|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Diary 10 Year Anniversary; Reflections:
Archive through 24 April 2002
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 01:26 am |        | Hi RP
It seems generally agreed by those who have made comparisons that Mike and Anne’s handwriting does not match that of the diarist. Therefore at least one other person was involved in the forgery and perhaps more than one. Why do you therefore suppose that Mike and Anne were the originators and creators of the scam, rather than just the placers? Why don’t you think it is possible that the penman could have conceived the idea, bought the book, done the research, composed the text and penned it into the book?
We are faced with the fact that Mike has been utterly unable to provide a coherent account of how he thought up the hoax and acquired the things he needed to execute it, many of his claims lack substantiation, and he hasn’t impressed anyone that he possesses the knowledge of the Maybrick or Ripper case that his research would have given him or that he has the literary ability to construct the ‘diary’ text. All of this strongly suggests that he had no hand in the conception or execution of the scam. It is a problem which has only been answered by supposing that Mike’s inability to tell a straight story was part of some grand plan to obscure and confuse - which frankly isn’t consistent with Mike’s sometimes pitifully desperate desire to be believed - and to suppose that everyone who has met and formed an opinion of Mike is wrong, duped by some sort of Oscar-worthy portrayal into believing that Mike is an ordinary bloke.
As for Mike calling the shots and being the one milking the ‘diary’ for all it’s worth. Is he? Arguably Mike has been tossed about on the ‘diary’ seas like a piece of flotsam, struggling to convince people that he has knowledge and talents he otherwise doesn’t seem to possess. But even if he did call the shots, arguably that’s because he possessed the ‘diary’. If you came into possession of a valuable paintings and milked it for all it was worth, that wouldn’t mean you faked it.
As for your change of gears, let’s not do anything to confuse the issues here. All I am saying or have ever said is that there are good reasons for thinking that Mike didn’t forge the ‘diary’. Therefore someone else did. How long ago they forged it is a question we can’t as yet begin to answer, though internal evidence suggests that it was no earlier than 1987 and the presence of chloroacetamide in the ink makes it unlikely to be pre-1960. But no matter how compelling these dates are, we may have to make revisions if the other evidence points to the diary being forged prior to, say, 1987. Revision and perhaps even complete reversal of opinion may be made necessary with the emergence of new data or through looking at existing data in different ways.
(On a different note, wasn’t it established that it was possible to determine when the ink was placed on the paper if it had been placed there within three years prior to being examined? If so, doesn’t that mean that the ‘diary’ had to have been penned before 1990? How does that affect your date of 1990 for the composition of the ‘diary’?)
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 04:06 am | | Hi RJ,
The maroon diary was ordered by, and sent to Mr. Michael Barrett at his home address. He didn't use an alias. (I'm pretty sure all this was explained by Shirley and Keith on the boards a very long time ago after they'd contacted the book firm and confirmed details of the order and purchase.) If he had found it suitable and used it for the forgery he was about to take to London, how long do you think it would have taken for him, and this new diary, to be taken to the cleaners?
If you believe Mike could have had the literary skill and penmanship to help compose or write this thing, what sort of a moron do you think he also must have been, to give his details when ordering the alternative article, but not specify the age or size he needed, and then think he could pass off the new version as genuine, within days of the ink touching the paper?
And to top it all, when the little diary arrives it's dated 1891 - two years after the very last words written in the original by, er, Mike's co-forger: 'Dated this third day of May 1889'.
If I were to write fiction like that...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hi Ivor,
You wrote:
'Also strokes have been used by certain people in relation to this diary which you and many others are not aware of. Unscrupulous people have attempted to use foul methods when it comes to pushing the diary.'
If your allegations about strokes and foul methods can't shed any new light on the creation of the diary itself, or its whereabouts before April 1992, you are welcome to keep them to yourself.
Hi again RJ,
Can I refer you back to where you wrote:
'And I'll never believe that Mike's use of an alias means anything other than that he was up to no damn good....and knew it.'
If the reason for Mike's alias was because he knew he was trying to sell a forged document, at what point do you think he would feel safe to reveal his real name and address to a prospective buyer? Before showing them the diary? Or would he wait for their reaction, in case they took one look at the thing and started accusing him - Michael Barrett - of fraud? We know he used a false name in his initial phone call to the literary agency, which, on the face of it, does look suspicious. And if he was still using it when he first presented himself and the diary for scrutiny, you could argue that he was planning a quick exit at the first sign of trouble without giving away his true identity.
But do you know that Mike was still using a false name by then? And would it make any difference to your suspicions whether he was or wasn't?
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 06:19 pm | | Paul,
For a Ripper writer I admire can I say just one thing to you ?
For a bloke who doesn't have time to say anything you sure do say a lot.
In constructive criticism, you are giving your critics a lot to shoot at in that alone. If I was your solicitor I would recommend you just say "No Comment".
