One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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

I find it surprising and frustrating. I don't find it suspicious in the slightest. He makes reference to his 'funny Jewish joke' at this time in the journal and - for all we know - that was enough for him. He didn't owe his readers anything as he evidently hadn't at that time envisaged there would be any. It was entirely for him (if he it was, of course) to decide how much emphasis he would place on each aspect of his murderous spree.

[David Orsam]

Might I just comment that the latest list of 21 "coincidences", which are, perhaps, better referred to as "curiosities", confuses two different questions, namely 1. Was Maybrick Jack the Ripper? and 2. Did Maybrick write the Diary?

If the answer to Q1 is "yes" it by no means follows that the same is true for Q2. The entire inspiration behind a possible forgery might have been that it was written by someone who was convinced that Maybrick was JTR but didn't have sufficient proof to write a book about it, so put his theory forward in the form of a fake diary.

A significant number of the 21 questions relate to Q1 and don't seem to have any direct bearing on Q2.

The title of this thread suggests it is about the Diary but the questions suggest it is about the identity of JTR.

[Iconoclast]

But not one of the names that you give appear in the graffiti.

Goodness me, of course they don't! If he'd put their actual names, do you think he might have quickly got a visitor or two at the door?????

They have only been revealed to you on the basis of abstract reasoning.

To solve cryptic clues, you do need abstract reasoning so that's probably just as well, then, I guess.

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.

Well that is actually my very point! You can't! I can't. They were four common names amongst 800 in the LVP but they were the only ones to be discernible in the GSG. My point is that that is a coincidence way beyond any coincidence you'll find anywhere else (even in the coincidence-laden world of James Maybrick).

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!

I believe so, however I don't have specifics to hand (I'm only a student of JtR) so I'll grant I can't prove it here and now.

But imagine for a moment that those four names were deliberately written into the GSG by James Maybrick. If that were the case (and please just accept for now that it is at least possible), then either they would remain there forever without being identified, or else someone would eventually discern them. There has to be a first. Livia Trivia was the first amongst us to identify that Michael Maybrick wrote lyrics as well as music. Did the fact that she was first to do so work somehow ironically against her argument? Would you have preferred it if large numbers of people had noticed this simultaneously? You wouldn't have found that weird?

And I can't say that it was entirely I who first discerned them. The Feldman video put forward the notion that 'Juwes' (note the otherwise-unnecessary capital 'J') could be interpreted as 'James' ("if it is a jew that they want then a jew I shall be", roughly from memory). All I did was years later think to follow the logic through and wonder whether any of the remainder of the GSG had a similar purpose. I immediately noticed that 'The men' could be re-imagined as a cryptic 'Thomas' which obviously surprised me (not least because it leads with an otherwise-unnecessary capital 'T'). Not as much as when I then noticed that 'Will' appeared with a capital 'W' not long after. And then I noticed that beneath it was a reasonable 'iam'. I was then looking for Michael and Edwin but found only the 'ed' at the end of 'Blamed' which nevertheless struck me as an amazing coincidence. (Weeks later, I suddenly noticed that 'for nothing' could be '4-0' or a 'win'. Maybe that tickled Maybrick's fancy - who knows?) That left a spare 'B' at the start of 'Blamed', and I suddenly noticed that it was set aside from the rest of the word and that it wasn't a 'B' at all but an 'f' (exactly like the 'f' in 'for nothing' below it) with a slanted 'M' attached. That set me thinking that I would surely find some reference to Michael Maybrick but I couldn't find it until one day I turned it upside down and saw that 'Will' once inverted makes a very passable 'MM'. Finally, I noticed that 'nothing' was spelled exactly as it is in the journal, and I - not unreasonably I hope - felt I had something worth at least sharing with the discerning scientists of the Jack the Ripper Casebook.

If you don't have a mind which is open to possibility. If your mind is firmly closed to options. If you have no imagination and do not dare to dream, I cannot make excuses for you. I can only do what I believe to be right and that is to bring this possibility to the market to see if anyone feels inclined to buy it. If no-one buys it, or no-one discusses it, I will live with that. I've made my contribution.

But if there is nothing in it, then please don't tell me that it is not a truly astonishing coincidence for it absolutely is. You show yourself to have no statistical mind either if you cannot recognise this fact. 804 common names in the LVP (that I list in History vs Maybrick) but only the crucial 4 show up in cryptic form in the GSG. Not just a coincidence, my friend. An impossibility unless they were intentionally planted there.

Please, find me even one that I have missed, for I can see no other.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Might I just comment that the latest list of 21 "coincidences", which are, perhaps, better referred to as "curiosities", confuses two different questions, namely 1. Was Maybrick Jack the Ripper? and 2. Did Maybrick write the Diary?

If the answer to Q1 is "yes" it by no means follows that the same is true for Q2. The entire inspiration behind a possible forgery might have been that it was written by someone who was convinced that Maybrick was JTR but didn't have sufficient proof to write a book about it, so put his theory forward in the form of a fake diary.

That is correct, Lord Orsam, as ever.

