Author: E Carter
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 12:06 pm |        |
| The sleeve positioned just infront of Mary gives us a better clue! ED> |
Author: Kristopher George Fenton
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 10:50 pm | |
I was thinking, could the "FM" really be damage of another sort? A carving in the wall that police initially suspected until someone who had visited Mary stated that it had existed prior to her murder? A random splattering of her blood that only looks like two letters but upon closer inspection looks much differently(to me we only see a partial view of them in the photo)? Dirt or mud? Personally, if I try, I can make out an e or an f, and an m, but I think that if I had been in that room, I would have seen somthing completely different. Although many documents and other evidence has been lost, I would find it hard to believe that the police wouldn't have taken a close-up photo of the "letters" and that everey bit of evidence that would lead us to believe the police were aware of it has been lost. Mary's room was the one crime scene the police could inspect thouroughly. I certainly don't think they would have missed letters written in blood on the wall (reminds me of the Manson Family murders).
regards,
Kris Fenton |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 04:05 pm | |
Hi, Kris:
First, if I could ask you a favor, could you use the handle Kris Fenton rather than Kristopher George Fenton to stop any confusion between us? Thanks. Second, welcome to the site ... we welcome your views. Last, I agree with you entirely and have been arguing for some time that the so-called "FM" is only an artifact on the wall. It is evident that there are a number of marks on the wall which could be water damage or marks from other causes, and the controversial letters are only part of a number of such marks. We have also commented before on how low down the letters are compared with the bed and are thus not in a prominent location.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:57 pm | |
For the position of the letters on the wall Chris, do you really think James Maybrick knew where the police officer would set up his tripod?
Maybe the room stank to high heaven and they wanted to get in and out in the shortest time possible. i.e.e snap snap, right that'll do - I'm off down the ten bells for a pint, anyone care to join me?
If you are going to play the forgery game again, you would have to ask/answer why our forger brought attention to those marks at all.
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 08:04 pm | |
Hi Peter:
No matter where the photographer set up his tripod, those "initials" are still low down, by the side of the bed--and unremarked upon by the authorities of the day.
Chris |
Author: Kris Fenton
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 11:14 pm | |
Chris,
I appreciate your response and as you can see I've changed to Kris Fenton. I am glad to be here and I only hope that I can add to, rather than detract from the discussion. As for the marks on the wall, I hadn't before considered how low and close to the bed they were. That's kind of an awkward place to leave a message and seems like it would have had to be made with some discomfort to the killer when he could have just as easily left a message in a place that would have grabbed any witnesses' attention. Today, I went over the crime scene again in Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper", and splattered blood is mentioned on the wall near the bed. If these "letters" are in fact blood, I am reminded of the infamous "Amityville Horror" book: George Lutz claims that an image of a demon was burned into his fireplace, later inspection prooved the mark was just like any other burn marks in similar fireplaces. What I mean, is that it's kind of like seeing animals in clouds, for what in fact may be nothing more than a random pattern of splatterd blood that just photographed more clearly (for any number of reasons), or what in fact may be nothing more than water damage at a run-down flat, or something equally non-related to the crime, has been turned into "proof" of some kind. Although I admit that it is possible that there really is an "F" and an "M" on the wall, I feel that the preponderence of evidence that I've seen or heard of, points to it being unlikely. As to Maybrick and the photo, it seems almost as if the writer of the diary was writing about the photograph, and in fact, the diary, to me anyway, seems to stress the Kelly crime scene. It's as if the diary was written with the photo in mind.
Regards,
Kris Fenton |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 01:34 am | |
Hi, Kris:
And bear in mind that the photograph was only published and available to the public in books on the case in recent times, having been rediscovered by Donald Rumbelow, another indicator that whomever wrote the Diary may have used modern books on the Ripper to concoct the document.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. Thanks for being understanding about adjusting your handle. It will help! |
Author: Monty
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 08:55 am | |
Hello all,
Sorry for butting in on this but have any of you realised that if the "FM" did exist on the wall surely it would have been put down in a police report of some kind.
Like Chris stated, Kellys photo is a fairly recent discovery. If it had not been found this discussion would not be taking place. The only way we would be talking about it would be down to the fact that it would have been found in the police files (like the graffito).
It hadn't been mentioned until the diary put it forward.
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 09:52 am | |
Hi Monty,
Paul Feldman put 'it' forward. The author of the diary doesn't actually say anything about the letters "F" and "M" being daubed together in blood on the wall. That is Feldy's interpretation of the words: 'An initial here and an initial there.'
Feldy could be right - that might have been precisely what the author meant. But then Feldy has been wrong about a lot of other things, hasn't he?
Interesting that, if the watch was a bandwagon hoax, by someone who hadn't read the diary, this theme of initials telling of whores and their dirty deeds was inadvertently continued...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 01:17 pm | |
I cannot be the only person unconvinced that the Kelly murder picture even shows the letters "FM"? At least I hope not.
There are many distortions present in the photograph even to an untrained observer such as I.
I find the argument that the "FM" even appears on the wall very unconvincing.