Tris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 12:12 am | | Caz--I'm pretty sure you won't like my arguments, but that's o.k. Even in using his home address, Mike wouldn't have been "taken to the cleaners" until after the book was published and a photograph of the diary circulated in the media. Even then, possibly it would not be recognized. [No one has come forward to claim the Maybrick album]. But one thing worth considering: Mike was selling the Maybrick diary's text to a book publisher; his intention evidently wasn't to sell the document itself. The goal here, as I see it, was to publish a bestseller, not to pawn off a forged document. So perhaps it didn't cross Mike's mind that he needed to be particularly careful in this regard? Anyway, as I said, if Mike was involved in the creation of the diary, he had to come up with a blank--or nearly blank-- Victorian diary...so he might have had little choice in the matter. Let's agree to disagree. By the way, I do tend to believe the current Maybrick diary existed before the maroon diary's purchase.
Your question about Mike's alias is an interesting one. I'd like to hear Crew's answer. What did they think when Mr. Williams suddenly became Mr. Barrett?
Meanwhile. It's fairly clear that you and I aren't ever going to agree on Mike's involvement/non-involvement. I have suspicions, but my 'evidence' isn't strong enough to convince those of you who are certain that Mike was ignorant of the hoax. I guess I'll leave it at that.
As way of closing argument, let me offer one final suggestion of why Anne Graham's story isn't true and why the diary is a recent hoax:
the famous Mary Kelly photograph.
The Maybrick diary refers to "an initial here and an initial there." This is certainly something inspired by the Kelly crime scene photograph..a reference to the alleged 'FM' on the back wall, and/or the "F" shaped figure on Kelly's forearm.
But the photograph wasn't published until Dan Farson's book came out in 1972, roughly three years after Anne Graham claims to have seen the Maybrick diary.
The descriptions of Kelly's room and the gory scene could have come from early news reports. But the 'initial' nonsense could not have come from anything other than the photograph. More over, these alleged initials have clearly been proven not to exist in the original photograph, but are the product of third and forth generation reproductions, which make the blotchy areas look like initials.
Conclusion: clearly the 'initial' reference in the Maybrick diary is based on someone who had seen the Kelly photographs reproduced in the Ripper books of the late 1970s and/or 1980s. The police file photo [which I don't believe was available anyway, until returned to Scotland Yard--but check me on this] wouldn't have worked, and the initials didn't exist at the real murder scene. So this puts Anne Graham's story clearly "out of the frame". The diary cannot be an old hoax.
With that, I rest my case.
Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 02:00 pm | | Hi RJ,
It’s got nothing to do with liking your arguments. I don’t give a hoot if the diary turns out to be a late 1980s creation, that would have been transferred into a different book if only Mike had found a suitable one. I would just prefer to have decent evidence for that being the case, instead of a series of Feldmanesque guesses. You can’t use the fact that no one has come forward to claim the Maybrick album to argue that Mike would have been safe to use an alternative, ordered in his name over the phone and delivered to his home address in early 1992, because you don’t know how or when the Maybrick album was acquired, or by whom. I could equally argue that the fact that no one has come forward to say they recognise the Maybrick album points to it not being a recent acquisition in 1992, but I don’t want to raise John O’s blood pressure again.
I’m afraid you lost me when you asked me to consider that ‘Mike was selling the Maybrick diary's text to a book publisher’ and that ‘his intention evidently wasn't to sell the document itself’. What is your evidence for this? If his goal was simply, as you see it, ‘to publish a bestseller, not to pawn off a forged document’, why do you think he ‘had to come up with a…Victorian diary’ at all? I’m not sure I understand that part of your argument.
Yes, the Maybrick diary refers to "an initial here and an initial there." But I don’t accept this as ‘certainly something inspired by the Kelly crime scene photograph’. All references to alleged ‘F’s or 'FM's come from outside the diary, in the form of opinions given by commentators who have looked at the photos and then tried to interpret the diary’s words.
Did the diary author need to see a single crime scene photo in order to write about leaving a clue there that ‘they will never find’?
Conclusion: the 'initial' reference in the Maybrick diary is not necessarily the result of someone seeing any Kelly photographs. And we can’t possibly know what initials may or may not have existed in the mess that was that murder scene. All we know is that none were identified and recorded. And all that tells us is that a hoaxer would have been safe to invent them – until, that is, someone thought they’d found FM on the wall and assumed that’s what the diary author meant.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Hi Caz,
You write above:
"I would just prefer to have decent evidence for that being the case, instead of a series of Feldmanesque guesses."
Yes, I agree. But I believe the officially approved term nowadays is "Feldmaniacal."
All the best,
--John
PS: I think you're probably right that the "initials" line in the diary does not need to be referring to the FM nonsense. And I am not sure what RJ meant by Mike only trying to sell the "text" and not the book. But I'd be interested to hear why that might be the case. I've never thought of it in those terms before. |
Author: Michael Hopper
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 08:25 pm | | What will the next 10myears resolve?
