google ngrams

[Harry D]

How did the hoaxer get so good a Maybrick signature into the weatch?

Well, according to you, the accuracy of the handwriting doesn't matter anyway.

Does there exist a clear, side-by-side comparison of the two?

[Iconoclast]

And next time, Ike, not so much of the 'Old.'
Stay well,
Woodsy

I feel after your contribution to the case you should be 'Sir Woodsy'. It is high time and I am penning the requisite missive to Queen Bess II tonight to give her fair warning for the January list.

I intended the use of 'Old' solely in the context that one would address a chum of some standing and duration (which is an obvious liberty on my part, but - then - it is me taking the liberty, it's what I do best ... I don't actually have any chums, of course, so occasionally I borrow other peoples').

I most certainly was not intending to suggest that your knees were creaking on the way up the stairs, young man (even if your use was somewhat more metaphorical than mine). That is my penance, sadly, for a life well-lived and too many years under the belt.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well, according to you, the accuracy of the handwriting doesn't matter anyway.

Does there exist a clear, side-by-side comparison of the two?

I'm pretty sure that erobitha posted exactly that fairly recently but I don't recall which thread or when.

You could not use the word 'clear' in relation to the signature in the watch because it is formed of thin, barely-perceptible scratches, but - that notwithstanding - it certainly bears a very striking similarity to Maybrick's signature on his wedding certificate, especially with the rather idiosyncratic 'k'.

It's back to statistics for me. If Robbie Johnson - or indeed some other person - attempted to scratch Maybrick's signature into that (or any other) watch, the chances of the final product being in any way analogous to Maybrick's actual signature are vanishingly small.

And yet it happened.

Yet again.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Because Simon Wood may have given the hoaxer the idea that initials were there?

So how would that work, Scott?

Simon's own recent posted letter to Nick Warren gives much of the background, albeit with few dates. It's clear that when the scrapbook emerges from the shadows in 1992, very few people in the world knew of even the possibility of their boing initials on Kelly's wall, never mind the specific initials 'F' and 'M' themselves.

It is beyond plausible (way beyond plausible) to suggest that Mike Barrett was one of those people. But it really needs to be otherwise it's hard to imagine from where he would derive 'his' "An initial here, an initial there will tell of the whoring mother line".

Was it not yourself (or was it Harry D?) would suggested that Harry Damm (sp?) was the likely hoaxer? Well, the same challenge exists for him: how could he have known of initials which were not on the wider public record until the emergence of the scrapbook itself?

People say that the scrapbook brought nothing new to the case. Well, the actual initials were not identified according to Simon. Only the possibility of letters. So the scrapbook brought us to an awareness of those two initials on Kelly's wall. No mean feat, say I. And they are there before anyone starts. Let's not have that facile argument again. They are there. They are a vague 'F' and a very clear 'M', and the very clear 'M' has the same rising second-half so synonymous with 'M's used throughout the scrapbook.

So how would that work, Scott? Rather than posing a question for us, how about you also furnish us with a reasonably plausible argument which explains it?

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Does there exist a clear, side-by-side comparison of the two?

Hi Harry D,

The best one to my mind [and I would say that, because it's in our book ] can be seen between pages 152 and 153 of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, Linder, Morris and Skinner, 2003, where we present clear black and white photos of a) the scratch marks inside the watch, and b) J Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence [not the marriage certificate].

It's not only the formation of individual letters that should concern us, but also the number of different ways one could sign one's own name.

JMaybrick

J Maybrick

Jas Maybrick

James Maybrick

JM

Or an indecipherable squiggle, which is all you will ever get from my very own Mr Brown.

I don't think James had any middle names, but would a modern hoaxer have known that? What if James had always signed himself, pompously: James Arthur Cecil Maybrick? Or James A C Maybrick? Or Jas A Maybrick? Or Jas Arthur Maybrick? Or J Arthur Maybrick? Or JACM? Or JAM?

Or a barely decipherable squiggle involving any combination of the above?

My Dad once typed a letter of complaint to our local council in Wandsworth, signing it in his usual manner - small, neat, but otherwise none too legible. Back came the predictably unsatisfactory response, with the added sting that it was addressed to Mr L Oodley Honkins.

We all doubled up with laughter, including my Mum, but I think you get the point that my father's name was most definitely not L Oodley Honkins. Not even being bothered to try and decipher his name from his signature, some town hall clerk just came up with the daftest rendition they could think of.

I must admit, in their place, I might have been a bit tempted to do the same.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ike,

I wouldn’t say ‘mole bonnet’ in that exact form was common. It was quite unusual. But if you add in references to fashion items made of mole fur or being mole-coloured, the suggestion that the phrase ‘mole bonnet’ is somehow wrong for the late 19th century is incorrect.

