|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20 May 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
'FM' At Miller's Court/An Inspiration For Forgers?:
Archive through 20 May 2001
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:58 pm |        | Don't know if this is the right forum for this or whether it should be aired at all but here goes. I have long been interested in JtR but have not investigated the matter in depth, indeed I only thought of seeing if the Internet had anything on JtR a few days ago and found the casebook. Reading through the posts on the diary made me think about an incident I remember which may, and I repeat may, have a resonance with both 'an initial here, an initial there,' and the ongoing theory (I apologise, I forget whose) on the minimum number of books possible forger(s) would have read.
A warning: this may be meaningless autobiography, and a long detailed history is required to explain myself. Apologies if this is nonsense.
Several years ago (approximately 9-12, I'm not sure) I saw a programme on ITV narrated by Edward Woodward concerning the Ripper. By the by, the programme unveiled for the first time on TV the Swanson marginalia and went on to name Kosminski as the man identified at the seaside home.
My interest sparked, I presently came upon a magazine published by Marshall Cavendish, I believe, which was the first in a partwork on Serial Killers. To promote the new series the first edition was a special on JtR, and was a special offer price (probably about £1 or £1.50 at the time). This was in the days before the diary was discovered and the magazine again fingered Kosminski as our light-hearted friend.
Thinking the mystery solved (what a naive young thing was I!) my interest in the Ripper waned. Several years later I saw another documentary on ITV, this time hosted by Michael Winner (shown last week on Channel 5) which revealed the finding of the Diary. My interest once again aroused I bought a paperback copy of Shirley Harrison's book and read with interest. Particularly amazing to me was the initials 'FM' inscribed in blood by the body of Mary Kelly. I examined the photograph in the book and saw the initials clearly, and was thus amazed that the narrative revealed that Michael Barrett was the first person to notice this vital clue.
Having no great collection of Ripperana, I immediately sought to confirm that the photo had not been altered by reference to the only paper source I had - the Marshall Cavendish serial killer magazine. Sure enough the magazine contained a reproduction of the same photo of the final canonical victim as appears in the narrative accompanying the diary.
My eye scanned feverishly down the sepia tones of the photo to the position which is circled on the photograph in the book and sure enough I could see the initials sealing Maybrick's guilt.
Again thinking the case finally solved my interest waned once more and I thought little more of the Ripper until prompted by the repeat of the Michael Winner show I came upon this site, only to find the diary is widely thought to be a fake.
Misunderstand me not, for I do not relate the embarassing naivety of a morbid youngster in order to bolster the ranks of those who champion, if such is the right term, Maybrick as Saucy Jack.
Rather, I was inspired by the consideration of how few sources a forger would have been required to read in order to provide the details of the Ripper's oeuvre as related in the Diary.
It occurred to me that in terms of cheap and readily available source material, a potential forger might have come upon this publication in any newsagent at the time, and what is more the publishers had presented the photograph from Miller's Court in such a way as to apparently reveal initials on the wall. I am certain that the magazine also reprinted the Punch cartoon with "Catch whom you MAY."
My question therefore is could this throwaway magazine have inspired the forger to find for the first time the initials 'FM' on the Miller's Court wall, and could it have been part of the source material on which the Maybrick memoir was based?
dxraven@aol.com |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 12:17 am | | Hello Matthew:
I am not sure the Marshall Cavendish serial killer magazine that you cite is necessarily the source for the first notice being taken of the supposed "FM" on the wall. We know that Barrett was not the first to remark on the apparent letters--they were first noticed in the 1970's I believe. The US paperback edition of Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (1986) has poor pictures with large newspaper style dots and in the famous photograph of the murder scene at 13 Miller's Court darn if the "FM" does not show up prominently (actually more "M" than "F"--the latter being paler). I do not have a British edition of the paperback but possibly the same photograph appeared in the UK version too. I don't know either about the prominence of the alleged "FM" in the picture section of the hardback of Knight, which appeared in 1976. Perhaps Stewart Evans or another of our experts could speak to this point. It almost seems that the poorer the quality photograph, the the more prominent the mythical "FM" shows up. Ugh! Now why couldn't he have just daubed "Juwes" there and we could have a real debate! 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:10 am | | Hi All,
Was it actually Mike Barrett who brought Feldy's (or Shirley's) attention to the mythical "FM", or the other way around?
