Mary Kelly's Room

[Sam Flynn]

To me blood doescnt fall like that

Blood is a viscous fluid, and a jet of blood will tend to sag due to gravity into "m" shapes quite naturally - the downstrokes coinciding with those parts of the jet which are less viscous than others, the remaining flow then follows the path of least resistance, down any "stems" already formed, to reinforce the illusion of an "m" (or a series of "m"s).

You only need to remind yourself of the way a horizontal line of wet paint on a vertical surface behaves - it doesn't all whoosh down the canvas/wall at the same rate: it kinks at intervals along its length, and those regions of paint at the bottom of the kinks flow more rapidly than the rest, forming a series of more-or-less "M" shapes, or a chain of Euro symbols ( € ) turned clockwise by 90°.

The surface onto which it a liquid is sprayed will also direct the downward flow due to combinations of surface tension and the capillary effect, which conspire with the viscosity factor to produce various weird shapes. Anyone who's held a cut finger vertically will have seen, if they're observant enough, the blood forming a trail with little "cross-branches" (in the form of Ŧ's or F's) where the flow gets side-tracked into any horizontal grooves it may find in the skin.

The same would have been true, on a much larger scale, of the way the blood behaved on Mary Kelly's wall. Not that I see a particularly convincing "F" there anyway, but even if there were it wouldn't constitute anything that couldn't be explained naturally.

[mike74]

Or you just don't want to believe there is anything there?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I can't see any initials in my various versions of MJK1.

When I first saw the "initials" on the wall in pre-Diary 1988 I thought they were most clearly defined in the MJK photo in the Sphere paperback edition of Dan Farson's book.

If anyone has this book and a decent scanner could they please reproduce the section of wall above and around MJK's right shoulder. Don't forget to de-screen the scan, otherwise the image will be peppered with print dots.

This way, hopefully, you can all see what I saw/didn't see.

Regards,

Simon

[Celesta]

The initials are discussed on this thread, and there are pictures, etc.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=389&highlight=Mary+Kelly+FM+on+wall

[mike74]

Yes you can make it out even in unclear pics!!

[Sam Flynn]

Or you just don't want to believe there is anything there?

No - I understand a little bit about fluid mechanics, but only as much as I have learned from observing washing fluid ooze down a window pane, a squirt of oil crawling down a tilted pizza pan, and the pale fingers of the last sip of brandy waving farewell as they slipped down the side of a glass.

I have also cut my finger - once, dramatically, whilst a thermometer snapped as I removed it from a rubber bung in the school lab - and seen "F" shapes emerge in my skin as the blood flowed east and west from the main, north-south flow.

PS: There IS something there. It is blood. Blood is a viscous fluid, which forms shapes such as these being discussed.

[RJM]

Hi Mike 74,
I defo think it is a clear FM.

No one who attended the scene of the crime mentions it in the newspapers nor the official files. There were many policemen and several doctors in attendance that day, as well as a photographer. Many people viewed the room afterward. It was rented out again. Several journalists visited No. 13 Millers Court, including Kit Watkins at the end of 1891, and still no mention of any "FM" on the wall.

Yea i agree, ive just looked at a good clear pic and it's def FM. I thought that too, freemasons, as its something not to be igonored completetly. Blood can spray and dribble down the wall but not to clearly form two letters.

What is the source of the "good clear pic" you are talking about? How can you be certain of what you are looking at when the source is so far removed from the original negative.

Our biggest problem is that the original negative no longer exists. We have two photographs: 1) The one that Don Rumbelow found in 1967, and 2) The one that was returned in 1988. What can be seen in these is different than what can be seen in Ripper books (or scans from those books).

Neither of you have seen these photographs. You've seen copies that are several generation removed.

Well i can see it on several others, some pics are clearer than others and it's definately an FM. Go to google images and type mary kelly, there are lots of different ones.

This is the a major problem in your methodology. I can see lots of things in magazine, online, and book photographs of Mary Kelly. I do not see many of these things in earlier generations of the photograph.

A first generation image is the original negative (probably a glass plate in this instance); second generation is made from the original; third generation is made from the second generation. Print on this page is fourth generation. A scan from a book is fifth generation (at the minimum), and so on it goes. With each generation information is lost and added. There is no guarantee the MJK1 (Rumbelow) and MJK 2 (1988 returned) are second generation. They could easily be copies of copies, especially MJK1, which was found in the City of London and not in the Metropolitan archives.

