Origin of FM on the wall

[How Brown]

This might be a little dated...and not entirely original,but:

Has anyone considered the concept that the Diary was fabricated post-1988...and primarily because this was the year that our very own Simon Wood first posited the idea that there were letters on the wall in Kelly's room?

In other words,Simon Wood may have provided the fabricators with this additional bit of speculation... inadvertently,of course...and then they ran with it?

Anyone?

[Robert Linford]

Hi How

It seems unlikely that a hoaxer(s) would look through lots of cases until finding a likely candidate which included someone with initials FM, so I take it you mean that the hoaxer(s) simply used the FM as something conveniently to hand, in perpetrating something that they were going to perpetrate anyway. I suppose that's possible.

I think that if this was a genuine and recent FM - and not just the chance pattern of bloodstains - the police would have known about it. Barnett, for one, would have known every inch of that wall.

Robert

[How Brown]

Bob;

Oh,I agree...had there been any markings on the wall which were left as messages or whatnot,the police would have seen and mentioned them. Mr. Wood has since recanted his initial belief in the "letters" on the wall.

Actually,I am positing the notion that someone who was interested/aware of the Maybrick Case in the first place....heard about what Simon mentioned or read it...and then put together the Diary knowing full well that Maybrick's wife's name was Florence.

[Paul Butler]

Bob;


Actually,I am positing the notion that someone who was interested/aware of the Maybrick Case in the first place....heard about what Simon mentioned or read it...and then put together the Diary knowing full well that Maybrick's wife's name was Florence.

Hi How and Robert.

There are a few problems with this idea sadly. Firstly, when Simon Wood first suggested there were letters on the wall, he made no mention of FM specifically as far as I am aware, so it wouldn't have been much of an inspiration for our diarist really.

Secondly, and most importantly, the diary makes no mention of these supposed letters or initials. That is something that the Diary books mention, but not the diary itself. If you read the relevant part of the diary, after Kelly's death, there really isn't anything there that even hints at initials on the wall. That, in my opinion is wishful thinking of Paul Feldman's and no more.

regards to both.

Paul

[SirRobertAnderson]

An initial here
and a initial there
would tell of the whoring mother
I had a key,
and with it I did flee.
The hat I did burn,
for light I did yearn.
And I thought of the whoring mother
A handkerchief red,
led to the bed
And I thought of the whoring mother.
A whores whim caused Sir Jim,
to cut deeper, deeper and deeper
All did go, As I did so,
back to the whoring mother.

[Paul Butler]

An initial here
and a initial there
would tell of the whoring mother
I had a key,
and with it I did flee.
The hat I did burn,
for light I did yearn.
And I thought of the whoring mother
A handkerchief red,
led to the bed
And I thought of the whoring mother.
A whores whim caused Sir Jim,
to cut deeper, deeper and deeper
All did go, As I did so,
back to the whoring mother.


Sorry Sir R, perhaps I should have been more specific. Our diarist "makes no mention of these supposed letters or initials" refers to FM specifically.

The problem with "the initial here and an initial there"quote from the poem is that that is not what we are supposed to be seeing, i.e. specifically one set of two initials on Kelly's wall. I really think its a bit of a stretch to think that little bit of poetry is anything to do with Kelly's bloodstained wall.

To be honest, I don't believe for a moment that there are any letters on that wall at all. I doubt even that they are random bloodstains, and prefer to think its dirt or scratches on the original photos, possibly brought out by digital enhancement techniques.

Like you, I am far from convinced that the diary is a modern hoax, and I think it has come in for a lot of uncalled for stick due to its supposed reference to these highly improbable initials.

Regards.

Paul.

P.S. Sir R. You revealed after the conference that you now believed the thing genuinely of the period. I'd love to, but there are still big doubts in my mind. Are you going to expand? Please. :bowdown:

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sorry Sir R, perhaps I should have been more specific. Our diarist "makes no mention of these supposed letters or initials" refers to FM specifically.

The problem with "the initial here and an initial there"quote from the poem is that that is not what we are supposed to be seeing, i.e. specifically one set of two initials on Kelly's wall. I really think its a bit of a stretch to think that little bit of poetry is anything to do with Kelly's bloodstained wall.


I am really sorry, Paul. By just posting the doggerel I gave the impression I was disagreeing with you when I intended to support your position. Of course, there is no FM mentioned in the Diary, nor any hint as to where or what these initials may be found.

I do think, though, that this piece of 'poetry' is clearly talking about Kelly .

[Chris G.]

Hi How and Robert.

There are a few problems with this idea sadly. Firstly, when Simon Wood first suggested there were letters on the wall, he made no mention of FM specifically as far as I am aware, so it wouldn't have been much of an inspiration for our diarist really.

Secondly, and most importantly, the diary makes no mention of these supposed letters or initials. That is something that the Diary books mention, but not the diary itself. If you read the relevant part of the diary, after Kelly's death, there really isn't anything there that even hints at initials on the wall. That, in my opinion is wishful thinking of Paul Feldman's and no more.

regards to both.

Paul

Hi Paul

The supposed "FM" on the wall in 13 Miller's Court is shown circled in Shirley Harrison's 1993 The Diary of Jack the Ripper so it predates Paul Feldman and Ms Harrison was the first Diary author to link the "FM" to Florence Maybrick.

I have long thought that someone who knew both the Ripper and Maybrick cases hoaxed the Diary. However, as you say since the "FM" is not actually mentioned in the Diary that might be just serendipity and the hoaxer might not have known about Simon Wood's suggestion.

In a Casebook: Jack the Ripper post of April 25, 2004 (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/10783.html), John Omlor described the nature of Simon Wood's 1988 claim--

"Since 1975, when Donald Rumbelow first had the photograph published in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, nobody had ever noticed these two initials. I was later to learn that Simon Wood had, in 1988, noticed the presence of letters, but not the two initials 'FM' together." (Feldman, 71-72)

And Shirley writes,

"In 1988 the crime researcher and writer Simon Wood mentioned privately to one of our consultants that in a photograph of the dead Mary Jane Kelly on her bed there appeared to be an initial on the wall." (Harrison, 100-101)

Wood apparently only "saw" an "M," (the book uses the singular noun), but Shirley was happy to add the "F."

