Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (22 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (12 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:59 PM
SarahLee SarahLee is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Wales
Posts: 71
Default

Hi Tempus,

I guess you knew that you were onto a tough one before you started this - and you've obviously thought this through and presented it well. To be fair, IMO you've even managed to come up with an interpretation that seems to fit the diary better than the letters on the wall.

I'm afraid I'm not with you though - as far as I'm concerned, an interpretation is all that it is unfortunately.

Yes, I can see a wound that clearly resembles an inverted "F", but that could equally just be a random pattern of 3 cuts. Nor can we see the underside of the arm to determine the full extent of the injury or how far around it may extend.
It's your "M" that I'm really struggling with though. Grab a handful of cotton fabric and pull it up or scrunch it, and it really doesn't take any design for it to fall into a "u" or "v" - in fact, that's the natural shape for it to form. Add a random straightish edge either side of it and you have your "M". Indeed in this case, the right arm of the "M" formed by her leg would only ever be visible from the precise angle that the photo was taken at.

I take your observation about the chemise/sheet/whatever being placed back on her after the event though.
Seeing this upside down, it appears like a single piece of fabric underneath her left arm/left hand side has been flopped back over to partially cover her left shoulder and abdomen. Almost like an attempt was made to pull it back over and cover her up, but the main body of the fabric was trapped underneath her.

Last edited by SarahLee : 04-30-2012 at 09:04 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:38 PM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Default

What are the chances of there being 2 (two) clear FM intials in that room?


Great work tempus!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:52 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,645
Default

Hi Tempus,

Which is more likely?:


The killer carved an F on the arm of MJK and arranged the folds of the bedding in the hope that it might look like an M if and when it was photographed.

The person who wrote the diary had studied the photograph before writing it.

It's the second alternative.

If you wanted to leave "FM" as a message, why would you not carve both initials into her flesh? What you have shown is suggestive of the diary having been written after the crime scene photographs entered the public domain and therefore not having been written by James Maybrick.

Regards, Bridewell.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:39 AM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
In order to understand the ‘M’ we must first ask ourselves two question, namely:

1) Why is Kelly’s left forearm in that position? And,

2) Why is that piece of her chemise where it is?
Hello Tempus; welcome to Casebook.

The killer placed Mary Kelly's forearm & hand basically inside the bloody mess of an abdominal cavity that he left when he dissected her. This is called "posing", and it's one of the signatures of sexual serial killers. Sexually deviant killers find it amusing to pose victims as if they are pointing to their own mutilations or touching themselves... I think you get my drift.

Mary Kelly was wearing a thin chemise (the innermost undergarment) when she was murdered. You can see that the upper part of it is still visible, primarily its short puffed sleeves and neckline. Due to the age and condition of the photo it's hard to tell where the killer simply cut her right through it and where he pushed it aside or bunched it up...
Perhaps he found the thought that he had the "power" to dissect a woman right through her clothing exciting, so he didn't bother to remove it?

If you go back through the Mary Kelly threads you'll find some from 2011 where my friend Steve ('SGH') did an incredible job of enlarging & colorizing the photo of Mary so it would be easier to make out the details and differentiate which is flesh and which fabric. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand- I'll try to locate it for you later when I get back; have to go out.)

I remember posting some images of Victorian-era chemises on that thread. We came to the collective conclusion that her chemise was a thin patterned fabric.

Best regards,
Archaic

Last edited by Archaic : 05-01-2012 at 03:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:04 AM
curious curious is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
Hello Tempus omnia revelat

As I noted earlier in your other thread, the supposed "F" on the mutilated left forearm of the victim has been noticed before on these boards.

As for the "M" that you are finding, it seems as if you are finding that amid the bedclothes or clothing of the murdered woman in the photograph, which of course depends on an observer looking at the photograph and the light and shadow that is playing on the scene. But the killer could not have known that the corpse and the murder scene would be photographed. In fact, there was a good bet that it wouldn't be photographed since it hadn't happened in the preceding four canonical murders in the Whitechapel murders series. The same thing would not likely have been seen by someone in the room looking at the murder scene.

