Most ridiculous suspect

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you mean the orange one on the left. There's also a downward looking face (blue) just to the lower right, and an arrow pointing to the blue one to make sure we don't miss it.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Looking closer I see that the first ‘hump’ of the ‘m’ has a solid horizontal line which makes it appear as an ‘A.’ The first line of the second ‘hump’ is more faint and with a small space with no blood which hints that the two ‘humps’ aren’t necessarily connected. The squiggle beneath the second hump is also in as solid lines as the rest of the ‘m’ and with no similarly thick lines anywhere near suggesting to me that the ‘squiggle’ is part of the whole mark. To get an ‘m’ we have to erase that horizontal line and the squiggle.

Also just below the ‘M’ we appear to have the word ‘GET’ written rather clearly all things being considered?

[caz]

'Profiting by former blunders the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to a report that bloody handwriting was on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed to enter the room say they did not observe it, but possibly they were too excited to notice details.'

Anyone want to guess when this was written?

Answers on a saucy postcard.

It means nothing, of course, except that anyone could have speculated, at any time, that the killer might have left some kind of written clue at the scene. It doesn't make it any more likely that he did, but the possibility remains.

I don't believe the diary is in the handwriting of a Maybrick or a Barrett.

IMHO every suspect named at the time or in later years is equally unlikely to have been the ripper. If we had him on the list, I tend to think we'd know him.

The Maybrick watch was scratched before the diary was published and its contents known, and I strongly believe it was scratched long before 9th March 1992, when the diary was first heard about. Someone either suspected Maybrick or wanted to put him in the frame for whatever reason. He is just about the most ridiculous person for anyone to have selected out of thin air to wear Jack's shoes. He should have been easy enough to eliminate in his own right, without the diary's help, but ironically it's the diary itself that has always been used to clear his name.

I wonder how people would have viewed Maybrick if only the watch had emerged.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Of course you agree with him. You agree with him because it’s a point that I’ve made and history clearly shows us that your hobby is having snide digs at me, usually on the subject of Druitt. I re-posted exactly what I said. It’s there in black and white. If you think that the phrase ‘out of hand’ has no meaning I’d suggest that you read this, from a Dictionary of Phrases.



It can’t be clearer.

Your opinion on Druitt isn’t required because it’s riddled with your own personal personal bias.

You favour Kosminski as a suspect. No problem; a fair suspect. But I cant recall Abberline even mentioning him as a suspect do you? A man absolutely central to the investigation into the ripper murders and yet not one word about a suspect that was apparently identified by a major witness in the crime after a police operation to take him to The Seaside Home. So why is it so important that Abberline didn’t think that Druitt was the ripper and yet it’s not important that he doesn’t even make any mention of the suspect that you favour?

yup. and koz was dismissed by by a higher up in the city police, smith i beleive, who said of andersons choice..he only thinks he knows.

[Abby Normal]

Hardly desperate at all Abby, it it too much to ask some concrete evidence that isnt just what other people may have said or written at the time without verification ?
Have you seen the Mrs Sickert letter dated the 6th Sept ? i havent , for all we know it could be the year befor or befor that. Stephen Ryders article doesent mention the year 1888 does it ? So lets see it,? if you can show it to me ill shut up about it .

nah im done here. you and and baron have shown your true colors, calling druitt and lechmere , de facto suspects at that, ridiculous while touting actual ridiculous crackpot suspects like sickert. not worthy of further discussion for me.

[Abby Normal]

'Profiting by former blunders the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to a report that bloody handwriting was on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed to enter the room say they did not observe it, but possibly they were too excited to notice details.'

Anyone want to guess when this was written?

Answers on a saucy postcard.

It means nothing, of course, except that anyone could have speculated, at any time, that the killer might have left some kind of written clue at the scene. It doesn't make it any more likely that he did, but the possibility remains.

I don't believe the diary is in the handwriting of a Maybrick or a Barrett.

IMHO every suspect named at the time or in later years is equally unlikely to have been the ripper. If we had him on the list, I tend to think we'd know him.

The Maybrick watch was scratched before the diary was published and its contents known, and I strongly believe it was scratched long before 9th March 1992, when the diary was first heard about. Someone either suspected Maybrick or wanted to put him in the frame for whatever reason. He is just about the most ridiculous person for anyone to have selected out of thin air to wear Jack's shoes. He should have been easy enough to eliminate in his own right, without the diary's help, but ironically it's the diary itself that has always been used to clear his name.

I wonder how people would have viewed Maybrick if only the watch had emerged.

Love,

Caz
X

oh good lord.

[Wickerman]

'Profiting by former blunders the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to a report that bloody handwriting was on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed to enter the room say they did not observe it, but possibly they were too excited to notice details.'

Anyone want to guess when this was written?

.....

Hey Caz, did that original 'report' ever surface?
This story only appeared in U.S. newspapers that I can see, do you know more than you're letting on?

[Losmandris]

Hello Ike,

As you know I tend to avoid diary debate but this is just something that I’ve always found a little problematical about the letters. It’s simply the way that they are formed. The F looks smaller than the M and also different in style. There’s also a an unusually large gap (imo) between the two letters with, I believe some other ‘marking’ in between them. Now you’ll have to take my word that I’ve never dipped my fingers in blood, but I have dipped them in paint. I’ve done a painting or two that way, and if you dip your finger into paint (or blood) it’s as easy to write neatly and with well formed letters as it is with a pen. I can’t see why the letters are so poorly formed?

