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

[caz]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

Hi Baron,

I suspect Maybrick poisoned dogs just for jolly. He'd have shot yours if he'd been there and seen it.

And Liz Prater's kitten would have been silenced with the 'Poison for Cats' found in Battlecrease among Florie Maybrick's effects, despite the fact that she adored kitties and died surrounded by her furry friends.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

From the Maybrick A to Z:
Tinne, Earnest ... allegedly had two of his dogs poisoned by James Maybrick because their barking annoyed him...
So here we have it gentlemen, JM was known to be a dog killer, and we have clear 2 dogs drawings on the walls of Kelly's room, I mean what do you want more than this a proof, it is as obvious as the sun in the sky.
TB

Brilliant - this definitely cracks it in my favour! "At last!" I hear you all gasp!

But, just to clarify, where is the James Maybrick document in which he makes reference to his having drawn dogs in Mary Kelly's room or on her walls (inside or out)?

That bit's a wee bit crucial, wouldn't you say? Otherwise, the random, desperate, facile identification of an amorphous canine here and an amorphous canine there could not lead to the whoring mother nor her whoring husband, now, could it?

[The Baron]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

From the Maybrick A to Z:

Tinne, Earnest ... allegedly had two of his dogs poisoned by James Maybrick because their barking annoyed him...

So here we have it gentlemen, JM was known to be a dog killer, and we have clear 2 dogs drawings on the walls of Kelly's room, I mean what do you want more than this a proof, it is as obvious as the sun in the sky.


TB

[FISHY1118]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

I'm afraid that's also fake baron , but nice try

[Iconoclast]

They aren't initials though so the whole thing is a waste of time. The undeniable fact is that the area was examined closely, and guess what - no initials. Reassuring to see life in the fish tank carries on as normal. Don't worry, I put on fresh 'trackies' for this visit ha ha. See you next year.

That's why I also called them 'the shapes' for the benefit of those who seek to contest that 'the shapes' form a highly credible 'F' and a pretty unmistakeable 'M'. Whether they are shapes which look like an 'F' and an 'M' or else - more simply - are an 'F' and an 'M' almost certainly is determined by any underlying biases the individual poster and reader carries around with them.

[Aethelwulf]

It was only because of the Victorian scrapbook that Florrie's initials were ever spotted on Kelly's wall

They aren't initials though so the whole thing is a waste of time. The undeniable fact is that the area was examined closely, and guess what - no initials. Reassuring to see life in the fish tank carries on as normal. Don't worry, I put on fresh 'trackies' for this visit ha ha. See you next year.

[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 ?