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

[Rob Clack]

I've had many pleasant conversations with Stewart over the years about the photographs and that's not quite the case. The Sims collection of photographs were of the other victims as well as Mary Kelly. Sims said two of the photographs were unprintable, so presumably the ones we have already seen of Kelly. The photographs as well as the Littlechild letter were purchased by Eric Barton in the 1960s.

Rob

[spyglass]

Hi Rob,
Thanks,
I was going by memory and what Stuart had said about the subject on the podcast a couple of years back....Im pretty sure though he gave the impression that he felt it likely that there were more than three M C pics taken.

Just a thought, Is there not grounds to think that photos of Marys eyes were taken?

Regards.

[spyglass]

Ps..Stewart and not Stuart...I stand corrected!

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,
Thanks,
I was going by memory and what Stuart had said about the subject on the podcast a couple of years back....Im pretty sure though he gave the impression that he felt it likely that there were more than three M C pics taken.

Just a thought, Is there not grounds to think that photos of Marys eyes were taken?

Regards.

There may well have been more photographs taken, but knowing the way the Metropolitan Police worked at the time, I personally doubt it.

I don't know if that is just rumour or not about photographing Mary Kellys eyes. If they did nothing would have been seen.

Rob

[RivkahChaya]

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.

I know it was mentioned on the thread about trying to reconcile the to extant shots, and realizing that something must have been moved, because they can't be reconciled, or overlaid, even with adjustments for sizes of objects, and foreshortening.

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.

If three existed, than I'd say it's likely that more than three were taken, because probably some didn't turn out, accidentally got over-/under- or double exposed, or the plates cracked before they were developed. However, even if 16 shots were taken, it's still possible that the only two usable prints ever developed were the two that we still have. (Or three, including the exterior.)

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.

+1 on the whole post, but did want to add, since no in situ photos were taken of the other bodies, so how could the author of the diary, assuming it is the authentic work of MJK's killer (whether Maybrick or someone else), know that the trouble he went to would be preserved?

Not that some killers wouldn't go to a lot of trouble for quirky things for their own reasons, but this writer indicates "it" was for an audience.

The whole "secret that wasn't a secret" is a problem for the diary, if it's supposed to be a real account of the crimes (whoever wrote it), because the whole tenor of it is that it is for an audience, but not an audience of the author's peers-- rather some audience in the future. That just doesn't make any sense. Either the killer wanted to communicate, or he didn't, and the diary wants to have it both ways, in order for it to make more sense that the story shouldn't have come to light until so much longer after the crimes were committed.

It reminds me of the "Bacon was Shakespeare" thing. The three writers who have been most outspoken about the question insist at the same time, that Bacon needed Shakespeare to front for him, because it was dangerous for him to author plays under his own name, and yet, he put all kinds of clues and ciphers into both the plays, and the acknowledged works of Bacon, which is how the writers know the "secret." If it was such a big secret, why the heck put all the clues and ciphers into printed works? Shut the heck up, already.

[caz]

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.

Hi Bridewell,

While I don't believe JM killed MJK or wrote the diary, I still don't see how it follows that its author knew what was recorded by the photographer. All we have is some unspecified clue to the killer's identity, supposedly left "in front", but which they "will never" find. What could the author have seen in the photos that would fit either specification? Clearly it would need to be something in the foreground, or in front from the perspective of anyone entering the room, but clearly it could not be anything too obvious to have been overlooked at the time. Moreover, the photos have existed from day one, so if capturing the scene on film is meant to have made a clue that was missed during the examination jump out so clearly "for all eyes to see", it failed miserably at the time.

I think this 'clue' makes more sense as merely a literary device to spice up the story, and not something that needs to be credited with any deeper thought behind it. A hoaxer working in the days before the photos were in the public domain could put unspecified clues wherever he or she liked, and naturally a clue that never existed in the first place will never be found.

It's a circular argument to presume the diary was written after the photos entered the public domain and that the hoaxer therefore studied them and picked his/her words accordingly. You first have to show how those words relate to anything visible in the photos, and why they can only relate to something visible in the photos, and that has not been done. Besides, science dates the diary to before 1970, which could make things even trickier.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Caz - this is a dialogue of the deaf/ships that pas in the night.

Despite several off us spelling out in details our reasons for our view - you cannoy or will not seem to see it.

If we are not right, then there are only a few conclusions to be drawn:

a) the diary is what it claims to be, the diarist (Maybrick or some other) recorded what he did. Full stop. If THAT is not the case, then:

b) the forger saw the picture at some stage BEFORE it was made public - and thus it can be assumed he was a police man, an official or one of those with access to the files (of which we know there were a number);

c) the diary is based on the photo and thus the scientific tests are wrong and it post dates the 70s;

d) the dairist was going on aboyut something else and readers have either found something to fit his description (incorrectly) or the whole issue is a red-herring;

e) those of us who argue the diary record what is in the picture though it tries NOT to appear to do so by "clever wording", are correct.

