One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

yup. people only see what they want to see.

Have a cheeky little dixie dean at the folowing link. Took me about two minutes to find it on Google:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mary+jane+kelly&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit97bSuPHOAhUJIsAKHcY9DqMQ_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=943#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACRZuCvWoShCwIjivS3dqfaEN40q29qKtcfYdWfYjBpoeh7jRN66dGQnDZfi0vXuRPa4X8xr-4i4UmnQ96vg6u9liRSoSCa9Ld2p9oQ3jEQX4dLnRuRyeKhIJSrb2oq1x9h0RLVCFh2N5Rk8qEglZ9iMGmh6HuBFwLKxy4Yy-PyoSCdE3rp0ZCcNlEWNolcvudYgiKhIJ-LS9e5E9rhcRghkTFC1uEKUqEgnzGv7iLhSadBHcZoemCNlkyCoSCT3q-Dq72WJFEWtARkWNJI8R&q=mary%20jane%20kelly&imgdii=KgRsA-PpM52XcM%3A%3BKgRsA-PpM52XcMR%3A%3BmscO4j8rv2UVaM%3A&imgrc=KgRsA-PpM52XcM%3A

Remember, the letters are on the wall, roughly in the middle of the photograph, pointed to perfectly by the lower part of the very obvious letter 'F' Maybrick carved into Kelly's left arm!

Do you know, I think there could be something in this 'FM' on the wall thing.

And if anyone dares to say they can't see Florrie's initials, the exit door is over there on the right, please take it!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

yup. people only see what they want to see.

Oh, here we go - better still:

http://becuo.com/jack-the-ripper-victims (The version at the very bottom of the page - the one without Kelly's head in it.)

They couldn't make this stuff up!

Ike

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Many thanks.

I have a feeling we've at last nailed down the lid on the Diary coffin, although I have no doubt that thousands will protest.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

they're already beating at my door....they're breaking it down....they are....arrrgh!

Graham

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

Take cover.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNF_hGf627c

Regards,

Simon

[Graham]

Simon,

sad to say. I remember that record. The Stargazers used to be on a truly god-awful BBC radio programme called "Workers Playtime".....I have shivers up my spine....brrrrrrrr.

To be honest, I was thinking more like "Night Of The Living Dead".....

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Hi Graham,

Many thanks.

I have a feeling we've at last nailed down the lid on the Diary coffin, although I have no doubt that thousands will protest.

Regards,

Simon

Well, at least one ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

I knew The Stargazers would creep you out [as my granddaughter used to say].

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Really? I don't see it and never have... sorry

Nope me neither.

[c.d.]

Hello GUT,

Well I do see them. But keep in mind that this was a small apartment not a multi room house. So the question becomes are they really initials on the wall that were somehow missed by the police, the doctors, the photographer and the inquest jurors who visited the site or do they simply give the appearance of initials due to pareidolia resulting from the blood splatters or the photographic process itself? I think the latter is much more probable.

c.d.

[GUT]

Hello GUT,

Well I do see them. But keep in mind that this was a small apartment not a multi room house. So the question becomes are they really initials on the wall that were somehow missed by the police, the doctors, the photographer and the inquest jurors who visited the site or do they simply give the appearance of initials due to pareidolia resulting from the blood splatters or the photographic process itself? I think the latter is much more probable.

c.d.

I can't even see them as hard as I look, but then I can never see those vision puzzles where you have to stare at dots.

I seem to be in good company though since the police of the time obviously didn't see them either.

[c.d.]

Hello GUT,

It would be an interesting experiment to take people who have no knowledge of the case and show them the photograph and ask them if they see anything unusual. Then ask them to take another look and see if they can see any letters. If we go into it (and that is what Casebook members are doing) expecting to see letters are we not being primed to see just that? Not sure. Just a thought.

c.d.

[pinkmoon]

I can see the initials very clearly indeed but as they have been in the public domain since 1976 they can't be used to prove the diary genuine

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

The key went missing soon after the window got broken on 30th October, and so on 9th November the door could not have been locked with the key.

And as the key had gone missing soon after the window got broken on 30th October, Jack the Diarist could not have had the key, and with it he did flee.

Regards,

Simon

On a cursory review, I can't locate anything substantive in Harrison, Feldmen, or even, say, Sugden regarding the known facts around the key so I'm not about to try.

