One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kaz]

Tempus omnia revelat

[Sam Flynn]

If you want to dish out the criticism, you have to be man enough to take it too.

Naysayer!

That's not criticism. It's petty name-calling.

[Iconoclast]

That's not criticism. It's petty name-calling.

Ouch!

[Iconoclast]

So confident, in fact, that he wrote: "I left it there for the fools, but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them?". Now, how did he KNOW that the police would never find the initials, despite leaving the clue "in front for all eyes to see"? How did he know, unless he was writing years, decades after the fact?

I've no idea. I'm guessing he didn't write his journal at the same time. I can live with the slight ambiguity here - not least because he admits that he left it in front for all to see but that they will never find it. He kind of answers your question for you. He believes he left it in front for all to see but that they will never find it. In his opinion, he left a clue in full view but not one 'they' would decipher. If he was referring to the letters F and M in the wall, it does seem strange that he would say that (though he does say it, I didn't make it up, you know!). But maybe this passage was referring to a clue elsewhere. the F on Kelly's arm, and the inarticulate M formed by her legs? Who knows? If you can tell me exactly what he meant, do let me know how you know. Of course, you think it was written by a hoaxer so what exactly is your point, Sammy?

[Joshua Rogan]

I agree entirely Joshua - I thought to post it but assumed I'd be ridiculed so let it go (for now) whilst developing other themes.

I like your thinking, son.

Hey, just because I don't believe the initials were there doesn't mean I can't see how they might have been written if they did exist.

[Iconoclast]

So confident, in fact, that he wrote: "I left it there for the fools, but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them?". Now, how did he KNOW that the police would never find the initials, despite leaving the clue "in front for all eyes to see"? How did he know, unless he was writing years, decades after the fact?

Simpler version, he didn't know anything - it was just how he expressed himself. He believed that his clue would not be uncovered, and 129 years later maybe it still hasn't?

[Sam Flynn]

Quite so....I'd be interested to know if the initials are visible on any versions of the photo prior to 1988 or thereabouts.

Oh, they are, Josh. In Dan Farson's book (1972), the "FM" is much more prominent. Indeed, the photo is so grainy and contrasty that all you can see is the "FM", and the finer-grained details (the other stains/blood-splashes) aren't visible at all. The same is largely true of the image reproduced in Donald Rumbelow's 1975 book, and presumably Stephen Knight's of 1976, although I can't find my copy. In each of these cases, I suspect that the graininess is largely due to the historical limitations of the printing process, rather than the image itself.

Thanks to the home computing revolution, we now have access to hi-res electronic versions of the photo that we can view on-screen, without having to ramp up the contrast to compensate for the shortfalls of printing. In these electronic versions, the "FM" is much less obvious, and the other background stains more obvious, than they were back in the day when a mass-produced book was the only way most folks got to see the MJK1 photo.

Go figure, as they say

[Sam Flynn]

Simpler version, he didn't know anything - it was just how he expressed himself. He believed that his clue would not be uncovered, and 129 years later maybe it still hasn't?

I think he was writing with the benefit of long hindsight, Ike.

[Kaz]

Oh, they are, Josh. In Dan Farson's book (1972), the "FM" is much more prominent. Indeed, the photo is so grainy and contrasty that all you can see is the "FM"......


Go figure, as they say

I figure the letters 'F' and 'M' were written there by James Maybrick.

The others are random marks only visible thanks to later technology.

[Sam Flynn]

I figure the letters 'F' and 'M' were written there by James Maybrick. The others are random marks only visible thanks to later technology.

But the "F" and the "M" are almost as distinct as the other random marks and, what's more, they're in line with, and interspersed with, the other random marks and of approximately the same size - i.e. only two or three inches in height. Furthermore, they would have to have been "written" with an implement somewhat narrower than a man's finger and - here's an interesting thing - the "M" is much darker than the "F", which suggests that the "M" came first, i.e. when there was more blood on the writing implement. By the time the "F" was written, there was less blood on the writing implement, so it appears fainter. Are we to believe that the killer wrote "M" and "F" backwards, from right to left? Perhaps Jack spoke Hebrew afer all.

[Kaz]

But the "F" and the "M" are almost as distinct as the other random marks and, what's more, they're in line with, and interspersed with, the other random marks and of approximately the same size - i.e. only two or three inches in height. Furthermore, they would have to have been "written" with an implement somewhat narrower than a man's finger and - here's an interesting thing - the "M" is much darker than the "F", which suggests that the "M" came first, i.e. when there was more blood on the writing implement. By the time the "F" was written, there was less blood on the writing implement, so it appears fainter. Are we to believe that the killer wrote "M" and "F" backwards, from right to left? Perhaps Jack spoke Hebrew afer all.