I think I feel a question to Keith Skinner coming on... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 10:02 am | | From Keith Skinner to Matthew Brannigan
Dear Matthew
Ever heedful of prompts from Caroline, the following may help you with your deliberations.
To the best of my recollection it was the 1996 edition, (or possibly 1994) of the JtR A-Z, that first published Simon Wood’s 1988 observation about there being “the apparent presence of letters” on the wall in Kelly’s room.
Michael Barrett made no reference to any letters on the wall in his research notes.
In February 1993, Paul Feldman locked on to this possibility, and with the aid of a computer scan, enlarged at a laboratory, tried to determine whether the name “James” was on the wall. The suggested presence of the letters ‘F’ ‘M’ followed soon after.
Hope this helps!
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Richard Buchko
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 05:55 pm | | While the discussion of when the "FM" arrived into the eye of people studying JTR is very interesting, and should continue, the questions I have are more basic:
1) Is there really "FM" on the wall?
2) If so, ----- why?
Granted, I'm still behind reading posts, so I might be treading on old ground, but then again --- it's already 110 years old, so what can it hurt?
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 06:18 pm | | Hi, Rich:
I have said many times that the "FM" does not really exist. No contemporary (1888) observer mentions it, and it is only certain people in our day who have studied the famous photograph of the body on the bed who have noticed it and made anything of it. I firmly believe that the so-called FM is an artifact and not actual. It may be discoloration on the wall (actually a partition between the room that constituted 13 Miller's Court and the front part of 26 Dorset Street).
Certainly the "F" is not as definite as the "M" so if someone was trying to convey a message, wouldn't we expect both letters be equally clear? I have mentioned here before that I think the washbasin that is shown in one newspaper contemporary sketch to have been in that corner might have prevented anyone daubing initials there. Others don't agree with me on that point but I think it is something to bear in mind.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: D L Lewis
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 05:42 am | | If I may disagree, but there is certainly an F and an M on the wall. However it is possible that they are meaningless.
Before we say no-one mentioned them 100 years ago, I think we should look at the evidence presented to the police. It was a bloodbath. A sight more horrible than any previously encountered by these men. They were not looking for evidence - they had all the evidence in front of them that they were looking for a maniac. Today, of course, the walls would have been scoured for messages and clues, but we're 100 years down the track. Earlier posts had all kinds of letters on the wall, but to be frank, I couldn't see them, even after the very clear directions given. That may be my problem. I did, however, see the F and the M, and to be sure, went to my copy of Knight, where the photo was originally published. ... And there they were. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 02:08 am | | I'm with Chris George on this one. There IS no verifiable FM. We've all seen exactly the same photo: a 110-year-old, grainy black-and-white photo of a filthy, mouldering room in which a girl had been extensively chopped up. Those could be loops of blood, or filth, or nothing at all. Besides, the bed is in the way, cutting the letters off; for all we know they droop on to the floor.
I also don't think the cops were so inexperienced as to overlook any graffiti, either. They didn't have the forensic evidence-gathering techniques that they have today, but they knew enough to describe a crime-scene adequately. Having already come across the "Juwes" graffito, they would have to be alert to letters on the wall in blood: they would have been right by Kelly's elbow, and how could they have missed them? They were examining her body for a while.
I just don't buy it....
madeleine |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 08:57 am | | Hi, Madeleine:
Thanks for agreeing with me. Too many people are too quick to accept that the "FM" really existed and had some meaning to the case (usually that it was put there by James Maybrick). Your points are very well taken that we should not underestimate the investigators of the day or forget that they would be sensitized to looking for any message following the discovery of the Goulston Street graffito and, I might add, the letters supposedly written the murderer which the authorities were receiving.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Referring to the supposed "FM" on the back wall in Millers Close. It is amazing that until the Maybrick Diary was published no-one had seemed to notice these letters.
In my humble opinion, if you look at any wall anywhere you can imagine all kinds of things - i.e. if you look at flowered wallpaper long enough you see "faces" etc.
I apologise if anyone considers this post as rambling, but I honestly cannot see these letters on any picture I have examined over the last 30 years or so. |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 05:10 pm | | No,I can't see it either.....
