One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Scott Nelson]

If there is any conflict in the accounts we have been given--simply muddy the waters as much as possible, and if necessary, make up a second copy! Two copies of Tales of Liverpool, now two sets of Mike's notes, to go along with the two explanations for why Mike and Anne created a typescript of the diary. Feldman even told us there were two watches. People weren't lying or failing to get their stories straight--it can all be explained by two copies of everything!

Hi RJ, this seems quite humorous in view of my theory where there were two diaries, an old (unseen) one and a modern one written after 1988, based on the older one.

[Iconoclast]

March 9, 2022

Today is the 30^th anniversary of the Maybrick scrapbook first being mentioned in a public space. Thirty long and highly divisive years later and it remains the enigma it was back then, unbowed, unbroken, unequivocally not undone despite the embarrassing and desperate claims of the very laziest of commentators, both informed and ill-informed.

Throughout this long journey to now, I have burned a candle for Maybrick on behalf of all those who understandably fear to tread anywhere near it – burned it wild-eyed and fearless like the very Devil himself where, in truth, angels fear to read. As is universally understood, you will find a far more detailed review of the case for James Maybrick in my brilliant Society’s Pillar but for now on this most auspicious of days, I feel it is worthwhile to reprise the core reasons why the Maybrick scrapbook remains standing proud and ever fragrant amongst the irrelevant miasma of Ripper research and discussion.

So what lies at the core of my rock-solid belief in the authenticity of the Maybrick scrapbook, excepting for now my unremitting bravery, genius, and humility in the face of some truly naughty people who hurl accusations and charges like they were more than mere sand slipping through their fingers?

Let’s start with the obvious – the unmissable warnings that we actually have a solution (not simply pillars of sand) in our hands.

The scrapbook itself. Yes, the scrapbook itself exists, it is hard evidence, and it has never – despite many mendacious or just plain ignorant claims to the contrary – been proven a hoax. Not once in thirty years has anyone produced one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook. That’s truly remarkable. One might hope for the contrary, however – one might hope that James Maybrick left in his scrapbook something which we could use to prove that he was indeed the Whitechapel purger. He didn’t give much thought to this, sadly, so we really only have one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which supports the Maybrick scrapbook, and that lies in Maybrick’s revelation that he left Florrie’s initials in and around Mary Kelly’s room. Where is the evidence that this was so? Well, we all know the answer to that: the evidence is the infamous photograph of Kelly’s body on her bloodied bed, and – behind her – on her partition wall the letters ‘F’ and ‘M’ proudly announcing James Maybrick’s guilt in book after book about his crimes, most deliciously best served-up in those which proclaim his scrapbook a hoax. We also see that he carved the letter ‘F’ very clearly on Kelly’s arm, and that he positioned her legs in a crude and inarticulate ‘M’. Who knows where else in that terrible scene he left Florrie’s initials? We will never know unless some other photograph ever turns up but – in its absence – it does not matter for Maybrick predicted where we would find his wife’s initials, and – lo – we did. Case closed, dear readers, case closed.

But Maybrick left his mark in other ways. He said in his scrapbook “If it is a jew they want then a jew I shall be” and he fulfilled this request in the Goulston Street graffito by slipping his name into the very first line, disguising it as ‘Juwes’, but we know better, do we not, dear readers? It is a fact that the sharp eye can also detect cyphers for his brothers Thomas, William, and Edwin, along with the initials of Michael and even – as a prelude to Mary Kelly’s wall – those of his errant wife. Finally, he even wrote ‘nothing’ in the very hand he wrote it in his scrapbook (just as Tempus Omnia Revelat showed in this very place that Maybrick wrote the September 17, 1888, ‘Dear Boss’ letter with the same hand which wrote the scrapbook). Case closed, dear readers, case closed.

Not content with revealing his alter ego in his scrapbook, Maybrick also gave us his pocket watch in which he had scratched (at different times) the initials of his victims, along with his confession – ‘I am Jack’ – and his signature, mirroring accurately that with which he signed his marriage licence. He even inadvertently left fragments of one of the scratching implements embedded into the surface of the watch – and these we have been able to date to many tens of years old even when analysed as far back as the early 1990s so evidently put there long before any modern hoaxer could have done so. Thank you, James. Case closed, dear readers, case closed.

