One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

You're starting to sound like Lord Orsam.

"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?"

It was just Fido and Skinner. I realised I was mistaken after I told them about it.

[MrBarnett]

You're starting to sound like Lord Orsam.

"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?"

It was just Fido and Skinner. I realised I was mistaken after I told them about it.

Steady on, Simon. There are insults and there are insults… ;-)

[Iconoclast]

It was just Fido and Skinner. I realised I was mistaken after I told them about it.

So, for clarity here, was it just to Skinner and Fido you suggested the idea about marks on the wall or did you also share the idea with anyone else?

So Keith forgot all about your comments, but Martin (hardly a diaryphile, by the way) and then an intrigued Paul kept discussing them and generated them back into life just in time for Shirley's book in October 1993?

If Martin Fido was the reason why we are talking about Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Kelly's wall, I will eat my deerstalker hat (once lord Orsam returns it to me) ...

[Simon Wood]

Q1 Part 1: Yes. Part 2: No.

Q2 It certainly looks that way.

Don't forget the salt and pepper.

[Iconoclast]

I suspect that the initials debate will subside again for a while, as it always does, only to return when I have cause to remind everyone of it. How I look forward to the first post that says "Are you still banging on about that [clear link between the Victorian scrapbook and Mary Kelly's room, that one clear smoking gun in this entire case]?".

For now, I'd like us all to be minded of the notes of Martin Fido and Paul Begg (who - at that time - appear to have been unaware that Simon Wood had changed his belief that there were initials on Kelly's wall when they were discussing what he had seen before he had unseen it again):

Martin Fido: "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."

Paul Begg: "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."

I added the bold. If you have ever watched the Paul Feldman video (The diary of Jack the Ripper - YouTube), you will know how hostile Martin Fido was to the newly-discovered document so no reason to imagine that he was in any way biased when he stated that he could "make out a quite definite M". It's the one we can all make out, even if some of us go looking for tangential means to dismiss our own senses through pareidolia and natural wood markings. Once you know where to look, you can also see that there is a formation - in exactly the right place, note! - which can be seen fairly easily as an 'F'. Not as good as the 'F' carved into Kelly's arm, but an 'F' nevertheless.

This will always be a smoking gun, dear readers, however hard Lord Orsam and his ilk attempt to blow it away ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

As a matter of interest, I believe Paul Begg casts the occasional eye on these proceedings and - if he does - I imagine he is as riveted as the rest of us by the latest to and fro of the one singular clue we have in the entire Whitechapel murders case which points us to a solution at long last to the mystery.

With this in mind, I wonder if I might call on him to offer us his recollections of his discussions with Martin Fido in 1992 and 1993 about those pesky initials on Mary Kelly's wall?

Given that Martin was so vehemently anti-diary (judging by his tone in Feldman's video), it would be fascinating to understand how such a critic actually dealt with what was unequivocally a smoking gun linking James to Jack?

And also, Paul, as your piles were developing on that uncomfortable fence between Maybrick innocence and guilt, what did you make of the 'FM' on Kelly's wall which are so easily associated with the content of the Maybrick scrapbook?

Simon apparently talked with Martin at some length in the City Darts - I wonder which version of the photograph they were looking at, by the way? - whilst Keith (I am led to understand, albeit with a hint of licence) was throwing 180s left, right, and centre, smerking tabs, and downing warm pints of London Chuckworthy Ale.

Simon, by the end of his conversation with Martin, had retracted his original suggestion - there were no initials there at all. But Martin wasn't convinced by this volte face. He went away and mulled it over - so much so that some years later he had seemingly drafted you into his thoughts and the two of you were discussing the initials with Paul Feldman.

I honestly don't understand how Simon could stop seeing what he saw, but Martin, you, and frankly quite a lot of other people comfortably could see what he saw, especially the rather dominant 'M' (as if it had been drawn with more blood than had been used to form what looks for all the world like a preceding letter 'F').

So, Paul, can you shed any light on any of these questions, and/or add to our understanding of what occurred after that fateful evening in the City Darts, please?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

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

It's well worth revisiting Simon's post to observe that he claimed that "try as we may none of us could decipher the initials": this makes it sound as though the debate was a much protracted one involving multiple commentators but I feel it incumbent upon me to remind everyone that this was Simon talking to Martin Fido for a period during one evening when Keith Skinner was off playing darts.

Simon also states "let alone fit them to a suspect": this would - in retrospect - be self-evident as the suspect those initials dobbed-in would not be identified for a good few years yet.

"And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped": this may have been true of Simon Wood but appears not to have been true of Martin Fido who would not let it rest and eventually paved the way for a link to James Maybrick and - so ironically - a resolution of a 103 year old series of murders.

What is unclear, of course, is just how good Keith Skinner really is on the oche.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The last question to ask ourselves is:

If the Maybrick scrapbook is a hoax, by what means did the hoaxer stumble upon Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?

Which interpretation do you all favour?

A) The hoaxer was in the City Darts pub that evening and overheard the conversation between Simon Wood and Martin Fido, or
B) The hoaxer heard about the initials before April 13, 1992, and therefore cleverly wove them into his or her narrative, or
C) The hoaxer was simply referring to an initial at 29 Hanbury Street and an initial on Mary Kell's arm, or
D) Some other theory that conveniently explains away Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?