Steve S |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 09:56 am | | Hi Chris,
Could you clarify your statement that Too many people are too quick to accept that the "FM" really existed and had some meaning to the case (usually that it was put there by James Maybrick)?
I'm not sure how you assess the speed at which someone has accepted such a thing, but certainly the number of people I've encountered expressing their acceptance, speedy or otherwise, is quite tiny. Or are you saying that, in your view, even one would be one 'too many'? 
I always thought of the FM as being more a product of Feldy's imagination than the diary author's, or anything else, and nothing I've read since has given me cause to alter that view.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 11:51 am | | Hi, Caz:
I have certainly encountered a substantial number of new people here, usually those who have only read the books by Shirley or Feldy, and who are convinced that "FM" means "Florence Maybrick" and that it was put there by James Maybrick.
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 12:26 pm | | Hi Chris,
Then I must have missed some of them, or perhaps they were pre-1999 posters!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 08:24 pm | | Hi Chris! (and all).
At the risk of flogging a d.h., something else occurred to me about the famous "FM":
One of the photos of poor Mary Kelly's mangled remains is taken from the wall side of the bed by her elbow, *right* where the letters are supposed to be. So the photographer would have had to go to that side, set up his whacking great tripod, get the camera organized and take the picture, all the time standing in that precise space. It seems doubly unlikely, then, that no one would have noticed the letters on the wall right behind the photographer.
And yes, Avril, I'm very dubious about inferring patterns in wallpaper. If you're looking hard enough, even a plain wall starts to form shapes and swirls; and patterned wallpaper looks like a prison riot.
madeleine |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 05:27 am | | Caz,
Isn't the supposed FM referred to in the Diary of Anne the Forger as "an initial here, an initial there?"
It's certainly mentioned in the narrative of Shirley Harrison's book, but I don't know Feldman's opinion of it, having oddly "not found the time" to read his book.
Matt |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 07:03 am | | Hi, Matt:
Very true that Shirley Harrison in her book quotes the writer of the Diary, i.e., Maybrick, writing that he left "An initial here and an initial there" (Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Hyperion, 1993, p. 101). Isn't it interesting that while a true serial killer is known for his "signature," all James Maybrick, a wannabe SK, can leave is a few initials??? Mmmmmmm. . . .
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 08:32 am | | Chris,
Another thing I thought was odd was that throughout the Diary, Florence Maybrick is described only as "the whore" and "the bitch" in a document only the killer was supposed to see.
Yet when he kills Kelly, who is the image of someone he will only talk about as "bitch" and "whore," he handily leaves her initials for the entire world to see. Why use her initials in a very public way if you cannot bear to utter her name in private?
Just a thought.
Matt |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 10:49 am | | Hi, Matt:
You have made a very astute observation that Florie is, for the most part, referred to throughout the Diary as "the whore" and "the bitch" but Maybrick nevertheless puts her initials "FM" on MJK's bedroom wall. Why not, as you hint, something more pejorative in line with his supposed hatred of his unfaithful spouse? Florence, of course, is also referred to as "Bunny" when he thinks of her in kindlier terms as the mother of their two children. I do think that the "whore. . . bitch"/"FM" contradiction might be a further indication that the Diary is a contrived document. A good observation, Matt.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 11:02 am | | Hi Matthew,
Perhaps you did not see the earlier message to you here, which I posted on Keith Skinner's behalf. Here it is again:
From Keith Skinner to Matthew Brannigan
Dear Matthew
Ever heedful of prompts from Caroline, the following may help you with your deliberations.
To the best of my recollection it was the 1996 edition, (or possibly 1994) of the JtR A-Z, that first published Simon Wood’s 1988 observation about there being “the apparent presence of letters” on the wall in Kelly’s room.
Michael Barrett made no reference to any letters on the wall in his research notes.
In February 1993, Paul Feldman locked on to this possibility, and with the aid of a computer scan, enlarged at a laboratory, tried to determine whether the name “James” was on the wall. The suggested presence of the letters ‘F’ ‘M’ followed soon after.
Hope this helps!