I have dropped in every now and then on these discussions of the "diary" and find no resolution to the major questions. To me they are whether the diary is genuine or a fake and if a fake who are the forgers.
After having gone through all the notes and comments I can find I still cannot find proof as to when the ink was put on the pages. The quality of the scientific reporting of the tests is too poor to base a sound judgment.
On the provenance side there is nothing going for the authenticity of the document; only much hearsay.
I would really appreciate it if there was a summary of what "facts" disclosed in the diary had not been seen in print before 1890 or 1990. Why are the only significant facts revealed in the diary things that are known already? It would seem to me that if the diary were genuine there would be one significant disclosure concerning the Ripper's actions that had never been revealed before. This lack of relevant case facts is to me a strong indication of a fake. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 10:08 pm | | Well said. Both the Maybrick and Ripper material in the diary is a re-hash of what is already in 20th Century books. Even if the diary was based on newspaper reports, one would expect some obscure facts to creep in.
Caz--I'll leave the Feldmanesque guesswork to you--such as the guess that the diary isn't making an error about Michael Maybrick's lyric writing ability or that the diary doesn't make dumb blunders about the Kelly murder scene. Or that out there somewhere is a Victorian ink that uses chloroacetamide "[we know it's more complex than that", don't we? Proof would be nice.] But oh, I forget...you're not arguing for any one interpretation.
As for the 'initial' nonsense, the diary is fairly specific.
Her initial there
"an initial here and a initial there
will tell of the whoring mother"
Last time I checked Florie Maybrick's initials were FM. Or are you and John arguing that this is merely a lucky coincidence? That someone who didn't know about the existance of a photograph just happened to throw in some nonsense about Florie Maybrick's initials [FM] and, lo and behold, the "Mars" effect shows an M on the back wall, and a rough "F" on Kelly's forearm? No, I can't buy that one. I think the diary is clearly written by someone looking at the post 1972 photograph.
"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."
He's looking from the angle of the famous photograph.
Look at the famous photo in Farson and see if you don't see it.
Cheers, RP
PS. Mike peddling the text of the Maybrick diary is just a matter of record. He didn't try to sell the document to a collector, to an auction house, or even to Two-Gun Tex. He brought the diary around to literary agents and publishers...just like an author would do. The diary was eventually sold for a mere pound. Does this show a little savvy? |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 03:33 am | | R.J. Liked your post. Regarding marks on panel in Mary Kelly's room. If the F.M. scratches were on the negative as most believe they are, end of story. But if they were deliberately left on the panel they could just as easily mean F-ree
M-asons.
As in the cuts on Eddowes cheeks, when the two inverted Vs are put together they form a M-for Masons. This is all very far fetched but possible. But nowhere as ludicrous as the diary. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:22 am | | And nowhere near as ludicrous as supposing that "Eddy" or "Gully" did it, either ...
R.J.
"The descriptions of Kelly's room and the gory scene could have come from early news reports. But the 'initial' nonsense could not have come from anything other than the photograph. More over, these alleged initials have clearly been proven not to exist in the original photograph, but are the product of third and forth generation reproductions, which make the blotchy areas look like initials.
But the 'initial' nonsense could not have come from anything other than the photograph? Absolute nonsense RJ and you know it, for the reference could quite easily have come from someone who was present at the murder scene - James Maybrick esquire a.k.a. Jack the Ripper.
As for your nonsense regarding the original photographs ...so you have them do you? The originals? No, I thought not. The marks that appear on Kelly's wall are NOT the same as looking for faces in the clouds, they are deliberately placed marks. And of course they were on the original photographs, because they were on the wall in Kelly's room - why else was attention drawn to the blood marks on the wall by the coroner's court?
But of course R.J., if you can prove that the FM marks were not on the original photographs I will pack up and go home (o.k. I'm home already), but you can't prove that. Because they were.
I do take issue with some of the other nonsense regarding the initials, i.e. that the diarists remark doesn't necessarily refer to the FM and that they could have been placed somewhere else. It is quite clear what the diarist is referring to - for all to see.
Peter
...still wondering why an eight year old guest to James Maybrick's house would refer to him as 'Sir James' (obviously because she overheard other people calling him that and because it was an accepted monicker for him) - and still wondering why people have a problem with Sir James becoming Sir Jim.
Did you know that Allegria is Spanish for "merriment"? Did you do that on purpose? |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:36 am | | Michael:
"I would really appreciate it if there was a summary of what "facts" disclosed in the diary had not been seen in print before 1890 or 1990. Why are the only significant facts revealed in the diary things that are known already?"
O.K. Michael, here goes:
1) Maybrick's parents are buried together.
2) Maybrick's children were called 'Bobo' (James) and Gladys.
3) Gladys was repeatedly ill.
