One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Harry D]

Please tell me someone is not seriously suggesting the GSG was: "The James are the Men that Will Not be Blamed for nothing"

[The Baron]

Your image search supports my points.

Here they are again.

3) Real serial killers almost never write anything on the walls. It is far more common in detective fiction.

6) Even the handful of serial killers who write things on the walls don't write their names on the wall to leave clues for the police. That only happens in detective fiction. Bad detective fiction.

Looking at your images.

* "Healter Skelter" is by real serial killers, but it is not a name.

* "He killed my wife" is by a killer, but not a serial killer. It is not a name.

* "I kill eight-year-old April Marie Tisley I will kill agin" was written two tears after her murder. It might have been written by her killer. It is not the name of the killer.

* The 4th picture is from the scene of a murder-suicide. It was not a serial killer. It is not a name.

* "I Love You Nancy" is a hoax, as rjpalmer already noted. It is not the name of the killer.

Real serial killers who write things on the walls don't write their names on the wall to leave clues for the police.

Ouch!

No wonder he is a diary believer



The Baron

[The Baron]

Please tell me someone is not seriously suggesting the GSG was: "The James are the Men that Will Not be Blamed for nothing"

Not only this, they went further to suggest there are other 3 or 4 names hidden in that sentence!!


The James are the men that will not be blamed for nothing





The Baron

[erobitha]

Speak of yourself.

Your chosing of words is rather baffling, sure you are ok?! You may get benefit if you stay away from your monitor for a while, some social activities I would suggest in your case

Isn't that just rich coming from you.

Do you want to say he didn't leave his name at all, no James somewhere then?! huh?

I never said anything about leaving a name. The poster you are so keen to defend did. FM is not a name. Do you need a dictionary definition of initials?

If that was your point, why didn't you simply say this

Pictures say a thousands words.

And what a cute point you are making, we know already that Jack may very well have written the GSG on a wall!

...but could possibly not write initials in blood in a dark dingy room? How do you make a distinction where he could leave a clues in one scene but not another?

You realy need to read up further, even if this is as you believe, you were able to say that instead of posting random photos, even a compassionate grandmother can search google these days

Compassionate grandmother? What a weird individual you are obscure cat boy.

I find your use of language more disturbing than that in the Maybrick scrapbook.

Not very frequently (means often) as it happens with you though

I hope English is not your first language. It can be the only excuse for writing such drivel.

I am sure you believe in ghosts too

As much as I believe in obscure Japanese cartoon cat characters.

It is already stone dead, you can close your eyes and plug your ears and sing No No No No I don't hear you I don't hear you all the day long, it is check mated more than 2 centuries ago, did you find bumbling buffoon during your 5 minutes search?!

I don't think so

I know one when I see one.

[Fiver]

Please tell me someone is not seriously suggesting the GSG was: "The James are the Men that Will Not be Blamed for nothing"

"So - for example - 'Juwes' has to be 'Juwes', it cannot be seen as a cipher for 'James'." - Iconoclast Post #7092

[Iconoclast]

Please tell me someone is not seriously suggesting the GSG was: "The James are the Men that Will Not be Blamed for nothing"

I think that we can all agree on one thing - the GSG has never made any sense to anyone.

The Maybrick scrapbook states (before the 'double event') "If it is a Jew they want, then a Jew I shall be" (or very similar).

In the Paul Feldman video in the late 1990s, Feldman notes that this could have been a reference to 'Juwes' being a cipher for 'James' (so "a Jew I shall be").

After the 'double event' in the scrapbook, the author writes "I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke?" (again, or very similar).

Yes, that would leave the phrase being The James are the Men that Will Not be Blamed for nothing, but I guess the assumption was that the rest of the text didn't matter as Maybrick's intention was simply to place his name in the text.

This bothered me hugely as it didn't make sense to place your name in the text and then have such a convoluted remainder. A few years ago, it occurred to me that the remainder might actually contain ciphers to other significant people in James' life. As sure as eggs is eggs, Thomas, William, Ed (possibly Edwin), FM, and MM came out of the GSG. A truly remarkable thing as no other names could be deciphered in this way. Naturally, the notion was ridiculed. Of course it would be ridiculed, we all knew Jack the Ripper intimately and this was not part of what we understood about him so it must of necessity be utterly wrong.

