How to make Ripperology better?

[rjpalmer]

29th March 1889
- Left eye damage caused by punch

5th April 1889
- Pulled around the room by her hair

Isn't this, in fact, the same incident?

Christie, Colquhoun, Harrison, Feldman, etc. only describe one fight, and, infamously, even the diarist refers to his violence as a "one off instance."

At trial, it was stated that James and Florrie had been married for eight years and had not quarreled or fought before the incident with Brierley.

The way it is usually described, the quarrel over the Grand National occurred on 29 March, at which time Maybrick did indeed blacken his wife's eye.

She then took to her bed for a week.

On 6th April, she met Brierley again and told him of being beaten and dragged around the room--but this wasn't the day before--she was referring to the same incident on 29 March.

But perhaps you have a source that shows otherwise?

[Scott Nelson]

I think everyone you mention is a valid suspect-also flemming, kosminsky and chapman all had a history of violence against women. and were there at the time.

I can't remember if Fleming had a history of violence against women, but he did go to an asylum where he remained until his death. His prior association with Mary Kelly makes him almost as good a candidate as Morgenstern for her killer.

[erobitha]

Prove it. Name these 'numerous occasions.'

29th March 1889
- Left eye damage caused by punch

5th April 1889
- Pulled around the room by her hair

[erobitha]

If you research the period violence against women was commonplace, every second male in the country would be a potential suspect if that is your concern.
The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.
The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.

Discredited by who?

I do not see it being game, set and match by a long chalk.

Thanks god there are still researchers out there willing to find out the truth about this thing and how it came to be because what has been presented as absolute fact by either side has fallen short.

To me, the truth is all that matters. We are still not there yet, despite what you or others think.

Once we have it, maybe then I can be 'denounced' and burnt at the stake as a heretic by ripperologists.

[Aethelwulf]

I just feel that in terms of his demonstrable presence in the East End in the 1880s, his record of extreme violence against women, his involment in the East End sex trade and his personal knowledge of MJK, Morgenstern is way above Maybrick.

MrB is there some more detail on this Morgenstern chap somewhere?

[erobitha]

thats not even debateable. the only real question is why people continue to defend it as if there is still any mystery at all too it.
but i think I know the reason for that too.

the best thing for ripperology would be to denounce it, and those that still defend it (or even still bring it up), forget about it and move on.

It can't be debated can it, because there is so much resistance to the idea that actually beyond the superficial there could be something that could lead us to the ultimate answer in all of this.

Denounce me Abby all you want. But do so with absolute proof or debate it like a grown up.

[erobitha]

Did Witt live in the East End? I thought he lived south of the river somewhere.

Maybrick was violent against women - plural? Did he stab his wife (wives?) or beat her (them) with a poker in front of other people?

Nothing I said displayed a lack of knowledge of Maybrick, but I don’t claim to be an expert on his activities. I just feel that in terms of his demonstrable presence in the East End in the 1880s, his record of extreme violence against women, his involment in the East End sex trade and his personal knowledge of MJK, Morgenstern is way above Maybrick.

Maybrick struck his wife. He may have been somewhere near the East End in June, 1888 (I think). Is there more than that (diary aside)?

Witt lived in Camberwell, 5 miles from Whitechapel. The letter I refer to indicates Maybrick was there in September 1888 complaining of eye issues.

Your point of Mortgenstern is a valid one, I was not commenting on him specifically. I am commenting on the plethora of other 'candidates' who seem to get much higher billing than Maybrick based on nothing more than being the first to one scene for example. Or a mentally ill jew. Or slightly odd local mortuary attendant. These candidates have no evidence of violence against women.

Kosminski once attacked his sister with scissors and people accuse him of being violent towards women. Yet, when Maybrick attacks his wife (multiple times) that is dismissed as "well things were different back then, a bit of domestic violence was accepted."

[Abby Normal]

If you research the period violence against women was commonplace, every second male in the country would be a potential suspect if that is your concern.
The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.
The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.

thats not even debateable. the only real question is why people continue to defend it as if there is still any mystery at all too it.
but i think I know the reason for that too.

the best thing for ripperology would be to denounce it, and those that still defend it (or even still bring it up), forget about it and move on.

[Wickerman]

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous. He was violent to his own wife.

A man violent against women who was a drug addict and was in London in September 1888. Confirmed alongside suffering with eye issues, by a letter from Gustav Witt to the Home Office. He had a business address at 46 Lime Street in 1866 - two minutes from Mitre Square.

