New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

[Iconoclast]

I recall someone else found a jolly little Scottie dog on Kelly's wall, alongside Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps it was Sickert after all and he did a few doodles..

You could find a sketch of Attila the Hun on Kelly's forehead but - in the absence of a reference to it in some recently-discovered document - such an image is utterly irrelevant. If you don't realise this, you're being a bit dim. If you do realise this, you're just being provocative.

Which one is it?

[The Baron]

I recall someone else found a jolly little Scottie dog on Kelly's wall

It cannot be a coincidence then, now we have established the existence of two dogs!!!

We know that Aaron kosminski had been charged for walking an unmuzzled dog!

I say this is a case closed now , this is a definitive proof of his guilt.




TB

[Iconoclast]

Amazing how Phillips made his examination of the relevant areas in pitch dark and missed them though:

I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads

Don't say it was too dark because that is clearly a load rubbish.

Don't say 'Don't say' unless your argument is categorically proven, which it is not. It's just your assumption. Same as my assumption that the lighting in the room was never adequate to highlight those potentially irrelevant initials. Neither of us were there so we're never going to prove it now 130+ years later, are we?

I would remind you of this interesting fact, though. Farson published MJK/1 in 1972 and it (and MJK/2) were repeatedly published thereafter. It was only because of the Victorian scrapbook that Florrie's initials were ever spotted on Kelly's wall, but now - because they have been spotted - it's pretty jolly obvious where to look to find them (or 'the shapes' if that makes you feel less threatened). Therefore, the light provided by the photographer's flash was still not enough to cause anyone to spot the 'FM' on Kelly's wall until Feldman sent the photograph for analysis and the now-familiar 'FM' was identified.

Please don't cite Simon Wood. We have established (and Simon has agreed) that the letters he briefly thought he saw were not the 'F' and the 'M'.

[Aethelwulf]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

I recall someone else found a jolly little Scottie dog on Kelly's wall, alongside Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps it was Sickert after all and he did a few doodles..

[The Baron]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

[Aethelwulf]

Somewhere along the lines, the Hoax Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are actually contradicted by the evidence.

We can all see those initials. We understand why you can't admit to their being there.

We understand your panic at their mere presence in MJK/1.

Amazing how Phillips made his examination of the relevant areas in pitch dark and missed them though:

I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads

Don't say it was too dark because that is clearly a load rubbish.

[Iconoclast]

Somewhere along the lines, the Diary Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are even credible.

Somewhere along the lines, the Hoax Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are actually contradicted by the evidence.

We can all see those initials. We understand why you can't admit to their being there.

We understand your panic at their mere presence in MJK/1.

[Iconoclast]

Have you read Dr Bonds post mortem?

Its very detailed and extensive wouldn't you say, ?

Where's the part that he mentions F.M initials on her forearm ?

Were not talking about a casual observer but a trained medical professional , who after his post mortem which covered just about ever part of her anatomy , he fails to mention the F.M initials ?

Then I am in good company, Fishy, because I don't mention them either.

The 'F.M.' is very obvious on Kelly's wall, whilst her arm has what appears to be a very deliberate 'F' carved into it. If Bond failed to say this, there are a number of potential reasons why but I won't speculate because we don't know.

[FISHY1118]

And how exactly would people have commented 'at the time' on the initials on Kelly's wall so evident now on MJK/1 when the photograph wasn't published with any acuity until Dan Farson in 1972?

If you are referring to those people who had the misfortune to enter Kelly's room 'at the time', I strongly suggest you think the lighting situation through. We can see her initials because the photographer used a flashbulb. No non-photographer could have done that in 1888 so how do you imagine the casual observer noticed them in the gloom of her room and when set against such terrible gore?

Have you read Dr Bonds post mortem?

Its very detailed and extensive wouldn't you say, ?

Where's the part that he mentions F.M initials on her forearm ?

Were not talking about a casual observer but a trained medical professional , who after his post mortem which covered just about ever part of her anatomy , he fails to mention the F.M initials ?

[rjpalmer]

I would suggest you try to learn from him.

TB

No worries, Baron. When I am being insulted, I just think of the phrase "bumbling buffoon" and have a good laugh. I'm in your debt for that discovery.

Really, what are we doing here, anyway?

What can we possibly say to theorists like Thomas Mitchell and Jay Hartley who don't think the top dogs at Scotland Yard --from Dr. Robert Anderson to Inspector Fred Abberline to Dr. Thomas Bond--were smart enough to have someone bring a pair of lanterns into Kelly's room in order to conduct the medical examination and to make an inventory of the room's contents? Probably not even smart enough to toss aside the old coat that was covering the window...

Someone is groping around in the dark, but I don't think it was Scotland Yard's C.I.D.

Somewhere along the lines, the Diary Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are even credible.

[Iconoclast]

I don't see any evidence of initials on Mjk that was reported at the time. . If they were then you could use the diary as evidence in the way that you suggested.

And how exactly would people have commented 'at the time' on the initials on Kelly's wall so evident now on MJK/1 when the photograph wasn't published with any acuity until Dan Farson in 1972?

If you are referring to those people who had the misfortune to enter Kelly's room 'at the time', I strongly suggest you think the lighting situation through. We can see her initials because the photographer used a flashbulb. No non-photographer could have done that in 1888 so how do you imagine the casual observer noticed them in the gloom of her room and when set against such terrible gore?

[The Baron]

I could make a suggestion or two dear Caz, but it would probably get me banned for life.

On the contrary to this, RJ was always able to express his educated views and opinions politely and professionally without getting himself banned.

I would suggest you try to learn from him.


TB

[FISHY1118]

I know what you mean, Fishy! Just because some diary with a reference to initials in Kelly's room which subsequently were identified on MJK/1 and a watch which bears James Maybrick's actual and highly idiosyncratic signature have been found just leaves Maybrick as yet one more Ripper suspect with cast-iron evidence of their guilt.

And let's face it, we don't need any more of those!

I don't see any evidence of initials on Mjk that was reported at the time. . If they were then you could use the diary as evidence in the way that you suggested.

[StevenOwl]

I'm not sure what RJ's problem is here.

I could make a suggestion or two dear Caz, but it would probably get me banned for life.

[Iconoclast]

Having said that, if his your guy all well and good ,but like Trevor and his phantom organ harvesting theory, J.M as the Ripper just because some diary and a watch surrounded by so much controversy says so doesn't cut the mustard with the me or the masses..

I know what you mean, Fishy! Just because some diary with a reference to initials in Kelly's room which subsequently were identified on MJK/1 and a watch which bears James Maybrick's actual and highly idiosyncratic signature have been found just leaves Maybrick as yet one more Ripper suspect with cast-iron evidence of their guilt.

And let's face it, we don't need any more of those!