Archive through May 4, 1999

** 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 May 4, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Goulston Street Graffito: Archive through May 4, 1999

Author: Peter Birchwood Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:35 pm
Forgive me for joining in what seems to be a private fight but Red Demon appears unaware of the second Kelly photo taken from the wall side of the bed and showing that the bed MUST have been moved in order for the photographer to get behind it. If the photog. did this, the doctors probably did. Peter
Author: RED DEMON Monday, 03 May 1999 - 03:26 pm
Hello Jon, Bob, Peter, Peter: I would hope that Jon agrees with me that what we are doing is not fighting. We both have an interest in the truth, and we wish others to be enlightened. It just so happens that our idea of 'truth' differs slightly. Please, Jon, drop the 'diary' thing. I am not convinced the diary is real. You won't find me in the diary chatroom. I'm letting the experts work it out. I am more fascinated with the 'mini-mysteries' of the case, such as the 'letter' and those relating to Mary Kelly. I believe the 'FM' is real. I thought it was before I even read the diary. Please don't bring the 'diary' back up in accordanance with me. I'll have to get back to you on where I read that the photo in question was taken from outside the room. However, I disagree that the width of the shot and angle suggest it to be 'too close' to the body to have come from outside the room. You do realize how small a room Kelly had, didn't you? Inside, he wouldn't have been able to have taken such a wide angle. The reason that it appears that the scene or photographic plate were in reverse in the ILLUSTRATED POLICE NEWS article is because it was coverage of the photographer taking the 'other' shots (i.e of the table. Of course I know it exists!) That's why it appears the scene has been 'switched'. It hasn't, it's just not the photo you're thinking of. The photographer arrived before the door was open and he took that wide-angle shot from outside the room. I'll try and find where I got this information from. I know I didn't dream it. Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 03 May 1999 - 03:44 pm
Red Hope you weren't feeling pressured, it was all in fun, no hard feelings either way, i'm sure. This subject has a habit of bringing out the worst in people, so long as we can exchange blows and take it on the chin, all in good humor we'll be fine. Stick around Red, it was a laugh. Have a good day, Jon
Author: Christopher-Michael Monday, 03 May 1999 - 08:59 pm
Begg (p. 160) and Sugden (p. 313) tell us that Mary Jane Kelly's razored remains were photographed through the window of No 13. Rumbelow (p. 136) states that the photographs were taken after the door to Kelly's room had been broken down. Red Demon makes a number of worthwhile points, and I am afraid I cannot fully respond to them at the moment, as I am trying to nail down one or two troublesome points connected with this "mini-mystery." What I would address, though, is the comment that a reason the "FM" would have been overlooked is that no more than a glance would have been spared Kelly's room, taken up as it was by the sickening sight of her body. And yet. . . The police, including Abberline, returned to Kelly's room the next day, as doctors Bond, Philips and Brown were going through a post-mortem examination of Kelly's corpse at the Shoreditch mortuary. The "horribly mutilated body" was no longer there to distract their eyes. It was at this time that the ashes of Kelly's fire were sifted and the room gone through thoroughly to discover any trace of a clue. Now consider. The only tangible clue left by the Ripper was the Goulston Street graffitto. This was writing above a piece of apron taken from a murder victim. If this was not wonderful chance, then the logical assumption must be that the apron was deliberately placed to draw attention to the words above it - whether or not they were written by the Ripper. If he placed (not tossed) the apron swatch, then he wished the words to be noticed. Was Abberline aware of Goulston Street? We cannot be certain (consider his lack of knowledge in Annie Chapman's viscera), but we might reasonably assume it, and we can certainly assume that the City liasons would have known about it. Therefore, if the precedent of the killer leaving a written message had already been established by Goulston Street (as well as by the possible authentic messages of "Dear Boss," "Saucy Jacky" and "From Hell"), it can hardly be thought that Abberline would not have searched every surface in No 13 that could hold letter forms. And with Kelly's body out of the way, the temptation to rush things because of the loathsome presence of her corpse would have been lessened. Keeping these things in mind (and bearing also the caveat that this is hardly my entire argument!), it seems we are left with the following conclusions: 1. The "FM" was there, and was overlooked by everyone, even during the November 10 search that threw up bits of a burnt skirt, hat form and a broken clay pipe (the "hiding in plain sight" argument). 