Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Of course it is thoroughly implausible the killer did both - I mean that would make no sense at all would it?

    Why would he leave FM on the wall and and F carved in the arm of Kelly?

    RJ once again killing it stone dead.

    *Note: This post may contain sarcasm
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
      Hi RJ
      To me it also reads like the writer is referring to an initial left on her body, he goes on to wonder if he can carve his rhyme on the flesh of a victim in the next sentence.
      Yabs, why on earth would you say that?

      Do you not realise that RJ Palmer has already told you that there was no 'F' on Kelly's arm - it was defensive wounds, for goodness sake (remarkably articulate ones, albeit); and there is no 'FM' on Kelly's wall (you just have to accept that one - unless the wall fought back too).*

      *This sarcasm malarkey appears to be catching ...
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
        Of course it is thoroughly implausible the killer did both - I mean that would make no sense at all would it?

        Why would he leave FM on the wall and and F carved in the arm of Kelly?

        RJ once again killing it stone dead.

        *Note: This post may contain sarcasm
        Or leave 'F' and 'M' or 'F' or 'M' somewhere else in the room too, just not handily-placed this time for the camera!

        You know, ero b, I genuinely (95% to 99%) believe you may have hit the nail on the head here ...

        Ike
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
          I think the F on most reproductions of the photo is very ambiguous.
          I can see what looks to be an M but I’m not convinced that it isn’t just blood splatter on woodgrain.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	D2C9586B-B6CC-4006-8A99-2373617F889F.jpeg
Views:	142
Size:	6.8 KB
ID:	771948 Click image for larger version

Name:	6B65061A-3321-4CF1-9A6E-DA0AC71617DB.jpeg
Views:	144
Size:	154.2 KB
ID:	771949 Click image for larger version

Name:	A24BFA25-FAEB-4A17-81B7-A06252582D5C.jpeg
Views:	149
Size:	15.3 KB
ID:	771950 Some timber has all sorts of shapes and patterns, lines that could be seen to form an M are quite common.
          You make a fair point, Yabs, regarding natural grains in wood. No argument there. Do we think that may explain the very clear 'M' on Kelly's wall or is it possible that this is an example of something else?
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Hi Simon.

            I no longer wish to engage with the diary crowd (about the diary, that is--I'm fine discussing sane matters with them), and wouldn't bother posting this, but it appears that your mind needs to be set at ease.
            You no longer wish to engage over a smoking gun that you haven't been able to put out? Therefore the point is 'insane'? I understand that Florence's initials on Kelly's wall are a nightmare for the hoax crowd, but does your cognitive dissonance literally just deny them in order to continue to disbelief the possible authenticity of the scrapbook or do you at least have some form of Apologetics to explain them away? To date, you have offered only what? "They aren't there and anyone who says they are is a wind-up merchant and an arse"?

            As Harry points out, no one would refer to initials side-by-side on a backwall as 'an initial here, an initial there.'
            Damn, of course, you're right, we know exactly how every human being who has ever lived has also thought, so we'll just accept that one as a given. "I wouldn't have said it that way, not even to facilitate a rhyme - poets must be absolutely literal and correct in their descriptions of their experiences".

            "Her initial there." Single, not plural: Her initial. Not initials. F for Florrie.

            He also tells us where he left it: "in front for all eyes to see." He even underlines 'front.'
            Of course, you typed that and then thought "Damn, he did leave an 'F' in front for all to see! Damn damn damn. I'll need to come up with another dismissal. Oh, I'll just say it's 'defensive wounds'" because that's really very likely indeed - that the only such wound on view should be that of her initial. It's possible - so I can't properly dismiss it - but it takes the concept of stretching to its outer limits (and you know it, RJ).

            What looks like an inverted F carved on Kelly's forearm, is, in reality, a defensive wound, or a series of defensive wounds, but it looked like the initial F to Mike.
            And can we take this as the only possible interpretation of why she has an 'F' on her arm? It's an argument so well-made that no other is possible?

            And please recall that it was none other than the renowned Ripperologist Mike Barrett who first pointed out to the world that an 'M' could be found carved in the cheeks of Kate Eddowes. Having once written word puzzles for a living, Barrett couldn't help dropping clues for the kiddies who couldn't figure out what he had meant.
            OMG, RJ, you are borderline claiming that Mike Barrett put the 'V' marks on Eddowes' face and the 'F' on Kelly's arm! I know you aren't, but it seems to be heading that way. Mike Barrett created some puzzles 'for a living' (would this be called a 'living' or was that slipped in to make your case sound stronger?) therefore he was the perfect person to spot things about the case that had never been spotted before, like which is the line of blood the fly should take to avoid the spider, et cetera.

