Most ridiculous suspect

[Aethelwulf]

Darryl/Wickerman,

We aren't talking about 'scribble', though, are we? We're talking about something so very different from the GSG as to be quite incomparable. Just letters here and there, with two of them on a dark wall in a dark room (regardless of the time of day) with utter gore all around to take the constabulary eye off anything quite unexpected such as letters in blood.

But - hey - it's actually not open for debate! Countless posters testify that the letters 'F' and 'M' are clear on Kelly's wall and yet only I on this site believe that the scrapbook is Maybrick's so they aren't biased.

And neither am I - if they weren't there, I'd say so. If you know so little about the case that you've bought into the 'the initials aren't there' charade, that's your problem not mine.

Ike

This load of guff about the phantom initials is just embarrassing. Saying it was too dark is just daft. Do you think Abberline et al were groping about on all fours in the dark searching the room? The coat or whatever it was would have been removed from the window at some point and it was light outside. Kelly lived there and she must have had candles if it was so dark. Even if there weren't any there the police would have got some sort of light if it was so dark.

Bagster Phillips specifically mentions the area of the room it was apparently too dark to see: 'I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition. The blood was produced by the severance of the carotid artery, which was the cause of death. The injury was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead." He mentions blood under the bed area that must have been darker than the wall. To say that bloody initials on the wall would have gone unnoticed/unremarked is just bonkers.

Just give it up. You can always fall back on the even more stupid Maybrick GSG interpretation to entertain us all with.

[Aethelwulf]

Darryl/Wickerman,

We aren't talking about 'scribble', though, are we? We're talking about something so very different from the GSG as to be quite incomparable. Just letters here and there, with two of them on a dark wall in a dark room (regardless of the time of day) with utter gore all around to take the constabulary eye off anything quite unexpected such as letters in blood.

But - hey - it's actually not open for debate! Countless posters testify that the letters 'F' and 'M' are clear on Kelly's wall and yet only I on this site believe that the scrapbook is Maybrick's so they aren't biased.

And neither am I - if they weren't there, I'd say so. If you know so little about the case that you've bought into the 'the initials aren't there' charade, that's your problem not mine.

Ike

Must be a real sickener for you. There you are, harping on about the case being closed on the ripper and someone starts a thread that doesn't even mention Maybrick, but canvasses opinion on the most absurd suspects. And guess what, Maybrick features very heavily. Gutted for you and your crusade of utter nonsense.

[Iconoclast]

The room was broken into and searched in the afternoon Ike not in the middle of the night [ regarding the light ]. As Wick rightly says Abberline was responsible for making a record of the inventory of the room. They sifted through the ashes for clues, an FM on the wall would have stood out, yet no mention of it. Whether you believe GSG was written by the killer or otherwise matters not. The police certainly thought it could be a clue. Looking for another message possibly left by Jack would have been very much in the investigating officers minds.

Regards Darryl

Darryl/Wickerman,

We aren't talking about 'scribble', though, are we? We're talking about something so very different from the GSG as to be quite incomparable. Just letters here and there, with two of them on a dark wall in a dark room (regardless of the time of day) with utter gore all around to take the constabulary eye off anything quite unexpected such as letters in blood.

But - hey - it's actually not open for debate! Countless posters testify that the letters 'F' and 'M' are clear on Kelly's wall and yet only I on this site believe that the scrapbook is Maybrick's so they aren't biased.

And neither am I - if they weren't there, I'd say so. If you know so little about the case that you've bought into the 'the initials aren't there' charade, that's your problem not mine.

Ike

[Darryl Kenyon]

If this is your best retort, you don't have one, I'm afraid.

Miller's Court was not well-lit. Kelly's room was even less well-lit. The lack of natural light would not have affected the interrogation of something obvious like clothing burnt in the grate, but would not have lent itself to the easy identification of initials having been left on the wall (and elsewhere, by the way). If the police had noticed the initials, they may have made something of them, but there's no obvious reason why they would (they were hardly a typical killer's calling-card in 1888) so you shouldn't use the fiasco of the GSG as a guiding principle around their discovery 'if they were there'.

The only reason why we are able to see those initials and the people there at the time could not was light. The photographer's flash lit-up Kelly's room brightly enough for detail on the wall to be perceived. Why did those who looked at the photographs not notice the initials on the wall? I don't know. Why did no-one notice them until 1992, I don't know. It obviously doesn't mean they weren't there. What are their significance? Well, James Maybrick wrote four pages of his scrapbook solely about the carnage he committed in Kelly's room, and amongst it he told us "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother". And we can see 'FM' on Kelly's wall, an 'F' on her arm, and her legs appear pushed-up in the form of an 'M'. And that's just what we see from one angle. Who knows where else we would find those initials if we had more photographs? As previously explained, a hoaxer would have to have been singularly inspired to have spotted what no-one else had spotted and then turned that into a clue. It's possible, just not very likely.

The room was broken into and searched in the afternoon Ike not in the middle of the night [ regarding the light ]. As Wick rightly says Abberline was responsible for making a record of the inventory of the room. They sifted through the ashes for clues, an FM on the wall would have stood out, yet no mention of it. Whether you believe GSG was written by the killer or otherwise matters not. The police certainly thought it could be a clue. Looking for another message possibly left by Jack would have been very much in the investigating officers minds.

Regards Darryl

[erobitha]

what is this circumstantial evidence you keep speaking of? there is none.

