One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

I have no idea what I'm on about? There you go again. Read Paul Feldman's book starting page 217.

If you are getting your observations from Paul Feldman, Observer, I would only advise caution. I prefer the real world.

That's BS Caz. Did you really read my post on the subject? Albert saw the marks, as would Dundas, he would be looking for them. As I said, it's part of his job, he'll have looked through a glass at every watch he repaired. You can huff, and you can puff, as is you're want, but there's no way Dundas would have missed those marks, whichever watch he looked at.

Suit yourself, Observer. But if Dundas ever examined the inside surface in question of Albert's watch for scratches [and saw none even under the right light and magnification] it's a pity he recalled and described the wrong watch, because, put simply, this renders his observations irrelevant. If he didn't even know which watch he was being asked about, it doesn't inspire confidence in his powers of observation generally, does it? Not only that, but he got the name of the jeweller wrong [calling him Mr Stewart - his name was Ron Murphy] and also claimed that 'Mr Stewart' asked him about marks relating to Jack the Ripper just 'a month or so' after he - Dundas - had supposedly serviced the watch in 1992, while in reality this could not have been until more than a year had passed.

Murphy, on the other hand, did notice 'several' scratch marks on 'the rear case, inside' of the right watch, while polishing it after Dundas had serviced and returned it. He didn't scrutinise the marks closely so couldn't say exactly what they were, but when Albert showed him what he had discovered a year later he accepted that these could have been the same scratch marks he saw originally, but wouldn't have appreciated their significance, as Albert didn't at first sight.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You know, the inscriptions are that obscure it makes one wonder how Albert Johnston and friends associated them with Maybrick, and Jack The Ripper.

The light from a window apparently highlighted the scratches inside the back as Albert was showing his workmates how to open the back and front. They took the watch to the college's science and maths building and asked a technician to take a look using a microscope. That's when the "I am Jack" and "J Maybrick" were revealed plus a couple of initials on the lower part of the watch. Later that day one of Albert's colleagues, John White, told him he had read about Maybrick and the diary in the Liverpool Echo. He mistakenly had Maybrick burying his wife and children under the floorboards, but mentioned the ripper connection. Albert then returned to the science and maths building where a larger microscope revealed more scratches and initials. The library was Albert's next port of call, where he found a book on JtR after failing to find one on Maybrick.

The name "Maybrick" is plainly seen though, Dundas would not have failed to see that.

Possibly, if he had used a microscope when examining the relevant surface of the right watch. But that would have been over a year earlier, when Maybrick's name was not recent news.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Possibly, if he had used a microscope when examining the relevant surface of the right watch. But that would have been over a year earlier, when Maybrick's name was not recent news.

The watch has played little part in the saga of the Maybrick journal, but like so much about the latter the former is genuinely enigmatic. Neither article quite goes away. Neither is quite killed off by argument nor evidence.

We obviously have a new book coming out on the provenance of the journal. It would be fascinating to know if our old friend the watch plays any role in it.

What I love about the watch is that Maybrick's name is signed in what is clearly the equivalent of Maybrick's hand. It is as if the 'hoaxer' of the watch had learned from the rather blatant 'mistake' of the 'hoaxer' of the journal.

We just can't shake it, can we?

Ike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Which do you think came first?

"An initial here and an initial there . . ." or my 1989 suggestion to Martin Fido and Keith Skinner at a City Darts JtR seminar that in MJK1 initials might be visible on the partition wall?

Four years later, Shirley Harrison's wrote—

"In 1976 Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" reproduced the picture with enough clarity to show that there appeared to be some initials on the wall partition behind Mary Kelly's bed, although they were not pointed out until 1988. The crime researcher Simon Wood mentioned them to Paul Begg."

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Simon,

I'm not remotely bothered, because I don't believe the initials FM were ever really on MJK's wall, and the diary author doesn't claim to have left any there.

I think for myself and don't let Feldy, Shirley or anyone else influence me. I read what's actually in the diary. I don't add, subtract or change anything to suit a particular theory.

It is what it is, regardless of what any of us thinks it is.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I read what's actually in the diary. I don't add, subtract or change anything to suit a particular theory.

It is what it is, regardless of what any of us thinks it is.

