Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    A major candidate like Druitt, or Kosminski. What links have they got to the crimes (none whatsoever that I'm aware of beyond desperate, even vain, speculation) and yet they are right up there at the top of the list.

    In Druitt's case, his family thought he might have been the murderer. That was it!!!
    More than can be said for Maybrick.

    And both those you name were named by senior police, so more going for them than Maybrick.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GUT View Post
      Awww so the answer is

      "maybrick has no links to the crimes"

      Thanks.
      Other than a journal and a watch, no, there's absolutely no link.

      Other than reasons to be in London and Whitechapel, I guess. Mustn't forget those!

      Other than means, motive, and opportunity, there is absolutely nothing in support of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, you are right.
      Iconoclast
      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        Other than a journal and a watch, no, there's absolutely no link.

        Other than reasons to be in London and Whitechapel, I guess. Mustn't forget those!

        Other than means, motive, and opportunity, there is absolutely nothing in support of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, you are right.
        Motive???

        Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GUT View Post
          More than can be said for Maybrick.

          And both those you name were named by senior police, so more going for them than Maybrick.
          And truly the boys in blue did such an amazing job tracking down Jack that their sentimental musings twenty years later are obviously evidence of guilt on the part of the poor unfortunates they chose to name!

          [Sticks pin in list of names] "At the time, we knew John Smith to be the criminal but we didn't think it would be helpful to arrest him or even reassure the public by informing them that he was dead".

          Named by senior police! Honestly, GUT, I very nearly spat my arsenic out when I read that ...
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GUT View Post
            Motive???

            Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.
            Hmmm. If you ever read the comic book, you'll know the motive.

            What are you back to, though? The senile musings of losers twenty years retired desperately clinging to the belief they'd done a good job?
            Iconoclast
            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GUT View Post
              Motive???

              Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.
              I love the twist. Did anyone else spot it?

              Exchange 'leading' for 'valid', and you have what Spyglass actually wrote. The former implies strong candidature (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously not true. The latter simply states that Maybrick was as good a candidate as any other (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously true.

              Keep up, everyone. Sometimes it is tiring having to proof read every twist and turn to prevent the insidious creep of confusion and error ...
              Iconoclast
              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                I love the twist. Did anyone else spot it?

                Exchange 'leading' for 'valid', and you have what Spyglass actually wrote. The former implies strong candidature (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously not true. The latter simply states that Maybrick was as good a candidate as any other (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously true.

                Keep up, everyone. Sometimes it is tiring having to proof read every twist and turn to prevent the insidious creep of confusion and error ...
                Still seen nothing that even makes him a valid candidate once the comic book and Mackey mouse watch get thrown out.
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                  Still seen nothing that even makes him a valid candidate once the comic book and Mackey mouse watch get thrown out.
                  Valid just means possible, GUT.

                  So, to turn it around, what stops Maybrick (or Maybrick's neighbour Bill, etc.) being a valid candidate?
                  Iconoclast
                  Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                  Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    Valid just means possible, GUT.

                    So, to turn it around, what stops Maybrick (or Maybrick's neighbour Bill, etc.) being a valid candidate?
                    Or pretty much any other human being alive in 1888 Strewth talk about casting a wide net.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                      Or pretty much any other human being alive in 1888 Strewth talk about casting a wide net.
                      This has always been the case. In the absence of evidence, very few people aren't valid candidates. Clearly. That was, I felt, Spyglass's point.
                      Iconoclast
                      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        This has always been the case. In the absence of evidence, very few people aren't valid candidates. Clearly. That was, I felt, Spyglass's point.
                        Blimey....it's all kicked off without me.
                        Thanks for the back up Iconoclast, and yes that was the point I was making and completely agree with your point about Druitt earlier.

                        Things can change over the years, for example one fact used to discredited the diary for many years was the writer referring to the coins found at Chapman ' s feet.
                        The likes of Sugden and others claimed that this had been proved an urban myth and so the author had been caught out.
                        Now it would seem the tide has turned back again concerning the coin issue, and is now generally excepted again as being true.

                        Regards.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                          The Diary is a forgery. The watch evidence is a joke. With that in mind Mabrick is a poor suspect.
                          Hi,
                          Ok... so Maybrick isn't your choice.
                          That's fine, but like a lot of posters on here, you state categorically that it's a hoax as if it's a well established fact.
                          Remember the title of this thread and the point of it.
                          Great you know it's a hoax, so please share.

                          Regards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                            Hi,
                            Ok... so Maybrick isn't your choice.
                            That's fine, but like a lot of posters on here, you state categorically that it's a hoax as if it's a well established fact.
                            Remember the title of this thread and the point of it.
                            Great you know it's a hoax, so please share.

                            Regards
                            Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                              Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.
                              Once again, your 'crackpots' comment gives you away.

                              The fact the majority of the people who post on this site express grave doubts (or outright hostility) towards the journal is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Only the evidence matters.

                              There have been far more significant cases in history of one or two people standing up to the popular view and ultimately being proven right in time. This may well prove to be a minor example of that same principle.

                              My outstandingly-brilliant History vs. Maybrick thread even makes that prediction.

                              Ike
                              Iconoclast
                              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                                Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.
                                Hi,
                                I'll be straight with you, I follow all aspects of the case and all suspects with equal intrest.
                                I have no favoured suspect, and have always treated the diary with suspicion, I have also favoured the argument on it being an old hoax rather than modern.
                                That said I will always keep an open mind on this as I do on all suspects.
                                But until the day it is proved to be a hoax ( if it is of course ) then I will stay intrested in it.
                                Let's face it, surely a simple badly executed forgery could be outed by now in this day and age...but it can't and it hasn't.

                                Regards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X