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 01:57 pm | |
Hi, Richard:
You are exactly right. The letters may not even have been there on the wall. A number of us feel that way. I do not include arch-Diary believers in that group, of course.
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:06 pm | |
Hi Richard,
Indeed. Finding "letters" in blood stains in a 113 year old photograph is like finding animal shapes in the clouds.
As I mentioned the last time we talked about this, in nearby Clearwater, about a half-hour north of me, there is an office building with all glass windows for walls.
There is now a new traffic light there and a souvenir stand and flowers and candles on the grass and people come from all over the country because, on one of the windows, in a rainbow of stained discoloration, people see the image of the Virgin Mary. (It always seems to be her, doesn't it? Or her son. How come the miracles never take the form of the big one, so we can finally see what (s)he looks like?)
Anyway, of course, scientists came along and explained how the sprinklers were hitting the wall with recycled water and it was discoloring the window film. But no, still they come, and still it's the Holy Virgin. And now, because you know it's "there," you can't help but see it.
It is this "power of suggestion" effect that I think is partially at work with the FM on the wall...
If you head over to the Maybrick Diary topic and the "Analysis of the Diary Text" Board, "Archives thru July 5th" and check out a post dated Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 08:51 am, you'll see a longer, more detailed discussion of this effect and the FM question. (You can just do a keyword search for "Virgin Mary" [in quotes]. It's the first entry that comes up.)
Hey, that cloud looks like a bunny...
--John
PS: No, not that "Bunny." |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:16 pm | |
Monty
Recent discovery?
That'll be the 'recent discovery' that was published in a book in 1889 then, will it?
And they said the diarist did no research........
Peter |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:19 pm | |
John et al
So now our diarist is in trouble for bringing attention to things that have previously been commented on.
Hmmm, seems to me that it wasn't that long ago he was being criticised for bringing attention to things that we had no way of verifying.
1) Standards.
2 Double.
Go on John, make a phrase out of those two (clue: the first word begins with a 'D')
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:44 pm | |
Hi Peter,
What? I didn't say anything here about the diarist bringing "attention to things that have already been commented on."
I said I didn't think there were any letters on any wall. But that once people start saying there are, other people start "seeing" them. It's the power of suggestion. Check out the page I referenced in my post to Richard for a good bit more on this.
It's a common phenomenon.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 05:42 am | |
Hi All,
As I keep saying, if there were no letters on the wall, this condemns Feldy's interpretation of the words in the diary. Whoever wrote them either played safe by being deliberately non-specific, or didn't have bloody initials in mind at all. An alternative interpretation is that the diary author had Maybrick carving initials in Kelly's flesh. Not completely implausible, considering how Jack had marked his previous victim's face.
"I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh?" (instead of just initials, or inverted "v"s?)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 08:50 am | |
Caz,
To be honest I don't care who discovered the initials. What I want to know is, as far as I know,why cant I find any mention of the initials in any official report either here or there?
If you do then you shall have my most humble apologies.
Peter,
I'm not being funny but could you point out what book to me? Cheers. You right though, it was recently re-discovered by Donald Rumbelow.(I may be wrong on that, but I'll rely on you pointing that out as well shall I ??!!)
Monty
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 11:15 am | |
Hi Monty,
Aaaagh! I never said anything about any initials being in official reports - here, there or anywhere at the crime scene. All I'm saying is that we just don't know what the forger had in mind. Everyone automatically accepts Feldy's interpretation and uses it to argue that the diary forger was most definitely referring to an imagined "FM" on Kelly's wall and made a giant boo boo. I'm saying that ain't necessarily so - the forger could have had something quite different in mind. Feldy 'discovered' initials on the wall that were never really there. What matters is whether this is exactly what the forger did before him.
"I left it there for the fools but they will never find it."
I don't think we are entitled to assume from this that Feldy did find 'it' - ie what the diary author was writing about. He only thought he'd found 'it' - just like he only thought he'd found a whole lot of other things.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 08:22 am | |
Caz,
Ok,Ok, calm down. I get where your coming from now, sorry.
Slow Monty,
|
Author: Alan Hayhurst
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:30 am | |
I'm interested in all this earnest conversation, but as a keen student not only of JTR (I was a speaker at the last JTR Conference in England three or four years ago) and also of the Maybrick case, having lived in Liverpool for 18 years, I am far from convinced that James Maybrick had anything at all to do with Jack the Ripper.
The whole thing is, to my mind, a hoax and JTR afficionados are being sidetracked into a dead end. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 01:35 pm | |
| perhaps the photo misleads us to think it says fm but to the people there it said something quite different, or was something else etc etc unless s knight is correct of course..... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:27 am | |
Hi Alan,
The whole thing, to everyone's mind here (except one, but including mine), is a hoax.
So I don't think you need be too worried that JtR folk are being sidetracked into a dead end.
Those discussing the Maybrick diary would just like to know who wrote it, when and why - that's all. Any sidetracking is at their own risk and from a free choice to discuss whichever aspects of the ripper case (including the mythical ones) they fancy.
No one has to join in if they don't want to. But feel free if you do.
Love,
Caz |
