25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Iconoclast]

Here's a one that has slipped in under the radar.

As I said, I'm not certain that the above is an accurate description of events, but I believe it went something like that.

A wonderful illustration of the naysayer's art: "I only remember what suits my argument and I wouldn't dream of researching it before I post it even if it does lead astray even more readers with my tenuous grasp of the facts".

It hasn't 'slipped under the radar'. Most of us will have seen your original post and thought "Oh dear, not that old chestnut that has been discussed a thousand times without any firm conclusions either way?".

For the record, there is no evidence whatsoever that McCormick altered anything. It just suits the naysayers to perpetuate the urban myth that his 1959 book was a source of rhyming in the journal. Not proven. Barely even credible. And yet still people post it. Saying that you are unsure of your facts does not reduce the impact on the feableminded who believe everything that gets posted, therefore adding such caveats is no defence against the ignorance of the post.

Does my napper in, it really does.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Gentlemen,

I don't mean to cut this short, but no one in their right mind has any doubt what twats the nazis were and what they did in the concentration camps. We don't need to debate it here. David, whilst the analogy you drew was perfectly valid, it is dangerous ground to use for purely illustrative purpose and is guaranteed to shift the argument away from what was intended, and potentially introduce angst where angst was not intended nor required.

Let's get back to James Maybrick and the undeniable fact that he was Jack the Spratt McVitie.

Ike

[Sam Flynn]

For the record, there is no evidence whatsoever that McCormick altered anything.

He might not have altered anything, but there's a strong possibility that he made $hit up. Poems for example.

[Iconoclast]

He might not have altered anything, but there's a strong possibility that he made **** up.

That may be the case, Sammy, but the tone of your post - whilst anti-journal as ever - is not naysaying. The tone of Observer's was pure naysaying, and it just does my napper in.

Ike

[Sam Flynn]

That may be the case, Sammy, but the tone of your post - whilst anti-journal as ever - is not naysaying.

Anti-McCormick, strictly speaking.

[Iconoclast]

Anti-McCormick, strictly speaking.

Duly noted.

Ike

[David Orsam]

David, whilst the analogy you drew was perfectly valid, it is dangerous ground to use for purely illustrative purpose and is guaranteed to shift the argument away from what was intended, and potentially introduce angst where angst was not intended nor required.

That may be so (although I can't be responsible for other people misunderstanding my post) but I would remind you of your post to which I was responding:

"It is defining because it encapsulates another truth, this one spoken - as I recall - by Keith Skinner: "We just can't shake it".

And 25 years later, we still can't (despite Mr Orsam's best efforts)."

And I would comment that if you mention my user name in a post for no apparent reason, this is dangerous ground to use for purely illustrative purposes and is guaranteed to shift the argument away from what was intended, and potentially introduce angst where angst was not intended nor required.

[Iconoclast]

That may be so (although I can't be responsible for other people misunderstanding my post) but I would remind you of your post to which I was responding:

"It is defining because it encapsulates another truth, this one spoken - as I recall - by Keith Skinner: "We just can't shake it".

And 25 years later, we still can't (despite Mr Orsam's best efforts)."

And I would comment that if you mention my user name in a post for no apparent reason, this is dangerous ground to use for purely illustrative purposes and is guaranteed to shift the argument away from what was intended, and potentially introduce angst where angst was not intended nor required.

Okay, David - if that makes you feel righteous, fill yer boots. Personally, I think you're really over-reaching there. I suspect any angst you may have felt at my innocuous use of your name rather pales somewhat in the other context, but that's mebbes just me.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much springs to mind, but maybe that's just me too. Not every post is an argument and therefore not every post has to be 'won', but if it makes you feel better, you've 'definitely' won that one. Evidently my tongue-in-cheek reference to you justified the rather unexpected analogy, and I thought I'd made my point politely and without rancour. Personally, I felt it should have ended there and we should have got back on with the joys of seeking Jack. Evidently you were determined to find a big boy who ran away, and it appears that it was I.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Okay, David - if that makes you feel righteous, fill yer boots. Personally, I think you're really over-reaching there. I suspect any angst you may have felt at my innocuous use of your name rather pales somewhat in the other context, but that's mebbes just me.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much springs to mind, but maybe that's just me too. Not every post is an argument and therefore not every post has to be 'won', but if it makes you feel better, you've 'definitely' won that one. Evidently my tongue-in-cheek reference to you justified the rather unexpected analogy, and I thought I'd made my point politely and without rancour. Personally, I felt it should have ended there and we should have got back on with the joys of seeking Jack. Evidently you were determined to find a big boy who ran away, and it appears that it was I.

It's you missing the humour!

Talk about the lady doth protest too much.....

[Observer]

A wonderful illustration of the naysayer's art: "I only remember what suits my argument and I wouldn't dream of researching it before I post it even if it does lead astray even more readers with my tenuous grasp of the facts".

