Most ridiculous suspect

[Iconoclast]

There is no evidence of Maybrick being Jack . Again show me some

We get it. Honestly, we understand. You don't see any evidence pointing to James Maybrick. Even when it's listed out for you (oh, please read my post, man).

And - when you do get it handed to you - you will argue that none of it means anything.

We get it.

[Iconoclast]

Being similar to at least one witness description.

If I wasn't so rabid, I'd rest my case ...

PS If you don't understand what I mean, you should hold your head in shame.

[Iconoclast]

The one thing we all need to recognise is that the case will NEVER be properly resolved. It doesn't matter what material comes forth or which arguments are made, there will always be detractors. Why is this the case? I don't know exactly but I think it has got something to do with the fact that the Whitechapel crimes have passed into the very fabric of British history and for us to be able to name the man would be akin to unravelling part of that precious fabric we all hold so dear.

"Two world wars and one world cup" we unspiritedly love to sing ((558) MTN commercial FIFA World Cup 2010 - two world wars and one world cup - YouTube) every time we come up against a certain nation we know is bigger and better than us at pretty much everything. We don't want to mention that a rather large and extremely wealthy country over the pond chipped-in and helped the free world defeat the evils of extreme nationalism, nor that Geoff Hurst scored the only two-goal hat-trick in footballing history. It ruins the narrative (and potentially buggers-up the song we love to sing).

Same with Jack. There will never be common acceptance of the perpetrator. It means that much to us to be able to sing the same old songs from here to Eternity.

Ike

[Darryl Kenyon]

You don't appear to be keeping-up here. Read my post, as advised.

There is no evidence of Maybrick being Jack . Again show me some

[Darryl Kenyon]

Following on , what as a sham marriage and drug addiction got to do with being massive pointers towards Jack ? As for eyesight , I would have thought Jack would have had at least decent vision to commit the murders in near darkness.
How about Shirley Harrison showing us some real evidence like being near one of the murders when committed - Lech. Being suspected by at least one of the police - Druitt . Being a local resident in Whitechapel at the time - Levy. Being similar to at least one witness description - Hutchinson. Being a known murderer - Bury.

Do I believe any of the above are Jack ? There are various percentages of doubt [ in my mind ] , to any of them . But at least there is something instead of a fake watch and diary.
Regards Darryl

[Iconoclast]

I have read the Diary and I thought it was a load of rambling rubbish and I still cannot believe people are taken in by it. If the F and M was so conclusive how come the case isn't solved ?

Regards Darryl

Ps Show me one iota of evidence within the diary which proves it NOT to be a hoax

You don't appear to be keeping-up here. Read my post, as advised.

[Darryl Kenyon]

In addition to the research found in Shirley Harrison's book (sham marriage, drug addiction, violence towards women, usage of prostitutes etc), I have also discovered the following:

- In 1866 he had an office address at 46 Lime Street, EC1 a two minute walk from Mitre Square
- In Sept 1888 he had issues with his eyes (Gustav Witt letter to Home Office August 1889). Numerous witnesses reported the suspect having issues with their eyes
- There was no unified code of ethics in the United States in the 1870s with regards to diagnosing syphilis - doctors could write anything they wanted on someone's record. Like Malaria.

Already the above makes his character far more likely to commit such these murderous acts than Druitt who had no connection to the area at all.

But hey, lets just all assume there is nothing to discuss beyond the scrapbook.

So anyone who had a reside [ work or otherwise ] within distance of any of the murder sites within 20 odd years before the killings is obviously a prime suspect

[Darryl Kenyon]

My patience is never anything other than thin at the best of times, but this thread has finally snapped it.

The 'worst' Jack the Ripper candidate and people home in on James Maybrick, the ONLY candidate with ANY case against them in 130 years?

Whilst one can argue that the scrapbook and the watch and the circumstantial evidence are either hoaxed (in the case of the first two) or just bizarre coincidence (in the case of the third), one cannot demonstrate this categorically (simply by conjecture and inference) therefore one can NEVER argue that these make James Maybrick's candidature for Jack the Ripper weak!

