One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

"The Goulston Street Graffito which patently contains cryptic references to all six significant adults in Maybrick's family."

Sorry, but that is a stretch and then some. It reminds me of the "Bible Code." Simply rearrange letters over and over until you get something which you think is significant. There are simply no references there to Maybrick's family any more than it cryptically translates "for a good time call Queen Victoria."

And finally ask yourself if in fact Maybrick was the author of the GSG why would he take the chance to write a message that only he and he alone knew what it meant. That just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

c.d.

Unfortunately that applies to a lot of things on Casebook.

[Harry D]

"The Goulston Street Graffito which patently contains cryptic references to all six significant adults in Maybrick's family."

Sorry, but that is a stretch and then some. It reminds me of the "Bible Code." Simply rearrange letters over and over until you get something which you think is significant. There are simply no references there to Maybrick's family any more than it cryptically translates "for a good time call Queen Victoria."

And finally ask yourself if in fact Maybrick was the author of the GSG why would he take the chance to write a message that only he and he alone knew what it meant. That just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

c.d.

You’re making the mistake of taking Ike seriously. He doesn’t believe Maybrick was Jack anymore than you do. He just loves to troll anti-diarists with his shenanigans.

[Iconoclast]

"The Goulston Street Graffito which patently contains cryptic references to all six significant adults in Maybrick's family."

Sorry, but that is a stretch and then some. It reminds me of the "Bible Code." Simply rearrange letters over and over until you get something which you think is significant. There are simply no references there to Maybrick's family any more than it cryptically translates "for a good time call Queen Victoria."

And finally ask yourself if in fact Maybrick was the author of the GSG why would he take the chance to write a message that only he and he alone knew what it meant. That just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

c.d.

Well if someone is simply rearranging letters over and over then that person quite rightly needs to be ignored. We can all do that and it is quite pointless. You and I are in absolute agreement there c.d.. But I don't understand why you have said this in response to my post? I have not rearranged letters. I have highlighted the rather obvious fact that - by coincidence or by design - 'Juwes' could pass for 'James', 'The men' could pass for 'Thomas', 'Will' and 'lam' lie together in the text and form 'William', 'ed' forms 'Ed' (and 'for nothing' could be seen as a 'win'). I've added that 'Will' turned upside down forms 'MM', and that 'B' in 'Blamed' is actually far more like 'fM' than a 'B'. I'm not swapping letters around. I'm not saying that you can extract 'James Maybrick' from individual letters in the GSG. I'm not saying anything like that. I accept that for many people, my interpretation will be a 'stretch' of the imagination, but does that reflect the excesses of the stretch or the limits of the imagination?

I can't believe that you are on a serial murder website and you - apparently sincerely - ask why a murderer would want to leave cryptic clues for the police to excite himself over without feeling he is going to be exposed by it. Are you unaware that that is what serial killers have done in other cases?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

You’re making the mistake of taking Ike seriously. He doesn’t believe Maybrick was Jack anymore than you do. He just loves to troll anti-diarists with his shenanigans.

Just to be absolutely clear, having a differing view to your own does not make someone a troll. If that were true, then you too would be a troll. Ipso facto and all that. It is entirely up to you whether or not you take my comments seriously, but it is not for you to decide that my comments are of less value because you disagree with them.

[Harry D]

Just to be absolutely clear, having a differing view to your own does not make someone a troll. If that were true, then you too would be a troll. Ipso facto and all that. It is entirely up to you whether or not you take my comments seriously, but it is not for you to decide that my comments are of less value because you disagree with them.

I know a WUM when I see one.

[Iconoclast]

I know a WUM when I see one.

Careful, son. As I understand it, Admin issues infractions for people-who-attack-the-person-not-the-post.

[Harry D]

Careful, son. As I understand it, Admin issues infractions for people-who-attack-the-person-not-the-post.

Did you just threaten to tell teacher?

The content and tone of your posts suggest troll/WUM. Better?

[GUT]

Had to google what WUM even meant.

[Iconoclast]

Did you just threaten to tell teacher?