4) Maybrick was an habitual arsenic user.
5) Maybrick beat his wife.
6) Tin Match Box Empty.
7) The location of MJK's severed breasts (not in print before 1989).
8) Maybrick had occasion to visit Scotland as a cotton merchant - the very area of Scotland (Galashiels) from where "The Ripper" sent a letter in handwriting that matches both James Maybrick's will and a letter he wrote from the USA.
9) Liz Stride was definitely a ripper victim (an assertion not readily accepted at the time that the diary went to London).
10) Annie Chapman had two rings removed from her fingers, not three as had been reported in some press statements of the time.
11) There were two farthings under Chapman's body, a fact upon which scorn was poured before Paul H Feldman conclusively proved it by reference to an obscure police report.
12) Maybrick was referred to as 'Sir James', a fact which is proven by the discovery of Florence Aunspaugh's letter amongst the Christie letter in Wyoming.
13) Elizabeth Stride had her own knife.
14) Oh, but there I stop, for it is getting all too easy.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:42 am | | RJ
I suggest you read your copy of Feldy's excellent book a little more closely ...
P. 71 Paperback edition:
"A visit to the Black Museum, courtesy of Bill Waddell, then the curator, had resulted in the temporary loan to me of the remaining original photographs taken by the police at the time of the Whitechapel murders. With the diarist's reference to "an initial here and ...there" in mind, I paid a visit to Direct Communications Design in Chiswick ... after breaking down the photograph into two inch squares, we would systematically blow each of the squares up. Three quarters of the way down, to the right of the centre, were marks that stunned us. There was no doubt, the initials 'FM' were clear and precise.
There you have it R.J. The initials do appear on the original photograph.
No chance, then, of them being ..."the product of third and forth generation reproductions, which make the blotchy areas look like initials".
Nice try R.J. More research next time.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:41 am | | Hi RJ,
Ignoring all the nonsense from Peter and, via Peter, Feldy (none of which is any more than dreams and wishes concerning the imaginary "FM"), I do have two thoughts.
There were plenty of references in the Ripper books to various possible initials being left, including the ones on the envelope and the marks on Eddowes, etc. It seems to me at least possible that the forgers were drawing from this sort of material when talking about the "initials" -- although this does not make it impossible that, as you suggest, they were also trying to appeal to the "Virgin Mary on the side of the building; aliens took me on their ship and probed me" crowd who see the FM on the wall.
I'm just saying there were already other reasons available in the Ripper books of the 80's to have the fake "Maybrick as Jack" vaguely mention leaving initials.
Also, the fact that Mike took the diary to Doreen (a literary agent) does not clearly indicate that he was only trying to sell the text rather than the book, since we don't know how informed his decision to go to Doreen really was. How much did he know about who he should go to at the time, anyway? Wasn't he referred to Doreen by someone? I'm not sure whether his decision indicates careful forethought or a simple first instinct.
All the best,
--John
PS: Michael -- Be assured that almost nothing Peter wrote to you is true. That's normal. Don't worry about it. Nearly all of the things that appear on the silly list above were readily available pieces of information in Maybrick books and Ripper books at the end of the 1980's and at least three or four of the things on the list are just absurd nonsense with no evidence to support them and no basis in fact. There is no Ripper letter anywhere which matches Maybrick's handwriting or the handwriting in the diary (neither of which match each other, of course); and there is no document anywhere which proves that anyone ever called the real Maybrick "Sir Jim." Peter, as usual, is just making stuff up (some call it lying) because he has absolutely no sense of historical responsibility whatsoever. He should never be trusted. Ignore his list.
Also, write to me if you'd like your own copy of the Galasheils letter, just to confirm that what I'm telling you is true. I've sent it to many people now and every one of them has immediately noticed the obvious handwriting differences. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 03:47 pm | | Hi All,
Michael Hopper wrote:
‘It would seem to me that if the diary were genuine there would be one significant disclosure concerning the Ripper's actions that had never been revealed before. This lack of relevant case facts is to me a strong indication of a fake.’
And RJ added:
‘…one would expect some obscure facts to creep in’.
But there are several examples in the diary of vague or unexplained words and passages that could in theory represent facts about the ripper or the Maybricks that are not generally known. And unless or until research reveals new information that can shed light on one or more of those examples, we are inevitably stuck with an assumption that they are no more than meaningless invention.
Hi RJ,
Thank you, but it’s not a guess that the diary isn't making an error about Michael Maybrick's lyric writing ability. I don’t know if it is or isn’t. The author knows Michael ‘writes a merry tune’. We don’t know if Michael ever wrote any verse. Equally we don’t know that he didn’t. All we know is that he didn’t do it professionally and wasn’t famous for it. And while it is perfectly possible, even likely, that someone like Michael would have turned his hand to writing verse on occasion, if only for his own amusement, it must also remain possible that James would have seen his efforts at one time or another, and regarded his talented brother as the more successful at rhyming. Just like I envy my brother when he succeeds in playing horribly difficult pieces on the piano that I wouldn’t even attempt. It is always assumed that the forger made a mistake because he needed to give his readers a Jack who wrote funny little rhymes and a James who was jealous of the fame his brother enjoyed, and assumed wrongly that the fame came from writing such verses. Try looking at it the other way round, for a change, before reaching such conclusions about the forger’s research and motives.