2. The "FM" was there and seen, but covered up to protect someone (the "conspiracy" argument). 3. The "FM" was not there (my argument). I might also add that using Goulston Street as a prop for the existence of the "FM" does not necessarily hold water. In the former case, the words were meant to be seen (if we grant the placement of apron and "Juwes" to be purposeful). In the latter, they seem to be reduced to the casual afterthought of an artist daubing quickly at a canvas. Why the sudden shift? If the letters were meant to be seen, why not make them bloody obvious (sorry)? And what were they supposed to mean? "Florence Maybrick?" "FreeMasons?" "Fanny Mortimer?" "Fred Mertz?" Goulston Street might be open to interpretation, but "FM" truly throws us into the land of confusion! Some thoughts to ponder, as I work on "making my case" for Red Demon. But, as always, these are considerations for debate and not meant to attack or dismiss. No offense meant, and none, I hope, taken. As ever, Christopher-Michael
Author: RED DEMON Monday, 03 May 1999 - 11:35 pm
Hello, Christopher-Michael, Jon, and Company, CM: If there were any offense to be taken, Jon and I would have taken it from each other. It seems, fortunately, that we are all mature, level-headed adults. Interestingly, CM, it seems that Jon's on one side of the fence, I'm on the other, and you're teetering in the middle. I guess that makes you our mediator. Please, if I state something incorrectly, don't hesitate to point it out. I want the truth, nothing more. Thank you, CM, for discovering my sources for the photo having been taken outside. I suppose it does my case good to have what is largely considered the two best books on the subject as my source for that little chestnut (imagine my embarrassment if it had been THE FINAL SOLUTION!). Those are some wonderful arguments you make, CM. However, I'd like to add a fourth possible conclusion... 4. The 'FM' was there on the 9th as the photo was taken from outside the hovel prior to entry (per Begg and Sugden). However, in the course of moving the bed for medical and photographical purposes, the letters were accidently rubbed off onto someone's backside, therefore, wouldn't be there the next day when Abberline and CO. arrived to investigate. As for the Ghoulston Street Graffito, CM, I, too, believe it to have come from the Ripper. However, we disagree that he left it in plain view so that there'd be no chance in them missing it. It, in fact, was written in very small lettering in a dark corner. As the obscure message suggests, he wanted to leave them a clue, but not make it to easy. This plays into the profile of the Ripper seeking enjoyment from toying with the police, As do the 'FM' on the wall and the underlined 'RIGHT' in the 'Dear Boss' letter (assuming you remember my theory on that one.) You would do well to read the book ZODIAC, f or comparison. I would also like to point out, for Jon's sake, another problem with his doctor's splashing feet theory...Assuming, for a moment, that the photo WAS taken indoors, would it have been taken after the examination or before? Common sense says 'before', but fortunately, for us, the proof is in the photograph... The doctors obviously hadn't yet gone behind the bed for examination as the bed is still against the wall, ruling out the possibility that the 'FM' could have been splashed their by a doctor or policeman, which therefore rules out the possibilty that the bed is obscuring further parts of the mark having eminated from some sort of 'splash' from the floor. If the letters are a result of arterial spray, or from the hand of the Ripper, they would,then, be from bed-level or above. Hence, what you see is what you get. A chance spray that completely stands apart from the other blood stains on the wall AND closely resembles the handwritten letters 'FM'? Not an impossibility, but a stretching coincidence. I believe we are actually getting somewhere with this. I am looking forwarded to reading your replies. (With all due respect, Jon, you'll have to admit you were wrong when you stated... "I'm not sure you'll get many responses, over the past 18 months the issues you raise have been discussed many, many times over and well and truly buried". The responses have been wonderful, and the issues, as you can see, are far from buried. I shall see you all soon. Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Joseph Monday, 03 May 1999 - 11:38 pm
Hello Christopher-Michael, If in fact "FM" does stand for Fred Mertz, we can all go home now, I've solved the mystery. JtR is Ricky Riccardo. :-) That really cracked me up. Thanks for the light touch. Best Regards Joseph
Author: RED DEMON Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 01:44 am
Yes, Christopher-Michael, that was rather humorous.