So your observation is likely to be valueless. Even the apparent "F" on the skinned forearm may not be what it seems to be in the photograph if one were to examine the whole arm and see how the missing skin might have gone round the arm. That is, the "F" might be just an artifact of us all looking at the same photograph. Unfortunately for your theory, your ideas are in the same league as people supposedly finding clues in Walter Sickert's paintings or anagrams in Lewis Carroll's post-1888 writings. Wishful thinking.

Best regards

Chris George
changed my mind

Last edited by curious : 05-01-2012 at 04:12 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:28 AM
The Good Michael The Good Michael is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hsinchu, Taiwan
Posts: 3,773
Default

Hold on! I get this now. "I left it there for the fools. They will not find it." So, if the fools will not see it/find it... then those who do are intelligent...that means...the rest of us... are fools! It's a joke on us. I love it.

Mike
__________________
huh?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Soothsayer Soothsayer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Good Michael View Post
Hold on! I get this now. "I left it there for the fools. They will not find it." So, if the fools will not see it/find it... then those who do are intelligent...that means...the rest of us... are fools! It's a joke on us. I love it.

Mike
The Good,

Where has all of this defensive, 'victim' mentality come from? No-one is having a pop at your intellect or anyone else's, and that includes James Maybrick writing 130-odd years ago about the police of the day.

Making these throwaway, 'oh yeah, it was a big boy and he ran way' comments cheapens what I used to feel was a good argument you would usually make, however little I would agree with it myself.

Tempus o'Revelat - our latterday oirish detective - has made an interesting observation about the Mary Kelly photograph, and you are so utterly prejudiced against the journal's authenticity that you cannot control yourself long enough to stop and reflect on at least the possible, if perhaps not in your opinion the probable.

Unfortunately, when you react like this, it's like 'simulation' in sport (well, football). One minute the Premiership player is doing it, and the next every young lad on their school pitch is doing it. It doesn't make it right, and it ruins the game.

As you know, I like a bit of good-natured banter, but not usually in the middle of a reasoned argument. Let's wait for things to quieten down before we beef it up.

Tempus' point has been well thought out, and deserves an airing even if it is not as strong as he may have originally intimated.

For the record, I think it is possible that Maybrick (assuming it were he) may very well have attempted multiple 'FM's, much as the journal's author attempts multiple versions of doggerel before settling on the one they like the most and moving on. In this way, if Maybrick it were, and such a message he was attempting, I do think it is perfectly plausible that he would write 'FM' on the wall, pose Ms. Kelly as if she were herself one large 'FM', and be more specific with an 'F' on her arm and a very crude 'M' to the side.

Whether any or all of these things actually occurred are neither proved nor denied by your dismissive flippancy and - of course - you are welcome to it if that is your desire, but I think it is sad when a Casebook poster of some previous merit descends into antagonistic baiting.

Obviously, I've done loads of it myself over the years, but do you really want to be as unpopular as I?

Soothsayer
Timeless Voice of Reason
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:38 AM
The Good Michael The Good Michael is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hsinchu, Taiwan
Posts: 3,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soothsayer View Post
The Good,

Where has all of this defensive, 'victim' mentality come from? No-one is having a pop at your intellect or anyone else's, and that includes James Maybrick writing 130-odd years ago about the police of the day.

Making these throwaway, 'oh yeah, it was a big boy and he ran way' comments cheapens what I used to feel was a good argument you would usually make, however little I would agree with it myself.

Tempus o'Revelat - our latterday oirish detective - has made an interesting observation about the Mary Kelly photograph, and you are so utterly prejudiced against the journal's authenticity that you cannot control yourself long enough to stop and reflect on at least the possible, if perhaps not in your opinion the probable.

Unfortunately, when you react like this, it's like 'simulation' in sport (well, football). One minute the Premiership player is doing it, and the next every young lad on their school pitch is doing it. It doesn't make it right, and it ruins the game.

As you know, I like a bit of good-natured banter, but not usually in the middle of a reasoned argument. Let's wait for things to quieten down before we beef it up.

Tempus' point has been well thought out, and deserves an airing even if it is not as strong as he may have originally intimated.

