Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I left it there for the fools... (2)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I left it there for the fools... (2)

    I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see.’

    It is not difficult to decipher these lines; you simply have to read them properly.

    To begin with, if something is there for ‘all eyes to see,’ and yet, according to the diarist, you will not be able to see it, it must mean that the murderer has disguised it in some way.

    Secondly, the diarist quite clearly states that he has left it in ‘the front.’ However, it is important to notice that the diarist underlines this word ‘front’ not once, but twice. Therefore, what he is saying to you is that what he has left is not only in a general forward direction (i.e., wherever you happen to look – foreground or background), but he is stating that it is in the ‘the front’ – the foreground! This is why the ‘FM’ that is often help up as the answer to this riddle cannot possibly be what the diarist was referring to: it is on the back partition wall and, therefore, it is in the background, not the foreground!

    The next thing to work out is where the front is. Some would say that the front could refer to the first thing that someone would see when they entered Kelly’s room – which, in this case, would have consisted of several items, including the floor, a man’s navy blue overcoat and an oak table.
    However, what we have to realise is that, to the murderer, the focus of the room is the body on the bed; that is what he wants to draw your attention to; it is what he wants you to see. Anyone wishing to view this body would’ve have had to have passed through the doorway and, once clear of the door, either turned their head to the right, or turned to the right. Having done this, they would’ve been confronted with virtually the same scene that we see in the photo. Therefore, any ‘FM’ left by the murderer is likely to be in this photo.

    At this point, I could elaborate on the various candidates for ‘the front,’ but I will forego such measures as I wish to keep this as short as possible. I shall simply reveal to you that ‘the front’ referred to in the diary is the top of the bed nearest to us and the body on top of it.

    If we look closely at, roughly, the middle section of the top of the bed, we should notice four things. Firstly, there is the ‘F’ shaped incision on the back of Kelly’s forearm that I know has been discussed before (and then, for some reason, completely ignored). Then there is the position of the left forearm. Next we have the curiously placed piece of chemise/bed sheet/whatever you want to call it (from now on I shall call it a chemise), that has been deliberately pulled back across the body. And, finally, we have the inner left thigh of Kelly. All these items are of importance because – unbelievably - they actually make up our hidden ‘FM.’

    First, the ‘F’...
    Why no one has investigated this further I have no idea. When you have a document (that no one has proved to be anything other than genuine, despite popular opinion) that specifically tells you that the murderer has left an initial with the letters ’F’ and ‘M’ in it, the first thing you should do, after actually finding a clear ‘F’ on her arm, is to look for the ‘M’.

    To be fair, I suspect that most of the people that dismissed the ‘F’ - and who labelled it as ‘standing for anybody’ - were from the anti-diarist brigade and, therefore, it was not in their interest to find the ‘M’. It is also the case that, until you understand the three lines fully, you will not understand what the word ‘hidden’ actually means. But that will be made clear soon.

    The most important thing to notice about the ‘F,’ however, (and this is the give-away to the whole thing) is that it is upside down. Now, if the ‘F’ is upside down then surely it should begin to stir in the thoughts of anyone looking at it that maybe, just maybe, the ‘M’ is upside down too (This, as you may have guessed, is one-half of the meaning of the word ‘hidden.’ The other being the fact that Jack has created the ‘FM’ out of a variety of different elements instead of simply writing it).

    So, the ‘FM’ is upside down and now we wish to see it. We could, at this point, invent many ingenious ways of doing this (standing on our heads, using mirrors etc.), or we could just turn the whole photo upside down. And, when we do so, we get this.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	New Picture.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	148.3 KB
ID:	670839

    Above is a cropped and upturned version of the Mary Kelly photo. Underneath it is a cropped and enlarged version of this photo. As you can see the ‘F’ is clearly visible on the left forearm. Next to this is the ‘M,’ which has been created using the outside edge of Kelly’s left forearm, the piece of chemise, and the inner contour of Kelly’s left thigh.