[SirRobertAnderson]

In a Casebook: Jack the Ripper post of April 25, 2004 (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/10783.html), John Omlor described the nature of Simon Wood's 1988 claim--

Per Omlor, on that thread :

"Of course, there's no reason to conclude that the diary was talking about the FM. However, that's precisely what at least two books supporting the case for authenticity decided to conclude. "

FM, to me, is a dead end road if you want to attempt to debunk the Diary itself.

[Magpie]

FM, to me, is a dead end road if you want to attempt to debunk the Diary itself.


I would agree here. It's like the "Eight little whores" discussion--it may look like we are debunking the diary, but all we are doing is debunking Harrison's interpretation of part of the diary.

[Magpie]

I think that if this was a genuine and recent FM - and not just the chance pattern of bloodstains - the police would have known about it. Barnett, for one, would have known every inch of that wall.

Robert

Hi Robert.

I still believe that the most likely solution is that the "M" wasn't on the wall, was never on the wall, but rather represents a blemish, stain or other artifact that only exists on the photograph, and became "clearer" when copies of the original, and then copies of the copies, where made.

Bonds report was very clear that the wall was examine and nothing remotely resembling a deliberate mark was present.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr.Butler:

Thanks for the reply to the comments made previously.

It was actually just a "hunch" I had that someone took Mr. Wood's original idea....and examined the photograph...came up with "F.M"....and then ran with the ball. It was just a "shot in the dark" that this is what may have occurred.

All the best

How

[Paul Butler]

Morning Sir R.

I’m glad we agree! There’s no doubt in my mind that this particular piece of poetry DOES specifically concern Kelly. It’s interesting though, that the “initial here….” section is separated from the rest of the text by quite a large space and a horizontal stroke of the pen in the diary itself, as if it’s not meant to be part of the following “Kelly” doggerel. Yet its context is clearly within the part of the diary concerning MJK. The crossed out line referring to “her initial” does seem to imply that he is referring to Florrie.

Interesting too that our diarist is clearly claiming to be Hutchinson’s “astrakhan man”. It’s a good job Hutchinson didn’t describe a 6 foot sailor with a false eye and a limp! I suppose Sir Jim is a reasonable, (and lucky), fit for Hutchinson’s man bearing in mind that it was 2 in the morning in a gas lit street.

Morning Chris.

Yes you are right; Shirley Harrison does indeed mention the FM in the first hardback edition of her book. Strange then, that Feldman claims it was he who discovered it after “systematically blowing up two inch squares…” of the published Kelly photograph. Final chapter, Page 71.

Trying to claim a slice of the glory there I guess!

Morning Magpie.

Agreed. I’m as certain as I can be that those initials are defects in that particular photograph. They don’t show up on any others do they? They are also in a strange place. Sir Jim would have had to lean right across the body, and maybe even pull her out of the way a little to make those marks so low down on the wall on the opposite side of the bed.

Morning How.

Anything that kicks off a sensible and rational diary discussion is great as far as I’m concerned. The diary gets a lot of criticism that I think it doesn’t really deserve, its only real gaffe being apparently the wrong handwriting, (as yet still unexplained to my satisfaction at least). Thanks for that.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Robert Linford]

Hi folks

The 'poem' is certainly shambolic. It's chronologically disrupted. For Maybrick to have done all these things, in that order, he'd have needed a Tardis.

Robert

[SirRobertAnderson]

Hi folks

The 'poem' is certainly shambolic. It's chronologically disrupted.
Robert

Let's put aside for a moment that we are talking about this specific Diary, which has caused so much controversy over the years.

If a anonymous document came out that claimed to be from a serial killer, but had no providence, would you be more inclined to believe it if it contained great poetry ?

[Robert Linford]

Hi Sir Robert

No, I'd be less inclined to believe it if it contained great poetry, since, as far as I'm aware, very few serial killers have been great poets.

But I'd be more inclined to believe it if the poem at least described the events in the order in which they are supposed to have occurred. While in prose one might expect certain events to get left out and then included out of sequence, especially in the context of a diary, a poem would normally require a bit of thought and organisation on the part of the writer.

However, when you add in the effects of drugs, anything's possible.

One small point about the key : "had" a key seems wrong. Wouldn't he have written "found a key" if he had simply come across it in the room? "Had" makes it sound as though he lived there.

Robert

[Chris G.]

Hi Sir Robert

No, I'd be less inclined to believe it if it contained great poetry, since, as far as I'm aware, very few serial killers have been great poets.

But I'd be more inclined to believe it if the poem at least described the events in the order in which they are supposed to have occurred. While in prose one might expect certain events to get left out and then included out of sequence, especially in the context of a diary, a poem would normally require a bit of thought and organisation on the part of the writer.

However, when you add in the effects of drugs, anything's possible.

One small point about the key : "had" a key seems wrong. Wouldn't he have written "found a key" if he had simply come across it in the room? "Had" makes it sound as though he lived there.

Robert

Hi Robert

The "had a key" line does not bother me. However he came by the key, took it from Kelly or found it, he still possessed it.

I did though look at the doggerel Sir Bob posted:

An initial here
and a initial there
would tell of the whoring mother
I had a key,
and with it I did flee.
The hat I did burn,
for light I did yearn.
And I thought of the whoring mother
A handkerchief red,
led to the bed
And I thought of the whoring mother.
A whores whim caused Sir Jim,
to cut deeper, deeper and deeper
All did go, As I did so,
back to the whoring mother.

The rhyme scheme is simple: key, flee; burn, yearn; red, bed; but then there are parts that do not rhyme. Nothing rhymes with "whoring mother" but we might note that it repeats like a song. Which makes me wonder about the tale Steve Powell has been spinning over at Casebook, that a songwriter might be involved.

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

But I'd be more inclined to believe it if the poem at least described the events in the order in which they are supposed to have occurred. While in prose one might expect certain events to get left out and then included out of sequence, especially in the context of a diary, a poem would normally require a bit of thought and organisation on the part of the writer.

However, when you add in the effects of drugs, anything's possible.



