Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    The James are not the May that will be Bricked for nothing

    You're free to use that, Ike.

    Comment


    • #92
      This discussion is hilarious to me because my wife has decided that Jack the Ripper qualifies as a cryptid.
      Kunochan
      Too Soon: An Irreverent Jack the Ripper Blog

      "The Jack the Ripper murders were not committed by Jack the Ripper, but by another gentleman of the same name."

      Comment


      • #93
        We believe Jack is an unknown and unclassified bipedal primate. How dare Ike think he's anything but?!
        Last edited by Lombro2; 02-07-2025, 12:38 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          If we presume Jack is completely illiterate and he can't form the letter M much less a sentence in English, are there any ideas as to why three of the last four victims had their legs hitched up with knees bent?

          We can't say it was a slip of the knife that left flaps that look like inverted Vs on the face, or the letter M.
          Last edited by Lombro2; Yesterday, 01:24 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            So, unless the Ripper was trying to emulate birthing, the hitched legs are most likely the letter M.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Lombro2 View Post
              So, unless the Ripper was trying to emulate birthing, the hitched legs are most likely the letter M.
              Whilst I agree that the hitched-up legs could be representative of the letter 'M' (and have argued for this many times before), I don't think we can say that they "are most like the letter M". The truth is, we don't know what was in Jack's mind and we'll never know for certain what was in Jack's mind. At best, we can offer conjecture, and I can think of multiple possibilities, including:

              1) He hitched-up his victim's legs to form a crude and highly inarticulate 'M' shape;
              2) He hitched-up his victim's legs because it gave him preferable access to those parts of the body he wished to damage; and
              3) He hitched-up his victim's legs in order to add to their violation and humiliation.

              We'll never know, but we can certainly surmise. In the case of Maybrick, it's not as clear-cut (pardon the pun) as the 'M' shape on Kelly's wall, for example.
              Iconoclast
              Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

              Comment


              • #97
                You need to stop being so fair, Ike.

                The most clear "cut" would have to be the M on the torn letter. Everyone saw that, even the police.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Lombro2 View Post
                  You need to stop being so fair, Ike.

                  The most clear "cut" would have to be the M on the torn letter. Everyone saw that, even the police.
                  I know you're joking, Lonbro2, but it raises an important point. Rather than dismissing the possible simply because it doesn't fit our narrative, it's obviously important to embrace the possible with as open a mind as we can depending upon how well our brain functions. From the possible, we can use available evidence to work out (or infer) what is plausible. The most plausible explanation based upon actual evidence is most likely to be the truth.
                  Iconoclast
                  Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X