One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

"And Observer, three possible journal-supporters posting on the trot? We should write a rhyme about that and send it in to the Central News ..."

One reason I post little on Casebook

Regards

I love those emoticonojis, don't you???



I also love spam but that's probably just me.

[Observer]

I know you have asked this of Spider, not of me, but I would like to offer a response nevertheless.

It is, of course, entirely debatable whether the author of the GSG intended any of the cryptic references I have highlighted. That is absolutely not in doubt. It pretty much then becomes a matter of personal opinion as to whether you place any credence in the 'James' part and any or all of the other names.

But what is absolutely not in any doubt whatsoever, and which was core to my argument in History vs. Maybrick is that the names and initials can be interpreted from within the version of the GSG which has gone down on the record as the 'duplicate' Warren requested. I don't think there's a great deal of doubt that the word 'nothing' is written exactly as it is written in the journal but that could have been the smart hand of a hoaxer playing a game with us. I accept that 'for nothing' may not be a cryptic reference to the 'win' which is required to form 'Edwin' from the end of 'Blamed'. Accepting those two, I cannot accept that the capital 'B' in 'Blamed' is anything even remotely like a 'B'. It just isn't. It starts with a 'f' which mirrors perfectly that given below it in 'for' and its remainder is self-evidently a slanted 'M'. Whether that means it was Maybrick writing 'fM' on the jamb in Wentworth Dwellings I can't tell you. But I can tell you that it is a truly astonishing coincidence that it should be possible to divine it from it.

But ultimately, my point about Coincidence No. 10 is that those names and initials are unequivocally discernible (whether intended or not), but at least 800 other common names of the LVP are not discernible. Ring up your local statistician. He or she will tell you that that is a coincidence too far and that our erstwhile hoaxer of the Maybrick journal has won a thousand lotteries not simply a one.

Hope this helps.

Ike

In reply to your last sentence, I 'd like to say your reply did help but unfortunately it didn't. Seeing as I'm unconvinced that JTR wrote the GSG. There is evidence that our killer did indulge in taking the odd risk. However, I doubt whether a killer fleeing from the scene of a crime, of that magnitude, would risk stopping and taking time out to write the supposed "clue" on the door jamb in Goulston Street.

Regarding hidden clues inserted into the GSG should our killer have been the author of the GSG, I very much doubt it. I believe anyone considering such a notion needs to take a reality check.

[Observer]

Here's to the next 25 years

I believe that the GSG is relevant to the case and find it so unfortunate that it was removed before being photographed. It would have resolved at least the Juwes/Jewes spelling debate, something that I also believe to be important.
I don't believe for one minute that it said "The James....", and there are many interpretations from the GSG you could come to. "The Jewes ........... the Men...".
I believe that when arrested the evening before, Eddowes, when asked her name replied to the officer "Nothing", "...will not be blamed for nothing"? And so it goes on

Yes "much ado about nothing" if you ask me. I'm bowing out of this particular argument, I'm finding it a trifle,( fresh cream, custard, and jelly, one for each of you three Maybrick devotees,) far fetched. One thing is for certain, you've all been on the sherry.

[Iconoclast]

Regarding hidden clues inserted into the GSG should our killer have been the author of the GSG, I very much doubt it. I believe anyone considering such a notion needs to take a reality check.

As someone who posts on the world's biggest (I assume - if not, I'm on the wrong one!) JtR forum, I'm really surprised that you would make such a statement.

We know that there is an aspect to the serial killer psychology which encourages them to leave clues and taunt the police. It's part of the process of making themselves feel 'better' or 'cleverer' than their pursuers. Why would the world's first famous serial killer be any different? Fair enough, he may not have written the GSG, but accepting for now that he did, why should Jack be any different in his desire to taunt and convince himself of his cleverness?

On the subject of whether he left the GSG or not, if he didn't, you would need to explain why he gambled in tearing off a strip of Eddowes' apron and carried it all the way to Goulston Street before discarding it. He could have saved time by cleaning his hands there and then without wasting time cutting a strip of it off. Equally, he could have cleaned them at any point between the murder scene and Goulston Street. He may well have wanted to do so once he had put a great deal of distance between himself and his crime, but that brings us back to the problem of why he wasted time cutting the apron when it would have taken him a similar amount of time to simply clean his hands on it whilst it was still intact.

On the balance of probability, the apron was left in Goulston Street as a clear message that the GSG was to be taken seriously. This is not inconsistent with the taunting mind of a serial killer and I really don't see how the world's first famous such murderer should be treated any differently.

You can reasonably argue that my interpretation of the GSG is incorrect, but a serious commentator would not so casually disregard the possibility of it.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

However, I doubt whether a killer fleeing from the scene of a crime, of that magnitude, would risk stopping and taking time out to write the supposed "clue" on the door jamb in Goulston Street.