Of course, if someone is crazy enough to be a serial killer, niceties like keeping events in order might also go out the window.

I realize that we're not going to come to any consensus on this, but I personally believe that if a forger were writing the Diary, and working from sources such as Fido, he'd be more likely to keep things in chronological order.

[SirRobertAnderson]

The rhyme scheme is simple: key, flee; burn, yearn; red, bed; but then there are parts that do not rhyme. Nothing rhymes with "whoring mother" but we might note that it repeats like a song. Which makes me wonder about the tale Steve Powell has been spinning over at Casebook, that a songwriter might be involved.

Chris

Or someone that had a songwriter for a brother ????

[Robert Linford]

Hi Sir Robert and Chris

It does look a little like a song lyric, doesn't it? It's a strange piece of work - there are too many "did"s and "thought of the whoring mother" is used twice, when one would have expected a variation so as to only use it once - either that, or use it three times in order to give emphasis to "back to the whoring mother."

Robert

[Paul Butler]

Hi All.

Well the similarity between the diary doggerel and Gilbert and Sullivan is something that both Caz and I have mentioned before. A nice idea with an 1880s date for both. I can certainly see similarities with several "Olde Tyme" popular songs too.

You can even make some fit the diary "lyrics" almost perfectly. Try "The drum major" to the words of the Kelly poem as an example!

It seems a perfectly sensible argument to me that our diarist had certain rythms, or tunes even, in his mind as he wrote this stuff.

Regards to all.

Paul

[How Brown]

Just a quick comment...

A while back,I counted how many times the word "whore" was used in the Diary ( over 88 whores and around 15 variations).

To me,the incessant use of this word smacks of propaganda...just as when Nazi's used the word "Jew" in virtually everyone of their campaign propaganda pieces in the early 1930's...

Back to the thread...

[SirRobertAnderson]

Well the similarity between the diary doggerel and Gilbert and Sullivan is something that both Caz and I have mentioned before. A nice idea with an 1880s date for both. I can certainly see similarities with several "Olde Tyme" popular songs too.


I did a search for the term on the Forum; you must have mentioned it on the Casebook where searching in the Diary threads is problematic. (Not a snide remark, just the facts....) It'd be great if you and Caz could discuss it here. I'll start a thread.

[Chris G.]

Hi All.

Well the similarity between the diary doggerel and Gilbert and Sullivan is something that both Caz and I have mentioned before. A nice idea with an 1880s date for both. I can certainly see similarities with several "Olde Tyme" popular songs too.

You can even make some fit the diary "lyrics" almost perfectly. Try "The drum major" to the words of the Kelly poem as an example!

It seems a perfectly sensible argument to me that our diarist had certain rythms, or tunes even, in his mind as he wrote this stuff.

Regards to all.

Paul

Hi Paul

I have answered Sir Bob in the new thread he has started but to be frank I don't think there is any real resemblance between the witty lyrics of W. S. Gilbert and the very bad poetry that appears in the Diary. The diarist is an ersatz rhymer while Gilbert is an expert at it. Where's the resemblance? I'm genuinely puzzled. :cool:

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris.

No I certainly don't think there is any similarity whatsoever between our diarist's dire efforts and W.S Gilbert's clever, witty and humorous lyrics and comic poetry.

The suggestion that popular song, could have inspired the metre of some of the diary's poetic efforts is, I think, a valid one and worth a look at. Unless we are considering Sir Jim to be some sort of groundbreaking poet, (which I hope we are not!), then we must accept that his poetry, or whatever we want to call it is derivative, and if it is, it must be derivative of something, and for your run-of-the-mill diary hoaxer, song lyrics seems a good bet. Any direct similarities with a Stephen Adams song would of course be extremely interesting.

Every barrel organ and street piano in Whitechapel in the late 80s would have been churning out "A wandering minstrel, "Three little maids from school" etc.etc. and it’s a fair point, I think, that an 1880s Sir Jim, could very likely have been influenced by these latest West end G&S blockbuster melodies when penning his efforts, if indeed he was influenced by popular song rhythms at all.

A post 1880s Sir Jim could of course have been equally inspired by the popular music of his day whenever that might have been.

Regards,

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Coming to this thread late, I’m pleased to see that most of the points I usually make about the initials issue have been addressed and dealt with better than I could do.

I will just make a couple of observations that will no doubt cause a few raised eyebrows. :fear:

I have always read ‘An initial here and an initial there’ as a possible reference to two separate initials: one Sir Jim has with him back in Liverpool (possibly in the watch, if the two artefacts are from the same stable); and t’other left with MJK in London (possibly the large F that appears from the photo to be carved into her forearm: ‘I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me. I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh’ - as opposed to just the whoring mother’s initial, perhaps?).

Sir Jim writes of MJK: ‘She reminded me of the whore. So young unlike I.’ I can imagine this character wanting to carve the whoring mother’s mark into MJK’s flesh, to complete the transformation and the fantasy that he is destroying his wayward missus with every whore he rips, then back home carving MK in the watch to even the score. To me there is a recurring theme of double events, doing things in pairs, two of everything, possible exchanges of possessions, two locations, half an apron here, half an apron there, half a kidney here, half a kidney there, public life as businessman, husband and doting father, secret life as a drug using womaniser, foolish brother competing with sensible brother, and so forth. It could be just one aspect of a serial killer’s obsessive compulsive nature being played with by the writer, just like repeating words like whore and God over and over and over again when committing Sir Jim’s thoughts to paper.

One thing I find most odd is the layout of the diary pages containing the lines under discussion here. If you look at pages 242 and 243 of the facsimile in Shirley’s original hardback edition, you will see that the I and III, used to divide the lines into separate sections, appear at the very bottom of those pages. I would have expected the I to appear at the top of page 243 and the III at the top of page 244, even if the intention here was to experiment roughly with words and phrases and not be concerned with a conventional appearance. But it seems especially odd if the text was being transcribed with some care by the penman, either working from his own or someone else’s script. Most people, I imagine, would automatically pop the numerals at the top of the next page without thinking, if there was no room for a single line beneath them on the previous one - unless this was by deliberate design. But what design would that be?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi All,

Coming to this thread late, I’m pleased to see that most of the points I usually make about the initials issue have been addressed and dealt with better than I could do.

