One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Interestingly, another version of this photograph has locations added though I don't find them particularly helpful as my understanding is that Petticoat Lane was simply an extension of Middlesex Street, and that both ran parallel to Goulston Street. Anyway, if this were in fact an old picture of Middlesex Street/Petticoat Lane, it would suggest that buildings back then were pretty tall. Either way, I have to go right now so I think I'm going to have to call it a day for now.

[Observer]

Interestingly, another version of this photograph has locations added though I don't find them particularly helpful as my understanding is that Petticoat Lane was simply an extension of Middlesex Street, and that both ran parallel to Goulston Street. Anyway, if this were in fact an old picture of Middlesex Street/Petticoat Lane, it would suggest that buildings back then were pretty tall. Either way, I have to go right now so I think I'm going to have to call it a day for now.

That photograph has nothing to do with Middlesex Street, it's a photograph of Goulston Street looking North.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, it occurred to me to check out the Goads map on Google, and I'm sure you're right - this was very probably Goulston Street from the south, therefore perhaps even Wentworth Dwellings at the top and the swimming baths to its right. The question is, though, does that allow for a view of either the east or west side of Middlesex Street? It really does look like it to me.

By the way, I think 1mb is an upload limit on the Casebook.

[Joshua Rogan]

Okay, the building may have been Wentworth Dwellings itself, so scratch that if it is.

Joshua, you say "I don't believe any could have overlooked the doorway where the apron was found though". Are you willing to go further and say that this was categorically impossible, or is this just the impression you have?

I don't believe so, because the entire West side of Goulston St and the South side of New Goulston St was one continuous line of 5-storey housing (Brunswick Buildings) which was taller than any building in Middlesex St and so would have blocked any line of sight.

Edit. Your arrow passes through the corner of Brunswick Buildings.

[Joshua Rogan]

Interestingly, another version of this photograph has locations added though I don't find them particularly helpful as my understanding is that Petticoat Lane was simply an extension of Middlesex Street, and that both ran parallel to Goulston Street. Anyway, if this were in fact an old picture of Middlesex Street/Petticoat Lane, it would suggest that buildings back then were pretty tall. Either way, I have to go right now so I think I'm going to have to call it a day for now.

As I understand it, Petticoat Lane was the former name of Middlesex St, and the name now referred to the market in general, which spread into streets surrounding Middlesex St, including Goulston St and Wentworth St.

[Iconoclast]

I don't believe so, because the entire West side of Goulston St and the South side of New Goulston St was one continuous line of 5-storey housing (Brunswick Buildings) which was taller than any building in Middlesex St and so would have blocked any line of sight.

Edit. Your arrow passes through the corner of Brunswick Buildings.

Well, if that is all true, Joshua, then that would mean a clear line of sight was not possible from Middlesex Street to Wentworth Dwellings. It doesn't change much - just spoils a potential explanation for why that site was chosen for the GSG.

To clarify, though: are you categorically certain that no buildings on the west or east side of Middlesex Street in 1888 stood proud of those of Brunswick Buildings or are you simply of that firm belief (including those to the most southern tip of Middlesex Street)?

[Iconoclast]

The arguments around the authenticity of the Maybrick scrapbook rage on. The core of the counter-argument is the author's use of the phrase "one off instance" which has been said to be anachronistic, thereby proving the hoax. But the argument in favour hinges on something must better established - namely, James Maybrick's wife's initials ('F' and 'M') on Mary Kelly's wall, confirming the scrapbook's prediction of "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother".

These initials were first mentioned back in 1988 by Simon Wood, and then identified by Direct Communications Design of Chiswick on behalf of Paul Feldman (hardback, p63+) in the early 1990s. Detractors pounced quickly, claiming that the initials were not there - marks were there but they were blood splatters, etc.. The reason why detractors pounced so determinedly was because Florence Maybrick's initials more or less prove for certain that the scrapbook really is the work of James Maybrick who really was Jack the Ripper. Those initials are a direct link between the evidence of 1888 and the scrapbook which emerged from the shadows in 1992. For detractors, massive problem.

If those initials truly are on Kelly's wall, then a hoax theorist would either have to simply deny they are there (as so many - in desperation - do) or else argue that they were a truly incredible coincidence (no-one is going to buy that) or else someone tampered with a copy of the infamous photograph and put them there (possible), or else a hoaxer noticed they were there and somehow contrived to backward engineer a plausible story around them which led him or her to Florence Maybrick, thence to James Maybrick, hence to the least likely candidate ever for Jack (too unlikely to consider further).