Gary

I'm not even sure what the 'suggestion' was, Gary, apart from Kattrup's 'no results found' - as if that could possibly strengthen the case for Mike Barrett trying on the mole bonnett [sic] for size.

I rather like the idea of 'Sir Jim' luring a victim with one of Florie's jolly bonnets, and then invoking the spirit of Christmas [spent far away from that London] to save her mole bonnet from going the same way.

Pretty much everything on that page has been crossed out with diagonal strokes of the pen from bottom left to top right [suggestive of someone right-handed?], including the mole bonnet reference and the last four lines on the page, referring back to the GSG:

'He likes to write with his pen
Give Sir Jim his dues
He detests all the Jews
and indeed was it not in talc'

It's a pity none of the Barrett Believers got to ask Mike about his mole bonnet and his talc, because his explanations may have been eye-opening - or eye-watering - if he didn't rapidly change the subject, or claim to have just 'made it up', without checking usage in the late 19th century.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

J Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence [not the marriage certificate].

My Dear Caz,

For the benefit of the trogs around here (of which I naturally include myself), what is the difference between a marriage certificate and a marriage licence?

I have a piece of paper somewhere giving details of the joining of Mr and Mrs Ike Iconoclast many moons ago: would that be a certificate or a licence?

Very much obliged ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The best one to my mind [and I would say that, because it's in our book ] can be seen between pages 152 and 153 of Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, Linder, Morris and Skinner, 2003, where we present clear black and white photos of a) the scratch marks inside the watch, and b) J Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence [not the marriage certificate].

As Louis Armstrong very nearly sang, "A 'k' to build a dream on" ...

PS Nice bit of self-promotion there, I love it! I really should mention my brilliant Society's Pillar occasionally [available at all major web browsers near you].

Ike

[caz]

"spreads mayhem" - first use 1979. "spreading mayhem" a bit earlier, 1946.

The slight problem with this one is that it is formed of two stand-alone words that have long been around, and the diary concerns a man who, uniquely, was spreading mayhem - in the 19th century sense of carnage - around the place with the knife in his hand. The term serial killer would not be coined until the late 20th century, but my goodness, Jack the Ripper was literally spreading the carnage around Whitechapel, so why would the diary author have been incapable of juxtaposing 'to spread' with 'mayhem', in that sense, and not the more modern diluted sense of chaos, disorder, confusion and so on, when spreading it would become a natural alternative to causing it? How does one man spread mayhem in the modern sense of the word with a knife?

'Carnage' has gone the same way, unfortunately, and has become so diluted from overuse and misuse in recent years that its original meaning is in danger of being lost by future generations and never used in that sense again. You hear it all the time: "Oh it was total carnage out there, with everyone trying to grab the last loo rolls on the shelf." "It's always carnage when the Barrett Believers clash with the Diary Defenders."

No it's not. Stop it. Use the word properly, in the right context, for people who are actually getting slaughtered - and I don't mean getting drunk.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My Dear Caz,

For the benefit of the trogs around here (of which I naturally include myself), what is the difference between a marriage certificate and a marriage licence?

I have a piece of paper somewhere giving details of the joining of Mr and Mrs Ike Iconoclast many moons ago: would that be a certificate or a licence?

Very much obliged ...

Ike

Here is the low-down on the licence as opposed to the certificate.

The former comes before the ceremony, the latter afterwards.

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en...land_and_Wales

The marriage certificate is an official statement that two people have got married.

Hope this helps, Ikeypoo.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There was quite an age difference between Jim and Bunny, and I believe their son was born eight months after the wedding, so they may have been in rather a hurry. I don't recall if there was any opposition to the marriage from either side, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised.

And then there was poor Sarah 'Piggy' Robertson, calling herself Mrs Maybrick and considering herself to be Jim's wife in the moral sense if not the lawful one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ike,

" . . . albeit with few dates."

Here's one for you.

1st April 1989 [see attached].



Quite appropriate in any discussion of the diary.

Stay well.

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Because Simon Wood may have given the hoaxer the idea that initials were there?

Maybe, but I doubt it.

I don't think there is any good reason to believe that the Bard of Goldie Street was aware of the 'FM' mythology. He's playing a different funny little game of his own invention.

The hoaxer writes 'an initial here, an initial there,' which indicates the initials will NOT be found side-by-side. One initial will be found in one location, the other initial will be found somewhere else. That's the implication. By contrast, the arterial blood spray (wrongly interpreted as 'FM') does not fill the bill. The initials are side-by-side and even bleed--sorry for the pun!--into one another. Which hardly qualifies as "an initial here, an initial there."