    In order to understand the ‘M’ we must first ask ourselves two question, namely:

    1) Why is Kelly’s left forearm in that position? And,

    2) Why is that piece of her chemise where it is?

    The obvious answer to these two questions is that the killer has placed them there. However, if we dig a little deeper, we should begin to realise that - with regards the forearm - it s the only place he could have placed it in order to make the ‘M’ look half way decent. If he had placed it too far to the right, he would have had no room to bring the chemise across; if he had placed it too far to the left, the ‘F’ would not have aligned with the ‘M.’ Simple! Now for the Chemise...

    It is my opinion that the killer has deliberately pulled the chemise back across her body in order to form the middle ‘V’ part of a letter ‘M’. There is no reason for this item to be where it is; Kelly’s body has, quite clearly, been mutilated either side of the material. Unless we believe that it was there all the time and the murderer simply cut round the chemise, we have to come to the conclusion that it was placed there on purpose. But there are a few more clues as to the deliberate positioning of this item.

    Below are several enlarged versions of the Chemise (sorry about the quality - it’s infrared film). If we look at the left side of the material we will notice that there is an odd semi-circular depression pushed in to it (circled). This was made when the fingers of the killer’s right hand scrunched up the material as he was moulding it into the shape he required. We can tell it was the right hand because, on the right side, we have a smaller indentation that corresponds with the thumb of the right hand (circled). Another thing to notice about this large semi-circle is that we have several smaller depressions within it (arrowed). The middle finger of the right hand made the larger of these depressions. I know this because I’ve tried it, and it works.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	scan0008.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	145.8 KB
ID:	670837

    Click image for larger version

Name:	scan0007.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	25.4 KB
ID:	670838



    Added to this is the fact that there are also faint traces of blood leading away from these smaller depressions - giving away the position of the fingers - (marked) and also what seems to be the bloody imprint of a palm (circled). There is no doubt in my mind that the killer has handled this piece of material and used it to create the middle section of the ‘M’.

    So there we have it: a very brief explanation of the ‘FM.’ This ‘FM’ fits in perfectly with what is stated in the diary: It is there for all eyes to see, as the diarist says it is; it is in the ‘front,’ as the diary said it would be; and it is also cleverly hidden. Not only because the killer has turned the whole thing upside down, but because he has created it in an unusual fashion, instead of simply writing it on a wall.

    If we do not believe that the diary is real, or that James Maybrick was jack the Ripper, then what we are saying is that some person or persons unknown killed Mary Kelly and then (for some unknown reason) carved a shape that looks like an ‘F’ on her forearm. They then flopped her arm back across her chest (again, for some unknown reason); after which, they pulled the piece of her chemise back across her body (yet again, for no adequately explained reason) so that the whole thing ended up looking like an ‘FM’. Incidentally the exact same initials we are looking for - except, of course, we are not looking for them, because the diary is a fake and James’ Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. The chances of this are astronomical!



    Kind regards,

    Tempus
    Last edited by Tempus omnia revelat; 04-30-2012, 01:55 PM.

  • #2
    Hi Tempus,

    the sheet seems to be threaded through MJK, the one thing i notice from th e off is that it seems pretty clean considering.ie no blood soaking ! was it put aside perhaps during the slaughter ?

    Jason

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
      If we do not believe that the diary is real, or that James Maybrick was jack the Ripper, then what we are saying is that some person or persons unknown killed Mary Kelly and then (for some unknown reason) carved a shape that looks like an F on her forearm.
      No, what we are saying is that someone killed Kelly, flayed her body, and one mark, to one pair of 21st century eyes, using modern technology to exaggerate the cut, looks like an F to that particular person. Jesus is in the toast again.

      Mike
      huh?

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello Tempus,

        Your theory, as well as that particular quote
        from the diary, seems to presuppose that
        the Ripper knew that Kelly's crime scene
        would be photographed. Since none of the
        other victims were photographed in situ,
        why would he presume Kelly would
        be? As soon as the body was moved
        the arrangement that you see would be
        altered and rendered even more unrecognizable
        than it is now.

