Suspects Poll

[mklhawley]

For those who have chosen 'other/unknown', is it because you have no faith in Scotland Yard's investigative results, i.e., their suspect list -possibly because the killer was never found?

I have a little more faith in their investigation, but since no one saw JTR in the act, then there was really no way to convict without a confession.

Sincerely,

Mike

[lynn cates]

my fantasy

Hello Mike. SY's suspect list? I wish!

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Druitt has 5.....WOW! Tumblety has 3

i'm tempted to vote for LE GRAND, It's not fair, i should be allowed to have 4 suspects

GH, another GH, G.Chapman and LE GRAND.................. LOL

[Soothsayer]

Hi Spy. Actually, everything you wrote about the Diary is wrong, and yes, it's proved a fake.

Hi Tom,

Oh my goodness - after all these years, the categorical proof that the journal was not written by James Maybrick has been uncovered and I've gone and missed it!

Could you just pop across to t'other thread (I think you know the one) and clarify for us all there exactly what this final, damning proof is?

Before you do, can I just remind you of your words: " ... and yes, it's proved a fake" [my italics], so clearly we're expecting absolute proof not simply ill-informed opinion constructed out of mere disbelief that the crimes might finally be solved or because someone-wanted-it-to-be-a-fake-so-they-said-it-was-a-fake-but-I-can't-remember-who-or-what-dubious-logic-they-drew-upon, or because you believe that it must be a hoax because - for example (made up, obviously, but illustrative of the sort of counter-argument we hear based upon 'intuition' alone) - "it must be a hoax because I wouldn't have used an old torn scrapbook if I was the world's first serial killer of note", et cetera (the t'other thread has heard all of these before, and yet still we await the truth)?

Incidentally, Simon Woods should not be cited as evidence of a modern hoax as this assumes that the letters were not placed on the wall in 1888. If they were placed there in 1888 and Simon Woods saw them in 1988, or whatever, then that lends credence to the journal being the real deal. The fact that he saw the letters and that a hoaxer could have drawn upon that fact for their hoax is not proof that that actually happened.

I'm so looking forward to finally finding out the truth about this journal, so please don't keep us waiting!

PS Please do so on t'other thread as I don't wish this thread to be diverted by my singular ravings.

[tji]

Hi Mike

For those who have chosen 'other/unknown', is it because you have no faith in Scotland Yard's investigative results, i.e., their suspect list -possibly because the killer was never found?

I have a little more faith in their investigation, but since no one saw JTR in the act, then there was really no way to convict without a confession.

I am not sure that the reason is lack of faith, I certainly think the Police did the best they could given the circumstances, however even knowing what we know nowadays how many times was the killer someone the Police hadn't known about, or had been interviewed but not saw as a suspect for various reasons.

Tj

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sooth. Unless Maybrick was psychic or a time traveler, he could not have forseen either a poem not created until the 1960's nor an 'FM' only ballyhooed for a short time in the 1980s and early '90's. I'm sure there's much, much more evidence than this, but I've avoided Diary threads for years, and therefore would not be the one to sort this out for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Soothsayer]

Hi Sooth. Unless Maybrick was psychic or a time traveler, he could not have forseen either a poem not created until the 1960's nor an 'FM' only ballyhooed for a short time in the 1980s and early '90's. I'm sure there's much, much more evidence than this, but I've avoided Diary threads for years, and therefore would not be the one to sort this out for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Oh Tom, you've fallen for all the Naysaying and thought it was actual fact.

The poem is a truly weak case for criticising the journal, as has recently been considered (albeit extremely cursorily) on t'other thread. The letters were only ballyhooed in the 1980s (strictly speaking 1978, I recall) because it took that long for reproductions of the original photograph to be produced with sufficient quality to highlight the letters (or whatever they ultimately were) on Kelly's wall.

There is not a SINGLE fact currently known (to me) which condems the journal to the annals of hoaxing history, and I personally object strongly when respected commentators like you make such sweeping statements - not because I feel you aren't entitled to your opinion (of course you are) but because numerous people without your knowledge and experience will read what you write and believe you, thereby perpetuating the myth that the journal is known to be a hoax.

In no other walk of life would so many people with such knowledge be so dismissive of such a document without really researching the case and establishing the facts.

I'd like to end with 'Rant over', but I think you and I know it will only be over when the fat lady provides the proof ...

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike
I am not sure that the reason is lack of faith, I certainly think the Police did the best they could given the circumstances, however even knowing what we know nowadays how many times was the killer someone the Police hadn't known about, or had been interviewed but not saw as a suspect for various reasons.

Tj

And, I would second that.
The police may well have brought him in for questioning, but on establishing his identity he was let go like so many others. We tend to dig a little deeper these days.

The authorities were up against a type of killer who was alien to British culture. Hence the 'foreigner' is made the scapegoat by the populace & the media. The police were stuck in preconceived 'ruts', the killer had to be either, "insane", or a "foreigner" from an alien culture, or a "Seaman" who could disappear out of town with ease. Seaman had a reputation for being rowdy, unruly, dishonest and generally troublesome.
We can easily misjudge the methods & direction of the police especially with so little official paperwork surviving, so I wouldn't blame them.

When established procedures are applied to the unpredictable the result can be failure.
Like a Roman army beaten by the Gaul's, like the American rebels beating the British army, like a 4th division soccer team beating a 1st division team.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Or like a Second Division football team beating a Premiership team.

[Supe]

Jon,

like the American rebels beating the British army

One man's rebels are another man's freedom fighters.

Don.

[Magpie]

Hi Sooth. Unless Maybrick was psychic or a time traveler, he could not have forseen either a poem not created until the 1960's nor an 'FM' only ballyhooed for a short time in the 1980s and early '90's. I'm sure there's much, much more evidence than this, but I've avoided Diary threads for years, and therefore would not be the one to sort this out for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom.

With respect, but the Diarest doesn't mention the phantom initials. Shirley and Paul took something vague from the diary, and shoe-horned it to fit a new "discovery" that seemed to give the Diarist knowledge that an old forger couldn't have had. Like the less than devestating "poem" evidence, it doesn't really prove anything either way.

Okay, no more diary talk from me...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Magpie. It's been more than a decade since I've read the diary, but I do believe I recall that the author mentioned leaving 'her initials' at the Kelly scene, and of course Florence Maybrick's initials are 'FM', so unless I imagined all of this, I'd hardly call that shoe-horning on Harrison's part.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Okay, no more diary talk from me...

All together now....lets hear it...

[Tom_Wescott]

Le Grand is the man

Considering no theoretical analysis of Le Grand as the Ripper has yet been published...anywhere...and I haven't so much as started a thread discussing it, I'm at a loss as to how he has received 5 votes (well, 4, since I can explain my own vote!). I assure all that I possess only one Casebook account. If the other 4 individuals would like to PM or e-mail me, that would be much appreciated. I'm quite happy to see Le Grand kicking so much ass. Hopefully he'll soon overtake cricketboy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Considering no theoretical analysis of Le Grand as the Ripper has yet been published...anywhere...and I haven't so much as started a thread discussing it, I'm at a loss as to how he has received 5 votes (well, 4, since I can explain my own vote!). I assure all that I possess only one Casebook account. If the other 4 individuals would like to PM or e-mail me, that would be much appreciated. I'm quite happy to see Le Grand kicking so much ass. Hopefully he'll soon overtake cricketboy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What value would it be Tom, seeing as how these four people are not familiar with your arguments?