Best Wishes
Keith
So, it doesn't appear that the actual wording immediately conjured up a clear vision of an 'FM', daubed in blood on Kelly's wall, to all who first read the diary, to the exclusion of any other possible interpretation. Whether there could have been any other interpretation is another matter, and I'm not arguing that this was the case, but perhaps only the real forger could tell us.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:34 am | | Caroline,
If what Keith says is true, and I have no doubt in his honesty, then I wonder to what the diarist was referring when s/he wrote the "initial here and an initial there" comment in the passage depicting the Kelly murder.
If memory serves, the quotation continues that the initials refer to "the whoring mother," presumably a reference to Florence Maybrick. As no other writing is generally mentioned in reports of the Millers Court crime scene (cf the undue significance attached to the scrap of envelope and initials found on an earlier victim) I am unable to escape the conclusion that these pseudo-initials were what the diarist was talking about, notwithstanding that no one other than the diarist had mentioned the letters in public before.
I have read before that Michael Barrett was the first to comment that the inverted V-shapes etched into the face of Kate Eddowes could be read together as an 'M.' This does not conclusively reveal Barrett as having observational skills to match Sherlock Holmes (no one else was particularly looking for an 'M' at any of the crime scenes), but suggests to me that someone who was looking around for clues that might be taken as an 'M' might have seized on that photo, although I admit that if this was the case I would have expected some kind of reference to it in Barrett's research notes.
Has anyone cross-referenced Barrett's notes with the Diary to see what proportion of the information in the Diary is reflected in Barrett's notes?
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 11:30 am | | Hi Matthew,
I'll pass on your observations to Keith.
I guess it's all a matter of people's individual interpretation of the words in the diary, and why they would be looking for 'F's and 'M's at the crime scenes and in the evidence. We don't know when Mike began looking for possible ways of connecting James and Florie Maybrick with the ripper case. Was it before, or after, the diary was created? With Feldy, Shirley and others, we do know.
For what it's worth, 'an initial here and an initial there' does not suggest two letters, forming one set of initials, placed literally next to each other, or even at the same location ('here' could mean where the diarist was supposedly sitting writing in his diary, and 'there' could mean in Kelly's room, for example). So I don't know if the diary author was thinking of 'FM' once, in one place, or 'F' somewhere and 'M' somewhere else, or two 'F's in different places, or some other combination. If he/she did indeed want to imply that he put 'FM' on the wall in blood, the actual words are quite subtle and poetic, aren't they?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:21 pm | | I always feel that the wording in the diary is quite ambiguous and therefore open to various interpretations, what one reader considers it to mean is not how everyone interprets it. Personally, I think it was very cleverly done so that the forger could say "Well that is not what was said".
You may not agree, but that is how I see it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 06:22 pm | | I tend to agree with you, Avril. The diary author could have gone in feet first with
'I painted the whore's initials for the fools
the writing can be red on the wall
if only they could see red ha ha'
But, as you say, the forger never quite gives him/herself away 100%. 99.99% sometimes, but then no one's perfect. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 07:37 pm | | | Yes indeed, Avril. Why say things like "I visited my first wife Sarah yesterday and we had lamb chops at Lyons Tea House, and a good snog" -- when you can say: "Tonight I shall see mine" and leave 'em all guessing. |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:02 pm | | Caroline,
The reason I think that the Diarist was referring to the initials is that the pattern in the rest of the diary is to refer to clues that are visible in the literature and documentation on the Ripper's crimes.
One example of this method already points to the Diary being a forgery; the diarist is sure he left farthings at a victim's feet, the evidence suggests otherwise, although the farthings were reported for many years.
The diarist even claims to have placed the envelope with the M on it, even though the police were satisfied that they had traced its origin!
I think the words about initials refer to some initials which must be at the Kelly crime scene, and whatever appears on the wall in that photo, are the only thing I can see that even could be initials, which is where my earlier comments about lookng at the crime scenes for something that could be an "m" come in.
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 09:06 am | | Hi Matthew,
Yes, I would agree with you that the pattern in the rest of the diary is to refer to clues that are visible in the literature and documentation on the Ripper's crimes.