        Sorry, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

        Liv

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Livia View Post
          Hello Tempus,

          Your theory, as well as that particular quote
          from the diary, seems to presuppose that
          the Ripper knew that Kelly's crime scene
          would be photographed. Since none of the
          other victims were photographed in situ,
          why would he presume Kelly would
          be? As soon as the body was moved
          the arrangement that you see would be
          altered and rendered even more unrecognizable
          than it is now.

          Sorry, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

          Liv
          Hi Liv ( great name BTW, same as my daughter ! )

          I dont think the writer of the diary is necessarily saying that he expected it to be photographed in situ....well at least thats how i read it

          Regards

          Jason

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Jason,

            Thanks.

            How else would "all eyes" see it? And unless
            those viewing it, Bowyer and McCarthy, the
            police and the the doctors, et al, were standing
            on their heads, the "M" would appear as a "W".
            So by implication, the clue, if clue it is, would
            have to be manipulated, and turned upside
            down as Tempus has.

            Liv

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jason View Post

              I dont think the writer of the diary is necessarily saying that he expected it to be photographed in situ....well at least thats how i read it
              That's because the writer(s) of the diary just wanted to create some cryptic, melodramatic nonsense that people could debate, but that had no real meaning. Because it had no meaning, it couldn't be easily disproved and is open to all kinds of crazy interpretations.

              Mike
              huh?

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello Tempus omnia revelat

                As I noted earlier in your other thread, the supposed "F" on the mutilated left forearm of the victim has been noticed before on these boards.

                As for the "M" that you are finding, it seems as if you are finding that amid the bedclothes or clothing of the murdered woman in the photograph, which of course depends on an observer looking at the photograph and the light and shadow that is playing on the scene. But the killer could not have known that the corpse and the murder scene would be photographed. In fact, there was a good bet that it wouldn't be photographed since it hadn't happened in the preceding four canonical murders in the Whitechapel murders series. The same thing would not likely have been seen by someone in the room looking at the murder scene.

                So your observation is likely to be valueless. Even the apparent "F" on the skinned forearm may not be what it seems to be in the photograph if one were to examine the whole arm and see how the missing skin might have gone round the arm. That is, the "F" might be just an artifact of us all looking at the same photograph. Unfortunately for your theory, your ideas are in the same league as people supposedly finding clues in Walter Sickert's paintings or anagrams in Lewis Carroll's post-1888 writings. Wishful thinking.

                Best regards

                Chris George
                Last edited by ChrisGeorge; 04-30-2012, 06:13 PM.
                Christopher T. George
                Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
                  Unfortunately for your theory, your ideas are in the same league as people supposedly finding clues in Walter Sickert's paintings or anagrams in Lewis Carroll's post-1888 writings.
                  Chris,

                  When I was a kid, my brother and I could look out into the hall from our bunk beds and see the linen closet. The various folded items when stacked atop each other, often had profiles of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. On bad nights, it was Baba Yaga, Count Dracula, and the Wolfman. Are you saying all that was my imagination? Come on!

                  Mike
                  huh?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    what if the F is exactly that, however the other arm indeed shows an M or two ^ ^ .....we have seen them b4.....?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Tempus,

                      I guess you knew that you were onto a tough one before you started this - and you've obviously thought this through and presented it well. To be fair, IMO you've even managed to come up with an interpretation that seems to fit the diary better than the letters on the wall.

                      I'm afraid I'm not with you though - as far as I'm concerned, an interpretation is all that it is unfortunately.

                      Yes, I can see a wound that clearly resembles an inverted "F", but that could equally just be a random pattern of 3 cuts. Nor can we see the underside of the arm to determine the full extent of the injury or how far around it may extend.
                      It's your "M" that I'm really struggling with though. Grab a handful of cotton fabric and pull it up or scrunch it, and it really doesn't take any design for it to fall into a "u" or "v" - in fact, that's the natural shape for it to form. Add a random straightish edge either side of it and you have your "M". Indeed in this case, the right arm of the "M" formed by her leg would only ever be visible from the precise angle that the photo was taken at.