That being the case, Caz, what else could "an initial here, an initial there", mean? In the same passage, the diary mentions other items connected to the Kelly murder scene, such as the missing key, "Mr Astrakhan's" red handkerchief and the hat being burned in the grate as a source of light. It's almost certain, therefore, that the diary is deliberately referring to some initials the killer left in full view at the scene; perhaps literally two initials: "an initial here, an initial there". Apart from the "FM" on the wall, it's hard to imagine what else this could have meant.

[Iconoclast]

Apart from the "FM" on the wall, it's hard to imagine what else this could have meant.

Steady on Samster, if you're not careful you'll invite the wrath of Lucifer upon yer heed. Can I just clarify for those who do not know that Sam Flynn is the anti-journalists' Anti-Journalist of 1992-2017, he does not believe that there are the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall?

Even though there are ...

Ike
Defender of Sam Flynn and All Round Decent Bloke

[Iconoclast]

Hi Caz,

Which do you think came first?

"An initial here and an initial there . . ." or my 1989 suggestion to Martin Fido and Keith Skinner at a City Darts JtR seminar that in MJK1 initials might be visible on the partition wall?

Four years later, Shirley Harrison's wrote—

"In 1976 Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" reproduced the picture with enough clarity to show that there appeared to be some initials on the wall partition behind Mary Kelly's bed, although they were not pointed out until 1988. The crime researcher Simon Wood mentioned them to Paul Begg."

Regards,

Simon

Ah yes, my favourite favourite favourite line - Simon Wood, the man who first saw the initials on Kelly's wall when they didn't matter and then couldn't see them again when they did.

Hee hee. 😀

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I don't believe the initials FM were ever really on MJK's wall, and the diary author doesn't claim to have left any there.

Steady on, Cazzykoos - the F and the M are undeniable. Please refer to the colour plates in those arch journal-supporting obsessives Sugden and Marriott.

One letter on her arm
Two letters on her wall
Three letters probably somewhere else
Four

Hee hee (again). ����

PS How cool - you can insert iPad emoticons into your posts! Here's a frying pan with an egg in it. ��

PPS I shouldn't have edited it, I've lost my iPad emoticons!!!! ��

Ikeykoos

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn... does not believe that there are the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall?

Even though there are ...

There aren't.

[Iconoclast]

There aren't.

There are.

Are, are, are ...

[Sam Flynn]

This, sadly, is the kind of thing you get when a killer writes letters in blood on a wall:



In other words, you don't get the Rorschach-style stains we see on Kelly's partition,
which only imagination and/or pareidolia can turn into an "F" and an "M"

[Henry Flower]

This, sadly, is the kind of thing you get when a killer writes letters in blood on a wall:

[ATTACH]18229[/ATTACH]

In other words, you don't get the Rorschach-style stains we see on Kelly's partition,
which only imagination and/or pareidolia can turn into an "F" and an "M"

Absolutely right.

Look again at that alleged FM - not only are there marks very similar in other places, but ask yourself why Mr Maybrick would've written them that small, and in that location. Gareth could also have posted an image of the word PIG written on the Tate-Polanski front door, or 'RISE' on the La Bianca wall, or the message left by the Lipstick Killer, or several others - all of which were left in such a way that they were unmissable and indisputable.

Are we seriously expected to believe that not one officer or detective noticed a message written in blood on the wall next to the victim? That the detectives failed to note the difference between dirt and blood? Or between blood splatter and deliberately formed letters?

I look honestly. I don't see FM there, any more than I see a dog beneath her nightstand, or a mirror atop it, or various scribbled sketches in Sickert's style on the partition door. It's absurd to suppose that a deliberate message would've been left in that position, and would've been indiscernible for a century.

[Kaz]

I look honestly. I don't see FM there, any more than I see a dog beneath her nightstand, or a mirror atop it, or various scribbled sketches in Sickert's style on the partition door. It's absurd to suppose that a deliberate message would've been left in that position, and would've been indiscernible for a century.

I can. Clearly an 'F' and an 'M'

why is this position wrong for you?

[Iconoclast]

I can. Clearly an 'F' and an 'M'

why is this position wrong for you?

I think the answer to that, Kaz ( as I imagine you know), is that those who say the letters aren't there (and protest so painfully that they aren't) realise all too clearly the dangerous conclusion if they don't. If those letters are there, Maybrick was Jack. No debate.

Sam, citing one serial killer's message on a wall does not contradict another's. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you attempted to make your point in this way, though not even vaguely surprised that HF was so quick to agree with you.

Ike