Provenance. People love to argue that the scrapbook’s lack of clear and evidenced provenance implies that the artefact itself must be a hoax. I’ve never understood why the artefact can’t simply stand on its own merits. Imagine the guy with his metal detector who uncovers a treasure trove of Roman coins – at least they look for all the world as though they are Roman coins. Would we not accept them as Roman after basic analysis? And what if two years later the finder got drunk, uncontrollably-emotional, and ‘confessed’ to having hoaxed the find, who would believe him? Would you? And if they signed an affidavit in which they singularly failed to realistically explain how they created convincing Roman coins invoking kidneys and linseed oil and modern metals, auction details which were wrong and dates which were chronologically impossible, how easily convinced would you be by it? And – if you wanted the find to be a hoax – how little would you really dig into the facts before you cried ‘Fake!’ on the front page of your least-favourite hoax-busting newspaper? But provenance is not entirely absent, of course, with the Victorian scrapbook. On the trail of the electricians in Battlecrease House, you will find a convincing tale involving a man who should not have been there but admitted he was, who lived more or less where our ex-metal detector lived, and who drank in the same public house. In the whole of Merseyside, I warrant you! In the whole of the county of Merseyside, the finder and the publicist of the find were found to live just a pint’s walk apart. And decent, law-abiding people vouched that Jack the Ripper’s diary was up for sale in 1992, and that one of the electricians had said he’d found something “valuable” in Battlecrease House. Decent, law-abiding people with no obvious axe to grind. Why on earth would they do that if it wasn’t true? Case closed, dear readers, case closed.

The sundry alignment of the stars points time and time again to James Maybrick’s bloody knife. You might think that Fate would be less obvious in Her relentless attempts to associate James Maybrick with Jack the Ripper, but She is not: She shouts it from the rooftops, and She wears her Maybrick ribbon proudly on Her robe - daring evidence and analysis to contradict Her - hiding Her ultimate knowledge of what is true in plain sight like the brilliant iconoclast that She is!

JAmes MaybriCK’s very name contains ‘Jack’ at the start and at the end! Na-noo-na-noo, dear readers!

The double event of March 9, 1992 tells us that Maybrick’s floorboards came up (on the record) for the first time in the 37,557 days since he’d passed, and – lo – that was also the day the ex-metal detector-turned-publicist rang Rupert Crew Literary Agency offering them the diary of Jack the Ripper. These two fellows, remember, lived just a pint’s walk from one another!

On October 10 1888, James Maybrick wrote a postcard to the Liverpool Echo in which he was adamant that ‘Jack the Ripper’ had not committed some given crime in Dublin. How on earth did the writer know this if he or she were not Jack the Ripper himself? The postcard was signed ‘Diego Laurenz (Genuine)’. James Maybrick was putting down his mark again, hiding in plain sight.

So many Jack the Ripper letters flooded the Metropolitan Police after they published the September 25 version of the ‘Dear Boss’ saga (the second, as it happens, in the series). Many of them contained absolutely meaningless statements such as ‘I am in Poplar today’, ‘my hand in practice’, ‘delightful mourning’, ‘once tackled goodnight’ and other obscure lines. None of this made any sense until SC Davies came along and showed us that these were derived from a simple Maybrick matrix. Hiding in plain sight.

James Maybrick sent at least a couple of rhymes to the Central News, and one of these contained the line ‘as time will show’ and another ‘I’m society’s pillar’. Astonishing. Maybrick placed his family motto – more or less literally – into this rhyme and then in the very next line revealed that his name had something to do with pillars. Impossible to have deciphered at the time, of course, as Maybrick was never a suspect, but easy to understand now in the light of Maybrick’s confession in his scrapbook. Hiding in plain sight.

Whoever wrote the second ‘Dear Boss’ letter (on September 25, 1888) is said to have had American roots due to the language used. You just couldn’t make it up, could you?

James Maybrick’s visage was published for all to see in the Telegraph on Oct 6, 1888. You just couldn’t make it up, could you?

James Maybrick sent a letter to the authorities on September 29, 1888, and he signed it ‘Jack the Ripper’. The letter came from Liverpool and it was received before the infamous nom de plume was known. He didn’t add the year, sadly, but it’s not difficult to imagine which year he sent it.

Michael Maybrick gave brother James a valid reason to be in London and Gustavus Witt gave him a valid reason to be in or near Whitechapel. His relationship with Sarah Robertson many years earlier had even furnished him with a working knowledge of the locus of his ‘campaign’. No hoaxer could reasonably expect such remarkable largesse from a universe of random chances!

