One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[FISHY1118]

Pros
1) The scrapbook author points us to look into Kelly's room and suggests we might find multiple examples of his wife's initials there and - lo - when finally we looked, there they were (on her wall, together, on her arm as an 'F', in her legs as an inarticulate 'M' or in her chemise if you wish to concur with the much maligned and missed Tempus Omnia Revelat). This is the link between the scrapbook and the actualité and no-one should think it is just the sort of thing which happens without cause (it is not - you cannot predict it and expect it to be there unless you know it was there).
2) The watch in Maybrick's name bears his signature and it is immediately recognisable as that with which he signed his marriage licence.


Perhaps the author of the scrapbook pointed you to look into kellys room for a good reason , because he had already studied the photo of her room and the many ways to convince people what to look for when concocting his story ? Or does the scrapbook predate the photos release ? well of course it does right .

[Iconoclast]

So what you really saying is everyones elses supect is wrong is that it ?

I work on the assumption that the five canonical victims were all slain by the same hand (Simon Wood would disagree here) so - yes - as I am convinced (equal to or marginally less than certain) that the evidence points overwhelmingly at James Maybrick so - ipso facto - I must disregard all other possible candidates.

All other possible candidates have their place in the pantheon, of course, but not all can claim to be plausible. They get to be plausible by having evidence to link them to the crimes (evidence which is not hanging by the thread of "they lived in London in 1888"). If you or anyone else can produce a candidate with actual evidential links to the crimes, then I and others would inevitably be persuaded. Evidence speaks above all other voices. Indeed, was it not Richard Feynman who said "'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.'' (I corrected your typo, by the way)?

James Maybrick's scrapbook links him to the crimes by the initials he left on Mary Kelly's wall. See my next post for why any other interpretation is extremely reaching (to say the least).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps the author of the scrapbook pointed you to look into kellys room for a good reason , because he had already studied the photo of her room and the many ways to convince people what to look for when concocting his story ? Or does the scrapbook predate the photos release ? well of course it does right.

The infamous photograph of Mary Kelly's death scene was first published in 1899 by Lacassagne* in his study of Joseph Vacher, the 'French Ripper'. It was not a work on Whitechapel Jack and the reproduction was very poor indeed. It was inconceivable that anyone would have spotted anything by analysing that rendition.

It was really not until Farson in 1972 (hardback) and 1973 (paperback) that Florence's initials were rendered visible (and very visible they were too). Ever since then, every rendition seems to have allowed the initials to be identified easily (given that we now know where to look for them). This is true of books in favour of James Maybrick and also - interestingly - books which are very hostile towards his candidature. And obviously there have been an awful lot of books on Jack printed (even by late 1992).

Initials on Kelly's wall were first discussed on the record by Simon Wood and Martin Fido at the City Darts pub in London in 1989. Keith Skinner was there too and was present at the start of the conversation but apparently was soon distracted and took no further part in it. Simon reports that the conversation with Martin went on for some time but eventually wound-up with both of them accepting that Simon was wrong and that was that. Critically, however, it turns out that Simon and Martin were not talking about the 'F' and 'M' that we are talking about here.

The 'F' and the 'M' were therefore first identified on the record by - coincidentally - Martin Fido who had been commissioned by Shirley Harrison to compile a report on the scrapbook's contents in late 1992 and who had been attempting to understand what the hoaxer meant by "An initial here, an initial there, Will tell of the whoring mother". Martin saw the 'M' (it's hard to miss once you know where to look), and he also thought he could see an 'E' so he reported 'EM' back to Shirley. By the time this had reached Paul Feldman, the photograph had been blown-up and the 'EM' had been identified as 'FM'. The rest, as they say ...

Now, to my point, or more to the point to your point: It has been suggested many times over the years that the hoaxer (female, by the way, if you are RJ Palmer) had simply been ahead of the game - that he or she had spotted the 'FM' before Martin Fido had in late 1992 and that he or she had used this to write into the nascent scrapbook the clue that 'links' Maybrick to Kelly's murder. This is possible, of course, but once again we are left to debate whether or not it is plausible. If you feel that it is plausible then you have to accept that the scrapbook had no villain until the moment the hoaxer saw those initials and - perhaps because they were Liverpudlian (if they were) - they thought of Florence Maybrick (the centenary of the Maybrick trial having just passed), then thought to make her infidelity the reason for the murders, thus making her jealous husband James the foil for a hoaxed Jack the Ripper. And then you have to believe that it is plausible that our erstwhile hoaxer had managed that remarkable mental contortion, only to then find that James Maybrick actually kept on fitting the role of Jack, over and over and over again, even well after Harrison's first book on the subject was published.

