Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick watch in higher resolution

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    Simon Wood was no longer a lone voice howling at the moon and - whilst I believe he still occasionally gets out there and works the old larynx on high hills at midnight - he is to be congratulated for spotting what turned out to be evident in the record from at very least Farson (1972) onwards (if not Lacassagne had he or she had an Apple iPhone SE 2020 in 1899).
    I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

    And I still don't see any initials on the wall.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

      I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

      And I still don't see any initials on the wall.
      Yes, Scott, Simon was famously the first person to ever identify those letters on Kelly's wall and he could see them no problem when they didn't mean anything.

      Miraculously, when they meant too much, he could no longer see them again.

      That happens, I guess.

      Ike
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Baron View Post
        Arthur Leigh Allen, the Zodiac suspect, owned and wore a Zodiac brandwatch, that was the source behind this fabrication.



        The Baron
        Insightful as ever.

        I'm more intrigued by your choice of moniker on this forum. It is odd seeing an obscure Magna reference. What makes Baron Humbert von Gikkingen so interesting to you?
        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          My point is why assume the killer would give himself any moniker? Even if he did not write the "Dear Boss" letter, there's no reason to believe he identified himself as "Jack".
          In the diary, 'Sir Jim' very clearly identifies himself as "Jack", and signs off as 'Jack the Ripper', so we would expect whoever made the scratches in the watch to do likewise, whichever came first.

          I am curious as to why the engraver only picked the five victims. As far as I'm aware, the contemporary press had the Ripper's tally as high as nine or eleven. Therefore, you'd expect an old hoax to reflect that. Wasn't the "canonical five" a relatively modern concept? Unless, of course, the Ripper did indeed only murder those five but I find there's enough evidence to dispute that.
          Again, this matches the number and the initials of the Whitechapel victims claimed by 'Sir Jim' in the diary. Obviously the engraver could not include the initials of any victim whose name would not have been known to her killer.

          When the engravings were first deciphered, and the five sets of initials identified, the diary had yet to be published, with the details of which victims were identifiable from the text, or which might be conspicuous by their absence from it. So there were several ways in which a modern hoaxer could have made errors when choosing which initials to engrave or not to engrave. Omissions would have been less problematic, but one inclusion too many could have been instantly fatal.
          Last edited by caz; 08-02-2021, 12:49 PM.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment

          Working...
          X