The point is that the diarist's 'FM' on the wall (assuming he/she had this firmly in mind for the initials here and there), forms no part of the literature and documentation as such, but would have been something our forger picked out for him/herself, from looking at the Kelly crime scene. It has been suggested that the author may have been playing safe by making his/her words ambiguous, in case our trusty band of ripperologists came out in force (as indeed has been the case) and showed that the marks on the wall were not 'FM' at all.
But then he/she was happy to drop in a wealth of claims to ripper acts, which ripperology was beginning to banish, or could presumably banish in the future as new info surfaced, or had already banished, by the late 1980s/early 1990s, when the diary was allegedly being composed, to the realms of myth and legend: the farthings; the breasts on Kelly's table; Dear Boss; Lusk; the 'funny Jewish joke' graffito, all being examples.
The diary is such a mixture of devil-may-care and caution when it comes to the accepted 'facts', that I find it difficult to come to any firm conclusions about how seriously the forger(s) took their composition. The difficulties increase when we don't know for sure what skills he/she/they possessed and how many books - if any - were scoured before hitting on the few which Melvin asserts are the ones from which all the raw material could have been gathered.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 11:07 am | | Caroline,
The diary is such a mixture of devil-may-care and caution when it comes to the accepted 'facts', that I find it difficult to come to any firm conclusions about how seriously the forger(s) took their composition.
Very true: I've come to the conclusion that I could have written a far more convincing diary than the one that has engendered such debate on these boards :-)
As well as the clues you mention that have turned out to be false, there is also the troubling invention of further murders in Manchester (which prsumably would have been only a few hundred yards from where I sit as I type these words) and Mrs. Hammersmith, which could not have been proved by the diarist (indeed it must have always been likely they would be disproved), but which in my view indicate a desire to "show off" a perceived literary talent.
I noticed in my brand new copy of Sugden yesterday (a bargain at £4 at WHSmiths last Monday!) that at the size the photo is printed in Sugden's book the "letters" look curiously overlaid, inclining me to the theory that they are indentations caused by someone writing on a piece of paper resting on the original photograph.
However every time I see that photo in any format, those letters jump out at me; having been shown them the first time, it's hard to see why no one noticed them before.
"Your own light-hearted friend,
yours truly"
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 11:56 am | | Hi Matt,
I also got a new copy of Sugden, reduced in Smiths, a few weeks back. :-)
An 'F' that jumps out at me is the one - upside down in the photo, but upright on Mary - on her forearm. It's particularly noticeable in Pam Ball's book, which does the 'FM' on the wall no favours. This one has probably been discounted too, but could have been even more of an inspiration to our forger, allowing him to wonder if next time he can carve his funny little rhyme on the whore's flesh, instead of just his own 'whore's' initial.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 01:32 pm | | Hi, Caz and Matt:
Congratulations to both of you for picking up the new copies of Sugden at a bargain price. I take it this is just a republication of the old edition, not a newly revised edition of Sugden's book. Am I right?
In regard to the murders in Manchester which allegedly took place near where you post, Matt, it is interesting to note that at the beginning of the Diary, Maybrick decides that London will be the place for his murdering spree, yet then he tells us he has committed his first murder in Manchester. Why? Did the writer of "Dear Diary" have a change of heart midstream and decide the document might look more authentic if he or she had Maybrick lay claim to a murder or two elsewhere? Later on, the writer has Maybrick saying that "my first was in Manchester" yet in the opening pages the writer doesn't have Maybrick writing something along the lines of "I'll murder first in Manchester and then do the rest in London." The Manchester "try-out murder" arrives unannounced in the narrative. Just another interesting and curious observation about our favorite contested document.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:33 am | | Chris,
I wonder if our Liverpool-based diarist managed to do enough research to conclude that there was no murder in Liverpool that was reported that he could pin on an early incarnation of the Ripper, and to deflect attention chose the nearest major city to Liverpool.
In that scenario I'm not sure why he deliberately chose to confess to a murder here in "the rainy city" unless he managed to find some report of an unusual murder, or was just being fanciful. In the latter case, the "story" would work better if the first and last were in Liverpool.
In the diarist's own words "do I not visit London often, and indeed do I not have legitimate reason for doing so?" What connection did Maybrick have in Manchester? Even Shirley Harrison does not provide an explanation for this visit.