It’s not a guess that the diary doesn't make other ‘dumb blunders’. All I have done is suggest reasons why the diary might not necessarily be making the specific errors you believe it is, or at least how the author may have covered himself, intentionally or otherwise, against making fatal blunders. And evidently you must be acknowledging that it’s more complex than simply saying the diary ink contains chloroacetamide, and that no Victorian ink could ever have done. Proof of that would not only be nice, it would render all other debate needless. And I will continue to argue against other people’s interpretations, where they appear suspect or unsupported, or are put forward as the only possible interpretation where I see alternatives.
And isn't it amazing? Feldy sees FM on the wall because he is looking for it - he wants to see it. It's not there. We know it's not there. But others see it on the photo now because they want to see it there. So it’s either there on the wall because people think it really is there and Maybrick put it there and referred to it in his diary. Or it’s there on the photo because people know it's not on the wall, and therefore Maybrick didn't put it there, but they want the forger to have looked for it, just like Feldy, seen it, just like Feldy, and referred to it in the forged diary, not caring if it was ever real or not. That's how I see desire working here.
RJ, either Mike needed a Victorian diary for the text or he didn't. Either way, he was, in your opinion, trying to make money on the back of a document he knew wasn't really old - the Maybrick album as we know it. What difference does it make if he never intended to part with this document, and only wanted to get a bestseller published on the strength of it? He took it to the literary agency and presented it as a possibly genuine article. There is no suggestion that he was ever selling the text purely as a work of fiction, and you'd need some evidence if that's what you are seriously now proposing. And in any case, in your opinion Mike supplied the 'O costly...' lines, knowing they'd end up in one or other Victorian book - either the album that we know and love, or one he was trying to obtain over the phone through the book firm.
And finally, John (O), where is the evidence for your belief that the 'officially approved term nowadays' is "Feldmaniacal"? And who does the official approving round here anyway? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 03:53 pm | | Mr. Wood,
What evidence have you that Stride was "definitely" a Ripper victim?
The diary of course says she is. You seem to suggest that is the proof of its authenticity because this was not readily accepted at the time the diary went to print in 1989.
Prior to 1989, most books on this subject include Stride as a Ripper victim. Indeed, it has been in recent years that more authors have questioned whether Stride was a Ripper victim.
To suggest that prior to 1989, the Stride killing was an open question and that since the diary it is now a settled issue is misleading.
Even today, there is no proof that Stride was a Ripper killing.
You seem to be arguing that there was doubt whether Stride was a Ripper victim. But since the diary says Stride was a Ripper victim that proves the diary is real.
Rich |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 04:59 pm | | Dear Rich
Not arguing that the diary including Stride as a ripper victim proves anything. I had always taken Stride to be a ripper victim, in fact I take pretty much the party line with the canonical murders.
I find it hard to believe those who would discount either Stride OR Eddowes, when they were killed within an hour of each other, within a few hundred yards, with the same m.o. - and at a time when, apart from JTR, we are told murder is rare.
But Rich, there were those who were prepared to argue against Stride as a ripper victim, for example she wasn't mutilated. Therefore the diarist was being quite bold in associating himself so closely with the Stride murder.
But our diarist does those things. Such as when he associates himself with Hutchinson's suspect with the line "a handkerchief red led to the bed", although there will be those out there who would argue that it is perfectly reasonable for a forger to introduce a red handkerchief into the account of MJK's murder and they need not have been aware of Hutchinson's description of his suspect.
"Ignoring all the nonsense from Peter ..." and then taking a rather large portion of your post to do the opposite.
Not ignoring John in the least, because it's rather fun to watch him squirm -
"There were plenty of references in the Ripper books to various possible initials being left, including the ones on the envelope and the marks on Eddowes, etc. It seems to me at least possible that the forgers were drawing from this sort of material when talking about the "initials" -- although this does not make it impossible that, as you suggest, they were also trying to appeal to the "Virgin Mary on the side of the building; aliens took me on their ship and probed me" crowd who see the FM on the wall.
Back to P. 71 Feldy's excellent narrative, where Paul is talking in more detail about the FM on MJK's wall:
"Since 1975, when Donald Rumbelow first had the photograph published in his book, The Complete Jack the Ripper, nobody had ever noticed these two initials. I was later to learn that Simon Wood had, in 1988, noticed the presence of letters but not the two initials 'FM' together. They would seem to have been marked in blood, but too bold to have been put there by a finger or even a hand. This, of course, assumes that they were put there at the time of the crime, but that would seem a reasonable assumption given the fact that the jury at the inquest on Mary Kelly were taken to the scene of the crime and asked 'to take special notice of the bloodstains on the wall'.
