One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

What about VanGough?

Yes, definitely more obscure.

Whether we could write a journal for him and avoid detection is an interesting question.

The key thing, of course, would be to give it to, say, a fish wife at North Shields quay so that she could introduce it to an expectant world with the immortal words:

"Eee man look what av fund in a bottle what av dragged oot tha Tyne the mornin - canny bag o'Tudor awaytin uz once a sell this ter the daftest lad in tha Toon, though but".

Well, it sort of worked the first time, didn't it (slightly different accent, obviously)?

Ike

[Shaggyrand]

Here's a wee challenge. I wonder if it would be possible for any one of us to come up with an even less plausible candidate for Jack the Ripper than a middle class Liverpool cotton merchant who was the 'victim' of one of the most famous murder trials of its decade and then write a journal purporting to show that he was Jack the Ripper and somehow have the good fortune to choose a candidate who cannot actually be proven to not be the Whitechapel murderer himself? ...

I'm simply intrigued to know if anyone could come up with a candidate who could be fitted into the facts, so:

• Known to have reason to visit London in 1888.

• Not known to be somewhere else at the time of the murders.

• Has links to the evidence and facts (however tenuously) such as Maybrick's 'M', the examples of cotton, the newpaper article asking 'Who is Jim?', the GSG bearing cryptic versions of his name, his brothers, and his wife, the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall (whether they are ultimately 'there' or not), the 'F' cut into Kelly's arm, the photofits looking so like Maybrick, the eye witness statements that he was dressed well rather than shabbily, the letter to the Liverpool Echo signed 'Diego Laurenz', the fact that 'Jack' is formed from the first and last two letters of Maybrick's name, etc..

• Has a reason for committing the crimes (however obscure to us).

• Is even less plausible than James Maybrick as a candidate for Jack the Ripper.

I will take a quick stab with the barest amount of research- a quick Google search with first name I thought of and just what I can get off wiki.

I present to you... The Case Against Dan Leno- Actor, Dame Pantomime Star, Philanthropist

• KNOWN to be in London at time of murders
• No evidence of being outside of London in time frame
• 'M' is an upside down "W" referencing Leno's real name "George WILD Galvin", owned 2 acres in Clapham Park that was self sustainable- even did some butchery, the newspaper article asking 'Who is Jim?'- Answer: Leno's second child who died in infancy in... you guessed it... 1888, the GSG contains a cryptic nod to his newborn son's name, the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall was a reference to Leno's first recorded production where he played two characters Fortunatus and Major Britain, the 'F' cut into Kelly's arm is another reference to Leno's first role, had access to a wide range of costuming, 'Diego Laurenz' is a beat skip code take the beats of a popular music hall number at the time it spells "Dan Leno", 'Jack' is the diminutive of his third child's name (born in 1888 by the way) it is also the name of his true breakout role. His role in a burlesque running at the Strand could have easily introduced him to all the victims.
• The death of his infant second child. Let's just say it was the nanny's fault? A nanny who looked suspiciously like one of the Ripper victims, maybe? Ok!
• Less plausible? He spent the rest of his life heavily involved in charity and often openly in the public eye.... not counting his occasional mental breakdowns and institutional stays.

Not great. Sure it could be strengthened. Have at it, or destroy it. As you wish.

[Iconoclast]

I will take a quick stab with the barest amount of research- a quick Google search with first name I thought of and just what I can get off wiki.

I present to you... The Case Against Dan Leno- Actor, Dame Pantomime Star, Philanthropist

Not great. Sure it could be strengthened. Have at it, or destroy it. As you wish.

Very good, Shaggy - I like your thinking on this one!

Ike

[caz]

The key thing, of course, would be to give it to, say, a fish wife at North Shields quay so that she could introduce it to an expectant world with the immortal words:

"Eee man look what av fund in a bottle what av dragged oot tha Tyne the mornin - canny bag o'Tudor awaytin uz once a sell this ter the daftest lad in tha Toon, though but".

I love it!

