One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kattrup]

surely but surely no one believes this nonsense!

It's certainly difficult to believe that someone believes it.

The idea that the "F" cannot possibly be defensive wounds is, well let's be kind and say ill-conceived.

Bond: "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds."


And the claim that there were no screams flounders on the testimony of Prater, who heard such screams.

But apparently my agenda is tunnelvisioned and I make up unknowns inorder to try and explain away the really very obvious.

[Iconoclast]

It's certainly difficult to believe that someone believes it.

The idea that the "F" cannot possibly be defensive wounds is, well let's be kind and say ill-conceived.

Bond: "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds."


And the claim that there were no screams flounders on the testimony of Prater, who heard such screams.

But apparently my agenda is tunnelvisioned and I make up unknowns inorder to try and explain away the really very obvious.

To Aethelwulf and Kattrup,

One really needs to be careful about how selective our citation of 'the records' is (and I include myself in this comment, of course). Prater may have reported screams, but there is no certainty of from where they came or how intense they were. If Mary Kelly had been able to defend herself, then she certainly could and would have screamed. The whole of Whitechapel would have known about it. She would not have squeaked a bit and then compliantly died. I feel confident that absolutely all of us can agree that, unless someone wants to make the argument that Jack severed Mary's windpipe before she defended herself in that highly-specific way (that the appearance of an 'F' was created).

Further, of course Bond reported extensive and jagged wounds, there is absolutely no debate that Jack the Ripper was reasonably well known for the damage he did with a knife. The fact that Bond may have used the word 'wounds' should not be extrapolated as 'defensive wounds'.

To Aethelwulf, you are far from alone in posting on the Maybrick threads knowing nothing whatsoever about the diary. This information will not even have surprised hoax-theorists never mind diary-defenders; though being frequently reminded of it gives me strength and encourages me to keep going (as I realise how understated the knowledge base is out there).

To both of you who find it difficult to believe that someone 'believes it', I would say:

a) Open your minds to the possible - we have spent too long now (130 years) thinking that we know all we will ever know about Jack and his psychology;
b) It is not necessarily that this has to be 'believed' - it is absolutely that these possibilities need to be adequately considered because ...
c) Jack the Ripper was a human being with all of a human beings weaknesses, foibles, and irrationalities - we do not know him at all, though through the Maybrick scrapbook we can possibly understand him a little better ...

Ike

[Kattrup]

One really needs to be careful about how selective our citation of 'the records' is (and I include myself in this comment, of course).

Oh that is good to know, because it certainly seems like a selective approach might have led you astray

Prater may have reported screams, but there is no certainty of from where they came or how intense they were. If Mary Kelly had been able to defend herself, then she certainly could and would have screamed. The whole of Whitechapel would have known about it. She would not have squeaked a bit and then compliantly died. I feel confident that absolutely all of us can agree that, unless someone wants to make the argument that Jack severed Mary's windpipe before she defended herself in that highly-specific way (that the appearance of an 'F' was created).

I say that because you're now stating as an unequivocal fact that MJK would have screamed (if able to defend herself, i.e. not asleep) and woken the whole neighbourhood.
Meanwhile,. we have a contemporary witness stating: "It [cries of murder] is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice."


So let's not pretend, like Erobithia and you have just done, that it is a certainty that she did not scream. Nor that the apparent "F" is actually an "F".

[rjpalmer]

a) Open your minds to the possible

Hello Old Bean

Why not follow your own advice, Ike? Open your mind.

It strikes me that the trouble you continually run up against is your curiously short attention span, and it leads to unnecessarily strife & bickering.

Let me assist.

The question you've been posing is whether a modern hoaxer needed to have been 'in' on a conversation that took place between Fido, Skinner, and Wood back in 1989.

Yet, instead of examining this question in any rational way, you find yourself arguing about Prater and defensive wounds, etc.

Open your mind. None of that matters.

From a perspective of objectivity, it doesn't matter one iota if the pattern some of us see in the Kelly photograph is the result of defensive wounds (they are, but that's a different question), or tricks of the light, or an illusion made by little green fairies, or the deliberate act of the murderer.

No matter what the explanation, the pattern exists on the photograph, and as Caz Brown has admitted--more than once--our hoaxer COULD be referring to it.

Or, to her mind, the hoaxer could be referring to the initials on the watch. Or something else entirely. We don't know.

What we do know is that 'an initial' left 'in front' is not likely to be a reference to two side-by-side initials traced in dirt on a back wall. It's another interpretation, of course, although a rather weak one. Still, it's only one interpretation among many.

Open your mind.

And thus you have the answer you've been looking for.

Because there are multiple interpretations, and because there is no conclusive evidence that the hoaxer is referring to the artifacts you think you see traced in the dirt or blood on the back wall, the hoaxer need not have been in on any conversation with Fido, Skinner, and Wood.

Pretty simple, right?

Have a great day.

[Iconoclast]

Oh that is good to know, because it certainly seems like a selective approach might have led you astray

I say that because you're now stating as an unequivocal fact that MJK would have screamed and woken the whole neighbourhood.
Meanwhile,. we have a contemporary witness stating: "It [cries of murder] is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice."

So let's not pretend, like Erobithia and you have just done, that it is a certainty that she did not scream. Nor that the apparent "F" is actually an "F".