I will just make a couple of observations that will no doubt cause a few raised eyebrows. :fear:

I have always read ‘An initial here and an initial there’ as a possible reference to two separate initials: one Sir Jim has with him back in Liverpool (possibly in the watch, if the two artefacts are from the same stable); and t’other left with MJK in London (possibly the large F that appears from the photo to be carved into her forearm: ‘I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me. I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh’ - as opposed to just the whoring mother’s initial, perhaps?).

Sir Jim writes of MJK: ‘She reminded me of the whore. So young unlike I.’ I can imagine this character wanting to carve the whoring mother’s mark into MJK’s flesh, to complete the transformation and the fantasy that he is destroying his wayward missus with every whore he rips, then back home carving MK in the watch to even the score. To me there is a recurring theme of double events, doing things in pairs, two of everything, possible exchanges of possessions, two locations, half an apron here, half an apron there, half a kidney here, half a kidney there, public life as businessman, husband and doting father, secret life as a drug using womaniser, foolish brother competing with sensible brother, and so forth. It could be just one aspect of a serial killer’s obsessive compulsive nature being played with by the writer, just like repeating words like whore and God over and over and over again when committing Sir Jim’s thoughts to paper.

Oh, dear. You describe these things as if they were actually written by James Maybrick. That's unfortunate. Let's not let the fantasy go too far, Caz. :rolleyes:

One thing I find most odd is the layout of the diary pages containing the lines under discussion here. If you look at pages 242 and 243 of the facsimile in Shirley’s original hardback edition, you will see that the I and III, used to divide the lines into separate sections, appear at the very bottom of those pages. I would have expected the I to appear at the top of page 243 and the III at the top of page 244, even if the intention here was to experiment roughly with words and phrases and not be concerned with a conventional appearance. But it seems especially odd if the text was being transcribed with some care by the penman, either working from his own or someone else’s script. Most people, I imagine, would automatically pop the numerals at the top of the next page without thinking, if there was no room for a single line beneath them on the previous one - unless this was by deliberate design. But what design would that be?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes well this might show that these pages were copied from previously written pages, say, from the ripped out pages in the front of the Diary or from some other original. On the other hand, as a writer, I am not sure I find it particularly odd that part I of a series of parts would begin on the bottom of a page rather than the top so I am not sure that I accept your point that this is queer.

As I have remarked previously, what I do find suspicious is that these supposed private thoughts written by the allegedly drug-addled serial killer are so clearly written, the parts crossed out still legible, with a single line instead of scrubbed out as you might find with a real drug addict or with an actual person writing poetry. It looks as if it was meant to be read not the diary of an individual who was writing only for himself.

All the best

Chris

[Magpie]

Hi Chris.

Not only that, but the diary is a narrative. It has a beginning, middle, end. It has plot points, it has exposition, it has character developement. It's declamatory, not reflective. It has the language, and structure and story elements of a Victorian melodrama (one of the reasons I think it is an old forgery). And finally it has the moral denoument demanded of Victorian literature.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Chris

I thought it was meant to be read. He says "I give my name that all know of me."

Robert

[Paul Butler]

Morning Caz and all.

Caz.

The way I see it, the Roman numerals only appear next to each verse of the poem as he becomes satisfied with his efforts and "ticks it off" before moving on to the next. It's as if the diarist is saying...."OK, thats verse One done" and marking it off accordingly.

There are no numbers next to his corrected versions are there?

He then uses the numbered verses to copy into his perfected version on the next page.

I know it seems an odd thing to do, but I'm sure that's what is going on here.

Old style Hymn books are the only things that spring to mind where verses are numbered in such a way. A musical theme again?

Unfortunately it rather diminishes my idea that the diary is a not so careful copy of an earlier draft, hence various missing words here and there.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Oh, dear. You describe these things as if they were actually written by James Maybrick. That's unfortunate. Let's not let the fantasy go too far, Caz.

Well, Chris, I hope nobody else thought I was suggesting that the real James Maybrick saw the photo of Mary Kelly and got his idea about ‘an initial there’ from: the large F that appears from the photo to be carved into her forearm. :whistle: I was merely suggesting an alternative to the old ‘FM on the wall’ misapplication of the diary author’s actual references to initials.

I was also careful to say that Sir Jim writes that Mary Kelly reminds him of ‘the whore’, and that I could imagine what else the author may have had in mind for the Sir Jim character, who is, as you say yourself, supposed to be writing his private thoughts as an ‘allegedly drug-addled serial killer’. In short, the author must have had something in mind for what the character could have left: ‘in front for all eyes to see’.

I then talked about this character’s obsessive compulsive nature being played with by the writer, as we see in the repetition of words like whore and God when committing Sir Jim’s thoughts to paper.

How anyone could think I was describing these things as if they were written by the real James Maybrick is beyond me. I take care to make it clear that I am not doing so.



On the other hand, as a writer, I am not sure I find it particularly odd that part I of a series of parts would begin on the bottom of a page rather than the top so I am not sure that I accept your point that this is queer.

Ah, but did you look at the two facsimile pages I mentioned? I was just talking about the position of the Roman numerals, and the fact that the I and the III both appear, on their own, at the very base of a page.

I see what Paul means (Hi Paul :)) about the author adding a number to each roughly drafted verse before moving on to the next. But I haven’t worked out whether each numeral is supposed to refer to the verse preceding it or the verse immediately following it. The latter makes more sense in a hymn book way, but there appears to be space at the top of the facing page for the I if that’s the case, so the natural thing would still be to put it there, just above the verse it refers to.

On the other hand, if each numeral refers to the verse preceding it, then the positioning on the page makes sense, but I would not have expected a penman to interpret someone else’s composition this way - not without the desired layout for each page being made very clear. If nothing else it suggests a deal of care taken over the little details.

Any further thoughts on this, Paul? And could you expand on the ‘various missing words here and there’?

I find it quite remarkable that there are not more obvious ‘transcription’ blunders and inky mishaps over the 63 pages of handwriting, if a modern penman is meant to have copied someone else’s text into the guard book using an old pen.