Poor old Mike B. If he had never claimed to be the author of Sir Jim's naughty thoughts, I wonder if anyone would admit to seriously thinking him remotely capable?

"YEs iT Wos me And ThaT is ThE GoDs honEsT TruTh And WhAT hAvE you".

Love,

Caz
X

[Rosella]

I will take a quick stab with the barest amount of research- a quick Google search with first name I thought of and just what I can get off wiki.

I present to you... The Case Against Dan Leno- Actor, Dame Pantomime Star, Philanthropist

• KNOWN to be in London at time of murders
• No evidence of being outside of London in time frame
• 'M' is an upside down "W" referencing Leno's real name "George WILD Galvin", owned 2 acres in Clapham Park that was self sustainable- even did some butchery, the newspaper article asking 'Who is Jim?'- Answer: Leno's second child who died in infancy in... you guessed it... 1888, the GSG contains a cryptic nod to his newborn son's name, the letters 'FM' on Kelly's wall was a reference to Leno's first recorded production where he played two characters Fortunatus and Major Britain, the 'F' cut into Kelly's arm is another reference to Leno's first role, had access to a wide range of costuming, 'Diego Laurenz' is a beat skip code take the beats of a popular music hall number at the time it spells "Dan Leno", 'Jack' is the diminutive of his third child's name (born in 1888 by the way) it is also the name of his true breakout role. His role in a burlesque running at the Strand could have easily introduced him to all the victims.
• The death of his infant second child. Let's just say it was the nanny's fault? A nanny who looked suspiciously like one of the Ripper victims, maybe? Ok!
• Less plausible? He spent the rest of his life heavily involved in charity and often openly in the public eye.... not counting his occasional mental breakdowns and institutional stays.

Not great. Sure it could be strengthened. Have at it, or destroy it. As you wish.

He could also disguise himself as a woman (and often did during the pantomime season.) Leno could very well therefore have been able to walk through the streets of Whitechapel in drag without rousing suspicion.
What was he doing during the autumn of 1888?

[Iconoclast]

He could also disguise himself as a woman (and often did during the pantomime season.) Leno could very well therefore have been able to walk through the streets of Whitechapel in drag without rousing suspicion.
What was he doing during the autumn of 1888?

Remember, Rosella, our idle purpose here is to find someone we could write a hoax diary about so the less we know about them the better!

[Shaggyrand]

What was he doing during the autumn of 1888?

He was staring in a production of Aquarius at the Strand. Plenty of time to kill after a show & before the next.

Yeah. I think it would be easy to fake a confession diary for Leno. After the yearly Christmas shows he spent most if his time on the music hall circuit. So that's why there are no more victims. He was just too busy to do it properly, no doubt with a little research we could ties hundreds of murders all over the UK to him and really pad it out.

Is it wrong that there's a part of me that hopes someone skims this and takes the suggestion seriously? I would love to see him named in a future book. I could use the laugh.

[Iconoclast]

Tonight We Dine in Hell!

The Greatest Thread of All lies seemingly lost. Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away. But we can yet hope, and hope ‘til Hope creates from ‘that colossal wreck’ the thing it contemplates. Or so I believe.

I had thought there would be a resurrection of interest in the Maybrick case on the publication of Bruce Robinson’s ‘They All Love Jack’, but then soon understood why there was not when profoundly disappointed to find myself wading through 800 pages on the masons (of which both James and Michael Maybrick were examples so that the alleged evidence against the latter rather served as unintended evidence against the former also) and frankly not much else; certainly little credible evidence against the alleged author of the crimes, one Michael Maybrick. At best, the evidence against him was deeply tangential and a stretch of imagination significantly greater than the lone and level sands ever were.

Interestingly, Bruce is (or was) clearly at least a bystander in the Greatest Thread of All. He twice makes reference to ‘soothsayer’ (the adopted author of this thread), and – most tellingly – uses the actual phrase ‘one wet weekend’ (the very signature of this thread) and, later ‘one weekend’. So he is very possibly reading this and – if he is – I would appeal to him to confirm for us that he made a shedload of money from the recent tome as (if he didn’t) it was a serious waste of a decade of research.