            Thus 'an initial here, an initial there' doesn't refer to 'FM' on Kelly's backwall. It's an M at Hanbury Street or another M at Mitre Square, and an 'F' at Miller's Court.

            An initial here and an initial there.
            You're as good at this as Mike Barrett was, you know, RJ - well done! Can I suggest you submit this one to a kiddies' magazine?

            Thus, I am personally confident that Barrett wasn't referring to non-existent marks on the back wall; this was just Feldman's wrong assumption.
            Careful about expressing confidence, RJ - the mere act of it can convey your insincerity in spades, apparently.

            Once again, I am forced to police the inane logic that passes here for commentary ...
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Clearly, I was wrong. Tom's pretzel logic CAN make the back wall 'in front for all eyes to see.'

              Drats, foiled again!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                I think the F on most reproductions of the photo is very ambiguous.
                I can see what looks to be an M but I’m not convinced that it isn’t just blood splatter on woodgrain.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	D2C9586B-B6CC-4006-8A99-2373617F889F.jpeg
Views:	142
Size:	6.8 KB
ID:	771948 Click image for larger version

Name:	6B65061A-3321-4CF1-9A6E-DA0AC71617DB.jpeg
Views:	144
Size:	154.2 KB
ID:	771949 Click image for larger version

Name:	A24BFA25-FAEB-4A17-81B7-A06252582D5C.jpeg
Views:	149
Size:	15.3 KB
ID:	771950 Some timber has all sorts of shapes and patterns, lines that could be seen to form an M are quite common.
                I think you are on the money with this. Marks on that wall are most likely a mix of natural patterns, patterns picked out by deterioration of the underlying lathe and plaster (which has strong vertical and horizontal structure) partition, damp, preexisting stains etc.

                Yet to hear anything like a sensible explanation of why these supposed 'letters' weren't seen at the time. The diary club will have to do better than 'too dark'. If it was light enough to make out blood on the wall and floor it was light enough to see letters. If it was that dark they would have had lamps or candles. Kelly must have had candles, she did live there after all.

                Whole thing is a house of cards, built on a house paper, built on a house of straw.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  I think you are on the money with this. Marks on that wall are most likely a mix of natural patterns, patterns picked out by deterioration of the underlying lathe and plaster (which has strong vertical and horizontal structure) partition, damp, preexisting stains etc.

                  Yet to hear anything like a sensible explanation of why these supposed 'letters' weren't seen at the time. The diary club will have to do better than 'too dark'. If it was light enough to make out blood on the wall and floor it was light enough to see letters. If it was that dark they would have had lamps or candles. Kelly must have had candles, she did live there after all.

                  Whole thing is a house of cards, built on a house paper, built on a house of straw.
                  Lathe and plaster?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    Thus, I am personally confident that Barrett wasn't referring to non-existent marks on the back wall; this was just Feldman's wrong assumption.
                    From Keith Skinner (unprompted this time):

                    Martin [Fido], Paul Begg and I were commissioned by Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith to act as consultants for The Diary of Jack The Ripper in the summer of 1992. It was agreed that rather than having 3 JTR consultants I would help Shirley with the Maybrick research. Paul and Martin's detailed internal reports, compiled before Paul Feldman joined the project, make it quite clear they are referring to and discussing initials on the wall of Kelly's room. Martin makes an annotated footnote (124) after An initial here and an initial there...

                    "MF - I can make out a quite definite M above Mary's right arm in the photo of her corpse, and could persuade myself that the preceding smudge was an F if pushed. Though I'd also suspect something like an A above what I take to be her liver."

                    "PB - I, too, can see the M. Also at the top of the picture above the M there seems to be the word George. Also, up and to the left of the M I can see a very clear 4 followed by what could be 8 or 0. I believe Kelly was murdered 40 days after the double event. I don't know whether to attach any significance to the latter, but it does suggest that the murderer wrote on Kelly's unit. A George features in the Journal as JM's dearest friend."

                    In 'The Final Chapter' pp 63-64 Paul Feldman refers to a visit he made to Direct Communication Designs in Chiswick in 1993 taking with him the original MJK photograph(s) loaned to him by Bill Waddell, the then Curator of Scotland Yard's Crime Museum and which had been returned to Scotland Yard circa 1987-1988.

