrickians may have been too fast to come to a possibly incorrect conclusion on the basis of the famous photograph showing a mark on an area of the wall that may in fact have been obscured at the time of the murder and until after the police arrived.
Your thoughts, Ripperologists?
Chris George |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 01:36 am | |
G'day Chris and everyone,
Here's the exact words of the diary:
'An initial here and an initial there
will tell of the whoring mother.
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.'
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 02:03 am | |
Hi Chris,
This is indeed interesting stuff.
I always had trouble with the FM on the wall. I presumed that the Diary Book authors had jumped on this dubious piece of 'evidence' to explain the use of the phrase in the diary: 'an initial here, an initial there', and they will no doubt be disheartened if it can be shown that the killer did not put his mark on the wall in that way.
But we really don't know for certain, without asking the actual diary author what was meant by the phrase. He/she could have chosen to write 'an initial F here, right next to an initial M there'. This would have put the final nail in the Maybrick theory if the FM were ever disproved. But again, as in so many other diary instances, the phrase is still irritatingly open to alternative interpretations. The Diary Book authors may have just got another one wrong.
The killer put his 'mark' on Catharine (or CathErine :-)) Eddowes' face. Isn't it just possible that he could have done something similar, though not as clearly, with Mary Kelly, the next victim after Kate?
Just putting an alternative view as usual ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 07:14 am | |
G'day Caz & Chris,
Mr George Bagster Phillips, surgeon of Police said: "I am sure the body had been removed after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bed which was nearest to the wooden partition"
(right side).
I found another piece: 'Opposite the door was the fire-grate; to the left, the broken window; and to the right, the table and bed. 'The Fishermans Widow', hung over the mantlepiece. A cupboard was in the corner. At the foot of the bed a chair upon which lay folded clothes.' (which corner was the cupboard in?)
LEANNE! |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 08:14 am | |
Hi, Leanne:
A cupboard of course may be built-in or freestanding. The quote you gave implies that it was freestanding, and I am rather thinking that it is one and the same thing as the washbasin, which could well have had the washbasin itself on top and shelves below.
Chris George |
Author: S P Evans
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 11:07 pm | |
I don't know how well this will come out but there was a sketch of Miller's Court in the Daily Telegraph of Monday November 12, 1888, which showed the washstand near the foot of Kelly's bed. It is shown on the plan as a sort of circle device with a cross in it. There was a plan published the day before which erroneously showed the washstand in the corner the bed occupied. I hope this helps.
 |
Author: S P Evans
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 11:21 pm | |
I'll try again!
 |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 04:36 am | |
Hi, Stewart:
I have just had some discussion with Alex Chisholm about the question of the washstand in Mary Jane Kelly's room. Alex thought as you did that the circle with the cross on the plan published in the Telegraph was meant to denote the washstand. I don't. I think it is merely a device used by the illustrator to bring attention to the room on a plan of the whole of Miller's Court. As noted by Alex, the cross has been dispensed with in a version of the plan redrawn for Philip Sugden's book. I believe Sugden's illustrator assumed as I did that the cross is only a device and he/she decided instead to use the block capital designation "Kelly's Room" to bring attention to the murder room. Sugden and his illustrator decided to put the washbasin in the corner on the same side as the fireplace, but what basis there is for deciding on this placement I do not know. How does this accord with the statement in the Standard and the Telegraph of November 12, 1888: ". . . the bed upon which the body was stretched. . . was placed next to a disused washstand. . ."? Surely this denotes that the washstand and the bed were side by side in the same corner on the night of the murder? The statement implies that the washstand could not have been in the opposite corner -- though as I said previously, it might have been moved out from the corner by the bed in order for the photographer to get in to take the photograph from that side of the bed, and so have been placed in the corner by the fireplace post-murder.
Chris George |
Author: S P Evans
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 10:04 am | |
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Chris. The position of the bed is clearly shown on the Daily Telegraph plan, and that shows it definitely in the corner, where the photograph also shows it.
The Daily Telegraph plan also has the room marked, in capitals 'KELLY'S ROOM', so any other mark would be superfluous, unless it was an 'X' on the bed showing where the body lay. I think Alex is right and the broken circle device with a sort of 'plus' sign in it denotes the washstand. Still, as you know, there is always room for error in any press offering.
The bed would certainly have been moved to take the second photo, but it did not appear to have been moved when the first was taken.
Stewart |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 03:38 pm | |
Hi, Stewart:
Thanks for your input. I think myself that there was a space between the bed and the partition (wall) and that the bed was not FLUSH against the wall despite what the plan in the Telegraph shows. Let me ask you ask you a question. In the famous photograph, what do you think we see beyond Mary Jane Kelly's right leg? Could it be the washstand with some bedclothes or clothes draped over it? It certainly looks like a piece of furniture. It looks as if it has a flat top, a top that parallels the angle of the bed looking toward the photographer.
Chris George |
Author: joanne burley
Friday, 02 June 2000 - 07:11 pm | |
| has anyone else seen writing on the wall other than Fm? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 06:18 am | |
G'day Joanne,
Yes, Yes, Yes! I was visiting Julian Rosenthal recently, and he showed me a blown-up photo of Kelly on the bed. On the wall behind we both could make out the word: 'HART'. Not thinking that this could be possible, as no one else has ever clamed to have seen it, we concluded that it was easy for the mind to play ticks!
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 01:44 pm | |
G'day Leanne!
Is it possible to reproduce the blown-up photo on this site , perhaps with a ring around the word to show exactly where it is ?
Or is it possible to tell us where to look for it
on the photo ?
This is an exciting discovery ! |
