One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Chris]

I've seen countless versions of the famous crime scene and other than one (a poor reproduction), the 'M' is very apparent, and the 'F' reasonably so.
...
Soothsayer
Genius

Just out of interest, can you see the letters in this section of Stephen Ryder's high-resolution scan of the photograph?

(The full image is at http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg )

[Graham]

I might not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree (or whatever the popular saying is) but I really, honestly, genuinely, inarguably, think that Soothsayer is taking the piss here.

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Just out of interest, can you see the letters in this section of Stephen Ryder's high-resolution scan of the photograph?

(The full image is at http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg )

[ATTACH]5394[/ATTACH]

In this blow-up, there is the natural distortion caused by seeing something too close up. I can see where the letters 'are' and sense their shape (especially the 'M') but can't make them out as clearly as one would with the benefit of standing back and having a little perspective. This is true of anything if you blow it up enough.

To illustrate this point, please go to the website provided by Chris and click on the photograph. It will rotate between blown-up (therefore distorted) which is the one Chris's post shows, and - crucially - ordinary view. In the ordinary view, the 'F' is just about discernible, but the 'M' is very clear indeed. This has always been true - the 'M' has always been more discernible than the 'F', and the case for the 'F' would be more or less non-existent without the 'M'.

And, Graham, for all my tongue-in-cheek, please be assured that I am definitely not taking the piss. I'm very very serious about this because I believe that the document is much more likely to be genuine than a hoax. It's a shame that when you take this position on this site you get endlessly derided and insulted, but there you are. Sadly, it comes with the territory, it seems.

[Graham]

Soothy-baby,

Listen, I keep an open mind about everything that's posted on this site...well, almost everything. I respect everyone's right to post what they like so long as it isn't libellous or outrages public decency or whatever. I even think that Steve Powell is worth listening to - now how about that?

But...hang on, I'll capitalise this...BUT THERE AIN'T NO "FM" ON THAT FRIGGIN' WALL

Bon soir,

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Soothy-baby,

Listen, I keep an open mind about everything that's posted on this site...well, almost everything. I respect everyone's right to post what they like so long as it isn't libellous or outrages public decency or whatever. I even think that Steve Powell is worth listening to - now how about that?

But...hang on, I'll capitalise this...BUT THERE AIN'T NO "FM" ON THAT FRIGGIN' WALL

Bon soir,

Graham

THERE ARE

[Graham]

THERE ARE

NOT.

A million more times that you can say that THERE ARE.

So there.

Graham

[Voyeur]

Has a diary ever been produced of any other serial killer? I mean, what's the likelihood a serial killer would write one? The same likelihood a serial killer would paint Ripper-like images?

[Soothsayer]

I am off to my bed, and tomorrow the working week begins again, so I will have to bid my leave of this debate again for now.

Good news is that we're now at over 14,000 views. Easily the best thread on this part of the site!

[Christine]

Sorry, but I can't see the letters. Most people on this site can't see the letters. It's one thing to say the letters are there, quite another to say that other people can see them even after you are told repeatedly that other people cannot see them. The police didn't see the letters, because if they had seen the letters they would surely have noted them.

And you know what? Even if the letters were there, it would prove nothing, because any forger would have incorporated them into the diary. As it is, the forger probably stared at the photograph for a while, decided he could make out an "FM" and therefore incorporated that into the diary. But if they were really there, it wouldn't take a diary to point them out, and people wouldn't have found all sorts of other things on the wall (like Baphomet) as well.

[Soothsayer]

As it is, the forger probably stared at the photograph for a while, decided he could make out an "FM" and therefore incorporated that into the diary.

Yeah, probably ...

Except, he or she could not possibly have incorporated them into the diary as the amazing coincidence of their being there once he'd started the hoax is beyond reasonable reason. He or she would have had to start with them, but prior to the emergence of the diary, they'd never been formally identified (unless you count Simon Wood's passing comment to a researcher in 1988).

So our hoaxer has to be the first to formally identify an 'F' and an 'M', he or she then has to be inspired enough to think 'Florence Maybrick', then has to think James Maybrick, then has to think a Liverpool cotton merchant is worth the effort of a forgery, then has to write a hoaxed diary without bothering to copy the believed examples of his writing.

As I say, yeah, probably ...

Anyway, moving swiftly to the point of my reply. Amazon had kindly delivered Marriott's 'The 21st Century Investigation' when I got home today, and unsurprisingly Marriott pays scant attention to the diary, and quickly debunks it citing Mike Barrett's confession as his principal grounds. Traditional stuff so far, then.

In his photograph section, however, he - without any reference to the diary - has included the familiar Kelly death scene. And would you credit it, the 'FM' could hardly be clearer! How ironic!

As an aside, my sister-in-law, who we will call Mrs S Soothsayer-in-law to protect her identity (unless you offer me money to reveal it, of course), was 'round and not hiding from me so and I asked her if she could see any letters on the wall using the Marriott reproduction. She very quickly identified the 'M' and thought the 'F' was a 'P'. Not bad for two letters which definitely, categorically, unequivocally are not there!

Seriously, everyone, rush out to the library - go and have a look at the final certain proof that the letters are on the wall exactly as the diary implies.

Look on my works of wisdom and despair!

[Chris]

Seriously, everyone, rush out to the library - go and have a look at the final certain proof that the letters are on the wall exactly as the diary implies.

There's not much point in anyone doing that, when I've already posted an excerpt from Stephen Ryder's high-resolution scan.

Certainly the alleged letters are much "clearer" in some published versions of the photo, but that's because of the poor quality of the reproduction. A case in point is that from Farson's book. I'm posting a scan below from the 1973 paperback edition. The genuine mark on the right has been turned into a passable 'M', and with the eye of faith one can see what might be a 'P' or an 'F' to its left. But comparison with the better-quality reproduction shows that these letters simply are not there in the original.

[Soothsayer]

There's not much point in anyone doing that, when I've already posted an excerpt from Stephen Ryder's high-resolution scan.

Chris, please don't post a huge blow-up - post a picture of the original, which (using the web link you provided) shows the letters no problem.

Try another angle. Write the letters 'FM' on a balloon. You ought to be able to see them no problem. Then blow the balloon up as high as you can. I doubt you'll see anything at all.

[Christine]

Chris, please don't post a huge blow-up - post a picture of the original, which (using the web link you provided) shows the letters no problem.

Try another angle. Write the letters 'FM' on a balloon. You ought to be able to see them no problem. Then blow the balloon up as high as you can. I doubt you'll see anything at all.

This analogy makes no sense. The "original" original is the wall. The letters on the wall look to be about a foot high. If they were to have any purpose at all, then they would have to be visible at a foot high.

And I disagree about the significance of the diary pointing the letters out. Let's say a forger thought he could make out a "PR" in the Farson book or similar reproduction. There's got to be some meaning of the initials PR in the life of Maybrick. I don't know much about Maybrick, so I just picked those letters at random--but I bet the Maybrick experts here can come up with a fit. I mean, why would the Ripper write his wife's initials on the wall anyhow? If he wanted to scare Florrie, he could have come up with something more fitting.

[Graham]

Christine, why waste your electronic breath?

He'll get tired of all this soon, and move on to another thread.

There are no letters. Never were, never will be.

Cheers,

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Christine, why waste your electronic breath?

He'll get tired of all this soon, and move on to another thread.

There are no letters. Never were, never will be.

Cheers,

Graham

Graham,

Once again, you seriously underestimate me.

Soothsayer