Also, why were the letters written so low down on the wall - at the level of the bed? It seems a bit awkward to say the least. Surely he could have found a piece of wall space that was blood-free and written the letters more legibly and in a more easy to see location if the killers intent was to leave a message to be seen?

Strange how they the letters do not appear to there in a better quality picture?

[rjpalmer]

I wonder how people would have viewed Maybrick if only the watch had emerged.

If they were as wise as you, Caz, they would have considered him as "equally unlikely" to have been the Ripper as Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy, Charles Lechmere, William Bury, Jacob Levy, Frank Tumilty, Monty Druitt, George Chapman aka Klosowski, and Aaron Kosminski.

I know because someone told me this only a few posts ago.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strange how they the letters do not appear to there in a better quality picture?

Very strange Tristan.

[rjpalmer]

Abberline dismissed it, and stated that there is absolutely nothing to it.

Baron, Old Chap, I must give you some resistance.

Three caveats. First, Abberline didn't say that there was 'nothing in it.' He said the suspect's suicide was the only reason for connecting him to the murders. Which is not quite the same thing.

Two, Abberline said this while plumping for another suspect that he preferred, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was attempting to diminish the case against MJD, but the context should be considered.

Three, and this is perhaps most relevant, Abberline retired in February 1892, and Macnaghten claimed the 'private' information he received about MJD came some years after he (Macnaghten)was hired at Scotland Yard, so it is not really known if Abberline knew the full case against Druitt.

MJD may or may not have been the Ripper, but the case against him does not implode as easily as some suggest, and, in truth, we know very little about why he may have been suspected.

There were several suicides in and around London in November and December 1888, why did only this one fellow make the radar?

[The Baron]

Baron, Old Chap, I must give you some resistance.

Three caveats. First, Abberline didn't say that there was 'nothing in it.' He said the suspect's suicide was the only reason for connecting him to the murders. Which is not quite the same thing.

Two, Abberline said this while plumping for another suspect that he preferred, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was attempting to diminish the case against MJD, but the context should be considered.

Three, and this is perhaps most relevant, Abberline retired in February 1892, and Macnaghten claimed the 'private' information he received about MJD came some years after he (Macnaghten)was hired at Scotland Yard, so it is not really known if Abberline knew the full case against Druitt.

MJD may or may not have been the Ripper, but the case against him does not implode as easily as some suggest, and, in truth, we know very little about why he may have been suspected.

There were several suicides in and around London in November and December 1888, why did only this one fellow make the radar?

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth"



It amounts for nothing Roger, "absolutely' is the critical word here. The fact that he was found at a time to incriminate him means nothing, thats no evidence in itself at all, and Abberline said he knows ALL about that STORY.

It is no differenat than saying Pink Panter was in London at the time in order to incriminate him.



The Baron

[caz]

Hey Caz, did that original 'report' ever surface?
This story only appeared in U.S. newspapers that I can see, do you know more than you're letting on?

Hi Jon,

I suspect no such report existed - at least not in written form. But I could well imagine individuals reporting their speculation that because a photographer was summoned in the latest case to take crime scene photos, this may have been because the killer had left some clue there on this occasion.

Another, more obvious reason, would simply be that it was easier to photograph Kelly in situ, rather than at the mortuary, as the previous victims had been.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If they were as wise as you, Caz, they would have considered him as "equally unlikely" to have been the Ripper as Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy, Charles Lechmere, William Bury, Jacob Levy, Frank Tumilty, Monty Druitt, George Chapman aka Klosowski, and Aaron Kosminski.

I know because someone told me this only a few posts ago.

The diary makes Maybrick more unlikely than any of those names in my opinion. I was merely wondering about the watch, if the diary hadn't existed.

If that's all you had, with someone's signature in the back, plus the initials of five victims, that person wouldn't have needed anyone else to 'name' him as a ripper suspect, would he? Whoever made the engravings did that for him. But can you, hand on heart, say that you'd have dismissed the signature as the obvious work of a modern hoaxer, if nobody had ever heard of the diary or the Barretts?

[caz]

By the way, those who believe Mike was telling the truth at the Smoke & Stagger, in April 1999, might like to reflect on the fact that he claimed to believe Maybrick was indeed the ripper, and this was why he - Mike - decided to write the diary, to put Maybrick in the frame where he belonged, and persuaded his then wife Anne to go along with this insanity and transfer it by hand into the scrapbook.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

But Mike Barrett could, and did. He had no idea why that was such a daft thing to claim.

I was there - my first meeting - and Keith Skinner kindly read out one of my questions to Mike, asking why the handwriting looks nothing like Maybrick's. Mike replied that he had seen the Will and knew it wasn't written in James's hand. Keith asked him how he knew that, and I can't immediately recall his answer but it was never going to be convincing.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Why would they discern they needed more light? The objective was just to photograph the victim’s body and look at that. In the early years of forensic photography you want to believe they had a full 360 degree grasp of such details?

As being low down I don’t see that as an issue at all. He leaned over the bed and wrote where he was most comfortable. Also if the motive was to be a subtle clue then he perhaps thought lower would be better. Except for some it’s so subtle they can’t even see it.

P.S. Aberline was probably a good copper for the age but he was not Columbo. He was a man and was fallible just like so many of us are.

I would suggest they needed more light to search the room for clues. Sorry but you don't need to be Columbo to realise that if the room is darkened sufficiently you are more likely to miss something.
I have to ask why Maybrick would want to leave a subtle clue if nobody could see it. What would be the point ?
If he wrote the GSG he left it in a place were it was clearly visible. I would suggest he would want to do the same again.

Regards Darryl