One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kaz]

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.

I concede, you're the expert on the letters that're not there

[Henry Flower]

The implication - in case you're struggling - being that early paperbacks had what appeared to be an F and an M on the partition wall, in a location where it would strange and awkward to write anything. Subsequently the claim was made by the diary forger that the killer Maybrick had left his wife's initials at the scene. But now, with access to more faithful copies of the photo we can see that there really is no F or M on the wall.

In other words, the diary writer used a bad early reproduction, interpreted what he saw, and we can now see that he was wrong.

[Henry Flower]

One mustn't forget that we're dealing with people who think that Maybrick spent half his time in Miller's Court writing or arranging or carving Fs and Ms into her arms, her legs, her posture, her chemise, the wall - and that seasoned detectives missed all of this.

And they also think it entirely reasonable that having left so many initials written in blood or carved into flesh, the diarist would write that the police would never find these clues, the fools.

The police would never find them, but a century later Kaz can see them everywhere....

And this doesn't give Kaz pause at all.... Kaz the true believer just retreats into sniping sarcasm.....

Good luck Kaz.

[Sam Flynn]

In other words, the diary writer used a bad early reproduction, interpreted what he saw, and we can now see that he was wrong.

Indeed and, given that these early reproductions only attained wide circulation from 1972 onwards, it gives us a reasonable "no-earlier-than" date for the diary's composition.

[Kaz]

In other words, the diary writer used a bad early reproduction, interpreted what he saw, and we can now see that he was wrong.

What was wrong with what he saw?

Are you saying the markings that look like an 'F' and an 'M' are not there?


Apologies, I'll try and curb my sarcasm

[Kaz]

Indeed and, given that these early reproductions only attained wide circulation from 1972 onwards, it gives us a reasonable "no-earlier-than" date for the diary's composition.

Where would you stand if the new book proves beyond doubt that the ink was applied many years earlier?

[Henry Flower]

What was wrong with what he saw?

Are you saying the markings that look like an 'F' and an 'M' are not there?


Apologies, I'll try and curb my sarcasm

That's precisely what I'm saying. Looking at a good quality, unmanipulated reproduction there is simply no F at all, and a series of more or less vertical marks that are almost certainly blood splatter or drips. If you were seeing this for the first time, fresh, without the earlier manipulated reproductions that misled the diary forger, and without the diary having having primed to look for an F and an M there, you simply wouldn't see them.

Another thing to consider is that the bed obscures our view below a certain point. We don't see the bottom of the 'letters'. We know there was a large pool of blood down there on the floor. I'd be willing to bet that the marks that you interpret as the letter M actually continue down lower, trickling down the wall further, and ending up looking nothing at all like an M.

[Sam Flynn]

Are you saying the markings that look like an 'F' and an 'M' are not there?

The "F" only looks like an "F" if the contrast is manipulated. The version of the image used in the books of the 1970s were based on the negative found by Don Rumbelow in the late 1960s, which apparently hadn't been particularly well looked-after. This image, known as MJK1, is very contrasty, and the prints taken from it for publication even more so, to the extent that some features (like the "F") are artificially exaggerated, and other genuine features were obliterated on the printed page.

A different version of the photo, referred to as MJK2, turned up in 1988, along with some important photographs and documents. MJK2 is of better resolution than MJK1 and much cleaner, i.e. it has fewer scratches and other signs of damage/degeneration. MJK2 still shows the "M", but the alleged "F" is barely discernible, if at all. What we do see, however, are more fine-grained stains (perhaps blood splashes) elsewhere on the partition, none of which are apparent in MJK1.

You can see MJK2 at http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg

[Henry Flower]

Where would you stand if the new book proves beyond doubt that the ink was applied many years earlier?

I can't speak for Sam, but for myself, as I've said before, I'm not determined that it must not be Maybrick. I don't have any emotion invested in this. If indisputable evidence that was strongly supportive of the diary came along, that would have to be taken into account and things would have to be reexamined. I believe that's how normal, rational people act: if their assumptions or their reasoning are shown by new evidence to be wrong they welcome the advances in knowledge and change their position accordingly. There's no shame in that. It's like I said, this shouldn't be Diary City vs Naysayers United. We all want the truth.

Regarding the initials, IF evidence showed that Maybrick wrote the diary, and killed the victims, I still would not be able to see those initials in the best reproductions. I can't pretend to see what I just don't see.

[Kaz]

You can see MJK2 at http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg

I can still see the 'F' and 'M' (albeit fainter)

And I can see the 'F' on the arm and the 'M' on the leg alot clearer

[Sam Flynn]

I can still see the 'F' and 'M' (albeit fainter)

What about the "W"s, the "H" and the two "I"s?

And I can see the 'F' on the arm and the 'M' on the leg alot clearer

There is NO "M" or "F" on the leg and arm, for reasons I've already given, and there's certainly no "FM" on either.

If there is an "F" on the arm, it's upside down and back to front, for God's sake.

[caz]

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.

Yes, I know it's hard to imagine, Gareth.

Yet many people find it as easy as falling off a log to imagine the words actually used in the diary could refer to two bloody marks which appear together on a wall behind Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Ramping up the contrast levels and playing around with them to make things clearer on MJK2, I was able to 'see' the following.

Needless to say, though these marks exist on the photo (which isn't to say they existed on the wall, even) they only become letters when my brain interprets them. I've 'seen' not one but two 'CM's - and I don't think Charles Manson had a hand in this murder.

As Sam F has already shown, this is an easy thing to do. Even the darkest splatter nearest the throat, the alleged 'M' doesn't really look that much like an M the closer you look at it. And the F? It's just not there.

[caz]

The lines of the "M" and "Y" aren't even joined up...

...Besides, it beats me why anyone would smear a badly-written and indistinct pair of initials...

I detect the hand of Michael Barrett in this...

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

If there is an "F" on the arm, it's upside down and back to front, for God's sake.

From our view point...yes. it is.

I'm covered in bloody bruises thanks to falling off this log so often