One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Here's an interesting thought: if Kelly had been alive and conscious when she sustained such a savage wound - or wounds - would her arm not have bled profusely, obscuring the shape the knife had made until cleaned up later at the mortuary? Yet there is the F-shape, as clear as day, as if it was carved into her flesh after death, when the blood flow had ceased.

When we see mortuary photographs of defensive wounds, we see the limb after it has been cleaned of the blood which inevitably would pour from such damage during life. But Mary Kelly was photographed in situ of her murder site and I'm guessing (and am totally open to being corrected) that the F-shape carved into her arm was not cleaned-up by anyone prior to the photograph being taken.

How could such defensive wounds (by definition, whilst her heart was still pumping) have produced no pool of blood where the knife sliced into her as she silently fought back?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Here's an example of a defensive wound. It has rather obviously been cleaned-up:

Forensic Pathology (utah.edu)



As you can see, not a drop of blood from so savage a wound once the path lab had cleaned it all up.

How did Mary Kelly have no blood spray on her arm after she silently fought off the Ripper's murderous attack (there would presumably be loads of it)?

Either someone cleaned her arm before the photograph was taken or else there was no pumping heart left when the knife struck her arm and therefore no blood spray either.

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

But Mary Kelly was photographed in situ of her murder site and I'm guessing (and am totally open to being corrected) that the F-shape carved into her arm was not cleaned-up by anyone prior to the photograph being taken.

How could such defensive wounds (by definition, whilst her heart was still pumping) have produced no pool of blood where the knife sliced into her as she silently fought back?

Ike, consider the possibility that the large dark areas on Kelly's left arm are actually pieces of her colon or other entrails, not necessarily skin cuts.

[erobitha]

Ike, consider the possibility that the large dark areas on Kelly's left arm are actually pieces of her colon or other entrails, not necessarily skin cuts.

There is an inner shadow to the wound. It is a carving on her arm.

[Scott Nelson]

I can't see that, Erobitha. But it doesn't mean the inner shadow isn't there.

Ike -- 5 more pages to go...

[Iconoclast]

I can't see that, Erobitha. But it doesn't mean the inner shadow isn't there.

Ike -- 5 more pages to go...

Thank you Scotty - it's going to be a moment of wild celebrations, I think, all around the Ripperseeking globe ... can't wait!

[Iconoclast]

Now, dear readers, it has been pointed-out to me that some people can't see the last two photos I have attached to my recent posts (indeed, with the benefit of retrospect, I can only see them on the PC from which I loaded them) so I hope you will bear with me whilst I reload both posts but use 'fullsize' (my usual option) rather than 'medium' (which I felt made them appear more manageable within the text).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Here's an example of a defensive wound. It has rather obviously been cleaned-up:

Forensic Pathology (utah.edu)



As you can see, not a drop of blood from so savage a wound once the path lab had cleaned it all up.

How did Mary Kelly have no blood spray on her arm after she silently fought off the Ripper's murderous attack (there would presumably be loads of it)?

Either someone cleaned her arm before the photograph was taken or else there was no pumping heart left when the knife struck her arm and therefore no blood spray either.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Ah ha - I have checked on my other PC and I can see the defensive wounds photo this time - must be a 'fullsize' vs 'medium' issue. Next re-load to follow ...

[Iconoclast]

We are in danger of crossing themes here, but I now have the information I wanted so I'm going to post this now.

I was concerned enough about Simon Wood’s volte face regarding the initials to ask Keith Skinner to clarify his memories to the best of his ability. But first a reminder of what Simon has posted...

Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Yabs,

It happened at a City Darts 'Jack the Ripper Seminar' in 1989. I was probably talking to just Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (Paul Begg, living in Leeds at the time, made only occasional visits to London) about turning a black and white photograph into colour. I had seen this demonstrated on TV and thought it might be an idea to experiment with the Kelly photograph. During this, or a subsequent conversation, I pointed out the initials on the wall, reasoning in true Grand Guignol style that Kelly had finger-painted the murderer's initials on the partition wall beside her bed.

"Depending on which printed copy (Rumbelow, Farson, Begg, Knight etc.) of the Kelly photograph is examined, the initials appear more or less indistinct, and I thought the best exposure was in the Sphere paperback edition of Dan Farson's book.

My discovery was pounced upon with enthusiasm, but try as we may none of us could decipher the initials, let alone fit them to a suspect. And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped.

Four years later, in Shirley Harrison's book, this became—

"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."

Now you know the story of the initials on the wall.

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

From Farson (Sphere 1973)



I asked Simon if he could remember more exactly when he told Martin that he was mistaken...

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.

Keith replied...

“First of all, Simon did mention initials on Kelly's wall in the City Darts and reading the various posts I note Simon is claiming this discussion was the reason for the reference in the diary. I’m not sure what is being inferred here? I was at the City Darts that evening in 1989 (though not very interested in Simon’s observation as I suspect I was more concerned with preparing the room for the evening’s JTR seminar), but Martin was enthusiastic and encouraging. You can see from the context of Martin's November 1992 report, commissioned by Shirley Harrison, that Martin is remembering Simon's observation when he reaches the Kelly section in the diary. I recalled it in early 1993 when Feldman telephoned me asking what I thought about the initials on the wall. Shirley mentions it in her book (1993) referencing it to Simon. Furthermore, we mentioned it in the 1994 revision of the A to Z under Simon's entry. I have absolutely no recollection of Simon telling either Martin or myself he was mistaken and am puzzled as to why Simon has waited almost three decades to bring this to light? This is what needs to be cleared up. This is not to do with whether, historically, there were initials on Kelly's wall. It is to do with Simon's discussion in the City Darts. Nowhere to my knowledge, prior to 1989, has anyone mentioned these initials on Kelly's wall. I have never seen them referred to anywhere in the contemporary records or subsequent published literature. In 1992-1993 we had no access to on line genealogical information or digitised on line newspaper reports .Perhaps a search today might reveal a reference? It’s sad that Martin is no longer alive but in the 34 years I had the pleasure of working very closely with him, I can state quite emphatically that he was not the type of person to entertain fanciful notions. I am intrigued that Simon claims he knows the identity of the person who wrote the diary? Is there any reason why this name is being withheld? From what Simon has written it appears he has Martin and myself in his sights? I did once hear the name of Richard Whittington-Egan proposed because of Richard’s close ties with both the Ripper case and Maybrick case.” [End of Keith's email]