The murderer could have misremembered where he left Kelly's breasts (after all, at least four newspapers said that he had left them on the table) and that he had therefore 'recalled' them as being left on the table in his little memoir, but I don't find it acceptable that he could have recalled taking the key away with him if he didn't so this is a very useful litmus test for the journal.

Personally, I know in my heart of hearts that the facts will not show that he unequivocally did not take the key away with him (as the journal just has the habit of fitting in rather than standing out) but I'd be very interested to hear if anyone feels that an argument can be made that the key unequivocally did not leave the room that early morning with the killer.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Oh, here we go - better still:

http://becuo.com/jack-the-ripper-victims (The version at the very bottom of the page - the one without Kelly's head in it.)

They couldn't make this stuff up!

Ike

As I say, just follow the line predicted by the 'F' Maybrick carved into Kelly's left arm and you'll see the very clearly deliberately-written 'M' (no blood splatters could ever hope to be so unexpectedly articulate). The 'F' to its left is admittedly more vague, but not so vague as it can't be comfortably discerned.

No pareidolia going on here, lads and lasses.

The journal contains a reference to Florrie's initials at the time of the author writing about the carnage in Kelly's room; and then - lo and behold - they turn up in the infamous photograph. This - to iterate my previous point - tells us that either:

1. Maybrick was Jack and he wrote the journal or
2. The journal is a hoax and the idea for it started with the hoaxer becoming aware of those two letters on Kelly's wall.

Now here's a real stretcher case for you: Those two letters were first noted by Simon Wood back in 1988 but - by his own recent confirmation on this very thread - the actual letters themselves had not been discerned. The discernment came about only when Feldman persauded Bill Waddle of the Black Museum at New Scdotland Yard to loan him an original of the photograph so that he could get it blown-up and analysed (by Direct Communications) at which point the letters were clearly identifiable as 'F' and 'M' - in that order, mark you.

And that's where the hoaxer claims fall apart because the letters were only identified after the journal came to light, and yet they are self-evidentally referenced in it. This makes the case for a hoax so much more difficult to sustain.

PS I can't help but note Tempus Omnia Revelat's suggestion that the 'F' carved into Kelly's left arm is accompanied by an 'M' formed from her arm, her chemise and her bent left leg. Pareidolia on this one, perhaps, though very hard to argue with the rather blatant 'F' carved into her arm. It's almost as though Maybrick 'left it in front for all to see', isn't it?



Ike

[GUT]

As I say, just follow the line predicted by the 'F' Maybrick carved into Kelly's left arm and you'll see the very clearly deliberately-written 'M' (no blood splatters could ever hope to be so unexpectedly articulate). The 'F' to its left is admittedly more vague, but not so vague as it can't be comfortably discerned.

No pareidolia going on here, lads and lasses.

The journal contains a reference to Florrie's initials at the time of the author writing about the carnage in Kelly's room; and then - lo and behold - they turn up in the infamous photograph. This - to iterate my previous point - tells us that either:

1. Maybrick was Jack and he wrote the journal or
2. The journal is a hoax and the idea for it started with the hoaxer becoming aware of those two letters on Kelly's wall.

Now here's a real stretcher case for you: Those two letters were first noted by Simon Wood back in 1988 but - by his own recent confirmation on this very thread - the actual letters themselves had not been discerned. The discernment came about only when Feldman persauded Bill Waddle of the Black Museum at New Scdotland Yard to loan him an original of the photograph so that he could get it blown-up and analysed (by Direct Communications) at which point the letters were clearly identifiable as 'F' and 'M' - in that order, mark you.

And that's where the hoaxer claims fall apart because the letters were only identified after the journal came to light, and yet they are self-evidentally referenced in it. This makes the case for a hoax so much more difficult to sustain.

PS I can't help but note Tempus Omnia Revelat's suggestion that the 'F' carved into Kelly's left arm is accompanied by an 'M' formed from her arm, her chemise and her bent left leg. Pareidolia on this one, perhaps, though very hard to argue with the rather blatant 'F' carved into her arm. It's almost as though Maybrick 'left it in front for all to see', isn't it?

[ATTACH]17738[/ATTACH]

Ike

Still can't see them