You seem to be the expert on the 'LETTERS'

Us in the diary club owe you a


The fact that 'F' and 'M' appear in the original but the others don't surely suggests they're heavier, more purposeful?

Maybe the 'F' was written first but he had less blood on his implement, he mopped up more bloody for the 'M' ?

I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.


I'm sure Ike will be thanking you as he thanked Simon Wood before long...watch this space.

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that 'F' and 'M' appear in the original but the others don't surely suggests they're heavier, more purposeful?

If the initials "FM" had been purposefully written, the "F" should be bolder than the "M", but the opposite is true; the "F" is significantly fainter and less distinct than the alleged "M". It's only by ramping up the contrast on the earlier, printed versions of the photographs that the "F" becomes visible.

If, on the other hand, the "letters" are merely the remnants of blood-spurts, then the "letters" closest to the point where Kelly's throat was cut would be "written" in thicker blood; not only would there have been a greater volume of blood available, but the pressure would be greater initially, tailing off with each passing second. The fact that the "M" is clearer than the "F" is consistent with this explanation; the "F" would have been further away from the blood spraying out of Kelly's right carotid artery, and the pulse would have weakend somewhat, resulting in a lower volume of blood being sprayed onto the wall at that point.

[Kaz]

If the initials "FM" had been purposefully written, the "F" should be bolder than the "M", but the opposite is true; the "F" is significantly fainter and less distinct than the alleged "M". It's only by ramping up the contrast on the earlier, printed versions of the photographs that the "F" becomes visible.

If, on the other hand, the "letters" are merely the remnants of blood-spurts, then the "letters" closest to the point where Kelly's throat was cut would be "written" in thicker blood; not only would there have been a greater volume of blood available, but the pressure would be greater initially, tailing off with each passing second. The fact that the "M" is clearer than the "F" is consistent with this explanation; the "F" would have been further away from the blood spraying out of Kelly's right carotid artery, and the pulse would have weakend somewhat, resulting in a lower volume of blood being sprayed onto the wall at that point.

An initial here an initial there
Will tell of the whoring mother

The fact that in the original picture the ONLY decipherable letters on the wall are an 'F' and an 'M' (as you rightly point out) and the fact theres a clear 'M' on the leg and an 'F' on the arm suggests this was no accident....


what are the chances?

The case for James Maybrick is overrun with 'coincidences' ... you'll concede at least that, Sam?

[Henry Flower]

The fact that in the original picture the ONLY decipherable letters on the wall are an 'F' and an 'M' (as you rightly point out) and the fact theres a clear 'M' on the leg and an 'F' on the arm suggests this was no accident....


what are the chances?

The case for James Maybrick is overrun with 'coincidences' ... you'll concede at least that, Sam?

You're misunderstanding what is meant by 'original picture'. Which is no surprise. Go back and read Sam Flynn's post on the publication history again, and this time try to understand what he's saying. He's saying that the letters appeared originally in heavily manipulated (ie altered) versions of the photo prepared for printing in mass-produced books. But we now have access to much better quality, more faithful reproductions, and in these more faithful renderings we can see that the supposed F and M are just a few vague marks among many other vague marks in the same location.

It's hard to reason with someone who thinks that Gareth was implying that the letters were more visible in "the original".

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that in the original picture the ONLY decipherable letters on the wall are an 'F' and an 'M' (as you rightly point out) and the fact theres a clear 'M' on the leg and an 'F' on the arm suggests this was no accident....

You're missing the point. Those letters are only obvious if you turn up the contrast to prepare the image for printing and, in doing so, the finer details on the original picture are lost. In other words, what appear in Dan Farson, Don Rumbelow, Stephen Knight's books are NOT the original images; they are copies of the original, formatted appropriately so as to show up reasonably well in a mass-printed book. With modern technology, we are able to see finer detail that would not have been visible in a 1970s paperback; those finer details show (a) that the "F" is much weaker than the "M"; and (b) there are other apparent "letters" occuping the same stratum on Kelly's partition.

As to the "M" on the leg; what we've got there is a combination of detached, smudged fingerprints (almost certainly down to the killer's gripping Kelly's stockinged leg with his left hand at some point) and an apparent stab-wound through the stocking into the calf (the latter forming the downstroke of the alleged "M"). As to the "F" on her arm, surely you don't mean the hacked wounds encircling the left forearm? That's not an "F" at all; besides, surely he'd have written an "F" and an "M" in the same place using the same technique, instead of writing a smudged "M" on her right leg carving an "F" into her left arm. The whole idea is absurd.