Not one page spoiled, by the same passage of prose being written twice through lack of concentration? Or by the odd line of prose omitted for the same reason? (Not that such mistakes would be noticed with the poetry!)

Not one page needing to be torn out midway through, because of some careless giveaway error, that a real person recording their thoughts directly onto the paper could not make?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Caz

I did think you got rather intense in relating the intense way the writer (be he the actual James Maybrick, Sir Jim, or someone trying to be him) writes:

Hi All,

Coming to this thread late, I’m pleased to see that most of the points I usually make about the initials issue have been addressed and dealt with better than I could do.

I will just make a couple of observations that will no doubt cause a few raised eyebrows. :fear:

I have always read ‘An initial here and an initial there’ as a possible reference to two separate initials: one Sir Jim has with him back in Liverpool (possibly in the watch, if the two artefacts are from the same stable); and t’other left with MJK in London (possibly the large F that appears from the photo to be carved into her forearm: ‘I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me. I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh’ - as opposed to just the whoring mother’s initial, perhaps?).

Sir Jim writes of MJK: ‘She reminded me of the whore. So young unlike I.’ I can imagine this character wanting to carve the whoring mother’s mark into MJK’s flesh, to complete the transformation and the fantasy that he is destroying his wayward missus with every whore he rips, then back home carving MK in the watch to even the score. To me there is a recurring theme of double events, doing things in pairs, two of everything, possible exchanges of possessions, two locations, half an apron here, half an apron there, half a kidney here, half a kidney there, public life as businessman, husband and doting father, secret life as a drug using womaniser, foolish brother competing with sensible brother, and so forth. It could be just one aspect of a serial killer’s obsessive compulsive nature being played with by the writer, just like repeating words like whore and God over and over and over again when committing Sir Jim’s thoughts to paper.




I agree there is a similarity of repeated ideas in the Diary, and that the writer has got on a jag of word patterns and patterns of objects and themes. Of course if I were writing this that's what I would do as well to simulate the man's obsession and unbalance. You want to, after all, sound like a serial killer and specifically Jack the Ripper. So you are not only trying to simulate James Maybrick, you are trying to conjure up the Ripper's thoughts as well.

Let me look at the matter of pages 242 and 243 of the facsimile in Shirley’s original hardback edition, and examine the positioning of the numbering I and III for the doggerel that you find odd and render an opinion on that. Stay tuned.

Thanks

Chris

[Chris G.]

Hi Caz

. . . Let me look at the matter of pages 242 and 243 of the facsimile in Shirley’s original hardback edition, and examine the positioning of the numbering I and III for the doggerel that you find odd and render an opinion on that. Stay tuned.

Thanks

Chris

Hi Paul and Caz

YES!!! This is a good observation on your part. This actually might, I think, be an indication that this document was conceivably copied from an earlier version of the same text. Dare I say it, actually by James Maybrick? I am not sure that could be true though.

Basically, it makes no sense whatsoever to begin a new section of poetry with a Roman numeral at the bottom of Harrison's facsimile page 242 and put the succeeding three lines at the top of page 243. You would put the numeral directly over the lines that constitute the new section. Unless, as you say, the numeral is meant to go below the prior section -- and there are lines of doggerel above the number, i.e., "I has [sic] the key. . .' etc. "I had the key. . ." a nine-line stanza with crossouts, five lines left standing, and a five line stanza with no crossouts (my Lord, he got it right!). However, numbering under a stanza is certainly unconventional and betrays someone who is inexperienced at writing verse. . . or as I said above, a copyist who is just trying to get the text on some new pages, punctiliously trying to transcribe what is before them but not emulating the same page make-up. Well, possibly.

In short, I am not totally sure what to make of this: the numbering seems totally out of kilter with the lines and the layout of the pages, so I am more inclined that it betrays perhaps someone who was unused to writing poetry and who was just trying to make it look as if they knew what they were doing. Does that make sense? :rolleyes:

All the best

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

The clot thickens.....

I don't know which is harder to get one's mind around: that the Diary is authentically old and the original document, or that it's a old copy of an even older document.

The only scenario that I now find virtually impossible would be one where one or both of the Barretts were the forgers.

Hoo boy.

And of course we have to deal with the tin match box.....

However, numbering under a stanza is certainly unconventional and betrays someone who is inexperienced at writing verse. . . or as I said above, a copyist who is just trying to get the text on some new pages, punctiliously trying to transcribe what is before them but not emulating the same page make-up. Well, possibly.

In short, I am not totally sure what to make of this: the numbering seems totally out of kilter with the lines and the layout of the pages, so I am more inclined that it betrays perhaps someone who was unused to writing poetry and who was just trying to make it look as if they knew what they were doing. Does that make sense? :rolleyes:

All the best

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

And let us not forget the most intriguing of all the initials....

The "M" on the envelope found near Chapman's head.

[Magpie]

, or that it's a old copy of an even older document.



Or that it's an old copy of a contemporaneous "Maybrick" diary...

[Paul Butler]

I see what Paul means (Hi Paul :)) about the author adding a number to each roughly drafted verse before moving on to the next. But I haven’t worked out whether each numeral is supposed to refer to the verse preceding it or the verse immediately following it. The latter makes more sense in a hymn book way, but there appears to be space at the top of the facing page for the I if that’s the case, so the natural thing would still be to put it there, just above the verse it refers to.

On the other hand, if each numeral refers to the verse preceding it, then the positioning on the page makes sense, but I would not have expected a penman to interpret someone else’s composition this way - not without the desired layout for each page being made very clear. If nothing else it suggests a deal of care taken over the little details.

Any further thoughts on this, Paul? And could you expand on the ‘various missing words here and there’?

I find it quite remarkable that there are not more obvious ‘transcription’ blunders and inky mishaps over the 63 pages of handwriting, if a modern penman is meant to have copied someone else’s text into the guard book using an old pen.

Not one page spoiled, by the same passage of prose being written twice through lack of concentration? Or by the odd line of prose omitted for the same reason? (Not that such mistakes would be noticed with the poetry!)