Personally, I see the context of the man's actual life and I see how much sense it would make for Maybrick - if he was the man depicted in the scrapbook - to embed himself, his brothers, and his wife in something like the GSG. But I also understand that people are not as liberal in their thought process as I, so I accept that no-one agrees. As ever, I don't give a fig. The day has a Y in it, and all that.

Interestingly, the excellent self-published the Funny Little Games of Jack the Ripper by SC Davies highlighted a Ripper letter (postcard, I think) which read "I am 35 and Still Alive". Davies pointed out that "I am 35" could read as 'James'. And why not? If Jack was a James, why not have a little bit if fun at the police's expense, safe in the knowledge that it would never be spotted in your lifetime?

There's a lot more in Davies' book and I would strongly recommend that everyone gets a copy. It won't change your minds, of course, because those are made up already, but it might just illustrate a little more that Jack the Ripper was an actual living, breathing man, not a monster of Victorian legend.

ike

[Fiver]

He can’t tell the difference. Apparently his criteria is strictly limited to serial killers. And names. Which FM wasn’t.

I never mentioned FM. If I had, I would also have mentioned pareidolia.

And I know the difference between spree killers and serial killers.

The Manson cultists were both - they killed people in individual sprees, but there were multiple sprees.
.

[Iconoclast]

Not only this, they went further to suggest there are other 3 or 4 names hidden in that sentence!!

The James are the men that will not be blamed for nothing



The Baron

The Baron as a character has gone from Orsam sycophant/delivery boy to incoherent wordsmith whose first language no longer appears to be the English he started with.

Sadly, this has turned him into The Boring.

But - just on the point quoted above - it is clear that 100 years and more of Ripper analysis has created a consensus of limitation: no-one is permitted to think outside of the tight lines we have carved out for Jack. Jack is this, Jack is that, and you're an idiot if you suggest otherwise. Despite no-one ever being able to make any sense whatsoever of the GSG, we speak as though we know it intimately and its meaning can only be interpreted from within this narrow funnel of views. Why? Well, because Jack was an evil Victorian monster who was not a real man with real emotions and psychology. We have stripped Jack of any semblance of humanity - many would say rightly so - but in the process we have made it impossible to consider what the actual living, breathing human being may have been motivated by and driven towards.

Instead of using such a mocking tone for an idea that could have merit, you should be arguing for why it is not possible for James Maybrick to have used the GSG as a device to excite himself by leaving his name and those of his significant others in Goulston Street that morning.

But your argument should not simply consist of the many unsupported assumptions which have grown up around the case. Free your mind. Think outside that box. Consider the possible even if you don't think it was likely.

And - before anyone is asinine enough to ask it (always rhetorically, in a smart-arse tone) - the reason why James didn't just put 'James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper' instead of using ciphers? I'll leave it for you to work out for yourself but here's a small clue:

[Iconoclast]

I never mentioned FM. If I had, I would also have mentioned pareidolia.

You would have mentioned pareidolia because it the the go-to response when attempting to wipe those letters off Kelly's wall. You're just another Warren with a blinkered view and a pride too great to be entrusted with the role you have given yourself.

Many religious organisations use a similar methodology to help their confused brethren to 'deal with' the difficult questions of their faith. It's called Apologetics, of course, and it consists of applying a consistent, unthinking solution to any given problem within their theology. For example, the Wholly Risible quite clearly supports and regulates for slavery - not indentured servitude but the actual owning of human beings as property. This creates a terrible moral dilemma. How do we argue that this book is the Word of God if it quite clearly contains an abhorrent stock of sentiments? Well, Apologetics is there to provide the answer: in this case, just repeat after me, "That was in the Old Testament. Jesus and the New Testament provided God's real teaching", et cetera (despite Jesus never once condemning slavery nor any other NT author). Sleep easy brother and sister for you have defended the faith.

This is what happens with the pareidolia go-to. Florence's initials are really very obviously on Mary Kelly's wall and this is absolutely catastrophic for the argument against the authenticity of the Victorian scrapbook. Hence, we have the fixed-rate Apologetic - it never wavers despite the changing times - it's just diary-defenders creating a false narrative via pareidolia because they're frauds and idiots and trolls and wind-up merchants.

