One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

You'll have read the two books by Harrison so you'll know that she covers this point. Expressions do not enter the lexicon immediately - they appear over time once they are well enough established to justify their being documented, so a first appearance of 1934 (or whatever) is no guarantee that the term wasn't in use much earlier.

She offers a reference to a builders merchant using the expression 'one-off' in the mid-1800s though I cannot say for certain that it has been confirmed.

Yes, this is why I was asking. I've been reading "The Inside Story" by Linder, Morris and Skinner and they mention this builders merchant reference but say, to my surprise, that Harrison had never actually seen it.

If Harrison hasn't seen it, who has seen it?

[c.d.]

"The initials of his wife are referenced in the journal as being on Kelly's wall."

What is the exact reference to this in the diary?

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, this is why I was asking. I've been reading "The Inside Story" by Linder, Morris and Skinner and they mention this builders merchant reference but say, to my surprise, that Harrison had never actually seen it.

If Harrison hasn't seen it, who has seen it?

I would have to go back to the books to check it out but I think she had it reported to her by the builders merchants themselves without actually seeing it. I'm a bit rusty on it so may have done her a disservice here.

[Iconoclast]

"The initials of his wife are referenced in the journal as being on Kelly's wall."

What is the exact reference to this in the diary?

c.d.

Quite right, I wasn't paying attention - the journal does not state where the initials were.

By implication, though, the same principle holds - our author wrote 'An initial here, an initial there will tell of the whoring mother' and (lo and behold) there they are in the infamous photograph of Kelly's death scene.

If the journal is a hoax, the hoaxer must have known those letters were there otherwise he or she makes reference to them and (lo and behold) they turn up!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

When people say they see the initials FM on the wall I think what they are really saying is that they see something which resembles those initials. It could simply be that that is the pattern that the blood splatters took and therefore has no other meaning.

c.d.

Old ground, cd - even old ground today, would you believe!

Ike

[c.d.]

Sorry, but there is a big difference between actual initials and what appears to be initials. And even if we are completely certain that they are initials and that those initials are F.M., how do we know that they stand for Florence Maybrick?

c.d.

[David Orsam]

I would have to go back to the books to check it out but I think she had it reported to her by the builders merchants themselves without actually seeing it.

If that is the case, why would she not have wanted to see it for herself?

Has anyone actually seen it?

[Iconoclast]

Sorry, but there is a big difference between actual initials and what appears to be initials. And even if we are completely certain that they are initials and that those initials are F.M., how do we know that they stand for Florence Maybrick?

c.d.

Well, why do you think?

(The issue is not what they stand for but the fact that they are there. This is down to the fact that the journal makes a clear prediction that Florrie's initials would 'tell of the whoring mother' amd - lo and behold - they are there!)

[Iconoclast]

If that is the case, why would she not have wanted to see it for herself?

Has anyone actually seen it?

I wouldn't take my comments too literally for now. I only recall it this way. Sadly, she doesn't have an index in her books so it will take a bit of tracking down.

[c.d.]

Well, why do you think?

(The issue is not what they stand for but the fact that they are there.)

Well are they actually there? People see a human face on Mars but close up imagery reveals that it is just a rock formation. It is misleading to say that they are in fact initials. It would be much more accurate to say that they appear to be initials.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

I wouldn't take my comments too literally for now. I only recall it this way. Sadly, she doesn't have an index in her books so it will take a bit of tracking down.

Well, here's what she says about "one off" in her book "The American Connection":

"Webster's gives its first written appearance as 1925. But it was in the building world that I found what I consider the real answer to my problem. I telephoned Traynors, a long-established building company in Kent, who discovered the phrase lurking in their archives. In 1860, they said, it was used when a new building material was being ordered as a 'special'. A 'one off' was an ornamental brick used in Victorian canals and referred to a unique example or prototype. As I did not have this in writing at the time, I tried to double-check the information for this edition but the firm was no longer in existence and I have been unable to trace their archives".

I can't say that I find this to be entirely satisfactory.

[Iconoclast]

Well are they actually there? People see a human face on Mars but close up imagery reveals that it is just a rock formation. It is misleading to say that they are in fact initials. It would be much more accurate to say that they appear to be initials.

c.d.

So, accepting this, will you accept that it is statistically nigh-on impossible for those letters to appear to be on Kelly's wall (sufficiently clear for many people to see them; sufficiently clear in most examples of the photograph including those of arch-critics of the journal such as Sugden and Marriott) and to simulatneously be referenced in the Maybrick journal?

• Either Maybrick referenced them in his journal because he knew about them because he put them there, or

• A hoaxer saw them in the photograph and used them to backtrack a story to Florence Maybrick, to James Maybrick, to Jack the Ripper.

It matters not whether they are actually the letters 'F' and 'M'. We can never now know either way. What matters is that something like them can be identified in the photograph. This brings us to the two propositions (above) from which we all need to select a position.

I would draw your attention to your copy of Marriott ('The 21st Century Investigation'). He is the very definition of an arch-critic of the journal, and yet he has published the very best copy to date of the 'FM' on Kelly's wall.

Incidentally, I find it of particular interest that the 'M' in the journal bears the same rising second-half as the 'M' on Kelly's wall. Probably just wishful thinking on my part, though, I imagine, despite the fact they clearly both bear this quality. I can save you the effort of your response in accepting that it will be somewhat along the lines of "What claptrap - there's no 'M' and it doesn't have a rising second-half".

PS What you refer to is the 'Elvis in the Toast' principle (see the section in my History vs Maybrick thread). Elvis eventually appears in the toast because so much toast has been made since Elvis first became famous. Same with Che Guevera and clouds, and Christ and mountain ranges. The photograph of Kelly's room is the only one of its type (I exclude the one with her viscera on the bedside table). You can't expect to see Elvis in the toast by chance if you make one slice of toast. And you can't expect to see the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall by chance when you have only one photograph. If they are there, whatever caused them to appear to be there, we are left with only the two options (in bulletpoints, above).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well, here's what she says about "one off" in her book "The American Connection":

...

I can't say that I find this to be entirely satisfactory.

And I agree, it is not satisfactory. I'm sure Shirley Harrison would be the first to concur were she still on this site.

Nothing is proven and nothing is disproven, but if it were to transpire that the term had never been used prior to the 20th century, then the journal is badly wounded indeed, so that is certainly an avenue to pursue.

Equally, if it transpires that it was in use in 1888 then it must surely count for a great deal in favour of the journal's authenticity?

Rather like the long-held view that the journal got it wrong about Michael Maybrick writing lyrics when Livia Trivia eventually demonstrated that he did, it would show once again how remarkably robust the journal is in terms of the facts.

Ike

[Graham]

I don't believe that the Diary is genuine, rather that it's a forgery, but an old forgery; however, re: the phrase "one off", this is old engineering-speak. Most of you probably won't know what I'm talking about, but take say an engineering drawing of the cylinder of a steam-engine. There could well be a sub-drawing, on the same sheet, of a valve, let's say four of which were required for the cylinder. The drawing would clearly state, "four off", i.e., four valves are needed. It, and "one off", are certainly a lot older that 1925 or whenever. Shirley Harrison was quite correct. Excuse me if I'm being too technical for those of you who probably don't know which end to hold a hammer.

Graham

[David Orsam]

It, and "one off", are certainly a lot older that 1925 or whenever.

Is there any evidence to support that statement?