Not one page needing to be torn out midway through, because of some careless giveaway error, that a real person recording their thoughts directly onto the paper could not make?

Love,

Caz
X

Morning Caz.

I'm sure what's going on here is that Sir Jim is in effect "signing off" each verse as he becomes satisfied with it, and what better place to sign something off than at the end of each section? There's no doubt in my mind that the Roman numerals apply to the preceding lines of verse. These "signed off" and numbered verses are then copied onto the next page.

Sir Jim is doing the same sort of thing on pages 261/2, though slightly messier.

I have held the view for some time that our diary is a copy of a previous version, due to certain instances of appalling grammar seemingly being caused by the odd word being left out when making the final draft due to a lack of concentration.

"I have thought long and hard over the matter and still cannot come to a decision (as) to when I should begin."

"My mind is clear I will put (the) whore through pain tonight."

No one, not even God himself will (take) away the pleasure of writing my thoughts."

Even more telling maybe is the perfectly good sentence that has become two seperate rather pointless ones. It's as if when copying an earlier draft he wasn't reading far enough ahead and thought he had reached the end of the sentence.

"The whore has informed the bumbling buffoon. I am in the habit of taking strong medicine."

Take away the full stop and space and it makes sense.

One thing I am certain of is that if I was hoaxing a diary of JTR in a very hard to come by genuine Victorian guard book with enough empty pages, I certainly wouldn't make my first attempt in it!

Regards to all.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

Do you not think it's possible to omit a small word here and there by mistake when writing spontaneously? I suppose a good way to check would be to see if it has happened to anyone posting their thoughts on an internet message board (as opposed to transcribing passages from sources that cannot simply be copied and pasted).

"No one, not even God himself will away the pleasure of writing my thoughts."

I always read this as the old fashioned use of 'away' where the verb is omitted - a bit like the similar use of 'to off'.

Here is an example from Shakespeare's King Lear: "Come, let's away to prison."

"The whore has informed the bumbling buffoon. I am in the habit of taking strong medicine."

This one may be down to whoever produced the transcript for Shirley's book (incidentally not the same transcript that the Barretts gave to Doreen). Looking at the facsimile the dot taken for a full stop appears to be very faint and the space between buffoon and I no bigger than others in the same line.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

[/I]This one may be down to whoever produced the transcript for Shirley's book (incidentally not the same transcript that the Barretts gave to Doreen).



That's interesting, and perhaps worthy of its own thread at some point.

Are there any dramatic differences ?

[Chris G.]

That's interesting, and perhaps worthy of its own thread at some point.

Are there any dramatic differences ?

Hi Bob

I am not sure there are dramatic differences between the transcript and the handwritten Diary. However, obviously, any manuscript text, depending on the neatness of the writing, is open to some extent to interpretation of the words and punctuation, and especially in this case where there are a number of smudges and other marks which might be mistaken for punctuation or which might obscure the word(s).

All the best

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Chris, Sir Robert,

I was assuming Sir Robert was asking about any dramatic differences between the two transcripts.

In the past, over at Casebook, I have referred to one of the differences between the diary and the Barrett transcript (in the very first line) which in my view tends to confirm that this transcript was made from the diary (and possibly within a limited time frame) and not t'other way round, as some like to claim.

I have not had time to see what other clues there might be, but I do think a separate thread would be in order if anyone wants to take this further.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul,

"The whore has informed the bumbling buffoon. I am in the habit of taking strong medicine."

This one may be down to whoever produced the transcript for Shirley's book (incidentally not the same transcript that the Barretts gave to Doreen). Looking at the facsimile the dot taken for a full stop appears to be very faint and the space between buffoon and I no bigger than others in the same line.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

Its possible I suppose. The "full stop" is quite low down on the page, but then so is the one after "pained" a few lines earlier. Probably only a look at the actual diary would resolve whether its an ink spot or a definite mark with a pen.

It certainly can be dangerous using the various diary transcripts when trying to establish the facts. The one on Wikipedia is poor, with spelling mistakes, and even some wrong words!

Something else that leaves me wondering sometimes is the lack of any obvious Americanisms, (a la JTR letters), in the diary text. You might expect there to be from either the reals James or Sir Jim trying to be the same man that wrote, at the very least, the Dear Boss letter. Neither are there any instances of obsolete archaic words like "codding" or "buckled".

Just a thought.

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

. . . Something else that leaves me wondering sometimes is the lack of any obvious Americanisms, (a la JTR letters), in the diary text. You might expect there to be from either the reals James or Sir Jim trying to be the same man that wrote, at the very least, the Dear Boss letter. Neither are there any instances of obsolete archaic words like "codding" or "buckled".

Just a thought.

regards.

Paul

Hi Paul

Yes you are correct that obsolete archaic words like "codding" or "buckled" don't appear in the Diary, though the penman could have been canny enough not to include them because it might be an obvious clue that he had cadged off "Dear Boss." On the other hand, the multiple ha ha's (even to the extent of underlining as in Dear Boss) combined with his emulation of the joshing tone of the Saucy Jacky postcard and the D.B. letters shows that the correspondence was an influence and that penman thought that in order to be "Jack" he had to sound that way. It would seem that penman thought the "Ripper" letters were really from the killer, which is at variance to what most Ripperologists believe, although that idea is consistent with what the general public believe: that Jack wrote letters to taunt the authorities.

All the best

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul, Chris,

At the risk of sounding like I am arguing for the real James Maybrick writing the diary :eek: I do see evidence of 'Sir Jim' thinking he can relive the ripper crimes via the newspapers, and fantasising about living up to the public image of 'Jack the Ripper' (or 'Sir Jack'), even as the image is being created, and regardless of how little basis in reality it may have.

If a letter from 'Jack' has been received, very well then, Sir Jim shall be Jack and therefore the sender of the letter.

Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be.

In short, at least in his own diary, if not in reality, Sir Jim can be what he likes when he likes, do what he likes when he likes and call himself what he likes.

Jim, Jack Jack Jim ha ha ha

This seems very unselfconscious in a way, as if the author is picking up and dropping aspects of the ripper on a whim - Sir Jim's whim - without any awareness of a need to keep impressing upon the reader a true sense of being there and being the only one to wear the killer's shoes.

