I left it there for the fools but they will never find it.

[Phil H]

And all that cheap jewellery - the pattern forms a diamond just as I said!!!

[caz]

A few too many assumptions

Hi there! Hi all!

LONG time 'lurker' - first time poster.

Welcome to the madhouse, Iannocenti.

I post now however in regards the initials mentioned in the diary, left at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. As far as I am aware, there are two or three original photographs of the scene; the photographer concentrating on Mary Kelly's body. From what I understand, there is more of the room left UNphotographed than was captured on film.

So why is it assumed that the initials mentioned should be displayed in the photograph?

I don't know why this is assumed, but Phil H and others continue to do so.

Firstly, it is only an assumption that the 'initial here' and 'initial there', as mentioned in the diary, were ever meant to refer to two different initials - F and M for Flo Maybrick - both left side by side in MJK's room by 'Sir Jim'. The photo is the culprit here, for suggesting to those who see patterns in clouds that there are two initials - FM - in blood on the wall.

For all we know the diary author's initials could both have been an F, say, with one 'here' (ie wherever 'Sir Jim' is supposed to be writing his diary) and the other 'there' (admittedly the murder scene being the obvious inference for the reader to make).

However, the words: "I left it there for the fools but they will never find it" begin a new paragraph of prose, after the lines of doggerel which mention initials, so it's anyone's guess whether "it" refers to an initial or something else entirely. Again, it is only an assumption that this is a reference to the two supposed initials - FM - on the wall. But this time it is not the obvious inference to make, nor indeed a logical one, because the author only uses the word "initial" in the singular; the word "it" is also singular - for whatever was meant to be left "for the fools"; and it was not supposedly left on the wall behind the corpse on the bed, but in "front" (underlined for emphasis in the diary).

If the "fools" at the actual crime scene were never going to find "it" (or at least recognise "it" for the clue it was meant to be), why should we expect to see and recognise "it" in any of the photos? More to the point, why would the diary author have expected us to find it in a photo, particularly on the wall at the back, when he tells us he left it in front but it will never be found?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I don't know why this is assumed, but Phil H and others continue to do so.

I don't know why you continue to ignore what I say, caz, but you do.

Phil

[caz]

Since the diary ONLY discusses marks visible in the famous photograph, the conclusion logicall MUST be...

Hi Phil,

Once again, you are being caught out by the same cautionary tale you tell about seeing patterns in clouds and wishing for things that are not really there.

Firstly, you must be "seeing" marks in the famous photo (ie FM on the wall at the back) in order to claim that the diary author must have seen the same marks. Secondly, you must be "seeing" things in the diary in order to claim that those marks are even discussed there. There is no mention of initials (plural) in blood on the wall.

The conclusion must be that people will see whatever they want to see, wherever they want to see it, and you can rest assured you are not the only one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To a point that Phil made, the number of photographs taken in room 13 seems to be 6, as I understand one of the plates is numbered..." X of 6".

Best regards

[Rob Clack]

Hi all,

To a point that Phil made, the number of photographs taken in room 13 seems to be 6, as I understand one of the plates is numbered..." X of 6".

Best regards

And where did you hear this?

Rob

[Phil H]

Once again, you are being caught out by the same cautionary tale you tell about seeing patterns in clouds and wishing for things that are not really there.

I am not "caught out" by anything. I am making a logical comment upon the comments and observations of others - as you would understand if you actually read my posts.

Firstly, you must be "seeing" marks in the famous photo (ie FM on the wall at the back) in order to claim that the diary author must have seen the same marks. Secondly, you must be "seeing" things in the diary in order to claim that those marks are even discussed there. There is no mention of initials (plural) in blood on the wall.

Again I am not SEEING anything. It is, I have always agreed, possible to perceive what appear to be an F and an M on the panelling behind the bed in the best known photo in some copies of the photo at least. I have no knowledge or interest as to whether they appear on the available best copy or glass plate (if that exists). Whether those marks are intentional or were deliberately made is another matter. For all I know they might be partly formed by creases in the wallpaper paper or the unulations in the underlying panelling.