                      I take your observation about the chemise/sheet/whatever being placed back on her after the event though.
                      Seeing this upside down, it appears like a single piece of fabric underneath her left arm/left hand side has been flopped back over to partially cover her left shoulder and abdomen. Almost like an attempt was made to pull it back over and cover her up, but the main body of the fabric was trapped underneath her.
                      Last edited by SarahLee; 04-30-2012, 09:04 PM.
                      Sarah

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What are the chances of there being 2 (two) clear FM intials in that room?


                        Great work tempus!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi Tempus,

                          Which is more likely?:


                          The killer carved an F on the arm of MJK and arranged the folds of the bedding in the hope that it might look like an M if and when it was photographed.

                          The person who wrote the diary had studied the photograph before writing it.

                          It's the second alternative.

                          If you wanted to leave "FM" as a message, why would you not carve both initials into her flesh? What you have shown is suggestive of the diary having been written after the crime scene photographs entered the public domain and therefore not having been written by James Maybrick.

                          Regards, Bridewell.
                          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tempus omnia revelat View Post
                            In order to understand the ‘M’ we must first ask ourselves two question, namely:

                            1) Why is Kelly’s left forearm in that position? And,

                            2) Why is that piece of her chemise where it is?
                            Hello Tempus; welcome to Casebook.

                            The killer placed Mary Kelly's forearm & hand basically inside the bloody mess of an abdominal cavity that he left when he dissected her. This is called "posing", and it's one of the signatures of sexual serial killers. Sexually deviant killers find it amusing to pose victims as if they are pointing to their own mutilations or touching themselves... I think you get my drift.

                            Mary Kelly was wearing a thin chemise (the innermost undergarment) when she was murdered. You can see that the upper part of it is still visible, primarily its short puffed sleeves and neckline. Due to the age and condition of the photo it's hard to tell where the killer simply cut her right through it and where he pushed it aside or bunched it up...
                            Perhaps he found the thought that he had the "power" to dissect a woman right through her clothing exciting, so he didn't bother to remove it?

                            If you go back through the Mary Kelly threads you'll find some from 2011 where my friend Steve ('SGH') did an incredible job of enlarging & colorizing the photo of Mary so it would be easier to make out the details and differentiate which is flesh and which fabric. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand- I'll try to locate it for you later when I get back; have to go out.)

                            I remember posting some images of Victorian-era chemises on that thread. We came to the collective conclusion that her chemise was a thin patterned fabric.

                            Best regards,
                            Archaic
                            Last edited by Archaic; 05-01-2012, 03:43 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
                              Hello Tempus omnia revelat

                              As I noted earlier in your other thread, the supposed "F" on the mutilated left forearm of the victim has been noticed before on these boards.

                              As for the "M" that you are finding, it seems as if you are finding that amid the bedclothes or clothing of the murdered woman in the photograph, which of course depends on an observer looking at the photograph and the light and shadow that is playing on the scene. But the killer could not have known that the corpse and the murder scene would be photographed. In fact, there was a good bet that it wouldn't be photographed since it hadn't happened in the preceding four canonical murders in the Whitechapel murders series. The same thing would not likely have been seen by someone in the room looking at the murder scene.

                              So your observation is likely to be valueless. Even the apparent "F" on the skinned forearm may not be what it seems to be in the photograph if one were to examine the whole arm and see how the missing skin might have gone round the arm. That is, the "F" might be just an artifact of us all looking at the same photograph. Unfortunately for your theory, your ideas are in the same league as people supposedly finding clues in Walter Sickert's paintings or anagrams in Lewis Carroll's post-1888 writings. Wishful thinking.

                              Best regards

                              Chris George
                              changed my mind
                              Last edited by curious; 05-01-2012, 04:12 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X