A significant number of the 21 questions relate to Q1 and don't seem to have any direct bearing on Q2.

I'm willing to put my neck out there and say if 1) is true then 2) is also true (so the relationship is implied).

The title of this thread suggests it is about the Diary but the questions suggest it is about the identity of JTR.

Anything which links James Maybrick to Jack the Ripper is reasonable fare for this table, my Lord.

[John Wheat]

That is correct, Lord Orsam, as ever.



I'm willing to put my neck out there and say if 1) is true then 2) is also true (so the relationship is implied).



Anything which links James Maybrick to Jack the Ripper is reasonable fare for this table, my Lord.

By anything which links Maybrick to Jack do you mean bugger all but bluster?

[David Orsam]

I'm willing to put my neck out there and say if 1) is true then 2) is also true (so the relationship is implied).

It's irrelevant whether you put your neck out there or not. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't follow that if 1) is true then 2) is also true. That's the whole point.

[John G]

Goodness me, of course they don't! If he'd put their actual names, do you think he might have quickly got a visitor or two at the door?????



To solve cryptic clues, you do need abstract reasoning so that's probably just as well, then, I guess.



Well that is actually my very point! You can't! I can't. They were four common names amongst 800 in the LVP but they were the only ones to be discernible in the GSG. My point is that that is a coincidence way beyond any coincidence you'll find anywhere else (even in the coincidence-laden world of James Maybrick).



I believe so, however I don't have specifics to hand (I'm only a student of JtR) so I'll grant I can't prove it here and now.

But imagine for a moment that those four names were deliberately written into the GSG by James Maybrick. If that were the case (and please just accept for now that it is at least possible), then either they would remain there forever without being identified, or else someone would eventually discern them. There has to be a first. Livia Trivia was the first amongst us to identify that Michael Maybrick wrote lyrics as well as music. Did the fact that she was first to do so work somehow ironically against her argument? Would you have preferred it if large numbers of people had noticed this simultaneously? You wouldn't have found that weird?

And I can't say that it was entirely I who first discerned them. The Feldman video put forward the notion that 'Juwes' (note the otherwise-unnecessary capital 'J') could be interpreted as 'James' ("if it is a jew that they want then a jew I shall be", roughly from memory). All I did was years later think to follow the logic through and wonder whether any of the remainder of the GSG had a similar purpose. I immediately noticed that 'The men' could be re-imagined as a cryptic 'Thomas' which obviously surprised me (not least because it leads with an otherwise-unnecessary capital 'T'). Not as much as when I then noticed that 'Will' appeared with a capital 'W' not long after. And then I noticed that beneath it was a reasonable 'iam'. I was then looking for Michael and Edwin but found only the 'ed' at the end of 'Blamed' which nevertheless struck me as an amazing coincidence. (Weeks later, I suddenly noticed that 'for nothing' could be '4-0' or a 'win'. Maybe that tickled Maybrick's fancy - who knows?) That left a spare 'B' at the start of 'Blamed', and I suddenly noticed that it was set aside from the rest of the word and that it wasn't a 'B' at all but an 'f' (exactly like the 'f' in 'for nothing' below it) with a slanted 'M' attached. That set me thinking that I would surely find some reference to Michael Maybrick but I couldn't find it until one day I turned it upside down and saw that 'Will' once inverted makes a very passable 'MM'. Finally, I noticed that 'nothing' was spelled exactly as it is in the journal, and I - not unreasonably I hope - felt I had something worth at least sharing with the discerning scientists of the Jack the Ripper Casebook.

If you don't have a mind which is open to possibility. If your mind is firmly closed to options. If you have no imagination and do not dare to dream, I cannot make excuses for you. I can only do what I believe to be right and that is to bring this possibility to the market to see if anyone feels inclined to buy it. If no-one buys it, or no-one discusses it, I will live with that. I've made my contribution.

But if there is nothing in it, then please don't tell me that it is not a truly astonishing coincidence for it absolutely is. You show yourself to have no statistical mind either if you cannot recognise this fact. 804 common names in the LVP (that I list in History vs Maybrick) but only the crucial 4 show up in cryptic form in the GSG. Not just a coincidence, my friend. An impossibility unless they were intentionally planted there.

Please, find me even one that I have missed, for I can see no other.

Ike

Okay, let me try and play this game to see how difficult it is. Right, in History v Maybrick you say the name "Alfred" doesn't appear. Except it does, because the letters "A" "l" "f" "r" "e" and "d" are all present. A bit of a stretch, I grant you, but no less so than arguing "for nothing" equals 4 nill, meaning win!

Oh, and what about "Jews"? Obviously a oblique reference to the Kingdom of Israel, giving us another name: Israel. Wow, I'm on fire now!

[Observer]

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.

Yes I have read the Journal many years ago, I still have it in my collection. The thing is I don't put much store in it other than a work of fiction so it's pointless discussing the Journal with you.

[Iconoclast]

Yes I have read the Journal many years ago, I still have it in my collection. The thing is I don't put much store in it other than a work of fiction so it's pointless discussing the Journal with you.