Answers on a postcard from Philadelphia, please.

PS I have this vision of Mike Barrett leaning in to Simon and Martin's conversation as Keith exhorts him to focus on their doubles match against Ronnie and Reggie Kray (out of prison on licence for the night), but that's probably just me ...

PPS Even better - what an image - Martin Fido and Simon Wood are facing-off against Keith Skinner and Mike Barrett, and it's Mike's throw but he's not concentrating on his arrows because he's got his feelers into Martin and Simon's chat so Keith's haranguing him with a frustration they would play out again and again from 1992 (by then, of course, Martin, Simon, and Keith would have completely forgotten about that random Scouser in that London pub that long-ago evening).

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

The last question to ask ourselves is:

If the Maybrick scrapbook is a hoax, by what means did the hoaxer stumble upon Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?

Which interpretation do you all favour?

A) The hoaxer was in the City Darts pub that evening and overheard the conversation between Simon Wood and Martin Fido, or
B) The hoaxer heard about the initials before April 13, 1992, and therefore cleverly wove them into his or her narrative, or
C) The hoaxer was simply referring to an initial at 29 Hanbury Street and an initial on Mary Kell's arm, or
D) Some othertheory that conveniently explains away Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?


Ike

That'll be none of the above. Doesn't the diary say 'i left my mark'. Obviously, this is totally different to 'i left my initials'. The hoaxer was undoubtedly speaking figuratively with 'mark' being his destructive work. You have just decided to interpret 'mark' as 'initials' to try and prop up your ridiculous theory.

[Iconoclast]

That'll be none of the above. Doesn't the diary say 'i left my mark'. Obviously, this is totally different to 'i left my initials'. The hoaxer was undoubtedly speaking figuratively with 'mark' being his destructive work. You have just decided to interpret 'mark' as 'initials' to try and prop up your ridiculous theory.

For those of you who - like Aethelwulf - know literally **** all about the Maybrick scrapbook, the phrase "left my mark" was describing the event 40 days earlier when Jack the Ripper left inverted 'V's on Catherine Eddowes' cheeks.

But - hey - don't let any of this detract from the assumption that a 'ridiculous theory' is doing the rounds!

[Yabs]

The last question to ask ourselves is:

If the Maybrick scrapbook is a hoax, by what means did the hoaxer stumble upon Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?

Which interpretation do you all favour?

A) The hoaxer was in the City Darts pub that evening and overheard the conversation between Simon Wood and Martin Fido, or
B) The hoaxer heard about the initials before April 13, 1992, and therefore cleverly wove them into his or her narrative, or
C) The hoaxer was simply referring to an initial at 29 Hanbury Street and an initial on Mary Kell's arm, or
D) Some other theory that conveniently explains away Florence Maybrick's initials being on Mary Jane Kelly's wall?

Answers on a postcard from Philadelphia, please.

PS I have this vision of Mike Barrett leaning in to Simon and Martin's conversation as Keith exhorts him to focus on their doubles match against Ronnie and Reggie Kray (out of prison on licence for the night), but that's probably just me ...

PPS Even better - what an image - Martin Fido and Simon Wood are facing-off against Keith Skinner and Mike Barrett, and it's Mike's throw but he's not concentrating on his arrows because he's got his feelers into Martin and Simon's chat so Keith's haranguing him with a frustration they would play out again and again from 1992 (by then, of course, Martin, Simon, and Keith would have completely forgotten about that random Scouser in that London pub that long-ago evening).

Ike

Or if I could add

E) The hoaxer, like Simon, simply spotted what could be argued was an initial.

Without the journal, I believe by now we would be discussing who put Mary’s initial there on the partition.

[Iconoclast]

Or if I could add

E) The hoaxer, like Simon, simply spotted what could be argued was an initial.

Without the journal, I believe by now we would be discussing who put Mary’s initial there on the partition.

Without the journal, Yabs, you can rest assured that we would not be here discussing anything at all.

The journal provides us with a potential solution and it 'uses' the initials on Kelly's wall as hard evidence for its own truth. So - with the journal - we are looking for Florence Maybrick's initials connected to Kelly's room; and - without the journal - we have no reason to be looking for anything at all.

Cheers,

Ike

[c.d.]

It also assumes that "initial" is meant to be taken literally. But could it have simply meant I left you a clue? We say somebody left there calling card in the same way. It doesn't always imply an actual card.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

It also assumes that "initial" is meant to be taken literally. But could it have simply meant I left you a clue? We say somebody left there calling card in the same way. It doesn't always imply an actual card.

c.d.

It could be more metaphorical in this way, c.d., and ultimately we'll never know as there's no-one to ask, but my instinct is that the statement "an initial here, an initial there" would be overwhelmingly-likely to relate to actual initials.

As I say, though, it is now impossible to be certain (assuming the statement was not a hoax, of course).

[c.d.]

But that is like asking how did the face of Jesus get on a grilled cheese sandwich? You are assuming that it is actually the face of Jesus before you even begin with no evidence to back up that assumption.

c.d.