What I can say is that no one who visited the room in November 1888 referred to them. So I can assert that, from the perspective of someone standing or moving about in the room, rather than looking at a photo, they did not stand out or more probably did not exist at all.

The conclusion must be that people will see whatever they want to see, wherever they want to see it, and you can rest assured you are not the only one.

Draw your own conclusions, Caz.

Phil

[Iannocenti]

Hi Caz and thank you for the welcome

The purpose of my first post was to ask why some assume that any intial should appear in the crime scene photographs? I agree that 'leaving it in front' surely rules out any alledged initial(s) behind the body. This must also make any initial ON the body incorrectly identified too - as 'on' is not 'in front'.

As I mentioned, there is more to the room than what appears in the photographs, so why is there so much argument and speculation over what is shown in the images? Why narrow the 'area of evidence' to a photograph, of which the author had no control.

I have already admitted that I was quite convinced the diary was the real deal. However, to me it would be too much of a coincidence that James' 'initial here - initial there' statement could be proved by using a crime scene photograph he had no control of, that doesn't show initials IN FRONT of anything (unless his cunning plan was to leave them in front of the back wall for all to see! ) Too good to be true.

If it is your belief that the diary is real (and I am ALMOST with you on that one) surely the statements in the diary that directly oppose fact need resolving, e.g

Mary Kelly's breasts, according to the diary, are left on the table with the other stuff. We know that to be untrue. Why would the author make that mistake?

Just my humble opinion of course
Ian

[caz]

Hi Phil,

I agree with your conclusions about the apparent marks on the wall. But you completely ignored the point I was making about your reference to the diary:

Since the diary ONLY discusses marks visible in the famous photograph, the conclusion logicall MUST be...

Once again, the diary does NOT discuss, mention or even hint at any marks left on the wall, ie behind the bed and the corpse. If you think otherwise, it MUST be because you are seeing things in the diary which are not actually there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz and thank you for the welcome

The purpose of my first post was to ask why some assume that any intial should appear in the crime scene photographs? I agree that 'leaving it in front' surely rules out any alledged initial(s) behind the body. This must also make any initial ON the body incorrectly identified too - as 'on' is not 'in front'.

As I mentioned, there is more to the room than what appears in the photographs, so why is there so much argument and speculation over what is shown in the images? Why narrow the 'area of evidence' to a photograph, of which the author had no control.

Hi Ian,

I'm in broad agreement with you here. Too many assumptions are made by both ends of the spectrum in connection with the photos, the diary and the supposed marks on the wall.

If it is your belief that the diary is real...

It is not my belief that James Maybrick wrote the diary, but many have assumed it is, because I tend to wade in whenever I see poorly reasoned arguments on either side that would otherwise go unchallenged. It's all too easy to challenge arguments made for the diary, but it's also important to stick to the facts when arguing against it.

Mary Kelly's breasts, according to the diary, are left on the table with the other stuff. We know that to be untrue. Why would the author make that mistake?

They were left on the table according to the press reports at the time, so the diary author could have read the papers and assumed that anyone with access to the crime scene after the murder would have reported such a thing correctly. A modern hoaxer should have got it right if working from the latest reference books in the late 80s. 'Sir Jim' assumes he left them on the table but unaccountably he also says he thought of leaving them by MJK's feet, where one was actually found. Again, if a modern hoaxer had read Bond's report, he/she would have known that the other breast was found under the head, so neither was on the table.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

There also shouldn't be an image of Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich, but with just the right amount of fanaticism and imagination, there is.

Now really, why shouldn't there be? There's just as likely to be an image of Jesus, as anything else, including the #6 Rorschach blot, or the 1,000,000th (to the number) unidentifiable thing, and considering the number of toasted cheese sandwiches that must get made in this world every day, infinite monkeys, with infinite typewriters, and all that.

Yes, I'm familiar with pareidolia, and certainly is primarily what is happening with toasted Jesus, but the Law of Large Numbers pops up here as well.