                    The essential point for Roger Palmer to understand is that if he is correct and Barrett
                    [or whoever wrote the scrapbook] wasn't referring to non existent marks on the back wall of Kelly's room, then not only did Paul Feldman incorrectly assume he was but so too did Martin Fido and Paul Begg.

                    Ike

                    PS I am struck by the 40 days between the double event and Mary Kelly's murder. I haven't checked Paul's facts, and we know Excel won't help, so I'll accept that he did his sums and was correct [I've just realised that it's obviously 40 days - the whole of October plus nine days in November, durhh]. I raise it because 40 does appear in the GSG ("for nothing" - and, yes, I know that I place a different interpretation on this in my brilliant Society's Pillar but both interpretations are permissible simultaneously in the best of all possible worlds); and also in the 'Philadelphia' postcard of mid-October 1888 in which the author claims "I will let you here [sic] from me before long with a little more cutting and Ripping I said so and I fancy I will make it 40 on account of the slight delay in operations". The scrapbook makes no suggestion that Maybrick was in the US in October 1888 (indeed, it says that he was ill) but it's an interesting possibility that he was indeed out there and had worked out from his diary of future events that the early hours of Nov 9 1888 would provide him with his best chance to strike again. As I say, the tone of the scrapbook really speaks against this, but you just never know when you open your mind up to the possible rather than mire it in the world of that which has been commonly-agreed to have been true.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Hi Iconoclast,

                      I see you're not letting go of this nonsense.

                      Regarding your first question in Post #7277. As I was mistaken, and the initials were not there in 1989, how could they have "mysteriously disappeared" by the mid-1990s?

                      As to your second question, I did not. If anyone published the former, the information did not come from me.

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Iconoclast,

                        I see you're not letting go of this nonsense.

                        Regarding your first question in Post #7277. As I was mistaken, and the initials were not there in 1989, how could they have "mysteriously disappeared" by the mid-1990s?

                        As to your second question, I did not. If anyone published the former, the information did not come from me.

                        Simon
                        For those who are wondering, Simon is referring to my questions which follow:

                        I'd like to know - and presumably the best man for the job here is Simon himself - exactly when did he realise the initials he had identified in the late 1980s had mysteriously disappeared again in the early to mid 1990s, please. A related question is can he recall whether he made any attempt to notify authors who had published the former that the latter had become the case?
                        Now, Simon, I'd still like you to answer the first question (which I will re-phrase to avoid what appears to be a sensitivity on your part): When exactly did you realise that you were wrong in thinking there were initials on Kelly's wall?

                        I'll make this simple for you if it helps - let's make it multiple choice:

                        A) Before they helped to link the Victorian scrapbook to James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper, or
                        B) After you realised it and therefore grasped the enormity of what you'd done.

                        Many thanks,

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • If I ever want to be patronised, I'll hire a professional.

                          "When exactly did you realise that you were wrong in thinking there were initials on Kelly's wall?"

                          Later that same day.
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            If I ever want to be patronised, I'll hire a professional.

                            "When exactly did you realise that you were wrong in thinking there were initials on Kelly's wall?"

                            Later that same day.
                            Reminds me of Mrs Merton’s question to Debbie McGee, ‘What was it that first attracted you to multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?’

                            Not making a point, just injecting a bit of humour.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Reminds me of Mrs Merton’s question to Debbie McGee, ‘What was it that first attracted you to multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?’

                              Not making a point, just injecting a bit of humour.
                              One of the funniest bits of comedy ever, MrB - loved it!
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                If I ever want to be patronised, I'll hire a professional.

                                "When exactly did you realise that you were wrong in thinking there were initials on Kelly's wall?"

                                Later that same day.
                                Okay, though I think it is rather rich of you to suggest that my post was 'patronising'. Have you read your posts to me? Have you read other people's posts to me? Have you tasted the venom that casually comes my way every time the day has a Y in it? If you have, then you don't know what 'patronising' means.

                                If it was a joke, however, it was quite funny (maybe I'm getting a bit too sensitive myself in my old age).

                                So, you literally realised 'later that same day' that you were wrong?

                                So did you first see them on the day you told Messrs Skinner, Fido, and Begg about them at the City Darts? And - if so - why did you tell them when you'd already realised you were wrong?

                                Or did they persuade you you were wrong and you agreed with them (before midnight chimed thereby preserving your 'later that same day' claim), only for the utterly unscrupulous Fido and Begg to run off laughing with your Golden Egg tucked tightly in their arms?

                                Ike
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X