I have the photograph in question in front of me now, as reproduced in Philip Sugden's 'The complete History of Jack the Ripper'. The letters 'FM' are so prominent there as to be undeniable.
As Feldy rightly points out, if a forger had spotted them then he/she was being far more diligent than any researcher had ever been. Andy and Sue previously suggested that 'M' could refer to Mason and 'F' to Free, which is a great suggestion but not one that ever occurred to anyone before Feldy made the observations that appear in his book.
The letters are undeniably an 'F' and an 'M'. They appear together on the wall. They are definitely what the diarist is referring to (will tell of the whoring mother) and they lay unnoticed for over a century.
The diarist is indeed enjoying inexplicable luck.
And to those of you who would like to indulge in a little amateur handwriting analysis ... I too have a copy of the Galashiels letter. I also have a copy of the letter that Maybrick wrote from the SS Baltic - I'll happily send them to you if you don't have Feldy's book, and I defy you to say that they aren't one and the same.
Don't be led by John. Have your own opinion.
I have mine.
James Maybrick = Jack the Ripper. Q.E.D.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:06 pm | | Hello everyone,
1. There is no FM on any wall, any more than the Virgin Mary is on the glass side of a building here in Clearwater, Florida. There are still people in that parking lot, praying to what is basically a discolored stain made by sprinkler water, and there are people shamelessly selling them iconographic junk -- getting rich off the power of suggestion. Paul Feldman loves writing his fantasies as if they were true. He, like Peter, is a con-man. But none of that changes the fact that there is no FM on any wall.
2. As so many have now written and told me, upon receiving the .jpgs, the handwriting in the Galasheils letter looks nothing at all like the handwriting in any letter the real James Maybrick ever wrote (and no qualified expert has ever said that there is even the vaguest similarity). Peter is brazenly making up stuff again for his own convenience (ie: lying).
3. Also, he apparently does not know how or when the phrase "Q.E.D." can fairly be used. Sometimes his posts are just embarrassing. They seem to revel in their own lack of knowledge and lack of responsibility to the truth.
All the best,
--John
PS: Michael -- see what I mean? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:10 pm | | Hi Caz,
You ask me:
Where is the evidence for your belief that the 'officially approved term nowadays' is "Feldmaniacal"?
No evidence. I declared it by fiat.
"And who does the official approving round here anyway?"
I do.
Imperially yours,
--John  |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 10:30 am | | Hi Peter,
The diary suggests that Stride was a Ripper victim. My personal view is that Stride remains a question mark. You cite some facts that would suggest she was.
However, there are some facts that suggest the MO is quite different:
1. Stride was not mutilated (though many explain this by suggesting the killer was interrupted)
2. Stride was seen being a witness - the Ripper is never seen grappling with a victim in any other circumstance (though this might be explained that the witness was mistaken or that Stride was attacked by two different people within 15 minutes)
3. Some suggest that Stride was attacked by two
people based on Schwartz testimony (though this is subject to debate)
I would depart from your statement that very few women were murdered during that era. I don't have the statistics but I find it telling that the police file on the Whitechapel murders included 11 killings.
I don't think the Stride killing, or the diary commenting upon it, shows one way or another whether Maybrick was the Ripper. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 10:50 am | | 1. In the case of "Jack" mutilations were not his MO.
2. Being seen or not by a witness does not interfere in any way with the MO.
3. Even if Stride was attacked by two guys, how to be sure that this was not the case with the others ?
If the others were attacked by one guy, what is the evidence Stride was not ?
Where is the MO in all that ?
In which way the MO in the Stride's case was different from the others ?
I do not see any significative difference there.
Thank you. Graziano. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 12:17 pm | | Hi Graziano,
The MO of the Ripper appears to be that he assaulted the victims in dark passages out of viewing of the public.
If the witness Schwartz is to be believed, the Ripper assaulted her in plain view of at least two witnesses (unless the other man Schwartz viewed was a conconspirator).
Stride was murdered differently than the others in that she was not mutilated and apparently assaulted in public in front of witnesses.
Rich |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 01:43 pm | | "1. There is no FM on any wall, any more than the Virgin Mary is on the glass side of a building here in Clearwater, Florida.
Yes there is.
I can't comment on the glass side of the building in Clearwater, Florida - a) because John is non-specific about it and b) because I haven't been there and seen it.
But John says it isn't there. Is that enough for the rest of you? I urge you - look at the published photograph of Mary Jane Kelly - the initials are so clear as to embarass John Omlor in his post of above.