Author: Ashling Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 05:18 am
Hi y'all. CHRISTOPHER-MICHAEL: What chapter of Rumbelow are you quoting from? The 1988 hardback version in the chapter "Miller's Court" states: page 93 - "At 1:30 p.m. Superintendent Arnold decided that they could wait for Warren no longer and ordered one of the windows to be taken out. The investigators were apalled by what they saw." ... "A photographer arrived and took pictures of this butcher's shambles." page 94 - After the photographs had been taken, M'Carthy broke open the door with a pickaxe." RED DEMON: 1. We know at least one photo was taken from inside Mary's room - the picture printed in The 'Diary' of JtR - shot from Mary's right side, facing the table with sunlight streaming over it. Jon & Peter B. have already mentioned this, so feel free to ignore me too. 2. I don't believe Jon said anything about doctors, photographers, or whoever splashing blood onto the wall with their shoes. I think he meant they brushed against the wall - so that their bodies or clothing smeared the blood already splashed on the wall from Mary's neck. Clothing especially could have "finger-painted" sworls like a child's drawing which can be interpeted as initials - among other things. 3. You said the doctor would have examined Mary without his eyes ever leaving the body ... I suggest you read (or re-read) Dr. Bond's report in Sugden's chapter, "I Want To Go To The Lord Mayor's Show." Among other things Bond noted the bedside table, the blood under the bed, and - "The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes." It seems Dr. Bond stared right at the spot where the alledged "FM" now resides. IMHO, a dubious maybe (Goulston Street Graffito) + a highly improbable maybe (cryptic clues written in blood) does not equal a pattern, much less a fact. I believe any theory needs to be started on a solid foundation of an undisputed fact or two, if it's to have a chance in hell of holding up a mountain of maybes and what ifs. Take care, Ashling
Author: Caz Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:07 am
Hi All, What about this one then? Who were the photographers? Do we have a name or names? If 'Jack' WAS on the inside, maybe doing freelance victim illustrations and reporting, why not 'snapping' too? And what better conundrum than taking a picture or two while his M was visible (not sure about the F though), then being in a position to remove or obscure that clue oneself while the police and medicos are busy trying not to throw up? Just his idea of yet another superb wizard wheeze to keep us all guessing for over a century? The case of the vanishing initial, well, it's gotta be that arch-fiend Moriarty again, don't you know? If Conan Doyle can think 'em up, why not our Saucy Jacky? Waddaya think? Love, Caz
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 07:15 am
Hi all, The Goulston street graffiti is not connected with the 'FM' IMHO. If Jack wrote 'Juewes' or not does not mean he wrote 'FM' or not. In any case, to insist on the marks on the photo as being letters is daring, they were not found as such by the police looking desperately for clues of any sort and we know that the wall at this point was inspected by the reports concerning the blood splashes found. In the first, direct, copy of the related photo, I am assured that there was no evidence of such letters. In my best copy, in which many details such as Kelly's eye are clearly to be seen, there is no evidence of any letters, or even special marks. Only in so-called 'enhanced' pictures do these marks become apparent, the more the different publishers believe in James the Ripper, the plainer. The first photo brings me to the photo-through-window-or-not-discussion. If Kelly's room is properly described by e.g. Phil Sugden, Paul Begg and other great powers on the subject, which is supported by the photos themselves, then the photos of the corpse could not have been made through the windows. The angle from window to bed would not have allowed a shot that included part of the entrance door and bed-side table. The one shot MAY have been made in the open door, but was probably taken inside the room to increase the amount of light available by not blocking the door. As far as I know, flash-light was not used then. Reports about the photos through the window may have been caused by the fact that a photo OF the windows were made, it is available today. While the windows were boarded up shortly after the room had been thoroughly searched, we can assume that this photo was taken on the day of the murder. The photographer may also have attempted shots through the window, the results of which have not survived or were not good enough to use. Regards, Bob
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:19 am
Good Morning Everyone, Is there a diagram of the room anywhere, that shows the relationship of the bed and nightstand, to the door and windows? If so, where can it be seen? If not, can someone here make one, and post it for the community's benifit? I for one would greatly appreciate it. Speak with you later. Joseph
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 11:18 am
Hi Joseph, There are a number of diagrams available in different books on the subject, all pretty much agreeing with each other. Take a look at e.g. Paul Begg's book (Paul, my bank account number is....) if you can get a copy, or other books. If not I can mail you a sketch that I have generated myself from other sketches and using the available photographs and descriptions, although I of course give no warrant that it be 100% correct. Regards, Bob
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 01:32 pm
Vie Gates Bob C. If it wouldn't be to much trouble, you can mail it( did you mean e-mail?). Best regards Joseph
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 01:53 pm
