Can you see an 'FM' on the backwall in the famous Mary Kelly photograph?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The difference being that we know that Jack the Ripper existed but we know that Bigfoot doesn’t unless you count various films of men in costumes or pictures of shaded areas in undergrowth.

[Lombro2]

This sounds so much like the issue with the Patterson-Gimlin Film. Most people see only a fifth or sixth generation copy, but you need to go to the original master copy to get a full appreciation of Patty.

Bigfoot Proof…3 Images That Prove the Patterson-Gimlin Film is Real - YouTube

This is another example of where mainstream Ripperology follows the pattern of the Bigfoot faithful and the Patterson-Gimlin believers, just so that people get the correct application of the analogy.

As for the letter M, I see nuzzing. And I don't see the wallet on Patty's right thigh, the sagging part on the butt that looks like a separation in a costume, or where Patty stops for a second to wait for Patterson to recover himself after he trips. I see nuzzing.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

The glass plate negative is long gone.

What survives are two prints of Mary Kelly on her bed, and strange to say, we aren't looking at either of them.

The photo Ike (and Feldman) are using to see the 'FM' is actually a photograph of one of the prints and it is imperfectly done.

The second of two surviving prints is a brown-tinted 'sepia' version returned to Scotland Yard in 1988. Those who have seen it (such as Rob Clack and David Barrat) insist that there is no writing on the wall. And this is said to be the clearer of the two prints.

...

Hi rj,

Oh, that's a shame. For some reason I thought the glass plate was still around (obviously it was not a very good reason).

The fact that nothing is seen in the actual sepia photograph, though, is exactly why proper historical research requires viewing original source material, and why reproductions (like photographs of the original, or scans, etc) are simply not good enough. Too many artefacts get introduced, like the flash you point out. I suppose if the Rumbelow photo does show something, then it becomes a matter of working out why one photo shows something that the other does not? If the sepia is the clearer print, then it obviously is the better material to work from. The variability in terms of seeing the letters in the reproduced images we've seen tends to weigh against the "letters" being there in my opinion.

So if there's nothing to be seen in both of the actual surviving photographs (particularly the higher quality one) then it's all a discussion about will-o-the-wisps. Hmmm, I suppose one could say that the fact the diary refers to these supposed letters, then the author of the diary seems to be basing things upon artefacts found in the reproduced photos and not something that was actually present at the crime scene, as evidenced by the original source material, which points to the diary being a forgery written after the reproduced images were made public (probably after Farson, 1973). That, of course, depends upon one arguing that the forger spotted the "letters" in the reproduced images and worked that into their storyline.

Thanks for all the info.

- Jeff

[Lombro2]

Did someone say they want to buy a vowel?

There was a Polish guy at work and, because of his last name, they called him “Buy A Vowel”.

Everything is beginning to make sense now!

[rjpalmer]

My understanding is the glass plate negatives still exist, so it should be possible to create new photographs in as good quality as the plates allow.

Hi Jeff.

The glass plate negative is long gone.

What survives are two prints of Mary Kelly on her bed, and strange to say, we aren't looking at either of them.

The photo Ike (and Feldman) are using to see the 'FM' is actually a photograph of one of the prints and it is imperfectly done.

The second of two surviving prints is a brown-tinted 'sepia' version returned to Scotland Yard in 1988. Those who have seen it (such as Rob Clack and David Barrat) insist that there is no writing on the wall. And this is said to be the clearer of the two prints.

The other of the two surviving prints is the one rediscovered by Donald Rumbelow in the 1960s.

This was photographed, using a flash bulb, and later reproduced in several books in the 1970s and 80s, including Dan Farson's.

We know we are looking at a second-generation photograph of "Rumbelow's" print because there is an ugly white "blotch" in the center (right where the letters are supposed to be) and this is the reflection of the modern photographer's flash bulb. It is said that this white blotch is not on the original.

I think you know all this, but it's never quite clear in reading the commentary that everyone is on the same page.

Even if we pretend there is a message written on the wall in blood, Ike and Feldman are open to the accusation that they are "cherry picking" what that writing is.

How do they know what other letters (or alleged letters) are hidden underneath the white blotch of the photographer's flash in the Farson version?

Why do they ignore the grimy marks to the left of the flash? Or the line between the alleged 'F' and the flash bulb's reflection?

When other versions of this photograph were posted on this forum years ago (without the white blotch) people were seeing more letters and marks and even full words.

[Geddy2112]

At a push, it may be a '+' (a cross) symbol, rather than an 'F'

Let's not give them more ammo... leave the word 'Cross' out of it..

[GBinOz]

As I've mentioned before, the letter 'M' is seemingly; yet not entirely, visible in the photo.


However, I fail to see any letter 'F' whatsoever.

At a push, it may be a '+' (a cross) symbol, rather than an 'F'


So it may read...

'+M'


A Cross and an M


Whose lodging house was opposite Miller's Court?


Crossinghams (Cross and M)


The lodging house associated with at least one other Ripper murder victim...and the building outside which Hutchinson claimed to have been standing when observing Kelly walk into the court with her male companion.

Hutchinson had just returned from Romford.