And please don't ask uneducated questions like "so what's the circumstantial evidence?". If you don't already know what the circumstantial evidence is, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you don't know what it is within the scrapbook which points us directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you do not understand why the Maybrick watch points directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

Other candidates with even a tiny amount of evidence against them: Erm ... erm ... erm ... oh, Sickert seemed to be fascinated with Jack and probably wrote some of the letters so it must be him!

And all of the other candidates? Erm ... erm ... erm ...

Despite what is commonly believed on the Casebook - primarily by those who haven't even READ the Maybrick scrapbook - James Maybrick stands head and shoulders above EVERY SINGLE OTHER POTENTIAL CANIDATE, and yet we suffer a painful cacophony of truly insipid and uninspired conjecture around people who have no greater link to Jack the Ripper than they once went to London on a works outing.

The scrapbook, the watch, and the welter of circumstantial evidence do not prove categorically that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper (though the 'F's and the 'M's in Kelly's room are as good as it's ever going to get, I suspect), and no-one needs to believe what they don't like the sound of (from a great distance, it generally appears), but if the measure of acceptance was shifted from blind faith and dull opinion to a simple contrast of evidence, Maybrick would already be convicted and damned in the Eternal Court of History.

As much as many of you would love it to be true, the scrapbook has NOT been proven to be a hoax. Nor has the watch. Before you post on James Maybrick's candidature for Jack, please give some thought to doing a small amount of research into it first.

Ike

I have read the Diary and I thought it was a load of rambling rubbish and I still cannot believe people are taken in by it. If the F and M was so conclusive how come the case isn't solved ?

Regards Darryl

Ps Show me one iota of evidence within the diary which proves it NOT to be a hoax

[Iconoclast]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...706#post782706

For those of you who have not arsed themselves to read my brilliant Society's Pillar (an obvious exception here is ero b who said of it - although I paraphrase criminally - "This is the greatest piece of literature on Jack the Ripper I haven't written"), let me at least draw your attention to the summary of the case I provided on The Greatest Thread of All on March 9, 2022 (post #8462).

For those who imagine there is no case for James Maybrick to answer, I politely suggest you consider my summarised post before digesting my brilliant Society's Pillar which will undoubtedly be the best thing you could possibly do today.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

My patience is never anything other than thin at the best of times, but this thread has finally snapped it.

The 'worst' Jack the Ripper candidate and people home in on James Maybrick, the ONLY candidate with ANY case against them in 130 years?

Whilst one can argue that the scrapbook and the watch and the circumstantial evidence are either hoaxed (in the case of the first two) or just bizarre coincidence (in the case of the third), one cannot demonstrate this categorically (simply by conjecture and inference) therefore one can NEVER argue that these make James Maybrick's candidature for Jack the Ripper weak!

And please don't ask uneducated questions like "so what's the circumstantial evidence?". If you don't already know what the circumstantial evidence is, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you don't know what it is within the scrapbook which points us directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you do not understand why the Maybrick watch points directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

Other candidates with even a tiny amount of evidence against them: Erm ... erm ... erm ... oh, Sickert seemed to be fascinated with Jack and probably wrote some of the letters so it must be him!

And all of the other candidates? Erm ... erm ... erm ...

Despite what is commonly believed on the Casebook - primarily by those who haven't even READ the Maybrick scrapbook - James Maybrick stands head and shoulders above EVERY SINGLE OTHER POTENTIAL CANIDATE, and yet we suffer a painful cacophony of truly insipid and uninspired conjecture around people who have no greater link to Jack the Ripper than they once went to London on a works outing.

The scrapbook, the watch, and the welter of circumstantial evidence do not prove categorically that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper (though the 'F's and the 'M's in Kelly's room are as good as it's ever going to get, I suspect), and no-one needs to believe what they don't like the sound of (from a great distance, it generally appears), but if the measure of acceptance was shifted from blind faith and dull opinion to a simple contrast of evidence, Maybrick would already be convicted and damned in the Eternal Court of History.

