How does JM stand as a suspect WITHOUT the diary?

[Bob the Slapper]

Like the title suggests, I'd be interested to know how James Maybrick stands as a suspect if we consider the diary (and watch) to be inadmissable as evidence. I personally find the diary/watch to be very unreliable artifacts in lots of ways, but I can't shake the feeling that JM makes a bloody good suspect anyway!

JM plausibly had the mentality, motive, timeline and means to be JTR, but can anyone quote a fact that totally eliminates him (e.g. verifiably not being in London on the night of one of the murders)? I have not been able to find one.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bob

JM plausibly had the mentality, motive

Unfortunately whatever mentality and motive he may have had will arguably not be found within the pages of the Diary, which aims to portray him in a certain way. From what little I know from other sources about James Maybrick, he seemed a decent enough chap. Furthermore, in my view it's quite plausible that he didn't even know about his wife's affair with Brierley until after the Whitechapel Murders had started - so bang goes the usual "motive".

Even if such a motive existed, why did he take out his anger over his prim, young, middle-class wife's conduct by serially attacking debauched and bedraggled middle-aged vagrants in the East End of London? It doesn't make sense to me, and it's extremely unlikely that he have been considered even a semi-serious Ripper suspect if it weren't for that darned book.

[Dan Norder]

Occasionally some diaries supporters try to claim Maybrick makes a good suspect even without the diary, but I just can't imagine how that would even work. Without the diary he's just some guy living in another city with absolutely nothing in common with the murders other than being alive at the time and living on the same land mass. That's no different from millions of other people, and we don't call all of them suspects.

[Howard Brown]

but can anyone quote a fact that totally eliminates him (e.g. verifiably not being in London on the night of one of the murders)? I have not been able to find one.-Bob The Slapper

Before JM could be considered a suspect without the Diary, it would have to be demonstrated that he was in London on one of the nights in question. So far no one has been able to do that. The burden of proof is always upon the individual or individuals promoting a suspect to demonstrate his whereabouts at the time of these crimes.

[Omlor]

Bob,

Without the diary, the real James Maybrick is on exactly the same footing as a suspect as Oscar Wilde. He's an adult male living in England. That's it.

Would you feel comfortable claiming Wilde was the ripper?

--John

[Graham]

The only possible reference that Maybrick had something nasty going for him is the reference of his wife Florie to something James told her which, she said, she felt was 'meant only to frighten her'. This could have been anything, like wearing the same pair of underpants for a fortnight.

Without and before the Diary, Maybrick does not even flicker as Jack the Ripper.

Apart from his top-hat and highly-twirlable moustache.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Without and before the Diary, Maybrick does not even flicker as Jack the Ripper.

Apart from his top-hat and highly-twirlable moustache...

...which vision might, just might, have inspired the diary's writer(s) to have thought of the connection in the first place, come to think of it.

[Graham]

...which vision might, just might, have inspired the diary's writer(s) to have thought of the connection in the first place, come to think of it.

And you could well be right there, Sam...

Graham

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

After reading the diary I couldn't help feeling the following way;

the diary was written for us, readers, not for the person himself!

All the best
Jukka

[Soothsayer]

Without the diary, James Maybrick is a complete non-starter as a candidate for JtR.

The watch is a complete irrelevance to me (because it emerged after the diary rather than before it).

If (or when) the diary is finally proven categorically to be a forgery, I'll return to Mr Evans' theory on Tumblety, I think (despite the inconvenience of his likely incarceration on the evening of the Kelly murder).

[caz]

From what little I know from other sources about James Maybrick, he seemed a decent enough chap.

Hi Sam,

Then you either know very little indeed about the real Jim, or your idea of common decency is very far from mine.

Maybe he would have been considered a ‘decent enough chap’ by his peers in the era of so-called ‘family values’, even with the knowledge of how he used women and drugs like toys and sweets. But it’s a rather depressing thought.

That said, he isn’t a legitimate ripper suspect and the diary has not made him one.

He was just a very naughty boy, whose favourite hobbies made him a tricky customer to pin down.

Love,

Caz
X