Crossingham lived in Romford


Was Hutchinson an employee of Crossingham, and Kelly was butchered for working for a rival in the Mccarthy clan?

The Crossinghams and Mccarthys ran Dorset Street, and were linked through marriage, but there was some bad blood between then.

Was George Hutchinson the Ripper?

A man who worked for Crossingham and who wrote a clue on the wall in the victim's blood?

I mean, its pretty thin, but certainly more likely than it having anything whatsoever to do with Maybrick

Hi RD,


I continue to applaud your "out of the box" thinking, but this one puts me in mind of the Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:

“I can’t see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it’s covered with a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet, it’s probably a swamp. If there’s a swamp, there’s ferns. If there’s ferns, maybe there’s even dinosaurs.”

The original observation was effectively a lack of an observation. The conclusion was dinosaurs.

Please don't consider this as a criticism. Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

As I've mentioned before, the letter 'M' is seemingly; yet not entirely, visible in the photo.


However, I fail to see any letter 'F' whatsoever.

At a push, it may be a '+' (a cross) symbol, rather than an 'F'


So it may read...

'+M'


A Cross and an M


Whose lodging house was opposite Miller's Court?


Crossinghams (Cross and M)


The lodging house associated with at least one other Ripper murder victim...and the building outside which Hutchinson claimed to have been standing when observing Kelly walk into the court with her male companion.

Hutchinson had just returned from Romford.

Crossingham lived in Romford


Was Hutchinson an employee of Crossingham, and Kelly was butchered for working for a rival in the Mccarthy clan?

The Crossinghams and Mccarthys ran Dorset Street, and were linked through marriage, but there was some bad blood between then.

Was George Hutchinson the Ripper?

A man who worked for Crossingham and who wrote a clue on the wall in the victim's blood?

I mean, its pretty thin, but certainly more likely than it having anything whatsoever to do with Maybrick

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do we have to add a new suspect to our list?

Fanny Mortimer?

Joking of course.

I’ve heard of less likely suspects George.

I was going to say that the ‘f’ wasn’t there but the ‘m’ was. For Monty.

Just to be clear…I’m not suggesting Neil Bell as a suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

Here are my versions:
https://jtr3d.com/mary-kelly-photo-enhancments/

Off-topic for this thread, so I won't elaborate further, but you shouldn't have put her kneecap in the middle of her shin

Great work as ever, otherwise.

[GBinOz]

Do we have to add a new suspect to our list?

Fanny Mortimer?

Joking of course.

[JeffHamm]

In post 9 we have an image from Farson (1973), where I can see an M shape at least, like a McDonald's M. The F, however, escapes me. And although Ike has drawn in an F, when I look the Farson version without assistance, like Herlock I'm not sure why those particular lines should get drawn other than they form an F while including other bits wouldn't so F like.

Anyway, in post 12, Richardh provides links to his work creating 3D versions, where he also provides a copy of the original photo. So, I've clipped out the region where in the Farson version I can see the M. However, in that same region of Richard's version, I do not see it, but rather just a sort of smear.

Here's my clippings. The middle one is from Richardh's image before I expanded it to be of similar size. Where there's an M in the Farson photo, in Richardh's, it is far less "M" like. The far left start of the M in the Farson version, which is connected to the first downward part of an M, is not connected at the top in Richardh's version of the image.



Anyway, as mentioned in earlier posts, the digital versions we tend to look at are quite variable in quality, and it concerns me that the M, anyway, seems more pronounced in the lower quality image.

- Jeff

[richardnunweek]

Not on a photograph, but later occupants of the room, said there was 51 clearly visible, and was seen by visitors clearly, Psalm51 begs for forgiveness. Religious mania ?
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

But we are not talking about 1888 we are talking about now. Which do you believe gives a better resolution and attention to detail a flash photograph from 1888 or modern computer enhancement?

So what would your explanation be for the Sickert caricature that appears to be on the wall?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

If you start - as you do - from the premise that the initials aren't there then is it any surprise that you manage to produce so many reasons to back up your belief?

Lines should be slanted, should they? If you add lines you can make other letters? That's the argument of someone looking to dissipate the discussion.

I'm not going to get into it here but the Jesus in the Toast phenomenon springs from the fact that there are millions of slices of toast made every single day around the world whereas there's only one MJK1 and - lo! - it has Florence's initials on Kelly's wall and you simply don't want them to be there.

We get it, you don't want 'FM' to be on Kelly's wall - so much so that you can't even say, "Yes, I see the shapes you're talking about and that is a coincidence, that is true".

I don't think that's a fair comment, Ike. I wasn't giving reasons to back up my belief. I was explaining why your supposed overwriting was defective.

The fact of the matter is that you had to add a part of a line to make the "F" work. You don't deny it. And every letter "F" I've seen has a horizontal line through it not a diagonal one.

The only way to see an "F" on that wall is to twist reality of what is there. Other letters and numbers can be made out equally well (or badly). But they don't fit the Maybrick narrative so they are ignored.

I think the face of Jesus on toast analogy is very apt because, on the one hand, we might be able to see the face of Jesus, if we look at the toast in a certain way, but when we look properly we know it's not actually there.