If you can find all of that plausible, then you can believe that a hoaxer saw the initials and backward-engineered their hoax around them. Personally, I can't believe that is plausible, though I accept it is possible. This may well be the difference between us, Fishy?

Ike

* Vacher l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques, Alexandre Lacassagne, 1899, A. Storck, Masson, Lyon-Paris

[FISHY1118]

I work on the assumption that the five canonical victims were all slain by the same hand (Simon Wood would disagree here) so - yes - as I am convinced (equal to or marginally less than certain) that the evidence points overwhelmingly at James Maybrick so - ipso facto - I must disregard all other possible candidates.

All other possible candidates have their place in the pantheon, of course, but not all can claim to be plausible. They get to be plausible by having evidence to link them to the crimes (evidence which is not hanging by the thread of "they lived in London in 1888"). If you or anyone else can produce a candidate with actual evidential links to the crimes, then I and others would inevitably be persuaded. Evidence speaks above all other voices. Indeed, was it not Richard Feynman who said "'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.'' (I corrected your typo, by the way)?

James Maybrick's scrapbook links him to the crimes by the initials he left on Mary Kelly's wall. See my next post for why any other interpretation is extremely reaching (to say the least).

Ike

What typo ?


So are the initials the only thing that links James Maybricks scrapbook to the crimes ?

[Aethelwulf]

What typo ?


So are the initials the only thing that links James Maybricks scrapbook to the crimes ?

I think you meant 'initials'!

[c.d.]

James Maybrick's scrapbook links him to the crimes by the initials he left on Mary Kelly's wall.

The initials are the claim not the proof. That's like saying the Bible is the word of God so we must follow it. No, first prove the Bible is the word of God.

Now in all fairness to Ike, I too see what appears to be an F and an M on the wall. But I also see a caricature of Sickert and crucifixes. If I stared long enough I would probably see the Ride of the Valkyries or Booth leaping over the box at Ford's Theater after killing Lincoln. The brain seeks patterns. Throw in a huge dose of confirmation bias and you get initials.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

The last period in your signature line is outside the quotation marks. (I also noticed that the period of the previous sentence is spaced incorrectly, but Ike has copied that error in his post.)

ETA: Addressed to FISHY1118, re the question "What typo?"

[Iconoclast]

I think you meant 'initials'!

And I am wiling to concur with that, Aethelwulf, though I reserve my right to note that they take the shape of the letters 'F' and 'M'.

[Iconoclast]

James Maybrick's scrapbook links him to the crimes by the initials he left on Mary Kelly's wall.

The initials are the claim not the proof. That's like saying the Bible is the word of God so we must follow it. No, first prove the Bible is the word of God.

Now in all fairness to Ike, I too see what appears to be an F and an M on the wall. But I also see a caricature of Sickert and crucifixes. If I stared long enough I would probably see the Ride of the Valkyries or Booth leaping over the box at Ford's Theater after killing Lincoln. The brain seeks patterns. Throw in a huge dose of confirmation bias and you get initials.

c.d.

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop!

The initials are neither the claim nor the proof! The scrapbook predicts that Florence Maybrick's initials were left in Mary Kelly's room and Mary Kelly's room photograph shows Florence Maybrick's initials. They provide the link between the James Maybrick of the scrapbook and the Whitechapel fiend! If you want to call this link 'proof', fill your boots. In truth, it's much more the missing link.

If the scrapbook back in 1992 had said "A painter here, a painter there, will tell of Walter's guilt" and then we looked at the photograph and agreed that there was a compelling case for there being a sketch of Walter Sickert on Kelly's wall, I'd say there was a link between the author of the scrapbook and the Whitechapel murderer. If that scrapbook was claiming to have been written by Walter Sickert, I'd say there was reason to explore how plausible it was that it was he, but whether it was he or someone else who had written that in the scrapbook, the painting on Kelly's wall would point to the scrapbook's author knowing that a caricature of Sickert had been drawn on Kelly's wall. Ipso facto. The fact that no-one had ever mentioned this caricature before would be fairly convincing evidence that it was genuinely created by the author who was therefore Jack the Ripper.