The initials are there, quite visibly. The question is ...how did they get there? By accident or design? Maybe Paul Feldman hasn't proven that James Maybrick put them there, but, as Paul rightly points out, it is interesting to note that it was the diarist who brought our attention to them.
And some people would say that the "forgers" didn't do any research.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 01:44 pm | | Hello Rich,
look, I haven't really the time right now and I am not a forensic expert but you should go through the boards and searching for a post of Scott E. Medine (he has worked as a forensic and he is actually a private investigator).
In that post he very clearly explains the difference between the MO and the signature of a killer.
From recollection (and if I grasped it right) I think you may be confusing and mixing them up:
Succintly and with my own poor words and very little time at disposal the MO is how the killers assaults and kills, the signature is what he does after the first stage (the killing) to the body/surroundings.
In our case what is generally admitted for the MO (hope I do not say too many stupidities) is that "Jack" half strangled or at least rendered someway (maybe beating them) half unconscious his victims and then killed them (while unconscious) by cutting their throat with a knife from the left to the right, standing on the right of the body.
The cuts were quite deep (with a slight difference for Stride) and precise, cutting all what there had to be cut, suggesting that not only he wanted to prevent the victim from making any shout but also as to empty her as most as it could be done from her blood, maybe not to be to spattered with it then while mutilating.
In fact, how he rendered them unconscious is still quite debatable but what is sure is that they were lying down when he cut the throat.
Then he signed his job by mutilating them (or trying to) and by removing (or trying to) the uterus or at least some organs.
That the victims were assaulted in dark passages out of viewing is what I believe also but is not generally accepted because what is generally accepted is that he assaulted them where he killed them thus where the bodies were found.
As you know (let's forget Tabram), Nichols was found in the open street (under the windows of inhabited houses), Chapman in a back yard under a lot of windows, Eddowes once again in the open street where anybody could pass.
What happened with Stride (I tell you the truth, I do not believe it happened at all) and is told by Schwartz could have happened to the three here above mentioned.
Hope someone will correct and give you more professionnal info.
I have to go.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 02:55 pm | | Graziano,
My previous post referred to a difference in MO and difference in signature from Eddowes to the other Ripper slayings.
The difference in signature was the level of the mutilations (which I understand is explicable if you believe the killer was interrupted during the attack - though there is no evidence of this).
The difference in MO was that the killer apparently assaulted Stride in public (if we are to believe Schwartz witnessed the killer attacking Stride and that there was another witness). This differs from the other killings in that while the Ripper might have been seen with the victims prior to the attacks those attacks occurred in secluded, dark passages without witnesses. In the Stride attack, a man was seen assailing her on street in front of two other people (Schwartz and the mysterious man lurking nearby).
This makes the Stride killing different than any others in the series. I personally have no opinion as to whether Stride was a Ripper victim.
I was simply making the point earlier that the diary claiming she was while some authors say she was not proves nothing.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:01 pm | | Peter,
If you search the news archives of the St. Petersburg Times online, you can see the stories and photos of the stain on the building in Clearwater. You'll no doubt see the Holy Virgin, since you believe you see letters in the stains on that other Mary's wall.
Of course, you also believe what you've read in Paul Feldman's book of dreams and nonsense, and your writing has never demonstrated any precision nor any particular responsibility towards the truth, so no one should be surprised by your visions.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:38 pm | | I don't have visions.
I don't believe in miracles.
I don't believe in any God of any religion.
Therefore I am unlikely to want to see a picture of Mary on the side of a building somewhere a few thousand miles away.
But it doesn't mean it isn't there. I am not qualified to comment on it because I have seen neither the building nor a photograph of it.
But I have seen the photographs of MJK. In over one hundred years nobody suggested an F and an M were on her wall. But the diarist did. And they are. Why do you continually deny the obvious? The letters are there, isn't it better that we debate how they got there?
Rich
It might be best to discuss Stride on another strand.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:14 pm | | Strange.
Peter writes:
"I don't have visions."
And then writes:
"But I have seen the photographs of MJK. [...] The letters [FM] are there."
Apparently Peter has added self-contradiction to his repertoire.
I guess it was to be expected.
--John (who sees a bunny and a duck in the clouds today) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:40 pm | | Peter,
I only discussed the Stride murder in the context of the post you made recently that suggested that one of the authenticating factors of the diary was its comment that Stride was a Ripper victim as written in the diary.
In any case, the diary fails on two levels with regard to the initials FM:
1. It never specifically states that the letters FM were scrawled anywhere in Kelly's room
2. The photograph is of too poor a quality to determine if the letters FM are there.
Rich |
Author: Lefroy
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:25 am | | Surely this deserves to be under the "reflections" thread....
Some people can see anything!
http://www.tldm.org/images/window.jpg |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:15 pm | | Sorry Lefroy, but it goes directly to the heart of the argument.
Either you see the 'FM' or you don't.
I do.
