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

[rjpalmer]

Please chose the answer that best reflects your views. Your vote will not be public. The poll ends February 28th, 12 noon.

[JeffHamm]

In some versions I recall seeing what looked like two blood trails that looked to me like arterial "spurts", that sort of formed an M shape. I don't recall ever being able to discern a J though. In many of the photos online I can't even see the "M", but that could be due to the quality of the digital image. Personally, I suspect that even if the splashes on the wall not been found, the "an initial here an initial there" line (quoted from memory, so possibly not 100% as phrased) would have just been tied to the fact that Mary Jane has an M and J in her initials, as does James Maybrick, and I have a sneaky suspicion that's what the diary writer was actually referring to.

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

I can’t see a ‘J’ either, I’m extremely relieved to say.

I think you need to read a bit more of the scrapbook. The line is referring to Florence Maybrick’s initials not James’.

The bit about Mary Jane was therefore not terribly helpful and I suspect you were probably ever so wrong on your sneaky suspicion.

It should be illuminating at this point how very little the vast majority of posters know about the Maybrick case despite how much authority they portray when they post.

[JeffHamm]

I can’t see a ‘J’ either, I’m extremely relieved to say.

I think you need to read a bit more of the scrapbook. The line is referring to Florence Maybrick’s initials not James’.

The bit about Mary Jane was therefore not terribly helpful and I suspect you were probably ever so wrong on your sneaky suspicion.

It should be illuminating at this point how very little the vast majority of posters know about the Maybrick case despite how much authority they portray when they post.

Ooops! I meant F, but was getting ahead of myself, and when I wrote J an old idea popped into my head.

And yes, it's been awhile since I looked at the diary, and as you mention, I think the passage does refer to Florence, which renders my sneaky suspicion more of a sneak from the past as I had dismissed the idea back then for the very same reason.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

In many of the photos online I can't even see the "M", but that could be due to the quality of the digital image.

- Jeff

Could a quality photo be posted that shows the alleged letters. I haven't seen one that I could say that I could discern any letters. That said, in these days of photoshop and AI, can we be certain of any reproduction of an original photo?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Could a quality photo be posted that shows the alleged letters. I haven't seen one that I could say that I could discern any letters. That said, in these days of photoshop and AI, can we be certain of any reproduction of an original photo?

Cheers, George

Hi George,
I believe there is a higher def version that is supposed to be a good representation of the original. But then, supposed to be and is are very different concepts! There is a reason why serious historical research involves viewing actual original documents in person. Even photographs distort things, introducing or masking details.

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

I believe there is a higher def version that is supposed to be a good representation of the original. But then, supposed to be and is are very different concepts! There is a reason why serious historical research involves viewing actual original documents in person. Even photographs distort things, introducing or masking details.

What would be very interesting would be even just knowing who possesses the original material - for example, an original print from the original photographer. It is clear that the police allowed themselves to spirit material away as souvenirs (and it's hard to blame them for that) but now we are left with possibly only a (large?) proportion of what once the official case held.

George's point is sadly true: in the modern age, can we trust anything is what it claims to be?

[JeffHamm]

What would be very interesting would be even just knowing who possesses the original material - for example, an original print from the original photographer. It is clear that the police allowed themselves to spirit material away as souvenirs (and it's hard to blame them for that) but now we are left with possibly only a (large?) proportion of what once the official case held.

George's point is sadly true: in the modern age, can we trust anything is what it claims to be?

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.

But, reproductions that appear in digital form on the net .... who knows how close they represent the photo they purport to represent? Some, at least, do point out they have been manipulated (enhanced), but sometimes those images get passed on without pointing that out.

As I say, I recall seeing an "M" shaped splatter (but not the F ) in one version, but not even the M in others. If the plates are still in good shape, then best would be a good new print as the original photos would be degraded due to time ( and it is the plate that contains the real original image - a photo as we think of it is just a reproduction made from the negative, which is the original image - which itself could be influenced by the developing process ... Etc).

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

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.

But, reproductions that appear in digital form on the net .... who knows how close they represent the photo they purport to represent? Some, at least, do point out they have been manipulated (enhanced), but sometimes those images get passed on without pointing that out.

As I say, I recall seeing an "M" shaped splatter (but not the F ) in one version, but not even the M in others. If the plates are still in good shape, then best would be a good new print as the original photos would be degraded due to time ( and it is the plate that contains the real original image - a photo as we think of it is just a reproduction made from the negative, which is the original image - which itself could be influenced by the developing process ... Etc).

- Jeff

A print taken in 2025 from a glass plate would be amazing, but do we know who owns the glass plate (or plates)?

The shape which looks like an 'F' is only about 60% the clarity of the 'M'. Some people say they can't see either shape, some - like you at one point, you say - see the shape which looks like an 'M' but not the 'F', and some see both shapes. In Farson (1973, below) I have no problem seeing both shapes but I appear to be in a minority.

[JeffHamm]

A print taken in 2025 from a glass plate would be amazing, but do we know who owns the glass plate (or plates)?

The shape which looks like an 'F' is only about 60% the clarity of the 'M'. Some people say they can't see either shape, some - like you at one point, you say - see the shape which looks like an 'M' but not the 'F', and some see both shapes. In Farson (1973, below) I have no problem seeing both shapes but I appear to be in a minority.

That's the one I can see the M in! Still can't see the F though. And in the M (the right hand arch) I can see a 2 as well (the bottom is "looped", so like a 2 done in cursive script type thing). To me the "M" looks like blood spurting twice, like two consecutive heart beats after her throat was cut spraying blood on the wall. The position relative to the edge of the bed fits with that in my opinion as well as it's right beside where someone's neck would be if they were laying on the bed on that side. It doesn't look like someone "wrote" it, nor is it in a location that I would expect to be. I would think writing would be higher on the wall as the writer would be on the bed, probably kneeling, so the most natural place for "writing" to be would be above the bed at roughly shoulder height based upon someone on their knees. But, that's just what it looks like to me, I'm sure it looks different to you, but that's the nature of perception.

Anyway, I'm not sure who owns the plates or where they are supposed to be today. I'm sure that information is known though, just not by me.

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

And in the M (the right hand arch) I can see a 2 as well (the bottom is "looped", so like a 2 done in cursive script type thing).

That's interesting - I've never noticed the curly '2' before.

[richardh]

Here are my versions:

https://jtr3d.com/mary-kelly-photo-enhancments/

This one is the original placed on my 'expanded' photo enhancement. The 'FM' can be seen.

https://jtr3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Overlay.jpg

[Iconoclast]

Here are my versions ...

This is very amateurish (of me, yours are amazing) but in response to Herlock's requests on another thread here is my attempt to highlight the troublesome 'F' shape (even my highlighting is hard to see but I have attempted to draw the eye to the shape that looks like an 'F' as this seems to be a common sticking point):

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the killer was going to leave letters at the crime scene would he have placed the alleged F and M in such an odd location?. Almost at the level of the bed and where, to write them, he’d have been pretty much leaning on the corpse as he’d reached across.

[Iconoclast]

Please chose the answer that best reflects your views. Your vote will not be public. The poll ends February 28th, 12 noon.

I promise you, I'm not one of the two votes for Maybrick (and, obviously, I therefore haven't voted).