A few notes: Joseph - Sugden (p. 312, pbk) has a full diagram of No 13. I'd post it here, but I'm afraid such technical wizardry is beyond me. Ashling - you're right, and I was wrong. I was quoting (and assuming) from p. 136 of the 1990 Berkley paperback: "Apparently, as the morning dragged on and nothing happened in Miller's Court, somebody quietly asked the City Police for their help which they gave by breaking into Kelly's room and taking the photograph of her body as the only justification for doing so." What you quote is on pp. 95-96 of this edition, and I was simply a lazy sod by using the first mention of the photographs I chanced across to buttress my argument - that's what I get for not thinking before I post! Red Demon - I'm glad you're not offended. I realised, of course, later on that my Goulston Street argument isn't entirely valid. As was rightly pointed out, the writing was found a short distance from the apron swatch. My point was, however, that if the Ripper wrote "The Juwes" (or saw it earlier in the day and filed it away in his mind), then the filthy piece of apron was a deliberate pointer, left where it would be found by a passing someone. But why drop it there? To throw suspicion on an inhabitant of Wentworth Model Dwellings? To, as you say, "leave them a clue but not make it too easy?" It is difficult to say, but if you believe Goulston Street was the Ripper's work (and I don't), then you must admit his clue yielded up its presence fairly quickly. If the Ripper had nothing to do with it, then it's all a lot of wasted breath over a fortuitous coincidence. If the argument about "FM" is buttressed by recourse to Goulston Street, then my question must be "why was this clue so obscure?" You make the logical assumption that the writing could have been smeared, and so what was visible on the photograph didn't exist a short while later when No 13 was broken into. What I would like, however, is for someone to a.) provide the dimensions of No 13 and b.) discuss the lens range of an 1888 camera. Why? Because upon looking at the Miller's Court photo (and I mean the PRO version) and comparing Sugden's (not necessarily) scale schematic, it seems almost impossible for the photograph to have been taken outside Kelly's room. However, we also know that Dr Bond mentioned drawings and other photographs taken of the Kelly devastation; items which are now lost. Perhaps the "outside" photograph is missing, and what we see is one that had been taken after the room had been entered? And all - Fred Mertz, eh? Ah yes, I can see it now - "Loooceee, I got some 'splainin' to do. . ." Very enjoyable discussion, everyone. CMD
Author: Jon Smyth Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:32 pm
Ladies & Gentlemen Ok, so we seem to be forming a concensus about this indoor/outdoor photo, but lets keep our eyes open for more info. I was always of the opinion that some shots were taken outside but whether this was to view the body thru a removed window or not is open to debate. Photo's were taken inside for sure, the question was 'Is the body on the bed' the result of indoor or outdoor photography. My opinion is that it is 'indoor'. Thanks for pointing out the descrepancies Ashling, with RED's poste regarding what I 'supposedly' said, or meant. Red hasn't completed his speed reading course yet. :-) :-) However, what amazes me is this 'M' thing, first proposed or suggested by Simon Wood. What we have is a Bed against a partition, which because it is a black & white photograph gives us the impression that we are looking at a stained wall. Towards the corner, possibly a foot away from the corner of the room, and almost at the corner of the matress are some vertical stains. We cannot define them with certainty because we cannot see where the streaks (stains) terminate. This is obscured by the corner of the matress. So having established that the wall appears to be covered in stains, and we can only vaguely define what they might be, we then go a step forward and 'assume' that because we can't see the bottom of the stains .....that their is no more stain. In other words, because we can't see it....it doesn't exist !!! Should those 'M' stains go clear to the floor, then the 'M' theory goes out the window. So seeing half of something is good enough for some to complete the picture on there own. The Flat earth society cannot see beyond the horizon, therefore it doesnt exist. I wish life were so simple......... Chow, everyone. Jon
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:35 pm
Christopher-Michael, Why do you express indecision above concerning Abberline's knowing of the graffito as of his work in Miller's Court? Wasn't the text of the graffito common knowledge, published in the papers, as of then? David
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:51 pm
Hello Caz, Nice scenario, it is said that the murderer always returns to the scene of the crime. For the purpose of this discussion, lets suppose thats true. Our boy is a photographer, he kills these women,and then he is called to take crime scene, or morgue pictures. In this way he can see the results(revulsion,anger,fear)of his efforts first hand. He also gets to hear the professional chit chat from the doctors and police, perhaps that's his motovation. It validates him somehow. In his professional capacity he is an invisible part of the process, his presence taken for granted. The "yang" to the detectives "ying", (see David Radkas' post under the Who is Jack thread, 2nd May, 12:47am). While the police are off looking for some guy with anatomical knowledge etc, our boy is right there getting the instant gratification, instant attention he craves.But I digress. Thanks for the post. Best Regards Joseph p.s. Its about 6:50pm EDT here. How far ahead(in time) :-) are you?