As far as the "F," while I wouldn't swear to it, I would guess that there are several aspects of photographic distortion going on. When a 3-dimensional image gets turned into a 2-dimensional one, sometimes things get lost in translation.

I think the F is a combination of missing flesh and blood smears, that is only visible when the arm is at just the right angle, and then seen 2-dimensionally. If we saw it 3-dimensionally, we'd see that the edges that make the inside and outside of the back of the F are different distances from the camera, and then the effect of their forming a solid shape would go away. We'd also lose the shape by turning the arm even a little. And, we'd have different colors. I think the effect of a solid figure (the capital F) would vanish if we saw it in color and 3-dimensions (I almost said "live," but that didn't look right at all).

Apophenia is the phenomenon.

"Apophenia" is seeing patterns in random data, like people who think they detect a pattern in the way a pair of dice come up at a craps table, so the dice must be rigged, or people who think their neighbor is watching him, because he takes his dog out in the evening always at the same time the person takes out his trash.

Schizophrenics are prone to "see" patterns in everything, that no one else can see, and conspiracy theorists sometimes think they spot a pattern, and get so excited about the idea of "special knowledge" they just discount anything that doesn't fit, or else claim it's part of the conspiracy.

"Pareidolia" is a particular subtype of apophenia, and applies to patterns in images. It's also something that happens to everyone, including people who are perfectly aware that no, there's not really a picture of Jesus on the sandwich, certainly not a miraculous one, but yeah, the dark spots do kind of form a face, with long hair and a beard, and it's interesting. If we didn't have this ability, we wouldn't be able to have Impressionist art. Also, people who have lost some vision due to eye diseases can fill in the blank spots based on experience, combining information from both eyes, and other sensory input, to continue to perceive normal images in their brains, and it's because of this.

But "The Nun Bun" totally is Mother Theresa.

Actually, all cinnamon buns look like Mother Teresa.

I don't know if Tempus is posting anymore, and most people already know what I think of the diary, but I think it's good this thread brought up discussions of things like apophenia, pareidolia, the law of Large Numbers, etc., because those are things we trip over a lot, trying to make sense of information that has huge gaps.

[Michael W Richards]

And where did you hear this?

Rob

Off the top Rob, Im not sure...but it certainly makes sense there are more pics when we have 1 and 3 and no shot from the foot of the bed, for one. No shot of the rest of the room...the fireplace, specifically the material on the table. Ill dig around my Ripper archive drive and see if I referenced it somewhere. Perhaps Simon Wood might also be able to shed some light on this.

Cheers

[Rob Clack]

Off the top Rob, Im not sure...but it certainly makes sense there are more pics when we have 1 and 3 and no shot from the foot of the bed, for one. No shot of the rest of the room...the fireplace, specifically the material on the table. Ill dig around my Ripper archive drive and see if I referenced it somewhere. Perhaps Simon Wood might also be able to shed some light on this.

Cheers

Thanks Michael.

I think you will find that there are no surviving plates. What we have is two original prints of the full length photo of Mary Kelly and one original print of the view from the otherside. There was a negative of the exterior of Millers Court which is now missing. None of those were numbered in anyway.
There may or may not have been more photographs taken I personally doubt it.

Regards

Rob

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I think Stuart Evans revealed the likelyhood that there were more than three photographs taken at Millers court, and that the book seller ( who's name evades me at the moment ) who gave Stuart the Littlejohn letter, claimed that he had some somewhere but they were never found.
I think it very likely there were more than three taken.

Regards.

[Bridewell]

Same Old Same Old

"I left it there for the fools but they will never find it"

makes it quite clear that "it" was supposedly still available to be found at the time of writing. This wouldn't be true of a temporary phenomenon like a mark on the body or a fold in clothing, but would be true of something with the permanence of a photographic record. The photographs were not in the public domain until Don Rumbelow found them and recognised what they were, by which time James Maybrick had been dead for 70 years. James Maybrick couldn't know what was recorded by the photographer and nor could the killer of MJK, but the diary writer did. Therefore the diary writer had seen the photograph. Therefore James Maybrick didn't kill MJK and didn't write the diary.