If for one moment I felt you were genuine we could list it all - but you’ve made your mind up Abby and that’s fine.

I stand by the watch science is compelling. Embedded brass particles in the base of the engravings confirmed that for me. The watch has never left the family who brought it to light. Where is the motive here for faking anything?

We can debate the scrapbook all day long but the watch remains whether you like it or not. Add that to all the other circumstantial points and you have a far more compelling suspect than 90% of those named.

[Abby Normal]

That one act of generosity obviously outweighs all of the other circumstantial evidence gathered against him. Good spot RJ.

I wonder if this a spontaneous act of kindness? I mean there would be absolutely no benefit for him in any way would there?

Such a generous man.

what is this circumstantial evidence you keep speaking of? there is none.

[erobitha]

Well, for one thing, he is said to have wielded a wicked soup spoon while living in Norfolk, Va. He killed them with kindness.

This guy was also a pillar of the community. His community work led to a picture taken with First Lady Rosalyn Carter.

[Wickerman]

If this is your best retort, you don't have one, I'm afraid.

Miller's Court was not well-lit. Kelly's room was even less well-lit. The lack of natural light would not have affected the interrogation of something obvious like clothing burnt in the grate, but would not have lent itself to the easy identification of initials having been left on the wall (and elsewhere, by the way). If the police had noticed the initials, they may have made something of them, but there's no obvious reason why they would (they were hardly a typical killer's calling-card in 1888) so you shouldn't use the fiasco of the GSG as a guiding principle around their discovery 'if they were there'.

It just seems like you are trying to defend the indefensible. It is precisely because they were embarrassed by the GSG that any detective worth his salt would have looked for some scribble somewhere so as not to be caught out again.

The only reason why we are able to see those initials and the people there at the time could not was light. The photographer's flash lit-up Kelly's room brightly enough for detail on the wall to be perceived. Why did those who looked at the photographs not notice the initials on the wall? I don't know. Why did no-one notice them until 1992, I don't know. It obviously doesn't mean they weren't there....

But it isn't obvious at all.
What is obvious is what we know, and what we know is the fact no-one made note of any words or initials anywhere in the room.
It was Abberline's duty to make an inventory, so at the very least he would have been responsible for making reference to some letters, words or messages scribbled across the wall.
Your only defense is to say that as Abberline's inventory has not survived then we can't be sure if he made any such notes.
What we can be sure of is, no-one else involved in the case, which includes Officer Dew, has ever made reference to the existence of any such scribble.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The key question, is "Do they?" ha ha

- Jeff

[erobitha]

Well, for one thing, he is said to have wielded a wicked soup spoon while living in Norfolk, Va. He killed them with kindness.

That one act of generosity obviously outweighs all of the other circumstantial evidence gathered against him. Good spot RJ.

I wonder if this a spontaneous act of kindness? I mean there would be absolutely no benefit for him in any way would there?

Such a generous man.

[JeffHamm]

There is a Blackheath in the Midlands. I have a friend who lives there.

Yes…..I have a friend.

The key question, is "Do they?" ha ha

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

There is no evidence of Maybrick being Jack . Again show me some

Well, for one thing, he is said to have wielded a wicked soup spoon while living in Norfolk, Va. He killed them with kindness.

[Iconoclast]

Trouble is if the FM was there, and not just say, bloodstains. The police would almost certainly see it as a definite clue and want it preserved, especially after the debacle of the GSG. Where is the evidence of this ? There isn't any . "I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room. There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace". Abberline for instance.

Not only that but they would have questioned Barnett and Maria Harvey on the lettering IE Did they notice the lettering before the murder. There is no evidence they did. "There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it" Abberline, again.

It is sheer folly to think the police would not mention any drawing of FM , "by whatever means" on the wall if it was fresh and probably by Mary's murderer.

Regards Darryl

If this is your best retort, you don't have one, I'm afraid.

Miller's Court was not well-lit. Kelly's room was even less well-lit. The lack of natural light would not have affected the interrogation of something obvious like clothing burnt in the grate, but would not have lent itself to the easy identification of initials having been left on the wall (and elsewhere, by the way). If the police had noticed the initials, they may have made something of them, but there's no obvious reason why they would (they were hardly a typical killer's calling-card in 1888) so you shouldn't use the fiasco of the GSG as a guiding principle around their discovery 'if they were there'.

The only reason why we are able to see those initials and the people there at the time could not was light. The photographer's flash lit-up Kelly's room brightly enough for detail on the wall to be perceived. Why did those who looked at the photographs not notice the initials on the wall? I don't know. Why did no-one notice them until 1992, I don't know. It obviously doesn't mean they weren't there. What are their significance? Well, James Maybrick wrote four pages of his scrapbook solely about the carnage he committed in Kelly's room, and amongst it he told us "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother". And we can see 'FM' on Kelly's wall, an 'F' on her arm, and her legs appear pushed-up in the form of an 'M'. And that's just what we see from one angle. Who knows where else we would find those initials if we had more photographs? As previously explained, a hoaxer would have to have been singularly inspired to have spotted what no-one else had spotted and then turned that into a clue. It's possible, just not very likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The last I heard, Blackheath is in London. Did it used to be in the midlands?

There is a Blackheath in the Midlands. I have a friend who lives there.

Yes…..I have a friend.

[erobitha]

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

Good for you.