Rich:
"1. It never specifically states that the letters FM were scrawled anywhere in Kelly's room
No, but it does say 'left it in front for all to see'.
If the diarist had written "Left my wife's initials on the wall in Kelly's room, you know - the one just by her bed, positioned in such a way that a photographer would probably photograph them" - then you would have a problem believing it. I would have a problem believing it.
The diary can't win with you guys, if it is too specific you simply quote the text from which a particular diary entry must have come, and if it is vague you say "Well, it's not being specific enough".
I'm off to find Monty.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:40 pm | | Hi Peter,
If the letters were left for all to see - why did no one see them?
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:15 pm | | Hi Rich,
And why is it those who need them to be there that think they "see" them today?
Perhaps because they are really just random stains on a wall in an old photograph, and not initials at all.
Naah, that makes too much sense.
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 11:11 pm | | Hi John,
Sometimes the imagery people claim to see in the Mary Kelly photo reminds me of the way people used to claim to see all sorts of figures in the foliage of Dealey Plaza in photos of the JFK assassination.
Those that see the "FM" never want to explain why this was not identified at the scene at the time.
Rich |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 12:53 am | | More two cents on the initials--
Why did no one see the initials, when
--one of the photos of the MJK crime scene is taken from the other side of the bed by the wall, thus would have required the photographer to stand right by that place for several minutes;
--the police crime scene description specifically mentions the splashes on blood on the wall by her neck, indicating that the cops looked directly at that place in the wall;
--the cops would have been looking for graffiti, given that they had found the "Juwes" scrawl during the double event?
Skeptical of the vague grey lines,
madeleine |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 08:20 am | | Peter,
Madeleine has a point.
I see the "FM", You see the "FM" and Im sure John sees the "FM", so why cannot the half of the MET force that were tramping around Millers court that day ?
It is not mentioned in any police report. Was it missed or witheld ? If the latter then surely it would have come out in someones memoires at some point.
Stool pidgeon hat...cha..cha.chaaa !
|
Author: Vila
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:50 am | | Um, in the first versions of the Casebook that Spryder put online were scans of the MJK photos, in B&W. I scanned them myself, along with lots of other photos from the books, loose pages, and photos that Spryder sent me.
The Sunday chat sessions in the DALnet #Casebook channel got pretty lively there for a few weeks, when the initials appeared in one of my enhancements of the Kelly photo.
NOTE: In the original illo in the book that was scanned, there were no marks visible on the wall.
I scanned the photo at 2500 DPI and 6% enlargement, (something in the scanner program- I can't force it to scan same-size, 6% larger than life is the smallest it will go) then saved the file. I went to the image filters and upped the contrast, lightened the exposure, and enhanced the edge detail and sharpness. (those last two stepps cause the graphics program to seek out patterns and reconstruct the image emphasizing those detected patterns) When I was done, the FM stood out a bit from the formerly blank wall.
So I'm inclined to believe that the initials are an artifact of image processing and repeated copying. Somewhat like the canals of Mars, I think they're entirely in the eye of the beholder.
But if there's a Police report that says they actually were there, I'd have little trouble redefining my opinion.
Vila |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:10 am | | Vila,
There's not, of course. Because they're not.
--John |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Hi Vila, Hi John,
I have an orginal copy of Stephen Knight's "The Final Solution". On the photo reproduced one can see "scratchings the wall" behind Kelly. The second character could be an M and the first could be a P or an F.
In Paul Begg's "The uncensored Facts" the same photo is darker and the M really stands out. The frst character is a P.
etc. etc. etc.
On every photo published they can be seen. BUT there is no mention of them in the files. So they were not there.
Philip |
Author: Vila
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 07:15 pm | | Philip,
I didn't mean to imply that the marks don't exist simply because no one mentioned them in a police report. I was only stating my observation that the marks can be rendered visible by repeated photocopying, or even easier by digital graphics filters. I did not intend to step on anyone's toes. I merely related my personal experience with the MJK photograph for what it is/was worth. The image I used was scanned from a book, perhaps even one of the ones you named, but the marks were not noticable to me or other Casebookworms in '96 until the image processing was done. I do not doubt that you can see the marks in the photo pages of the books you mentioned. My only quibble is, what generation copy is the photo in the book? I ask this in the spirit of the investigation, rather than from any personal desire to be right.
I'm not a smart aleck, I try very hard to keep from giving offence. If I have offended you, I appologize. I was simply offering my first-hand testimony as a graphic artist (of sorts) who has worked with a copy of the MJK photo. I'm not an expert, I'm not a professional graphic artist, I'm just someone who has been playing with computers since the TRS-80 was state of the art. I can only tell you what I *saw*, its up to you to tell me what it really means. If anything I've noticed can bring the Casebook even one more piece of the Ripper puzzle, then I've earned my seat in Valhalla.
Hey Thor, isn't it your turn to tap another keg?
Vila |
|
|
|
|