I imagine that 'cries of murder' were not unusual in Dorset Street or many other streets in Whitechapel during those terrible years but how many of them were actually cries which led to murder?

In Mary Kelly's case, it was her life at stake, genuinely her life, so her 'cries of murder' would have been like no other.

Not a whimper or a vagueness - she'd have one chance to save herself and she'd have let the entire world know it if she could. Which tells us that she could not. Which tells us that the 'F' so carefully carved into her arm was done so after her death when she could not actually resist at all.

And, RJ, please don't cite the arguments of others to argue mine as wrong. I have no doubt whatsoever that Florence Maybrick's initials appear to be on Mary Kelly's wall, and one of her initials appears to be carved into her arm. Who knows where else in that room we may have been able to see her initials appearing to be but can't because we don't have the photographs?

I am obliged to say 'appear to be', of course, because we have no way of being 100% certain now. But we can use what 'appears to be' and compare it with any evidence we may have (such as Maybrick's diary of the events) and be struck by the fact that those initials either prove that Maybrick was Jack or else that someone saw those initials and backward-engineered a hoax around them.

Ike

[Kattrup]

In Mary Kelly's case, it was her life at stake, genuinely her life, so her 'cries of murder' would have been like no other.

Not a whimper or a vagueness - she'd have one chance to save herself and she'd have let the entire world know it if she could. Which tells us that she could not. Which tells us that the 'F' so carefully carved into her arm was done so after her death when she could not actually resist at all.

Because you know for a fact how things went down in her room? You know for a fact she was fully conscious when she realised she was being attacked? You know for a fact she had many opportunities to scream because her killer, like any good Hollywood-villain, spent his time approaching her in a menacing manner instead of, for instance grabbing her throat or punching her or simply lying close to her in bed when he grabbed his knife?

Prater testified that she heard a scream around the time MJK might conceivably have been murdered, yet you state for a fact there were no screams.

[erobitha]

Prater testified that she heard a scream around the time MJK might conceivably have been murdered, yet you state for a fact there were no screams.

“Elizabeth Prater said:- I live at No. 20 Miller' Court.

On Thursday I went out of the court about five, and I returned close upon one on Friday morning. I lay down on the bed at 1.30 in my clothes. I fell asleep directly, because I had been having something to drink and I slept soundly.

I had a little black kitten which used to come on to my neck. It woke me up from 3.30 to 4 by coming on to my face, and I gave it a blow and knocked it off. The lights were out in the lodging house. The cat went on to the floor, and at that moment I heard, "Oh! Murder." I was then turning round on my bed.

The voice was "a faintish one," as though someone had woke up with a nightmare.

Such a cry is not unusual, and I did not take any particular notice."



Blood curdling faint cry of “oh murder” seems satisfactory to you I’m sure.

[Aethelwulf]

the 'F' so carefully carved into her arm
Ike

Thing is, it's not actually the letter F. Just like the marks on the wall aren't letters.

[erobitha]

Thing is, it's not actually the letter F. Just like the marks on the wall aren't letters.

What slashes examples can you show that can create such angular cut marks as on her left arm. The middle part of the top of the F has been cut straight. That is not a slash. It is deliberate.

[Kattrup]

Blood curdling faint cry of “oh murder” seems satisfactory to you I’m sure.

It seems satisfactory to me that the claim you made of no screams is demonstrably false.

[Iconoclast]

Because you know for a fact how things went down in her room? You know for a fact she was fully conscious when she realised she was being attacked?

I don't know, no (on the contrary, my assumption is that she was strangled and therefore very dead). But that's not the point here! I can infer she would have to have been fully conscious for her to have complied with RJ's vision that she fought back and therefore suffered 'defensive wounds'.

You know for a fact she had many opportunities to scream because her killer, like any good Hollywood-villain, spent his time approaching her in a menacing manner instead of, for instance grabbing her throat or punching her or simply lying close to her in bed when he grabbed his knife?

Well, if she didn't have the opportunity to scream, how was she to have the opportunity to suffer 'defensive wounds' (which is the point we were discussing obviously)?

Prater testified that she heard a scream around the time MJK might conceivably have been murdered, yet you state for a fact there were no screams.

I think erobitha has adequately dealt with this one.

Careful Kattnip, I'm not saying there weren't screams, I am suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that a person who knows their life is in mortal danger will do anything other than scream at the top of their voice for as long as they possibly can.

No such prolonged screaming was reported. This rather obviously favours the notion that she was dead when the 'F' shape was carved into her arm.

[Iconoclast]

Thing is, it's not actually the letter F. Just like the marks on the wall aren't letters.

Just fire us over the evidence then as you have now acquired a burden of proof by categorically telling us this.

[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...

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...

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

[Iconoclast]

What slashes examples can you show that can create such angular cut marks as on her left arm. The middle part of the top of the F has been cut straight. That is not a slash. It is deliberate.

It can't be a deliberate act, ero b, as that would imply they were intentional cuts and - of course - we all know that if Florence's initials are intentionally in that room, the challenge of claiming a hoax becomes a thousand times more difficult. Therefore, you must be wrong, I'm afraid, mate. As must I, for that matter.

Ike

[John Wheat]

This thread just gets more and more stupid and pointless.