One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

Thirty years ago, I pointed out some initials on Kelly's wall that weren't there, and was content to admit I had been mistaken.

A few years later the profitable Ripper machine cranked into action. The Diary was born, and my mistake became the initials "FM."

Today you're doing exactly the same thing I did, pointing out the existence of something which isn't there. The only difference is that you're insisting on the basis of absolutely zero evidence that the initials really are there — that you're right and everybody else is mistaken.

The time has come to admit that the horse you're flogging is dead.

[The Baron]

Thirty years ago, I pointed out some initials on Kelly's wall that weren't there, and was content to admit I had been mistaken.

A few years later the profitable Ripper machine cranked into action. The Diary was born, and my mistake became the initials "FM."

Today you're doing exactly the same thing I did, pointing out the existence of something which isn't there. The only difference is that you're insisting on the basis of absolutely zero evidence that the initials really are there — that you're right and everybody else is mistaken.

The time has come to admit that the horse you're flogging is dead.

This is an honorable man, and a great researcher, we don't see this often, he could have insisted the initials were there, because, after all, this was his own idea and the daughter of his thoughts, but he chose to be the honest and admirable Simon Wood we all love and respect.


Hat off to you Sir!



The Baron

[MrBarnett]

This is an honorable man, and a great researcher, we don't see this often, he could have insisted the initials were there, because, after all, this was his own idea and the daughter of his thoughts, but he chose to be the honest and admirable Simon Wood we all love and respect.


Hat off to you Sir!



The Baron

He is indeed. I’m not so convinced you are a sincere one.

[c.d.]

I think we need to clarify. Are we talking about F.M. initials on the wall or what appear to be initials? I have certainly seen what appears to be initials in certain photographs posted on this site. But I think they are right up there with Jesus appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich. But I certainly would not say that there is nothing there.

c.d.

[erobitha]

First, this is an image that was posted here in this thread by one of the diary defenders, I downloaded it from here, and it was only 233x165 pixels, and only 71 KB, yes, very poor, it is more poor than one can ever imagine, the image of Kellys I posted earlier is 1324×1506 pixels and 487 KB!


Here is the photograph:






Then I will cut two small letters from the image above and will post the smaller image here, it is very small, one can hardly recognise the two letters, it is only 18x15 pixels, and only 1 KB , yes only 1KB!! :





Now, I will blow-up this little thing x100 times!! Yes, one hundred time bigger, it will now become 1800x1500 pixels, and 493 KB!






Can you see the two small letters now or not?!

Did we lost them ?! Did they turn into 2 different things ?!

Of course not, because we have letters here, so we were able to see them clearly, but if you don't have anything, well, you will find nothing!






The Baron

The letters were clear to read in the first instance, it is not from that era using the same processes and there are no lighting issues.

Another invalid point.

[Iconoclast]

I think we need to clarify. Are we talking about F.M. initials on the wall or what appear to be initials? I have certainly seen what appears to be initials in certain photographs posted on this site. But I think they are right up there with Jesus appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

You are absolutely right - we should clarify your first point because it is actually the nub of the debate. It is not a debate about whether those initials 'are' there or whether they are 'not' there, as you say it is about whether they appear to be there. Now I am the most guilty of stating that they 'are' there, and I imagine that this is borne of feeling the weight of defending the appearance of them. Nevertheless, I ought to remember to qualify my claims each time because I am - indeed - claiming that there is extremely strong evidence that Florence Maybrick's initials appear to be on Mary Kelly's wall.

Now we get to your opinion on what appears to be letters and you are perfectly right to state it and perfectly entitled to hold it: you believe that it is a Jesus in the Toast moment and that's fine with me, even if I do not see it as a Jesus in the Toast moment. You do not appear to be saying that it is unequivocally pareidolia but - by implication - I'm sure that's what you are thinking and that is your right. As your post was as balanced as I've seen for some time, I'd like to think you wouldn't cross that Rubicon and argue that your opinion was unequivocal. Obviously, that would shift your opinion into a claim and then we have the whole burden of proof issue rearing its head again.

I find it extremely frustrating when posters say the initials are 'not' on Kelly's wall, but actually I should give them the benefit of the doubt and imagine that they are making the same mistake that I make in that they are actually claiming that the initials do not appear to be on Kelly's wall; but even that position feels insincere because most people can eventually make out the same Jesus in the same piece of toast, especially if shown where He appears to be, so it is my opinion that their claims to be unable to see the letters may well come from a very biased place.