Further, the hoaxer also writes that this clue is 'in front for all eyes to see'--thus stupidly retaining the perspective of the police camera, as humorously noted by the historian Alex Chisholm. 'FM' is not 'in front' of anything; it's on the back sidewall.

Thus, the infamous 'FM' is just a misinterpretation by Feldman and his latter day groupies.

Personally, I believe that Bongo Barrett was referring to the 'M' found on Annie Chapman's envelope (earlier referred to in the diary as a clue) and the vague 'F' that Ike sees on Kelly's forearm, which is almost certainly nothing more than a grisly defensive wound, as previously demonstrated. Thus, 'an initial here, an initial there.'

[Iconoclast]

I don't think there is any good reason to believe that the Bard of Goldie Street was aware of the 'FM' mythology. He's playing a different funny little game of his own invention.

Of course he wasn't aware of it. He didn't write the text.

The hoaxer writes 'an initial here, an initial there,' which indicates the initials will NOT be found side-by-side. One initial will be found in one location, the other initial will be found somewhere else. That's the implication.

Maybrick was perfectly entitled to be as 'poetic' as he wanted. He didn't have to answer to our 21st century black and white and literal understanding of the events of 1888. He could have 'poetically' meant the 'FM' which is unequivocally on Kelly's wall and were never in a million years blood splashes (and - in truth - we all know this), or he could have meant the 'F' he so clearly carved into Kelly's arm (anyone think it looks more like anything else?) as well as - for example - the position he deliberately left her legs, forming as they did a crude and inarticulate 'M' (it's not for us to tell him he didn't intend to do this even if we think it was a rubbish version of an 'M'), or he could have meant other letters which the camera did not capture or which it did and which we have been unable to discern, or he could have meant any one or more of these possibilities. There are certainly enough there to comfortably fit what he wrote.

By contrast, the arterial blood spray (wrongly interpreted as 'FM') does not fill the bill. The initials are side-by-side and even bleed--sorry for the pun!--into one another. Which hardly qualifies as "an initial here, an initial there."

Assuming (see my comment above) that this was the example he was solely thinking about, but - even if it was - he is still entitled (presumably days after the horror) to choose to remember them that way or else to ignore the literal inadequacy of his doggerel in order to write a line in his own scrapbook for his own eyes which he simply liked. If Maybrick is never to be permitted the context he deserves because he lived in those days (whilst we did not) we will always find literal errors in his account of those days. Literal errors may condemn his personal scrapbook in our eyes, but he was entitled to write what he liked and - as long as it was not an unequivocal error - we cannot cling to it now crying "It can't be so. It doesn't make sense. He couldn't have meant that".

Further, the hoaxer also writes that this clue is 'in front for all eyes to see'--thus stupidly retaining the perspective of the police camera, as humorously noted by the historian Alex Chisholm. 'FM' is not 'in front' of anything; it's on the back sidewall.

I'd say that the side wall was perfectly 'in front' in terms of visibility. Once again, you seek a literal version of events where a nuanced one is more than adequate.

Thus, the infamous 'FM' is just a misinterpretation by Feldman and his latter day groupies.

There is nothing infamous about Florrie's initials being on Kelly's wall. I think what you meant to type was 'bloody inconvenient'?

Personally, I believe that Bongo Barrett was referring to the 'M' found on Annie Chapman's envelope (earlier referred to in the diary as a clue)

Never in a trillion years, Roger.

... and the vague 'F' that Ike sees on Kelly's forearm ...

You slip in 'vague' as though that were never so well proven, and - if not challenged - may seek to build on this terrible defence in future posts so let me address it right now for the benefit of all those young and upcoming Ripperologists who might read your comment and assume it is even 'vaguely' correct: the 'F' on Kelly's arm is a big, red (presumably) unequivocal 'F' and if anyone tries to suggest otherwise you should ask yourself "What motivation would they have for doing so?".

... which is almost certainly nothing more than a grisly defensive wound, as previously demonstrated.

I'm open to being corrected on this but my - albeit 'vague' (in the true sense of the word) - understanding is that defensive wounds tend to be to the hands and lower arms and tend to be straight cuts (obviously from the knife the victim is being attacked with). Defensive wounds do not consist of large chunks of flesh torn from the body and forming a very obvious letter 'F'. Like rivulets of blood on bedroom walls, defensive wounds are simply not that articulate.

Thus, 'an initial here, an initial there.'

And - finally - something we can definitely agree on, Roger!

Your old mucker,

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

...the 'F' on Kelly's arm is a big, red (presumably) unequivocal 'F' and if anyone tries to suggest otherwise you should ask yourself "What motivation would they have for doing so

As I said before, if it was so obvious, the doctors and police would have made note of it.

As for your other questions, I can't answer them. We'd have to reach out to the spirit of Harry Dam.