I cannot see any other options.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

First, the usual caveat that I think the diary is a fake, and a modern fake.

That said, what is the larger context of "I left it there for the fools but they will never find it"? I don't have a copy of the diary handy, and I haven't read it in years, so I can't look it up. I can't even find the full paragraph online.

However, whoever wrote the diary probably did mean for "it" to stand for something, and not be entirely prevaricating, if that makes sense. I mean, IMO, the whole diary is prevaricated, but it's not the Beale cipher, with "dead ends," if you get what I mean.

Now, the thing that is mysteriously unaccounted for at the Kelly crimes scene is her heart. The coroner states that it is "absent," but he may mean merely absent from the body when he went to examine it. It is also not in the inventory of parts collected from the room, and there is speculation that the killer took it with him, although there does not seem to be a contemporary record that the police were certain it was entirely gone from the crime scene, and the idea that the killer took it is a presumption based on its not otherwise being accounted for in a pretty thorough record.

So, I am suggesting that the diarist intended "it" to refer to MJK's heart. He does not come right out and say so, because a record of it's being collected in a walk-through of the apartment might turn up, or it could be found in a jar somewhere in a basement at Scotland Yard, meaning that police did have it all along, and it just wasn't with the body at the time of autopsy.

But as the heart is the only real "mystery" about the Kelly crime scene, aside from the obvious one of who killed her. I honestly can't remember whether the diarist makes any reference to the heart directly. If he does, then, of course, this is wrong, but it seems more likely to me that the diarist had something like this in mind, rather than a message on a wall, or formed in flesh and chemise.

There are the other Kelly questions-- the lingering suspicion that she was pregnant, which seems by the best evidence not to have been the case, although, by just saying "it," and not being more specific, the diarist can shift the antecedent from the heart, to the fetus.

Lastly, I think if initials were intended, the line would be "I left them there for the fools but they will never find them."

[Gladiator]

Lastly, I think if initials were intended, the line would be "I left them there for the fools but they will never find them."

There is a huge amount of overegging and cake going on here.

He (or she) could have simply meant "I them it there ..." and meant his (or her) clue (that is, the initials). So the initials (plural) become the clue (singular).

Doesn't get us any further forward, but at least we potentially stop falling further back.

Gladiator

[The Good Michael]

About the photos: I'm sure we see a lot less in the photos considering their primitiveness, than the investigators saw and detailed. This is the main issue. We haven't a detailed report existing of what was in the room, so we use grainy photos that lie as all photos do, to give us a picture that allows us to add whatever conjecture we want to because no one can prove us wrong. It's all Baphomet really, and the joke's on us.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

About the photos: I'm sure we see a lot less in the photos considering their primitiveness, than the investigators saw and detailed. This is the main issue. We haven't a detailed report existing of what was in the room, so we use grainy photos that lie as all photos do, to give us a picture that allows us to add whatever conjecture we want to because no one can prove us wrong. It's all Baphomet really, and the joke's on us.

Mike

Thats the reality Mike, and leaves me to wonder if the materials on the night table were from the stomach flaps and some abdominal contents, where is the skin, muscle, tendon and tissues taken from the right thing and the left inner thigh?

The mess on the table, and the location of some organs around the body does not account for the totality of materials displaced.

Cheers Mike

[The Good Michael]

Thats the reality Mike, and leaves me to wonder if the materials on the night table were from the stomach flaps and some abdominal contents, where is the skin, muscle, tendon and tissues taken from the right thing and the left inner thigh?

The mess on the table, and the location of some organs around the body does not account for the totality of materials displaced.

Exactly. Because old photos don't show detail and then people make their own details up, like FM and Baphomet and wine bottles. That pile of flesh next to the bolster (there, i said it) could have had skin and sinew underneath it. We can't know.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

There is a huge amount of overegging and cake going on here.

He (or she) could have simply meant "I them it there ..." and meant his (or her) clue (that is, the initials). So the initials (plural) become the clue (singular).

Doesn't get us any further forward, but at least we potentially stop falling further back.

Gladiator

Bear in mind, I was only suggesting what might be going on in the mind of a fake diarist, whose task he set for himself was to tie up loose ends, but not too tightly. You know, to appear to have special knowledge, which would mean answering a lot of the lingering questions about the case. However, he had to be careful not to paint himself into a corner, and have the diary discredited by future discoveries. "Sort of" accounting for the missing heart, by suggesting, while not stating directly, that it was left at the scene, but hidden somewhere, as a kind of joke on the police, whom the killer considered "fools," fits the bill.

Now, I don't know this, and it's probably unknowable. We'd have to identify the forger, and then trust him to be truthful about what was in his mind at a certain point in the writing process.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hummmm... A Truthful Forger...

[RivkahChaya]

Hummmm... A Truthful Forger...

This is what I'm getting at.