The content and tone of your posts suggest troll/WUM. Better?

I have never once dobbed anyone in. I'm not that spineless. I wouldn't ask anyone else to fight my battles regardless of the size of the army before me. I think I've shown that over the years.

"The content and tone of your posts suggest troll/WUM" is fine with me - it is your opinion that I might be trolling, and I have no problem with that. The difference comes when you start making outlandish, disparaging comments that I am trolling. You move from supposition to statement and you have no grounds other than probably antagonism to do so and that's when you cross the line. You also compromise the posts of pretty much the journal's only pro-voice on this Casebook, and you are better than that so it's disappointing to see it.

[Abby Normal]

Hi harry
I don’t think icon is trolling. Seems like he sincerely believes maybrick wrote the diary and is the ripper.

I think you may be thrown off by his flamboyant and passionate style.

[Observer]

Did you just threaten to tell teacher?

The content and tone of your posts suggest troll/WUM. Better?

I agree Harry. A third rate WUM at that. Oh, there's a few posters still taking the bait, but the majority of us stay well clear of the rubbish put forward by yon WUM in defence of the Diary being the genuine article

[Iconoclast]

Hi harry
I don’t think icon is trolling. Seems like he sincerely believes maybrick wrote the diary and is the ripper.

I think you may be thrown off by his flamboyant and passionate style.

Thank you, Abby. It is refreshing to see that those who fundamentally disagree about something can at least respect each other's right to hold the view they do.

[Iconoclast]

I agree Harry. A third rate WUM at that. Oh, there's a few posters still taking the bait, but the majority of us stay well clear of the rubbish put forward by yon WUM in defence of the Diary being the genuine article

Actually, the majority of people avoid posting anything to this thread because of this sort of response. Each new post receives hundreds of views, so hundreds of people are viewing each entry but only 10 or so actively venture a view at any one time. That's all on you and people like you who attack people's right to have an opinion. Not everyone is as unaffected as I am by the invective and the insults, so they (wisely) avoid commenting. Are you telling me that you know for certain that every one of them is a journal-doubter? Hey - are you certain that I am a troll or are you simply seeking to arm your position by belittling mine?

One of the best examples of those who tried to have a voice was the very motivated, well-intended Tempus Omnia Revelat. He was genuinely striving to add value to the debate - it is a section of the Casebook about James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper for goodness sake! - but he gave up in bitter frustration when he received too much criticism and so little encouragement from the so-called stalwarts of the site.

I think what happens is that some people start to believe that they own the site and therefore start behaving like guard dogs on it. That's a shame because that scares away genuine debate.

[PhiltheBear]

11) Kim Rossmo's geoprofiling data which highlighted Middlesex Street as as good a locus for the fiend's home as Flower & Dean Street (which Rossmo, in fact, focused on).

I come late to this party but this statement is rubbish. There was a 'suggestion' at one point that David Canter's geoprofiling might point to Middlesex Street but that turned out to be wrong. Equally incorrect is that adding Goulston Street would point to Middlesex Street using Rossmo's system. In short, like much else that is used to support arguments for the diary it's pure invention.

[Iconoclast]

I come late to this party but this statement is rubbish. There was a 'suggestion' at one point that David Canter's geoprofiling might point to Middlesex Street but that turned out to be wrong. Equally incorrect is that adding Goulston Street would point to Middlesex Street using Rossmo's system. In short, like much else that is used to support arguments for the diary it's pure invention.

Thanks for that very short and thoroughly undetailed critique Phil. It seems that coming late to the party doesn't always mean you'll be properly dressed for it.

I don't know what you mean by "but that turned out to be wrong" because you do not back it up with evidence. Just look at the TV programme. You'd have to be seriously hellbent on contradiction if you did and still claimed that Middlesex Street wasn't as stong a potential locus as Flower & Dean Street. Two reds in a huge east end of London sea of cool blues, greens, purples, and yellows.

Goulston Street - it transpired - was included in the Rossmo research, by the way.

"This statement is rubbish". This statement does not befit this site.

Ike