As much as many of you would love it to be true, the scrapbook has NOT been proven to be a hoax. Nor has the watch. Before you post on James Maybrick's candidature for Jack, please give some thought to doing a small amount of research into it first.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

Of the ‘named’ I favour Druitt, Kosminski/Cohen and Bury as the likeliest but if I had to put money on it I’d go for an as yet unnamed killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So then its also fairly obvious that Druitt was in Bounemouth on the 3rd and 4th of Aug playing in a cricket carnival ,that he would not travel 200 miles to stab Martha Tabram to death on the 7th then travel 200 miles back ? Not to mention all the other murders that are attibuted to JTR after Druitt was pulled dead out of the Thames River ? and his cricketing schudule during the C5 murders makes it damm near impossible that Druitt was Jack the Ripper . Yet you lable people ''Clueless'' when they dismiss him as a suspect?.

There is no proof that Sickert was in France at he time of the Chapman murder , and people can rule him out for whatever reason they like, except this one .

Seriously Fishy?

Druitt was a train journey of around 4 hours away, 3 days before a disputed JTR victim! Anyone is free to dispute Druitt’s viability or otherwise as a suspect. I haven’t claimed that he was the ripper. I just favour him of the named suspects and I’m of the opinion that he’s often too easily dismissed. That’s all. I’m not promoting Druitt. That said, one thing that we cannot dismiss Druitt on (which actually applies to the vast majority of suspects) is timing. It cannot be shown that he couldn’t have been at any of the locations. We can’t show that he was either of course. As far as I’m aware we can’t prove that Lewis Carroll was elsewhere?

Sickert was in Dieppe, with his mother making no mention of preparing for or even having any intention of returning just 2 days before a generally accepted ripper victim. So even if they decided to return immediately after his mother had put her pen down they would have still have had the preparations for a return followed by a journey across the channel followed by the journey up to London which I’m guessing would have taken up a whole day. So this would narrow down the available time to around a day. So I’m not saying that based on this we can say that it would have been impossible for Sickert to have been in Hanbury Street but the information that has come down to us very strongly suggests that he was in France at the time. I don’t see how this can be disputed?

[Aethelwulf]

In addition to the research found in Shirley Harrison's book (sham marriage, drug addiction, violence towards women, usage of prostitutes etc), I have also discovered the following:

- In 1866 he had an office address at 46 Lime Street, EC1 a two minute walk from Mitre Square
- In Sept 1888 he had issues with his eyes (Gustav Witt letter to Home Office August 1889). Numerous witnesses reported the suspect having issues with their eyes
- There was no unified code of ethics in the United States in the 1870s with regards to diagnosing syphilis - doctors could write anything they wanted on someone's record. Like Malaria.

Already the above makes his character far more likely to commit such these murderous acts than Druitt who had no connection to the area at all.

But hey, lets just all assume there is nothing to discuss beyond the scrapbook.

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

[erobitha]

theres zero circumstantial evidence for maybrick, the watch or the silly diary. which is why the vitriolic reaction against him is indirectly proportional.

Thanks for that insight.

[erobitha]

Please can you enlighten me on the huge stack of circumstantial evidence so I can reassess James ?

Regards Darryl

In addition to the research found in Shirley Harrison's book (sham marriage, drug addiction, violence towards women, usage of prostitutes etc), I have also discovered the following:

- In 1866 he had an office address at 46 Lime Street, EC1 a two minute walk from Mitre Square
- In Sept 1888 he had issues with his eyes (Gustav Witt letter to Home Office August 1889). Numerous witnesses reported the suspect having issues with their eyes
- There was no unified code of ethics in the United States in the 1870s with regards to diagnosing syphilis - doctors could write anything they wanted on someone's record. Like Malaria.

Already the above makes his character far more likely to commit such these murderous acts than Druitt who had no connection to the area at all.

But hey, lets just all assume there is nothing to discuss beyond the scrapbook.