There would be almost no risk whatsoever if he had returned to his room in Middlesex Street, cleaned up, put the soiled rag in a bag, put that in his pocket, written the GSG first and then - once certain that he wasn't observed or about to be apprehended - removed the rag and dropped it on the floor, immediately walking away again back to his room in Middlesex Street. Had he been apprehended before he dropped the rag, he'd have been guilty of inciting a bit of racial unrest which I think he'd have accepted over the alternative (the hangman's noose). In that case, why do it at all, you might ask? The answer to that is another question in itself: If he didn't want to be caught and he didn't want to be hanged, why did he commit his crimes in the first place? The man was a gambler. Every serial killer is, by definition.

I appreciate that you are not comfortable with the simple, detail-less view of how history portrays the GSG (killer leaves scene with soiled rag, goes sweaty and bloodied straight to Goulston Street, takes no precautions, therefore probably didn't do it). The reality may well have been very different. The Maybrick journal suggests a very plausible way in which this may have been the case.

Context is everything here. We have it from the cold eye of 130 years later. The killer had it in the moment, and we should be wary indeed of telling history how he should have behaved.

[Observer]

As someone who posts on the world's biggest (I assume - if not, I'm on the wrong one!) JtR forum, I'm really surprised that you would make such a statement.

We know that there is an aspect to the serial killer psychology which encourages them to leave clues and taunt the police. It's part of the process of making themselves feel 'better' or 'cleverer' than their pursuers. Why would the world's first famous serial killer be any different? Fair enough, he may not have written the GSG, but accepting for now that he did, why should Jack be any different in his desire to taunt and convince himself of his cleverness?

On the subject of whether he left the GSG or not, if he didn't, you would need to explain why he gambled in tearing off a strip of Eddowes' apron and carried it all the way to Goulston Street before discarding it. He could have saved time by cleaning his hands there and then without wasting time cutting a strip of it off. Equally, he could have cleaned them at any point between the murder scene and Goulston Street. He may well have wanted to do so once he had put a great deal of distance between himself and his crime, but that brings us back to the problem of why he wasted time cutting the apron when it would have taken him a similar amount of time to simply clean his hands on it whilst it was still intact.

On the balance of probability, the apron was left in Goulston Street as a clear message that the GSG was to be taken seriously. This is not inconsistent with the taunting mind of a serial killer and I really don't see how the world's first famous such murderer should be treated any differently.

You can reasonably argue that my interpretation of the GSG is incorrect, but a serious commentator would not so casually disregard the possibility of it.

Ike

Like I said, I'm not getting involved in an argument which I consider too silly to debate. Iv'e argued this very point, that is, the depositing of the rag in Goulston Street a dozen times. I'm not participating in pointless argument. If you consider that a cop out, be my guest. Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone who agrees with you regarding hidden messages contained within the GSG?

[Observer]

There would be almost no risk whatsoever if he had returned to his room in Middlesex Street, cleaned up, put the soiled rag in a bag, put that in his pocket, written the GSG first and then - once certain that he wasn't observed or about to be apprehended - removed the rag and dropped it on the floor, immediately walking away again back to his room in Middlesex Street. Had he been apprehended before he dropped the rag, he'd have been guilty of inciting a bit of racial unrest which I think he'd have accepted over the alternative (the hangman's noose). In that case, why do it at all, you might ask? The answer to that is another question in itself: If he didn't want to be caught and he didn't want to be hanged, why did he commit his crimes in the first place? The man was a gambler. Every serial killer is, by definition.

I appreciate that you are not comfortable with the simple, detail-less view of how history portrays the GSG (killer leaves scene with soiled rag, goes sweaty and bloodied straight to Goulston Street, takes no precautions, therefore probably didn't do it). The reality may well have been very different. The Maybrick journal suggests a very plausible way in which this may have been the case.

Context is everything here. We have it from the cold eye of 130 years later. The killer had it in the moment, and we should be wary indeed of telling history how he should have behaved.

Maybrick had a room in Middlesex Street?

[Iconoclast]

Is there anyone who agrees with you regarding hidden messages contained within the GSG?

I honestly don't imagine there are or if there are they are very wisely keeping it to themselves.

It doesn't matter whether anyone vocalises their agreement or indeed whether anyone even agrees at all. Agreement is not the measure of debate. It is content. I am offering new content to be debated. I don't need anyone's agreement to participate in that debate.

[Iconoclast]

Maybrick had a room in Middlesex Street?

I hope this helps.

There would be almost no risk whatsoever if he had returned to his room in a street along the way, cleaned up, put the soiled rag in a bag, put that in his pocket, written the GSG first and then - once certain that he wasn't observed or about to be apprehended - removed the rag and dropped it on the floor, immediately walking away again back to his room. Had he been apprehended before he dropped the rag, he'd have been guilty of inciting a bit of racial unrest which I think he'd have accepted over the alternative (the hangman's noose). In that case, why do it at all, you might ask? The answer to that is another question in itself: If he didn't want to be caught and he didn't want to be hanged, why did he commit his crimes in the first place? The man was a gambler. Every serial killer is, by definition.

I appreciate that you are not comfortable with the simple, detail-less view of how history portrays the GSG (killer leaves scene with soiled rag, goes sweaty and bloodied straight to Goulston Street, takes no precautions, therefore probably didn't do it). The reality may well have been very different. The Maybrick journal suggests a very plausible way in which this may have been the case.