For the record, I think it is possible that Maybrick (assuming it were he) may very well have attempted multiple 'FM's, much as the journal's author attempts multiple versions of doggerel before settling on the one they like the most and moving on. In this way, if Maybrick it were, and such a message he was attempting, I do think it is perfectly plausible that he would write 'FM' on the wall, pose Ms. Kelly as if she were herself one large 'FM', and be more specific with an 'F' on her arm and a very crude 'M' to the side.

Whether any or all of these things actually occurred are neither proved nor denied by your dismissive flippancy and - of course - you are welcome to it if that is your desire, but I think it is sad when a Casebook poster of some previous merit descends into antagonistic baiting.

Obviously, I've done loads of it myself over the years, but do you really want to be as unpopular as I?
Huh? So sue me. I just thought silly ideas deserve a little return silliness. Is that so wrong? (rhetorical question)

Mike
__________________
huh?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:52 PM
Jason Jason is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 376
Default

was the alleged F in the photo picked up or noted in the autopsy notes ? surely if it was as clear at the scene as it appears in the photo then it would have been worth noting ? i suspect it wasnt but that isnt necessarily to say it didnt exist as many modern day crime scenes have evidence that is found late to have been missed ie the Bamber gun silencers in the cupboard. Human error is not exclusive to the modern day when it comes to missing such things but i just feel that the location of the F on the left arm is unlikely to have missed if it was as clear as it seems.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:23 PM
Tempus omnia revelat Tempus omnia revelat is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 154
Default

I give up!

I knew as soon as I posted this that you would not understand it. I'm so sorry that you feel this way. I suggest that you all go back to your favoured suspects and spend the next one hundred years Not discovering who the killer is. I feel sad that I haven't convinced you of what is clearly there. All I can say is that I will return within in the next couple of months with more proof that James was involved in the crimes.

I would, however, like to say a few things before I go:

Whether you like it or not, that is an 'F' on her arm; it has clear right angles cut into it. In order to make these the killer would have had to have stopped and controlled himself, therefore meaning that this cut was deliberate. The chances of him creating cuts like this by simply slashing at her arm are so great as to be absurd.

Secondly, this peice of chemise was deliberately placed there; it has clear compressed finger marks in it. It did not grow legs and decide to move there by itself; therefore, it has been placed there for a reason, like the forearm. The fact that it has been placed next to the 'F' is too much of a coincidence.

To answer Bridwell's questions, briefly: 1) There is not enough room on the arm to carve both initials and, 2) I have told you that the killer was trying to be clever. Carving both letters on an arm or section of the body is not clever - anyone would spot it.

To answer your second point. You are quite correct that a forger could've noticed the 'FM' and created that part of the diary around it, but you are missing two important points. Firstly, whether a forger spotted it or not, the fact still remains that there is something that looks like an 'FM' exactly where I say it is in the picture. This picture is not a fake!
And this brings me onto the second point, rather nicely: how much luck would a forger have had to have had, after deciding to create a diary around James Maybrick, to realise that there 'just so happens to be' a large 'F' on her forearm, and something next to it that looks like an 'M' -not to mention the several other features that also look like 'FMs' around the room. These, of course, being - conveniently - the two exact initials he needs for Maybrick's wife, Florence. I'm sorry, but we are entering into the realms of a fantasy even greater than the ones you claim for the diary.

To answer Livia's point - and ChrisGeorge's. It does not pre-suppose any such thing. The'FM' was placed there for the benefit of the police at the time, not for a bunch of Ripperologists over one hundred years later. He was challenging them to find, just like he challenged them to work out why he left the items around Chapman's body, and the 'V' marks on eddowes face. We are just lucky enough to have the photograph to discover it.

At the end of the day, The diarist/James Maybrick is the only person to explain to you the reasons behind these killings. He is the only person to tell you why the items were arranged around Chapman as they were. He is the only one to explain to you why there were 'V' shaped marks on the face of Catherine Eddowes, and why there just so happen to be things that look like 'FMs' scattered all over the room of Mary Kelly's bedroom. No matter who you believe the killer to be: Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Deeming, you still have to explain why these particular people stopped in the miidle of what they were doing and did these things. Whether you like it or not, The diarist/James Maybrick is the only person to have done so.

Good luck with all your future research. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Kind regards,

Tempus

Last edited by Tempus omnia revelat : 05-01-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.