It hasn't 'slipped under the radar'. Most of us will have seen your original post and thought "Oh dear, not that old chestnut that has been discussed a thousand times without any firm conclusions either way?".

For the record, there is no evidence whatsoever that McCormick altered anything. It just suits the naysayers to perpetuate the urban myth that his 1959 book was a source of rhyming in the journal. Not proven. Barely even credible. And yet still people post it. Saying that you are unsure of your facts does not reduce the impact on the feableminded who believe everything that gets posted, therefore adding such caveats is no defence against the ignorance of the post.

Does my napper in, it really does.

Ike

I'm doing your napper in? Ha ! Consider it payback for the amount of times you've got up my nose for your irritable attempts at wit and humour.

As for slipping under the radar, I was referring to the fact that nobody had responded to Hunter's post regarding the "Eight Little Whores".

I don't own Donald McCormick's book on JTR, but I do own "The Witchcraft Murders", and having carried out a considerable amount of time looking into the murder of Charles Walton in 1945, I realise that Mr McCormick was no stranger to bending the truth somewhat.

However, (and this is for the feeble minded who are looking in) it appears that Donald McCormick featured the "Eight Little Whores" poem in his book as a result of information gleaned from Thomas Dutton who told McCormick that he had saw the poem in a letter that had been sent to the police at the time of the murders. Now, I don't know if the police would have allowed Dutton to see the crank letters that were submitted to them at the time of the murders, but if they did then he would have needed to have copied the "Eight Little Whores" poem because I doubt whether he could have consigned it to memory. It's all a little far fetched if you ask me.

What is fact is that there is a section in the Diary/Journal which goes like this

One whore in heaven
two whores side by side
three whores all have died
four


The hoaxer err the Diarist also wrote

"It shall come, if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better, a great deal better he shall not outdo me"

The above is an obvious attempt to mimic the "Eight Little Whores" poem. It is my contention that the hoaxer used McCormicks book to pen the attempt at the verse above. The alternative is that Maybrick penned and sent the poem to the police in a letter. Yeah right.

Of course, I will leave it to the able minded, and also the feeble minded to make up their own minds. By the way Iconoclast you are not going to do yourself any favours by implying that there are feeble minded individuals perusing these threads, that's very wrong of you. I have no doubt that the individuals looking in here are all very able minded. The proof being that not a single person has posted in favour of your ridiculous notion that Maybrick's family are implicated by initial in the GSG.

[Observer]

It's also occurred to me that the "Eight Little Whores" poem could put a dent in the Old hoaxer theory. I have no doubt that the draft of a poem as seen in the Diary obviously mirrors the "Eight Little Whores " poem. If the diary was penned by an "old Hoaxer" then he would have had to have had access to the letter which was submitted to the police in which the "Eight Little Whores " poem featured. Either that, or he too knew Thomas Dutton, and obtained the information from him. Likely? Most definitely not. The alternative? As I said the hoaxer was using McCormicks book to appear to have been the author of the "Eight Little Whores" poem. Take your pick.

[Hunter]

You are very observant, Observer.

[Iconoclast]

I don't think this is rocket science. Maybrick sent in the poem to Central News or wherever, Dutton saw a copy of it, McCormick saw Dutton's notes and then referred to them in his much-maligned 1959 book. Dutton may not have copied the poem down correctly, nor may McCormick, but that's not the point. The trail from Maybrick's hand to McCormick's book is possibly this trail. I say possibly because quite clearly it possibly is the work of a hoaxer who relied on McCormick's work when creating the journal. We just don't know, do we?

My point about Naysayers is that they will home in on the latter version as the only version because it supports their casual dismissal of the journal. My point about the feeble-minded is that they will then take those comments as fact.

The journal makes references to rhymes being sent to the police. My brilliant History vs Maybrick shows that those rhymes appeared in the journal at just the right time. I think that was apropos Feldy, as it wasn't my conclusion, but nevertheless I believe that the point was well made. If a hoaxer wrote the journal, he or she did very well indeed to incorporate rhymes in the text. The first rhyme used the name Jack the Ripper and was penned not long after the second canonical murder. That's clever hoaxing in my book.

I couldn't give a toss if no-one agrees with my interpretation of the GSG. I don't study the Ripper because I seek popularity! I do it because I seek the truth. If I were the one person alive saying X and six billion saying Y, if I believed that X was correct then I would say it.

The Eight Little Whores rhyme in the journal is not at all problematic, nor does it speak of some fraud or hoax. It may well be a fraud or hoax or whatever, but its presence in the journal is not proof of it, nor even symptomatic of it.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

You are very observant, Observer.

I trust that this is just some casual play on the username?

If not, then I rest my case.

Ike

[Observer]

You are very observant, Observer.

Hi Hunter

I'll probably get a reply from the Old Hoaxer brigade explaining that the two rhymes are not linked