The trick, I think, would be to judge what the author intended James Maybrick to have done in reality, and what was only intended to be in Sir Jim's mind, in the form of wishful thinking, or playing with the various roles on offer to him.

This diary does not come across to me like someone's attempt to make the Whitechapel Murderer write believable history. And that's just as it ought to be, since nobody should expect to find believable history in a serial killer's diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul

Yes you are correct that obsolete archaic words like "codding" or "buckled" don't appear in the Diary, though the penman could have been canny enough not to include them because it might be an obvious clue that he had cadged off "Dear Boss." On the other hand, the multiple ha ha's (even to the extent of underlining as in Dear Boss) combined with his emulation of the joshing tone of the Saucy Jacky postcard and the D.B. letters shows that the correspondence was an influence and that penman thought that in order to be "Jack" he had to sound that way. It would seem that penman thought the "Ripper" letters were really from the killer, which is at variance to what most Ripperologists believe, although that idea is consistent with what the general public believe: that Jack wrote letters to taunt the authorities.

All the best

Chris

Afternoon Chris.

The problem is that sir Jim has already made it plain to us that he is claiming authorship for the 25th September letter by his diary entry immediately after describing the double event:

"Before my next will send Central another to remember me by."

I find this a real puzzle when trying to imagine a centenary based Sir Jim getting his information from books. He would need to have read Fido for the empty matchbox detail, and could hardly have been unaware of modern day thinking on the Dear Boss letter, yet he choses to fly in the face of this popular opinion whilst still hoping to fool the Ripper world with his clever hoax?

I suppose that by saying he will send "another" he doesn't actually have to have sent the first, but I think that is what we are supposed to think.

Afternoon Caz.

I really like the Jim the fantasist idea but for one thing, that bloody matchbox again! Unless we ever find a previously unknown newspaper report of the Eddowes inquest that mentions it, any idea that involves the real JM having anything to do with it, even as an imagined JTR, is surely doomed.

Regards to you both.

Paul

P.S. We've drifted a bit from Kelly's wall haven't we?

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul

Yes I know he appears to lay claim to having written "Ripper" letters, and by the way I think one of the false notes in the Diary is where he says he is going to send "Central" another. Maybe the writer was thinking of Central Station in Liverpool or something but it seems odd to refer to the Central News Agency as "Central" -- the term seems to imply an intimacy with the CNA that the real James Maybrick would not have had. No, I mean the forger avoided the terms "codding" and "buckled" because that could have been a clue that the Diary was a forgery. There's such a thing as laying it on too thick. :yo:

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Afternoon Caz.

I really like the Jim the fantasist idea but for one thing, that bloody matchbox again! Unless we ever find a previously unknown newspaper report of the Eddowes inquest that mentions it, any idea that involves the real JM having anything to do with it, even as an imagined JTR, is surely doomed.



Hi Paul,

I was thinking more of the diary author blurring the edges between what the ‘Sir Jim’ character is meant to have done on the streets of Whitechapel London, and what else he may have fantasised about having done, when back on home turf between murders.

Thus Sir Jim the Whitechapel Murderer could adopt the role given him by the press and imagine himself as Saucy Jacky the canny letter writer, almost to the point of believing it (like Mike Barrett seemed to believe his own fantasy about having written the diary himself) without actually sending a sausage (or should that be kidney? :decision:), while knowing about the empty matchbox because he could have given it to Eddowes himself (Abberline was supposed to be holding something back, according to ‘Sir Jim’ - except that 'Sir Jim' failed to appreciate that this city murder was off Abberline's patch), or it could have come out - literally - in conversation: “Have you a light, missus?” “I think so old cock - ’ere we are - oh lummy, I must ’ave used the last one.”

I’m not sure it has to be an ‘either/or’ situation here - ie fantasist or deranged killer. The author could be portraying ‘Sir Jim’ as murderer and fantasist combined - blurring the edges and hedging the bets.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul

Yes I know he appears to lay claim to having written "Ripper" letters, and by the way I think one of the false notes in the Diary is where he says he is going to send "Central" another. Maybe the writer was thinking of Central Station in Liverpool or something but it seems odd to refer to the Central News Agency as "Central" -- the term seems to imply an intimacy with the CNA that the real James Maybrick would not have had. No, I mean the forger avoided the terms "codding" and "buckled" because that could have been a clue that the Diary was a forgery. There's such a thing as laying it on too thick. :yo:

Chris

Hi Chris.

I'm fairly sure "central" is the CNA and that "another" is referring to the "Saucy Jacky" postcard. Interesting that with all the "kidney" type references in the diary, there is no explicit claim to having written the "Lusk" letter.

It's one of the few things in the traditional Ripper story that seems to be missing.

Whoever wrote it may have believed the possibility that the two famous communications sent to CNA were from the real Jack, but not the rather theatrical "Lusk" missive with enclosed kidney.

Do you think that this way of thinking would fit in with a pre-war diary author, which the Battlecrease origins might suggest? From what I've seen it looks as though our Sir Jim's way of thinking may well have been popular amongst the Ripper world at that time.

Regards,

Paul

[SirRobertAnderson]

Interesting that with all the "kidney" type references in the diary, there is no explicit claim to having written the "Lusk" letter.

It's one of the few things in the traditional Ripper story that seems to be missing.



You know, that's a very interesting point. It's hard for me to imagine our "shoddy hoaxer :crazy:" passing up an easy chance for some melodrama. The Lusk kidney would have been a no brainer.

Unless, of course, the author knew he didn't send the package. :bolt:

[Chris G.]

You know, that's a very interesting point. It's hard for me to imagine our "shoddy hoaxer :crazy:" passing up an easy chance for some melodrama. The Lusk kidney would have been a no brainer.

Unless, of course, the author knew he didn't send the package. :bolt:

Of course our penman does say he fried and ate the kidney so the implication is there that the Lusk letter and the kidney caper were part of what Maybrick did.

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

Of course our penman does say he fried and ate the kidney so the implication is there that the Lusk letter and the kidney caper were part of what Maybrick did.