You see the 'F' and the 'M' - well done. Now ask yourself how on earth they get referenced in the Victorian scrapbook! If you are about to say the hoaxer saw them first, etc., then please read my post #9,048 before you do.

Sickert and crucifixes and Valkyrie and Booth are all irrelevant - they were not predicted anywhere! You see Sickert, fair enough - but that means nothing because seeing a picture of Sickert on Mary Kelly's wall was not predicted anywhere.

Please - everyone - stop and think before you post!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The last period in your signature line is outside the quotation marks. (I also noticed that the period of the previous sentence is spaced incorrectly, but Ike has copied that error in his post.)

ETA: Addressed to FISHY1118, re the question "What typo?"

I had cut and pasted his signature line into my post, then corrected the second spurious space-full stop (or 'space-period' for our colonial friends) and his enduring typo but hadn't even noticed the first space-full stop (hence, I 'repeated' it), so - no - that wasn't his typo.

The line "If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong" should, of course, be "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong". Unlike I.

[c.d.]

Sickert and crucifixes and Valkyrie and Booth are all irrelevant - they were not predicted anywhere!

Well Patricia Cornwell laid out her case for Sickert being the Ripper. Sickert was an artist. And lo and behold we have a caricature of Sickert on the wall. Now are we to believe that is just a coincidence?

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

So are the initials the only thing that links James Maybricks scrapbook to the crimes?

Fishy,

The initials are the one biggest concrete link between the scrapbook and the crimes, yes.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others and - if there are any - they won't be anything like as transparent as this one.

Off the top of my head, though, some people might say that Maybrick's "If it is a Jew they want then a Jew I shall be" shortly before the GSG appeared is a very plausible link but - for that - you have to be willing to accept that the GSG is absolutely meaningless except as a vehicle for James to insert 'James' and make it look for all the world like 'Juwes'. Afterwards, he wrote "I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke?" and the answer to that is - of course - no, because they assumed it meant something more than a silly game.

I'll keep thinking, but the initials are the crown jewels here.

Outside of the scrapbook is the signature in the watch - absolutely not a straightforward conjuring trick on any level if it's a hoax.

Outside of the scrapbook and the watch, you'd need to read my brilliant Society's Pillar (what's kept you?) where we can find Maybrick creeping out of every corner of this case, constantly.

Just saying ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Sickert and crucifixes and Valkyrie and Booth are all irrelevant - they were not predicted anywhere!

Well Patricia Cornwell laid out her case for Sickert being the Ripper. Sickert was an artist. And lo and behold we have a caricature of Sickert on the wall. Now are we to believe that is just a coincidence?

c.d.

We could say that but it is a good point you make. I would make two challenges:

1) Was there ever a prediction made that a caricature of Sickert would be found on Kelly's wall?, and
2) How felicitous is the caricature? Is it really one of Sickert - at least on a par with the felicitousness of the 'M' and the somewhat less concrete 'F'?

It is a good point you make, but the critical difference is the prediction that Florence's initials would be found in Kelly's room. Yes, Sickert was linked with Jack but Sickert's caricature was never linked with Kelly's room (or any other location) to my knowledge. It's not the same principle. If someone identified a vengeful priest as Jack, would the crucifix shapes on Kelly's wall be direct links to him? No, of course not. Why not? Because they were not predicted anywhere.

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

We could say that but it is a good point you make. I would make two challenges:

1) Was there ever a prediction made that a caricature of Sickert would be found on Kelly's wall?, and
2) How felicitous is the caricature? Is it really one of Sickert - at least on a par with the felicitousness of the 'M' and the somewhat less concrete 'F'?

It is a good point you make, but the critical difference is the prediction that Florence's initials would be found in Kelly's room. Yes, Sickert was linked with Jack but Sickert's caricature was never linked with Kelly's room (or any other location) to my knowledge. It's not the same principle. If someone identified a vengeful priest as Jack, would the crucifix shapes on Kelly's wall be direct links to him? No, of course not. Why not? Because they were not predicted anywhere.

Ike

all of the above is totally irrelevant because there are no initials, crucifixes or caricatures, just what the gullible fool mind wants to see.

[c.d.]

Well I hope I don't have a "gullible fool mind" but there is a huge difference between "what appears to be" and what actually is there on the wall.

For instance, I can see the image of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Does that mean I believe that it is his actual image? Of course not.

I think confirmation bias comes into it much more than being gullible.

c.d.