And the Sugden is not an update (the last section is an "addendum to the second edition") but simply a bargain purchased for less than the price of a packet of cigarettes.
Matt |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:53 am | | Caz,
I'd never noticed that before, but that is a more than reasonable theory.
I'd always thought the "next time...on the whore's flesh" meant that if he had enough time to do it, he would carve the rhyme on the victim's flesh, but of course he had all the time in Miller's Court to do what he did; it might be argued that carving a poem would be easier than the atrocity he did commit on Mary Kelly.
In that case I would be looking for another initial at the scene ("an initial here, an initial there"). Maybe the F on Mary's arm is supposed to be paired with the M on the wall, the F on the wall being less pronounced than the M.
This fits in with what you said about the words not implying that the initials were side by side.
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 08:28 am | | Hi Matt,
I can't find just now where I got it from, but I somehow had the impression - admittedly probably only from the diary itself, or else a product of my imagination - that one of James Maybrick's brothers, Thomas or perhaps William, had some sort of a business connection with Manchester. As I say, I could be totally wrong here.
If the modern forger did use what he saw as an 'F' carved into the flesh of Kelly's arm, to flesh out his story, it inspired him/her to write:
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
and indeed, he/she made very good use of this never-before-referred-to 'clue', that he/she had managed to pluck from the photo.
And I take your point about the 'M' on the wall being a possibility for the other initial, but look again at the wording. He/she uses it, not them, no less than three times, when referring to the initials clue, which is an argument either for returning to the one item, ie the set of initials: 'FM', or considering that the author was not thinking of the initial here as being at the crime scene itself.
All just mulling over the various possibilities, in the absence of knowing what was really going on in the forger's mind.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:39 am | | Thomas did.
Martin Fido |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:59 am | | Doh! Serve me right for using the casebook while at work and extemporising from memory instead of sitting with my books at home and posting from somewhere where I can check my own accuracy!
Thanks for the correction Caz and Martin.
Matt |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:54 am | | Hi Matt,Caz and others.
The F on the forearm is something that I raised on these boards a while back so there's some discussion of it somewhere on one of the diary boards. Alex Chisholm said that he had picked it up sometime before that. To my surprise nobody seemed to be all that interested in debating the merits of an F on the forearm. I suppose it all depends on the view you take of the diary.
If it's a forgery and the forger is writing about an F on the arm then it's an amazing observation, concoction,... (call it what you like but it shows imagination). If you take the view the diary is genuine then it's a strong point. Whatever your view, I'm of the opinion that an F on the forearm fits better with the author's wording than an FM on the wall. If the forger was clever enough to pick up and run with it then he/she obviously is thinking outside the dimensions of the photo in claiming that it was "in front" for all to see.
Most people claim that it's difficult to say whether it is actually an F. You be the judge.
As the point Matt made about the other initial, it could be the M on the wall, it could be left with previous victims. It could be a marking somewhere else on the body (not captured in the photo?). I suppose it depends on your interpretation. A forger could make such a claim without any substantiation.
In any event, the forearm F is a point worthy of some discussion.
Dela |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:59 am | | Hi, Dela:
Nice to see you here again. Welcome back!
You stated: "I'm of the opinion that an F on the forearm fits better with the author's wording than an FM on the wall. If the forger was clever enough to pick up and run with it then he/she obviously is thinking outside the dimensions of the photo in claiming that it was 'in front' for all to see."
I must say I don't follow your reasoning on this. While I think you may be correct that the "F" on the forearm might be the initial that the forger is referring to, I don't see how this shows that they were "thinking outside the dimensions of the photo." On the contrary, since the photograph had been misplaced until Donald Rumbelow found it in the Scotland Yard files only a quarter century ago, if this is one of the initials that the forger is referring to, it makes it even more likely that the hoaxer saw the photograph in a recent book on the murders and saw the opportunity to include in the Diary the claim that Maybrick "left it [the initial(s)] there for all to see."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:14 pm | | | (F)anny (M)ortimer? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:25 pm | | 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. 'Dayspring Mishandled' always was one of my favourite Kipling stories.
MF |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 12:04 pm | | I agree, the 'supposed' initials on the wall are placed in the readers mind! My post was meant in humor.
ED. |
|
|
|
|