Chris

I hear ya Chris. I just have a problem with the Diarist missing a chance to mention Lusk in some fashion. It's too good an opportunity for drama, in my opinion.

[Chris G.]

I hear ya Chris. I just have a problem with the Diarist missing a chance to mention Lusk in some fashion. It's too good an opportunity for drama, in my opinion.

It gives more dramatic focus to the tale if his taunting is directed solely at Abberline and no one else.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon Chris and Sir R.

Agreed. Maybe a too specific reference to the Lusk letter would have been a step too far, and maybe just a little too obvious. Some things being best implied, no matter how vaguely, than said outright.

I suspect that Sir Jim maybe believed the two communications addressed to CNA were the real thing and the Lusk letter not.

Of course if Sir Jim fried and ate it, he certainly didn't send it to anyone!

regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Afternoon Chris and Sir R.

Agreed. Maybe a too specific reference to the Lusk letter would have been a step too far, and maybe just a little too obvious. Some things being best implied, no matter how vaguely, than said outright.

I suspect that Sir Jim maybe believed the two communications addressed to CNA were the real thing and the Lusk letter not.

Of course if Sir Jim fried and ate it, he certainly didn't send it to anyone!

regards.

Paul

Of course the Lusk letter writer claims he fried and ate half of it, and it was "very nise" -- and sent the rest to Lusk. I imagine penman was making a similar claim though he doesn't say that he had mailed the other half to Lusk. :rolleyes:

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Of course the Lusk letter writer claims he fried and ate half of it, and it was "very nise" -- and sent the rest to Lusk. I imagine penman was making a similar claim though he doesn't say that he had mailed the other half to Lusk. :rolleyes:

Chris

Of course Chris. Sir Jim's possible slip up in the diary is where he tells us he "....ate all off it....", rather than "...half of it...." Leaving nothing for poor old Lusk.

Why the hell Sir Jim thought it was going to taste of bacon is beyond me, but like the Lusk letter's author he "....enjoyed it never the less."

Could it be an allusion to a whore being a pig in his mind? Maybe not that subtle!

Regards.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

Hi, I would just like to say that I can see the letters on the wall in the photograph very clearly. However, this is not to say that they were there on site of course. A bit of an enigma this one.

Robin, Bath

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Robin,

Just keep in mind that the diary does not make any specific references to a letter or letters on Mary's wall.

I think we all do this from time to time - ie assume that the diary author means one thing when there are often other possibilities.

Love,

Caz
X

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Robin,

Just keep in mind that the diary does not make any specific references to a letter or letters on Mary's wall.

I think we all do this from time to time - ie assume that the diary author means one thing when there are often other possibilities.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, thats true. The association between the initials rhyme and the letters in the photograph is just an assumption I can see, but Shirley having pointed it out, I can clearly see the letters in the photograph and I do find them intriguing. I can't really see that they are some kind of stain on the photo, that would just be too neat

On the other hand, the Mary Jane Kelly report doesn't mention anything being written on the wall. Why? Perhaps, being a coroners report there was no need or requirement to mention the letters, being focused purely on the body. On the other hand, with respect to others suspects, there has often been theories of a police cover up mentioned. Is there any circumstances in which, if Maybrick was the killer, the police would have reason to cover up his guilt? Perhaps the letters on the wall were just ignored or washed off in the same way that the letters on the Goulston street wall were.

Apart from freemasonry perhaps....?

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho robingoodfellow

Im an easy going man and tolerate more than most......but are you not lurching wildly off track here with talk of conspiracies and freemasons and the like?'

The Maybrick saga is hardly robust enough to survive the invocation of conspiratorial cover up demons and masonic elementals ?

Its always a sign of sheer desperation once such things occur.

Such signs usually been followed swiftly by the death rattle that is "but he fits the profile".

p

[Paul Butler]

Morning Chaps.

As I see it, (and yes. I can see it too), this FM business is a bit of a red herring in any case.

Its only visible in one of the Kelly photographs, which might mean that its really just a mark or a bit of dirt on the negative, or an early print.

Its only clearly visible in the "enhanced" photograph where a computer has been used to join up the dots, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to be entirely trusting of an image that's been manipulated, no matter how well intentioned.

Its position on the wall BEHIND Kelly's corpse and so low down would mean that Jack would have to lean right over the bed, and maybe even pull the body out of the way to put it there. Its in exactly the right spot for it to be arterial spary though, assuming Jack was aiming it away from himself.

Most important of all, Sir Jim, doesn't claim to have left initials on kelly's wall anyway as Caz so rightly points out.

Regards.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

hi ho robingoodfellow

Im an easy going man and tolerate more than most......but are you not lurching wildly off track here with talk of conspiracies and freemasons and the like?'

The Maybrick saga is hardly robust enough to survive the invocation of conspiratorial cover up demons and masonic elementals ?

Its always a sign of sheer desperation once such things occur.

Such signs usually been followed swiftly by the death rattle that is "but he fits the profile".

p

Actually you're probably right. I've never actually supported such nonsense, so I don't really believe it. But it definitely looks like FM in that photograph, and I can't believe its just a photographic flaw.

I'll continue to follow this part of the discussion with much interest.

[robingoodfellow]

Morning Chaps.

As I see it, (and yes. I can see it too), this FM business is a bit of a red herring in any case.

Its position on the wall BEHIND Kelly's corpse and so low down would mean that Jack would have to lean right over the bed, and maybe even pull the body out of the way to put it there. Its in exactly the right spot for it to be arterial spary though, assuming Jack was aiming it away from himself.

Paul

Yes, actually Paul, I've often wondered about that. In order to write those letters, the Ripper would have had to have leaned across a pile of bloody gore that was once a body and thus risk getting his suit all bloodied up, not only that, trying to write on a wall with your body inclined at that angle must be hell on the back. There would have been far easier locations on the rooms walls for the Ripper to write something had he wanted to....

[Magpie]

I think we all do this from time to time - ie assume that the diary author means one thing when there are often other possibilities.




True enough--very often people think that they are arguing against something in the Diary, when what they are actually arguing against is Sue Harrison's speculation about what something in the diary referes to.