Finally - one for RJ and his ilk this one - in his 1991-1992 research notes, in the Kelly section, Mike is puzzled by what the reference to initials means and does not even relate them to the crime scene photograph. Mike only references two JtR books in his sources. Wilson/Odell (which does not have the photograph) and Paul Harrison (which does). Mike claimed he wrote the diary and RJ, Orsam, and others agree. As Mike’s research notes are self-evidently the thoughts of a man striving to make sense of the diary, are we to accept that not only did he and Anne produce the masterpiece that is the James Maybrick scrapbook but that the two of them also cunningly contrived pages of notes which look like genuine research, but which were actually a smokescreen to lure attention as far away from them as possible?

Ike

[caz]

Quick prediction - the 'defensive' wounds will shortly disappear and it will be argued that everyone was wrong because they are not wounds at all.

Don't believe me? Just watch.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Quick prediction - the 'defensive' wounds will shortly disappear and it will be argued that everyone was wrong because they are not wounds at all.

Don't believe me? Just watch.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz. Just passing through.

You made a similar smarmy prediction last summer--that the subject of statistics would be quickly dropped and retracted based on Ike's sterling knowledge of statistics.

How did that work out for you?

If I recall, it was you who ended up dropping the subject like a red hot penny. We never heard another peep after Jeff set you straight.

Cheers,

RP

PS. I'll give Ike the same advice now that I gave him then, and which he ignored. Seek expert advice. I'm not going to mop up this time, so you three amigos believe whatever you want.

PPS. What does any of this have to do with Keith Skinner's desire to find out what Simon Wood told Martin Fido 30 years ago? You're actually proving my point. If you believe an F was carved into MK's forearm, and this is what our modern hoaxer is alluding to, then our modern hoaxer need not have been in on any conversation between Simon and Martin in 1989 (about initials traced in dirt on the back wall), making Keith's question and apparent concern irrelevant.

It's also my understanding that Keith believes that the Maybrick diary is an 'old hoax' written long before 1989. So using simple logic--a rare commodity in these parts--doesn't that mean it that any knowledge of Simon and Martin's conversation was NOT a prerequisite for the hoaxer? Or is Keith starting to suspect that he's been barking up the wrong tree? If he can prove in a court of law that the diary came from underneath Dodd's floorboards, why is he so concerned about what Simon suggested to Martin?

[The Baron]

Quick prediction - the 'defensive' wounds will shortly disappear and it will be argued that everyone was wrong because they are not wounds at all.

Don't believe me? Just watch.

Love,

Caz
X

You trapped yourself!

If there is an 'F' engraved into Kelly's arm, that alone blows up the old 'hoax theory' !

This photo was not available for your old forger!

You said they will shortly disappear?! Then Keep those wounds Caz, they only prove you, and you alone, WRONG!

ha ha



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike - since your correspondent can't work it out, I'll give you the answer as my parting gift to Diary World.

Richard Whittington-Egan.

I want to stress that I DO NOT think the silly Maybrick hoax was created with the help of any 'Ripperologist,' be he Simon, Paul, Martin, or anyone else. I am confident who the author is.

Nor do I think RWE had anything to do with it. He wasn't that sort of bloke. If the diary's text started as a joke, and it all went terribly wrong, I am confident that RWE would have told us when he wrote about the 'Great Hoax' in his final book. Further, no Ripperologist is going to choose Mike & Anne Barrett as their 'front.' The theory is a non-starter, and I never wanted to mention the suggestion offered to me, as it would wrongly lay suspicion where it doesn't belong.

That said, and to clear the air, Richard Whittington-Egan is the author mentioned by my correspondent all those years ago.

His family knew the Maybricks, and he wrote about the case in an article for the Liverpool Echo (where Tony Devereux worked). Tony & Mike also had a copy of his book 'Tales of Liverpool,' long before Dodd had the electricians in.

RWE, of course, also was an expert on the Whitechapel Murder case.

He also mentions the metaphysical poet Richard Crashaw in his books. My correspondent told me that RWE did this in books (plural) but he did not say which books.

I only ever found Crashaw mentioned in one of RWE's works: The Quest of the Golden Boy: The Life and Letters of Richard Le Gallienne. You can find Crashaw on pages 47, 76, and 246.

I've known this for two decades. I believe it is meaningless. It's a coincidence, because the book is about a literary figure.

[rjpalmer]

This photo was not available for your old forger!

Hi Baron.

Alas, their belief in an old hoax won't go away that quickly. A very grainy version of the photo was published in the late 1890s

Further, they are happy with this elusive old hoaxer having secret access to the MEPO and City Police files, as evidenced by the diary's reference to a police inventory list under lock & key until the 1980s.

Imagine what that means. The hoaxer had access to the secret files of the City Police, but didn't know that McWilliam investigated the Eddowes murder, and not Abberline.

It doesn't ever quite add up, does it?