He has more credentials as a candidate without the scrapbook or watch than most suspects mentioned on here.

These are circumstantial facts but they are facts none the less.

If you research the period violence against women was commonplace, every second male in the country would be a potential suspect if that is your concern.
The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.
The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.

[MrBarnett]

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous. He was violent to his own wife.

A man violent against women who was a drug addict and was in London in September 1888. Confirmed alongside suffering with eye issues, by a letter from Gustav Witt to the Home Office. He had a business address at 46 Lime Street in 1866 - two minutes from Mitre Square.

He has more credentials as a candidate without the scrapbook or watch than most suspects mentioned on here.

These are circumstantial facts but they are facts none the less.

Did Witt live in the East End? I thought he lived south of the river somewhere.

Maybrick was violent against women - plural? Did he stab his wife (wives?) or beat her (them) with a poker in front of other people?

Nothing I said displayed a lack of knowledge of Maybrick, but I don’t claim to be an expert on his activities. I just feel that in terms of his demonstrable presence in the East End in the 1880s, his record of extreme violence against women, his involment in the East End sex trade and his personal knowledge of MJK, Morgenstern is way above Maybrick.

Maybrick struck his wife. He may have been somewhere near the East End in June, 1888 (I think). Is there more than that (diary aside)?

[rjpalmer]

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous.

Prove it. Name these 'numerous occasions.'

[Ozzy]

Maybe not what Ally originally had in mind although I think it would make Casebook better.
I give up reading a lot of threads because of it.

It's the way some regular posters here quote other posts. Mostly when it comes to multi-quoting, and that they don't seem to know how to do it correctly.

Instead of how you're supposed to do it, some of them grab the text they want to quote and put it in italics, others put it in bold, then there's others who don't change anything but just add some quotes ("text") or even some arrows (<text>) or the initials of the person they are quoting.

If it's somebody new, or maybe posts very rarely then that doesn't bother me much but I'm talking about members who have been posting for years and still do it.

Now I've been using computers since 1981 and have an interest in computers. I know that's not the case for most (the rest?) of you for which computers are just a means to an end.

But I can't imagine it taking more than an hour for anybody to get their head around how to do it. Or am I wrong there? Just keep experimenting using the preview function.

Weirdly, over the years, even though I've always thought the diary was a Barrett hoax, I find myself ending up in those threads often as I know that the members that post in those threads regularly all seem to know how to multi-quote so I know I won't have any problem reading the posts!

I doubt my post will change anything but ever since I started reading this forum, at least 20 years ago, it's bothered me. Now I've said it.

[erobitha]

Hi MrB.,

I couldn't agree with you more, though I have edited your comment as you missed a really critical bit out which unfortunately will have inevitably misled a few of the younger and more impressionable Ripperologists reading this:



I'd hate anyone to read your comment and think that all Liverpool cotton brokers were equal where Wor Jacky Ripper was concerned.
and I have no doubt that that's not what you had intended to imply.

Cheers,

Ike

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous. He was violent to his own wife.

A man violent against women who was a drug addict and was in London in September 1888. Confirmed alongside suffering with eye issues, by a letter from Gustav Witt to the Home Office. He had a business address at 46 Lime Street in 1866 - two minutes from Mitre Square.

He has more credentials as a candidate without the scrapbook or watch than most suspects mentioned on here.

These are circumstantial facts but they are facts none the less.

[Iconoclast]

I agree with you that characters like this, and Bury, deserve at least as much attention, if not more, than Liverpudlian cotton brokers or cricket-playing barristers who have no history of serious violence against women and who may never even have set foot in the East End in the late 1880s.

Gary

Hi MrB.,

I couldn't agree with you more, though I have edited your comment as you missed a really critical bit out which unfortunately will have inevitably misled a few of the younger and more impressionable Ripperologists reading this:

I agree with you that characters like this, and Bury, deserve at least as much attention, if not more, than Liverpudlian cotton brokers who have no evidential link to the crimes such as a confessional scrapbook which predicted where we would find a specific set of initials and a confessional watch with an extremely good facsimile of the candidate's known signature inside or cricket-playing barristers who have no history of serious violence against women and who may never even have set foot in the East End in the late 1880s.

I'd hate anyone to read your comment and think that all Liverpool cotton brokers were equal where Wor Jacky Ripper was concerned.
and I have no doubt that that's not what you had intended to imply.

Cheers,

Ike

[MrBarnett]

The playing field is not even.

That must be a candidate for the wittiest response of the year.