I can see an "FM" on the wall clearly in both books by Farson and Harrison. When I go back to scans of the originals, though, I can see no "F" in either MJK1 or MJK2. There is something that looks like an "M" in both, and is more pronounced in MJK1. I assume it's just a blood splatter drip. That's presuming it to be blood. It may be dirt. It may be something on the original negative and not the photograph. It may just have to do with the development of the prints

Because the original negative has not been found, the evidentiary value of the photographs we have is questionable. Using this picture of Mary Kelly to draw conclusions, exclusive of the other photographs, an autopsy report, inquest evidence, and other supporting information, would be ill-advised.

Cheers,

Robert

[The Good Michael]

It's funny that everyone argues about the FM, but some have a hard time seeing the BS.

Mike

[Celesta]

If there had been writing on the wall, it would have been in the police records. No such record has turned up.

[The Good Michael]

If there had been writing on the wall, it would have been in the police records. No such record has turned up.

Celesta,

How dare you bring logic into the equation! Some things transcend logic, such as letters in blood, demonic statuettes, and poet murderers. Surely you must understand this.

Mike

[Soothsayer]

Celesta,

How dare you bring logic into the equation! Some things transcend logic, such as letters in blood, demonic statuettes, and poet murderers. Surely you must understand this.

Mike

Half decent eye sight is all you need to see the FM on the wall. Even on the example link on this thread, where the acuity was generally low, the 'M' remained very pronounced, and its rising scond-half is exactly as it is in the diary. The 'F' has always been less clear, and this requires a higher acuity shot (close-up?) and this to my knowledge has only occurred in Harrison's book on the diary, so obviously that comes under the challenge of bias.

Neither the 'F' nor the 'M' are blood stains. There are enough stains on that wall to know that random letters fitting a forger's claims are not otherwise in abundance.

The problem which the 'FM' on the wall causes is for those who assume the diary is a hoax. If the letters are there (as, of course, so many of us can see), they fundamentally support the diary. They are the single biggest problem you face when claiming the diary to be a hoax.

The alternative theory has to go as follows:

Hoaxer hears of Simon Wood's comment about the letters so looks at picture. Hoaxer then sees 'FM' on wall (where no-one had ever previously identified them). He then back tracks from the 'FM', thinks of Florence Maybrick, thinks maybe he could use the letters in a hoax diary to frame James Maybrick, and sets off to write diary which after 16 long years remains unproven either way.

Clearly, the diary being authentic is hard to accept. Also, the hoaxer backtracking the story from the letters is hard to accept. Hence, the simplest argument is that they aren't there. As I have said on another thread, it's the Emporer's New Clothes, but this time he's fully dressed and the crowd say he's naked.

Either way, hoax or authentic, a remarkable turn of events has occurred.

[Celesta]

Celesta,

How dare you bring logic into the equation! Some things transcend logic, such as letters in blood, demonic statuettes, and poet murderers. Surely you must understand this.

Mike

Oh, Mike! Using logic is one of those unfortunate personality traits that I suffer from. Err---from which I suffer. To your list, I will add the term simulacrum: something that looks like something else. Or "a slight, unreal, or superficial likeness or semblance," from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.

Gee, I wonder if Agatha Christie knew about the FM on Mary's wall. She made good use of the writing in blood device in Death On the Nile. Oh, but didn't Death On the Nile come out many years before the Maybrick Diary was 'discovered'? Hmmm...

Your humor is always a pleasure. Thanks.

Best,

Cel

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Celesta!

I wonder, to whom Mary Jane Kelly was referring to, while writing those "FM" letters to the wall in a hurry?!

I mean, if you use an agatha-christie logic...

All the best
Jukka

[Mike Covell]

Perhaos some of these might help,

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FM

My faves are,
FM Fetal Movement - Oh pregnant eh?
FM Facial Myokymia
FM Fat Man - Was MJK telling us something
FM Flying Monkeys - Seriously, they were seen on the night of the murder!
FM Fox Mulder - 120 years and the truth is still out there!
FM Fecal Matter - Oh poo!

My fave, not included on the site is....

FM Facial Mutilation!

If JK Stephen did it, FM For Master,
If Druitt did it, FM For Mother,


and so on and so forth!

[claire]

Hi Celesta, Mike,

I'm afraid my uncouth mind came up with a rather terser phrase starting with F and M, which just about sums up my response to the notion of a dead and mutilated woman smearing the initials of her assailant on the wall in her own blood.

the hoaxer backtracking the story from the letters is hard to accept.

Why? Writers of historical fiction do it all the time