Anyone who resorts to this argument is absolutely not (ever) going to stop and consider whether this is what they are actually doing, but I would appeal to the rest of you to give some consideration to the very real possibility that they are resorting to Apologetics not reasoned argument.

Ike

[Harry D]

You would have mentioned pareidolia because it the the go-to response when attempting to wipe those letters off Kelly's wall. You're just another Warren with a blinkered view and a pride too great to be entrusted with the role you have given yourself.

Many religious organisations use a similar methodology to help their confused brethren to 'deal with' the difficult questions of their faith. It's called Apologetics, of course, and it consists of applying a consistent, unthinking solution to any given problem within their theology. For example, the Wholly Risible quite clearly supports and regulates for slavery - not indentured servitude but the actual owning of human beings as property. This creates a terrible moral dilemma. How do we argue that this book is the Word of God if it quite clearly contains an abhorrent stock of sentiments? Well, Apologetics is there to provide the answer: in this case, just repeat after me, "That was in the Old Testament. Jesus and the New Testament provided God's real teaching", et cetera (despite Jesus never once condemning slavery nor any other NT author). Sleep easy brother and sister for you have defended the faith.

This is what happens with the pareidolia go-to. Florence's initials are really very obviously on Mary Kelly's wall and this is absolutely catastrophic for the argument against the authenticity of the Victorian scrapbook. Hence, we have the fixed-rate Apologetic - it never wavers despite the changing times - it's just diary-defenders creating a false narrative via pareidolia because they're frauds and idiots and trolls and wind-up merchants.

Anyone who resorts to this argument is absolutely not (ever) going to stop and consider whether this is what they are actually doing, but I would appeal to the rest of you to give some consideration to the very real possibility that they are resorting to Apologetics not reasoned argument.

Ike

The brainwashed acolyte of a made-up book lecturing us on the brainwashing of another made-up book.

[Iconoclast]

The brainwashed acolyte of a made-up book lecturing us on the brainwashing of another made-up book.

The closed mind of the Nothing Left to Learn lecturing us on the importance of Learning Nothing.

[Harry D]

The closed mind of the Nothing Left to Learn lecturing us on the importance of Learning Nothing.

"Just open your mind, abandon critical thinking, and you can believe all kinds of bunkum!"

[Iconoclast]

"Just open your mind, abandon critical thinking, and you can believe all kinds of bunkum!"

Why would opening your mind necessarily lead you to abandon critical thinking, Harry? I don't understand how you went from the one to the other without a breath or an explanation?

Your argument - back to religion - is exactly like those callers to The Atheist Experience who in all sincerity ask the question "If I didn't believe in God and the Wholly Risible, what would stop me from going around killing people?".

The answer to this and similar questions is clearly "Nothing would (bar the legal consequences, of course) but - worryingly - you are obviously the sort of person who is inclined to do so". I don't want to go around killing people at all (ever) so getting rid of God is - to me - the same thing as opening my mind; doing so has not led me down an inappropriate or illogical path. Therefore, the same is true of my open mind: I could abandon critical thinking, I just don't have that urge inside me.

[Iconoclast]

You can argue the toss and disagree with Ike all day long, he'll always reply in the spirit of gentlemanly pugilism, he'll fight his corner, you fight yours.

If only the corners were more equitably populated, Abe!

[caz]

Why would opening your mind necessarily lead you to abandon critical thinking, Harry? I don't understand how you went from the one to the other without a breath or an explanation?

Your argument - back to religion - is exactly like those callers to The Atheist Experience who in all sincerity ask the question "If I didn't believe in God and the Wholly Risible, what would stop me from going around killing people?".

The answer to this and similar questions is clearly "Nothing would (bar the legal consequences, of course) but - worryingly - you are obviously the sort of person who is inclined to do so". I don't want to go around killing people at all (ever) so getting rid of God is - to me - the same thing as opening my mind; doing so has not led me down an inappropriate or illogical path. Therefore, the same is true of my open mind: I could abandon critical thinking, I just don't have that urge inside me.

Word to the wise, Ike.

You might want to cast your eye over this thread to judge whether it's even worth engaging with certain posters on the subject of open minds and critical thinking:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/pub-talk/764715-talking-with-the-unvaccinated-to-change-minds

Love,

Switchypoo
X