But I certainly would not say that there is nothing there.

And I would accept that any day of the week, even those with a Y in them, because that is the intellectually honest position to take. I feel strongly that the initials are there but I can't say unequivocally that they are there because of Florence Maybrick's indiscretions because that would be a claim which carried a burden of proof and I do not have the proof (and, again, I know I have fallen foul of this many times before, perhaps borne of frustration at having to police counter-claims which also carry a burden of proof).

What I would say is that the Victorian scrapbook appears to make unequivocal reference to Florence Maybrick's initials being left somewhere in Mary Kelly's room, and I would also say that her initials appear to be on Kelly's wall (and an 'F' carved into her arm). Finally, I would therefore conclude that if James Maybrick were not Jack the Ripper and/or those initials are a Jesus in the Toast moment, then yet another miracle has slipped its obfuscating way into this most obfuscating of tales.

I would also accept that the letter 'F' on Kelly's wall could easily be misunderstood as an 'E' (as I believe it was initially - pardon the pun - interpreted as being) and that in truth we would probably have struggled to identify the shape that looks like an 'F' (or an 'E' if that is your tipple) had it not been for its association with a much more marked 'M' which - conveniently - has the same rising second-half so redolent of the Victorian scrapbook. Now, did those initials simply appear to be there by chance alone and a hoaxer built an entire hoax from that first base, or were they put there by Jack the Ripper who was James Maybrick? Well, you decide, dear readers (but, remember, unless you can provide unequivocal proof of anything, you are speaking from the protected zone - the safe place - we call 'opinion').

Your post was a refreshing glass of Highland Spring in a Sahara of wind, sand, and lots and lots of hot air, c.d..

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Thirty years ago, I pointed out some initials on Kelly's wall that weren't there, and was content to admit I had been mistaken.

A few years later the profitable Ripper machine cranked into action. The Diary was born, and my mistake became the initials "FM."

Today you're doing exactly the same thing I did, pointing out the existence of something which isn't there. The only difference is that you're insisting on the basis of absolutely zero evidence that the initials really are there — that you're right and everybody else is mistaken.

The time has come to admit that the horse you're flogging is dead.

I will accept that 'the horse I'm flogging is dead' at the moment that I can no longer see Florence Maybrick's initials in any version of that infamous photograph or when someone makes a convincing argument to explain how they appear to be there so astonishingly conveniently for our shoddy hoaxer when the evidence shows unequivocally that they were not. By then I may well end up being the horse itself as it doesn't appear to be happening any day soon.

By the way, if someone says the evidence points one way and 'everyone else' (a slight exaggeration!) says it doesn't, does history do tell that the former is always wrong or that very often the latter were blinkered, biased, closed-minded naysayers?

Perhaps you can provide some clarification here?

Quoting from the 1994 revision of The Jack The Ripper A-Z:
“In 1988 he [Simon Wood] drew attention to the apparent presence of letters traced on the wall in the police photograph of Mary Jane Kelly’s body: a concept heavily exploited in The Diary of Jack the Ripper, both book and video.”

What you do not say is how soon after 1988 you were content to admit you had been mistaken – and to whom you had admitted your error of interpretation (an error so familiar to everyone now who has no problem seeing what appear to be Florrie's initials where you saw some then miraculously saw none again like someone letting a tiger out of its cage and later convincing themselves they hadn't after the carnage started)?

In January 1993 (prior to the publication of Shirley Harrison’s original book) your observations were still being seriously discussed by Martin Fido and Paul Begg – two of the consultants on Shirley Harrison’s book and two of the authors of The Jack The Ripper A-Z (I think you'll find this in Lord Orsam's drainpipe).

Still not explained is how Mike Barrett learned of your observation but I guess that's not your challenge to overcome?

Did Mike, I wonder, independently of you (obviously - no accusations of collusion here) study the crime scene photograph of Kelly’s room (from where the entire hoax could have found its moment of inception)? Again, that's not a challenge you can be expected to answer for, though I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts as to how the hoaxer could have manipulated either your original claims or else came to the same conclusion that you originally came to and decided to pursue it even though - on second look - the initials weren't actually there at all.

By the way, Yabs asked:

Was your suggestion publicised anywhere around that time so that the forger may have seen it?

Do you - or indeed anyone else - know the answer to this question?

