Mary Kelly's Room

[DVV]

The shape of the M on the wall irresistibly leads me to a MacDonald's restaurant.

Amitiés,
David

[j.r-ahde]

Hello David!

Ronald McDonald as the Ripper?! My God...

Well, at least he ripped me off with his hamburger!

All the best
Jukka

[Soothsayer]

I can see an apparent "FM" in some versions of the photograph, sure, but I know there are natural means by which such a phenomenon, and the interpretation of it, might come about.

Sam,

You can see an apparent 'FM' in some versions of the photograph, and the diary makes an 'apparent' reference to them.

Either a truly remarkable coincidence (like no other!), or the original inspiration for the whole Maybrick fraud, or ...

No, I can't bring myself to say it. The abuse hurts me so.

[DVV]

Or what???
Another stupid book tells us that the "M" means "Melville" or "Macnaghten". The only coincidence I can see here is the common use of such an "argument" by cheap historians.

Amitiés,
David

[Soothsayer]

Or what???
Another stupid book tells us that the "M" means "Melville" or "Macnaghten". The only coincidence I can see here is the common use of such an "argument" by cheap historians.

Amitiés,
David

David,

Could you tell me which book you have in mind (I'd like to see what it has to say)?

Cheers,

[caz]

...I agree, if (as I firmly believe) the FM is on the wall then that in itself is no link to Maybrick - except through the mysterious diary...

...Either way, the 'FM' which either is or is not there, is definitely at the crux of the diary's case (in my opinion).

Sam,

You can see an apparent 'FM' in some versions of the photograph, and the diary makes an 'apparent' reference to them.

Hi Soothsayer,

You can hardly describe this mythical FM as being 'definitely at the crux of the diary's case' and then go on to acknowledge that the document only makes an 'apparent' reference to it.

The supposed references in the diary are as mythical as the FM itself, and I would urge everyone who has read or contributed to this thread to grasp this simple fact before going any further.

All that happened here is that Simon Wood first observed a possible FM in 1988 and Feldy and Shirley both ran with the idea and convinced themselves that a) the letters were indeed on the wall; b) they stood for Florie Maybrick; and c) 'Sir Jim' makes a specific reference in the diary to leaving them there for all to see.

Must I really quote again from the diary to show that this is simply not true? This has grown out of all proportion in the minds of some people who either don't read the diary carefully enough or can't bring themselves to read it at all and therefore depend on unreliable information from others, which is why people of all diary 'persuasions' still labour under this misapprehension, making a mountain out of what was basically one of Feldy's silly molehills.

Suffice to say that whatever the diary author had in mind was supposedly left in front (it's even underlined twice in the diary itself for special emphasis), and not on the wall either behind or to the side of the bed as one would have come upon the scene.

It would be no sillier to suggest the author may have been looking at the photo and saw the giant upside-down F that looks like it's carved (the right way up) into Mary's forearm:

'I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh' [as opposed to a single letter].

Also, an initial here and an initial there doesn't describe two initials placed together anywhere in that room. If the same hoaxer was behind the watch this could even be a reference to the initials scratched at various points inside, to represent what 'the whoring mother' had gone and made him do to the 'whores' of Whitechapel.

It's perfectly legitimate to suggest what the unknown diarist may have had in mind when writing a particular phrase or entry, but it's not legitimate to claim it as fact - especially when one's 'facts' originate from a theorist like Feldman!

Read for yourselves and think for yourselves guys. Because you're worth it.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

David,

Could you tell me which book you have in mind (I'd like to see what it has to say)?

Cheers,

Hi Soothsayer,
that is a French one: "Jack l'Eventreur Démasqué" by Sophie Herfort, publisher: Tallandier, 2007.
If we can call that a book...
The author recently posted here (see Macnaghten's threads, one in "Police Officials", and the other in "Suspects") under the ludicrous alias of "She Strong".
A wonderful character, as you will see. Unfortunately she wasn't present when God gave a brain to human people.

Amitiés,
David

[Chris Scott]

I don't know if this has been posted here.
IN any discussion about Kelly's room I think it is worth reading the eye witness account in the Pall Mall Gazette of the jury visiting the room as part of the inquest proceedings
Chris

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/18881112.html

[Hellrider]

interesting to notice how the newspaper describes Kelly's mutilated corpse as "by no means a horrible sight". I wonder what is horrible then?

[claire]

To be fair, Hellrider, the report stated that her body was covered and only her face was visible. This being some time after the fact, it's conceivable that things were not as lurid as they had been.

[DVV]

To be fair again, a mutilated face is something horrible.
Sorry for my sqeamishness.

Amitiés,
David

[anna]

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the link to Kelly's inquest details.
An interesting read.

ANNA.

[Celesta]

The shape of the M on the wall irresistibly leads me to a MacDonald's restaurant.

Amitiés,
David

You are French, David. You must resist MacDonald's! It's in your DNA!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello David!

To be fair again, a mutilated face is something horrible.
Sorry for my sqeamishness.

Amitiés,
David

Yes, it is!


"...The eyes were the only vestiges of humanity,..."

So, the eyes could obviously be seen on the crime scene photo. I hope someone could show, where...

All the best
Jukka

[Bailey]

"So, the eyes could obviously be seen on the crime scene photo. I hope someone could show, where..."

I wondered about that recently when reading Begg and he transcribed Dew (I believe) being horrified by the eyes staring out at him from the mutilated face. Looking at the Kelly photo I can only assume someone went to the trouble of closing her eyes before it was taken? (Does this tally with the mutilations? I don't recall any mention of her eyelids being cut).

Personally I suspect that as horrifying as that image is, if there were recognisable human eyes in there, the horror factor would be expotentially higher.

There is of course also the story that her eyes were photographed to see if they had retained the image of her killer - considering we're not talking macro lenses here, that shot, if it ever were to surface, is going to include a goodly amount of her face. Not sure how keen I'd be to see that...



Cheers,
B.