Why are you doing so, then?

[Observer]

Why are you doing so, then?

Any further I meant. The notion that the Diary/Journal is an old hoax is a different kettle of fish. There seems to be more members of this forum who prescribe to that particular theory, this in my opinion merits discussion. They're all wrong of course, look no further than Mike Barrett I say

[Iconoclast]

Okay, let me try and play this game to see how difficult it is. Right, in History v Maybrick you say the name "Alfred" doesn't appear. Except it does, because the letters "A" "l" "f" "r" "e" and "d" are all present. A bit of a stretch, I grant you, but no less so than arguing "for nothing" equals 4 nill, meaning win!

Oh, and what about "Jews"? Obviously a oblique reference to the Kingdom of Israel, giving us another name: Israel. Wow, I'm on fire now!

Okay, let me try and play this game to see how difficult it is. Right, in History v Maybrick you say the name "Alfred" doesn't appear. Except it does, because the letters "A" "l" "f" "r" "e" and "d" are all present. A bit of a stretch, I grant you, but no less so than arguing "for nothing" equals 4 nill, meaning win!

Oh, and what about "Jews"? Obviously a oblique reference to the Kingdom of Israel, giving us another name: Israel. Wow, I'm on fire now!

Do you really need to quote the entire post each time???

I fear you aren't on any sort of fire at all. For the benefit of our readers, could you clarify where we can find 'Alfred' (one word, six consecutive letters) in the GSG, please, as I cannot? And 'Israel', where is that (also six consecutive letters) in the GSG?

I hope you weren't arguing that the letters were all there, randomly spread out, in the GSG, were you? I hope you don't think that makes your point in any way the same point as my point?

Surely to goodness?

PS Just in case you were thinking that, can I politely remind you that mine are either contiguous letters ('James', 'Thomas', 'Ed' or 'Edwin' if you'll allow me it), or at least in the same physical space ('William').

[John G]

Do you really need to quote the entire post each time???

I fear you aren't on any sort of fire at all. For the benefit of our readers, could you clarify where we can find 'Alfred' (one word, six consecutive letters) in the GSG, please, as I cannot? And 'Israel', where is that (also six consecutive letters) in the GSG?

I hope you weren't arguing that the letters were all there, randomly spread out, in the GSG, were you? I hope you don't think that makes your point in any way the same point as my point?

Surely to goodness?

PS Just in case you were thinking that, can I politely remind you that mine are either contiguous letters ('James', 'Thomas', 'Ed' or 'Edwin' if you'll allow me it), or at least in the same physical space ('William').

So now your the ultimate arbitrator in respect of determining the rules for cryptic messages!

In fact, you seem to enjoy making up rules. Is there a rule, I ask myself, about not quoting the whole post, because frankly I can't be bothered spending time faffing around sectioning off posts; I've got far better things to occupy my time with.

[Iconoclast]

So now your the ultimate arbitrator in respect of determining the rules for cryptic messages!

In fact, you seem to enjoy making up rules. Is there a rule, I ask myself, about not quoting the whole post, because frankly I can't be bothered spending time faffing around sectioning off posts; I've got far better things to occupy my time with.

1) I suspect most of our readers - Yaysayers or Naysayers - will agree with me that every single thing ever written immediately becomes cryptic if you are allowed to pluck letters from anywhere in it; but that genuinely cryptic messages do have to have some basic rules - for example, the rule that the cryptic message should be contiguous, Another way to phrase it would be that a cryptic message consisting of randomly-spread letters which you are to pluck out to construct a message ranks as, say, a 1 out of 10 on the cryptic scale, whereas a cryptic message consisting of contiguous characters ranks as, say, a 6 out of 10. The higher rank reflects the greater difficulty in constructing the the message and hiding the secret contents. Thus, when you have a 6 out of 10 cryptic message and you argue that it isn't actually what it appears to be then you have a truly massive coincidence on your hands (unlike the zero-coincidence of having some letters spread out randomly in a sentence).

2) Just use 'Quote', then cut out a large part of the original message. You'll find it's really quite quick to do. Your audience will appreciate it, though the tone of your last post implies that that is not part of your intention in posting, which is a shame.

[Kaz]

Okay, let me try and play this game to see how difficult it is. Right, in History v Maybrick you say the name "Alfred" doesn't appear. Except it does, because the letters "A" "l" "f" "r" "e" and "d" are all present. A bit of a stretch, I grant you, but no less so than arguing "for nothing" equals 4 nill, meaning win!

Oh, and what about "Jews"? Obviously a oblique reference to the Kingdom of Israel, giving us another name: Israel. Wow, I'm on fire now!

When you've got naysayers like this going out of their way not to see these glaring coincidences... and go to the lengths of making up scenarios that insults everyone's intelligence...

It really is no wonder the thing has not been put to bed.


I just hope the real detectives around this place find that one nugget of information that actually PROVES it, which ever way that may be.

[Sam Flynn]

Many, if not all of the alleged coincidences are themselves made up, or at least grossly exaggerated in terms of significance.