Ike

[The Baron]

The letters were clear to read in the first instance

Gotcha!


So the letters on Kelly's wall were not clear to read in
the first instance !!!!


He admitted it!

No further question.




The Baron

[Iconoclast]

The letters were clear to read in the first instance, it is not from that era using the same processes and there are no lighting issues.

Another invalid point.

Hi ero b,

I wonder if - by 'clear to read' - you meant that they were 'far more likely to be clear to read' due to the nature of their recording (ink on paper) and the technology which photographed them?

I'm just asking in order to pre-empt any facile attempts which may be made to take advantage of any tenuous ambiguity in your expression.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

Hi ero b,

I wonder if - by 'clear to read' - you meant that they were 'far more likely to be clear to read' due to the nature of their recording (ink on paper) and the technology which photographed them?

I'm just asking in order to pre-empt any facile attempts which may be made to take advantage of any tenuous ambiguity in your expression.

Cheers,

Ike

Exactly.

You have far more patience than I do debating with someone who feels emojis are valid forms of intellectual expression.

He clearly knows the point I was making but prefers the disingenuous approach to look for some kind misrepresentation of what I had written.

Thankfully this forum still has posters who are not as disingenuous as he is. I have faith in readers abilities to draw their own judgments from what they see - written or not.

[Harry D]

We are predisposed to seeing 'order in chaos'. Looking a the photograph of the alleged "F M", I can also see an "H" and an "O". But I would not have seen any of these letters if I hadn't been forced to focus on that specific part of the wall.

Perhaps there was some faded graffiti from a previous tenant or I'd say it's more likely to be simple pareidolia.

Also, doesn't "an initial here, an initial there" imply that the initials were placed in different locations rather than alongside one another?

[c.d.]

You would think that in light of the GSG the police would have been instructed to look for any type of message. Yet they never mentioned the initials, nor did the photographer, nor did the inquest jurors who were taken there. If the initials are actually there it would seem to be more of an inside joke by Maybrick as opposed to a taunting clue left for everyone to see and ponder.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

We are predisposed to seeing 'order in chaos'.

Pareidolia is a fact of human life (presumably sentient life) but be careful though Harry because there is a great deal of chaos and not always order to bring to it.

Looking a the photograph of the alleged "F M", I can also see an "H" and an "O".

I'm not surprised. There's no reason to think the wall was a completely blank slate upon which 'F' and 'M' appeared.

But I would not have seen any of these letters if I hadn't been forced to focus on that specific part of the wall.

Obviously. I wasn't expecting neon lights either.

Perhaps there was some faded graffiti from a previous tenant or I'd say it's more likely to be simple pareidolia.

It may well be.

Also, doesn't "an initial here, an initial there" imply that the initials were placed in different locations rather than alongside one another?

And maybe that's exactly what James Maybrick did. We only had the one photograph for a room of four side, a ceiling, and a floor. Obviously there's the second photograph of the table but that is unlikely to yield any clues. Even if it were only to refer to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, I don't think the way it is phrased has to be taken to its literal extremes. It's up to james Maybrick what he felt was 'right' or 'wrong' about his little rhyme. It was for his eyes only so he got to make all the rules about what worked and what didn't.

[Scott Nelson]

Thank goodness the photographer had the camera elevated enough to capture the initials, which were almost obscured by the edge of the bed. If written there by her killer, wouldn't it have been an awkward process, squatting down in the pool of blood on the floor behind the bed to write -- 2/12 feet above the floor, or so? Why not write them at head level, above the headboard or some other prominent location? And if he got his shoes bloodied by doing the former, as he undoubtedly would, where were the footprints?

[erobitha]

Thank goodness the photographer had the camera elevated enough to capture the initials, which were almost obscured by the edge of the bed. If written there by her killer, wouldn't it have been an awkward process, squatting down in the pool of blood on the floor behind the bed to write -- 2/12 feet above the floor, or so? Why not write them at head level, above the headboard or some other prominent location? And if he got his shoes bloodied by doing the former, as he undoubtedly would, where were the footprints?

Firstly, the gap between the bed and the wall (according the rather brilliant RichardH) is extremely narrow. https://jtr3d.com

Secondly, we have no idea if the photographer moved the bed to take the table shot or how his camera was setup. This diagram suggests the camera was balanced on a pillow.

Lastly, JtR could have done the daubing by simply reaching from across the bed on top of Kelly to the partition door. Why does he have to be kneeling / squatting?