Lord Orsam dismissed the initials on the wall, claiming that he had seen the original photograph and the initials were not there. With some panache, he added dismissively words to the effect of "And there you have it" as if he had provided anything never mind something resembling evidence. But if Orsam's eyes did not badly let him down and the original photograph truly has no image whatsoever of Florence Maybrick's initials, then who added them subsequently? The way Feldman is mistreated, it would be easy to home-in on him (but that would surely have also involved the otherwise perfectly legit Direct Communications Design?).

In Society's Pillar, I give two examples of strong scrapbook detractors who published excellent renditions of Florence's initials in their respective works (Sugden 2006, and Marriott 2007). Clearly, there was always the possibility that both Sugden's and Marriott's publishers had naively accessed the 'contaminated' versions of the Kelly photograph from the 1990s. What I probably should have done was to cite examples from pre-scrapbook days. The challenge with that is that there are few examples of the Kelly photograph in print pre-scrapbook.

Recently, researcher Keith Skinner mentioned in an email that he felt the shapes on Kelly's wall (I don't think he is necessarily convinced they are initials) are possibly best rendered in - of all works - Daniel Farson's 1972 Jack the Ripper. I ordered the book and - sure enough - way back in 1972, a version of the Kelly photograph quite clearly shows the same two incriminating initials 'F' and 'M'. The 'M' is - as ever - much clearer than the 'F', and tellingly is drawn with the same rising second half of the Maybrick scrapbook. This is 1972. Even before flared trousers, tank tops, Chopper bikes, even before Watergate-gate, Florence Maybrick's initials were on a copy of a photograph of Mary Kelly's wall. Who put them there, if not James Maybrick himself? How did someone put them there, if not James Maybrick himself?

The initials on Kelly's wall cannot be easily dismissed. One cannot - like the UK PM - simply wish them away ("We need to move on from the letters on Kelly's wall"). If only concrete evidence of criminality could be so easily disposed of, those initials would have been washed off Kelly's wall fifty years ago or more.

So we have the initials, and the Diego Laurenz postcard, and Florrie's remarkable reference to "The tale he told me was pure fabrication", and the Goulston Street Graffito with the cryptic references to Maybrick and the five other significant adults in his life, as well as the word 'nothing' written exactly as it is to be found in the scrapbook, and the controversial watch which somehow managed to contain a Maybrick signature almost exactly as that on his marriage certificate. There are so many other reasons for us to simply accept the rather simple truth that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that he rather conveniently left us some clues to his identity (other than just his written confession in the Victorian scrapbook) along the way.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Honestly, folks, I thought my previous post might have warranted somewhat more of a response than UTTER SILENCE!!!

I've just shown you that Florence Maybrick's initials were on Mary Kelly's wall in a book published in 1972. 1972, peeps!

1972!

[c.d.]

the Goulston Street Graffito with the cryptic references to Maybrick and the five other significant adults in his life

"cryptic" is putting it mildly. You might as well argue that the GSG says "for a good time call Queen Victoria." It says that. It really does. It's...uh...just cryptic.

c.d.

[Kattrup]

"cryptic" is putting it mildly. You might as well argue that the GSG says "for a good time call Queen Victoria." It says that. It really does. It's...uh...just cryptic.

That’s not cryptic, Maybrick did after all think about giving her a call, so the GSG confirms the diary’s provenance!

[Iconoclast]

the Goulston Street Graffito with the cryptic references to Maybrick and the five other significant adults in his life

"cryptic" is putting it mildly. You might as well argue that the GSG says "for a good time call Queen Victoria." It says that. It really does. It's...uh...just cryptic.

c.d.

Honestly, this is just too difficult sometimes. Forget about the GSG for now - Florence Maybrick's initials were on Mary Kelly's wall in a book published in 1972.

Which bit of this monumental piece of news are you lot not getting, for goodness sake???

1972!!!

[Iconoclast]

1972!!!

[Iconoclast]

1973 minus a year!!!!

[Iconoclast]

Wake up, people!!!

[Iconoclast]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. If they were there in 1972, they were probably there in 1899 when the photograph was first published, and therefore they were almost certainly there in 1888, on her wall, written in blood, by James Maybrick!!!