Context is everything here. We have it from the cold eye of 130 years later. The killer had it in the moment, and we should be wary indeed of telling history how he should have behaved.

[Observer]

I honestly don't imagine there are or if there are they are very wisely keeping it to themselves.

It doesn't matter whether anyone vocalises their agreement or indeed whether anyone even agrees at. Agreement is not the measure of debate. It is content. I am offering new content to be debated. I don't need anyone's agreement to participate in that debate.

Absolutely not. However, regarding debate as to whether there are messages hidden within the GSG, I think you'll find that you'll end up talking to yourself

[Observer]

I hope this helps.

There would be almost no risk whatsoever if he had returned to his room in a street along the way, cleaned up, put the soiled rag in a bag, put that in his pocket, written the GSG first and then - once certain that he wasn't observed or about to be apprehended - removed the rag and dropped it on the floor, immediately walking away again back to his room. Had he been apprehended before he dropped the rag, he'd have been guilty of inciting a bit of racial unrest which I think he'd have accepted over the alternative (the hangman's noose). In that case, why do it at all, you might ask? The answer to that is another question in itself: If he didn't want to be caught and he didn't want to be hanged, why did he commit his crimes in the first place? The man was a gambler. Every serial killer is, by definition.

I appreciate that you are not comfortable with the simple, detail-less view of how history portrays the GSG (killer leaves scene with soiled rag, goes sweaty and bloodied straight to Goulston Street, takes no precautions, therefore probably didn't do it). The reality may well have been very different. The Maybrick journal suggests a very plausible way in which this may have been the case.

Context is everything here. We have it from the cold eye of 130 years later. The killer had it in the moment, and we should be wary indeed of telling history how he should have behaved.

Why did you mention Middlesex Street in the first instance? Have you any proof that Maybrick was residing in a Street "along the way" on the night of the double event?

[Observer]

You know, regarding the actual murders, for instance the flight from Berner Street our Diarist goes into some detail, and yet an hour later, does he mention going back to his "room along the way", procuring some chalk, going back out, writing the GSG, and then scuttling back to his room? No he does not. Don't you find that, if your scenario has any merit, somewhat suspicious

[John G]

You can convince yourself that you've made a point but all you've done is type on a keyboard to no discernible end.

You did not give Bury 'as a means of demonstrating that almost any theory can be supported if you're determined to resort to abstract reasoning'. You attempted to illustrate that finding two letters - in this case 'E'' and 'l' (though I don't think you'll find any supporters for your 'E' theory) - could be interpreted as representing someone significant in William Bury's life and that therefore anyone could do that for any suspect. And yet my argument was not that you could not. I have no doubt that you could locate two letters (even if one is clearly incorrect) and claim them for a suspect. That would be astonishingly easy (and you showed us how easy when you did it). What I did was show that 'James', 'Thomas' 'William', 'Edwin', 'FM', and 'MM' - all the six significant adults in James Maybrick's life - could be discerned in the GSG but no other names from the 800 common names of the LVP were thus to be discerned. And that's a coincidence way beyond any your 'any two letters will do' theory could ever aspire to.



I'm genuienly struck by the fact that you feel you know the lighting conditions were so grim in Wentworth Dwellings that the GSG could not have been written at that hour and yet it is still endlessly debated by Ripperologists the world over. It's not like this is a theory (as my GSG comments are a theory). It's a recorded fact and one which has never to my knowledge been made by any of those who have made a living from this strange art. I am impressed with your meteorological knowledge.

But not one of the names that you give appear in the graffiti. They have only been revealed to you on the basis of abstract reasoning. Moreover, all of the names you refer to were common in the Victorian era, and I'm therefore willing to bet that you could name a suspect at random and find associations with the same names-relatives, work colleagues neighbours, acquaintances etc.

And is there another example of another serial killer leaving such a cryptic clue? So cryptic in fact that only one person in the last 129 years has been able to decipher it, and that person happens to be you!

[Iconoclast]

Absolutely not. However, regarding debate as to whether there are messages hidden within the GSG, I think you'll find that you'll end up talking to yourself

My concern is not to be heard but to put forward the case. If every left-field possibility were disregarded by those who imagine them, we would have no progress. Someone has to imagine them, and then time and debate refine them. Some fall away, some are re-imagined, some become the new established truth. This is how science works in the main part. Thankfully, we no longer burn heretics at the stake. We just dis their arguments on message boards.

Galileo Galilei
Right Smart A**e and Cleverness Entrepreneur

[Iconoclast]

Why did you mention Middlesex Street in the first instance? Have you any proof that Maybrick was residing in a Street "along the way" on the night of the double event?

I think I realise what I have previously missed. You haven't actually read the journal of James Maybrick, have you?

The journal gives Middlesex Street as his Whitechapel location so I used it in the absence of any other street to use. Of course I do not have any proof he was residing there! We wouldn't be on this message board if we did, man! It would be closed down, game over, switch the lights out, thanks for the memories.