It was always James Maybrick, of that there can be little real doubt. He left us a journal confessing his crimes, and gave us more than sufficient detail in his egotistical ramblings to tell that its sculptor well those passions read. He gave us a journal which the years have been unable to deny. He gave us details which no casual hoaxer could concoct one wet weekend. He stuck in some things which just don’t make sense, which rather cleverly makes it all the more human of the author and therefore perhaps all the more believable. He left his mark, whose frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command are in the record. He left his own name in the Goulston Street graffito, and then had the audacity to add cryptic entries for his brothers Thomas, William, and Edwin, initials for his brother Michael, and even those of his beloved Florrie, and wrote the graffito in the same hand which wrote the journal (see my Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick). He left Florrie’s initials quite clearly on the wall of Mary Kelly’s room and less clearly on her corpse and made reference to this in his journal. He claimed to be the genuine Whitechapel fiend in a postcard to the utterly-implausible Liverpool Echo (he may as well have sent it to the Aigburth Chronicle) leaving the clue ‘Diego Laurenz’ as a cypher for ‘James’ and ‘Florence’. He did more than all this and he did less than all this, but all-in-all he did enough to reveal himself down the long years as the criminal in question, and the case against him will eventually be closed, of that there can be little doubt.

But for now it is not quite closed, and - in truth - it is simply impossible not to miss the craich. We really should put the band back together. We have all drifted. I miss the wisdom of the ages which you all bring to bear on the mystery of Jack.

Graham, it was a shame that we had something of a contretemps on my brilliant ‘new’ (now old) thread. Still, we can discuss it over a little claret when tonight I join you and we dine in Hell together. Some of us have been there fairly recently, and you should consider it a huge favour that you are not bound there alone this time. No, seriously, you’re welcome. For the record, I really feel that I should have seen this all coming, perhaps for years, certainly for months, but hope springs more eternal than despair and so I ignored my inner voice when it warned of the lone and level sands which possibly lay ahead. Are Tom Westcott and I the only members of this Casebook to see the irony in that?

Iconoclast

Things Get Broken, Get Over It

[Iconoclast]

Why is there never a football-related emoticon when you need one???

Iconoclast

[Graham]

As my name (or nom de plume) was mentioned just now, can someone, either Iconothing or someone else with arcane knowledge, please tell me what this is all about?

Graham

[Scott Nelson]

Yeah - it was James Maybrick that done it. But who cares? Go back to your claret.

[Iconoclast]

As my name (or nom de plume) was mentioned just now, can someone, either Iconothing or someone else with arcane knowledge, please tell me what this is all about?

Graham

Cough cough.

Drinking claret? Feeling blue?
Come on - it's there in black and white for you!



Ike

[John Wheat]

Yeah - it was James Maybrick that done it. But who cares? Go back to your claret.

Done what? He certainly wasn't the Ripper.

[Iconoclast]

Done what? He certainly wasn't the Ripper.

From the Diary of Jack the Ripper video ...

COLIN WILSON: If this is a forgery, then the number of coincidences is so significant that the man has had incredible luck.

MARTIN FIDO [SLICED-IN]: No I don't think that in any sense James Maybrick is the easiest of people to use. I think he's a very risky person. The way in which the forger has had enormous luck is that Maybrick was a hypochondriac - he went to his doctor or chemist about 70 times a year and this is recorded, those visits went down in their logs and their prescriptions books - and by incredible good fortune not one of those 70 times conflicts with the times the diary says that Maybrick was in London.

COLIN WILSON [SLICED-IN]: I don't think that anybody can really have had that much luck.

I agree with you Colin, albeit 24 years later or so. We just can't shake the journal, and that is possibly because the author of it didn't need 'incredible good fortune' when simply detailing his own actual experiences ...

[GUT]

But haven't we recently been hearing the same about Cross.... One coincidence too many?