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 08:29 pm
David - I don't know for certain the state of Abberline's knowledge concerning Goulston Street. My only reasons for wondering were his earlier admission that he had not been told which parts of Annie Chapman's body had been removed, and the fact that the Eddowes murder was on City territory. If Warren and Arnold and Swanson knew about the writing - which they did - then Abberline probably did as well. But in light of the line of argument which tended in the direction of implying Abberline made only a cursory examination of No 13, I thought it worthwhile to point out that if he were familiar with the example of Goulston Street, he might pay more attention to the areas of No 13 that might bear a message. As far as the graffitto being reported in the papers, I am afraid I can't tell you yet. My "Telegraph" files are only up to October 1 at the moment. I'll keep you apprised. CMD
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 08:56 pm
Hi, all: I have to second Christopher-Michael's post that if the "FM" on the wall or partition in no. 13 Miller's Court is a message like the message on the wall in Goulston Street, then "why was this clue so obscure?" The Goulston message is in English, perhaps strangely written, but it does convey a message of a kind. As Jon Smyth said, the so-called "FM" is low down in the corner of the room not in plain sight, and if we could see the whole of the mark we may not think it is lettering at all, but our view is cut off by the body on the bed. Now, I have the advantage of looking at what is possibly the largest and clearest version of this picture, which is published in Pam Ball's recent "Jack the Ripper: A Psychic Investigation"--good for the illustrations, gang, if nothing else. And I have to say that this picture, at six inches high by seven inches wide is probably the biggest on the market. And the so-called M does not look like an M. I will admit the printing of this picture is somewhat darker than in other books so the mark on the wall is less prominent, but that is just what it looks like, literally a mark on the wall, not a deliberately placed letter or letters. There is a dark middle vertical smudge which in a smaller photograph could look like the right side of the M and to the left a thin vertical streak which is taken to be the left downstroke of the M. The so-called F, or what is taken to be the right spokes of the F, is actually part of a large dark splotch moving toward the bottom of the bed and probably continuing down the wall. The F indeed appears to be different to the so-called M and has a grayer less sharp quality compared to the M and appears more like other blotches that appear across the panel. Again, this large version of the famous photograph does not bear out that it is an M or an F. Funny isn't it that the smaller and lousier of the published versions of this picture appear to show the alleged letters yet this superior and larger print does not? Now, all of what is apparent on the wall is out of focus. The only thing that is in focus in the photograph is the corpse. Look at the head of the bed with its ornamental post, which is completely out of focus. So the wall or panel being even further away is definitely also as out of focus if not more so. What we are seeing on the wall is hard to interpret. Blood splashes? Damp patches? Gouges in the paneling? For my money, there is no initial or initials there. A superior copy of the photograph does not support the existence of such. Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:49 pm
Hi ya Folks. Extract from Kelly's inquest: Dr G.B. Phillips, got to Millers Court at 11:15, The premises were in the charge of Inspector Beck, the Doctor described the windows and that one window had two pains missing or broken, I looked thru the lower broken pain into the room...... So clearly no windows had been removed prior to Dr Phillips arrival, so no means of photographing the 'body on the bed' from outside. Beck say's he was the first Officer on the scene and had the court closed to ALL persons. Abberline arrived at 11:30 and took charge of the scene.... Superintendant Arnold arrived at 1:30 and gave the order for the door to be forced....... Dr Phillips was the first to enter the room.... (If anyone has any further 'official' testimony, I'd be glad to hear it) Manchester Guardian 11/10/88 Dr Phillips soon arrived and with Dr's Bond, Gabe & two others.........They made a preliminary exam. of the body and sent for a photographer who made several photographs of the remains.... There doesn't appear to be any time for anyone to 'crash' the crime scene and somehow get some photo's of the inside, from the outside. This would surely require the removal of a window and as it can be seen, the crime scene was in secure hands by the Met. Police right until the door was forced. Regards, Jon (we are digressing here - on the wrong board)