Why do I like James Maybrick for Jack the Spratt McVitie? Well, quite apart from the reference to ‘F’ and ‘M’ in Kelly’s room which provides the evidential link between the scrapbook and Jim, I love the way the psychopathology of the scrapbook just works, the means, motive, and opportunity, and the shifting handwriting as his acts get steadily worse. I love the choice of vehicle – the scrapbook itself – and the language it employs (mole bonnet, talc, vitriol, medicine, et cetera); and I love the surreal manner it which it is structured: I promise you, if a million people in 1991 had been asked to create a diary of Jack the Ripper, they would not have produced anything even remotely like this – the very substance of the scrapbook just reeks ironically of authenticity!

In good time – all in good time! – the most important work in the entire history of the Whitechapel murders will be recognised as my brilliant Society’s Pillar, not because it is the most erudite, well-researched, well-written or even most compelling Ripper tome (though, fortunately for you my dear readers, it has the enviable quality of being all of those things) but because it spoke out for Maybrick when so few would and spoke up and railed against the inane and vacuous reasoning of the indolent and the precious. No, seriously, you are all welcome.

Fate consistently stands up in the Eternal Court of History and prosecutes James Maybrick for his terrible crimes. I stand with Her, side by side, for thirty years more and then on to Eternity! We will convict him and then it truly will be case closed, dear readers. Case closed.

Ike
Ike Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

[StevenOwl]

Excellent post Ike, but I do wish you'd drop the stuff about the GSG containing obscure references to Maybrick's close family - it reads like raving lunacy and weakens the rest of your otherwise strong arguments. 30 years on and I'm personally still on the fence, but I think I'm now 99% certain that the watch is genuine and was the inspiration for the scrapbook. Of course that still doesn't prove that Jim was Jack.

[Iconoclast]

Excellent post Ike, but I do wish you'd drop the stuff about the GSG containing obscure references to Maybrick's close family - it reads like raving lunacy and weakens the rest of your otherwise strong arguments. 30 years on and I'm personally still on the fence, but I think I'm now 99% certain that the watch is genuine and was the inspiration for the scrapbook. Of course that still doesn't prove that Jim was Jack.

Thank you, Owly.

In reference to my thoughts about the GSG, fear of being accused of being a raving lunatic is not enough to move me!

For the record, if I had to bet my life on it, I'd say that 'Juwes' was intended to represent 'James' and the rest is just coincidence, but - as I'm not betting my life on it - I'm happy to wander with the loonies for a while longer. It's you who should be worried, mate - watch who you're seen wandering around with!

Cheers,

Ike

[barnflatwyngarde]

Surely one of (among many) problems relating to the diary being genuine, is the fact that it reads like a clumsy pastiche.

The interior monolgues are entirely ludicrous, the rambling often embarassingly clumsy, and the carefully dropped little clues just don't ring true.

I have read the diary several times, and rather than recoil in horror at the ramblings and innermost thoughts of a psychopathic serial killer, I just find myself smiling and often laughing at the clumsiness of it all.

[Aethelwulf]

The past couple of years of news have demonstrated there really is no limit to just how gullible people can be...

[Iconoclast]

Surely one of (among many) problems relating to the diary being genuine, is the fact that it reads like a clumsy pastiche.

The interior monolgues are entirely ludicrous, the rambling often embarassingly clumsy, and the carefully dropped little clues just don't ring true.

I have read the diary several times, and rather than recoil in horror at the ramblings and innermost thoughts of a psychopathic serial killer, I just find myself smiling and often laughing at the clumsiness of it all.

Okay Barney, fair feedback (we'll take it on board here at Iconoclast Inc.), but please answer this simple product survey as honestly as you can (remember, Santa reads the Casebook too).

Does your feedback:

A) Prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is an unequivocal hoax, or
B) Prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic , or
C) Suggest that the Maybrick scrapbook is not constructed the way you personally might have expected such a document to be constructed

If you answered C), please bang your head against a brick wall for five minutes, stating "I am an idiot" over and over again or accept a Sunderland AFC season ticket free of charge (there will be in-crapp purchases).

Please click on this link RobMeRotten if you wish to opt out of future surveys

Best,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The past couple of years of news have demonstrated there really is no limit to just how gullible people can be...

But the first 28 years didn't? Interesting position to take, Aethelwulf.

You just can't take your eyes off this thread, can you?

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

But the first 28 years didn't? Interesting position to take, Aethelwulf.

You just can't take your eyes off this thread, can you?

Ike

It would be worth printing this thread out, as a backup, should there be another run on bog roll

[Iconoclast]

It would be worth printing this thread out, as a backup, should there be another run on bog roll

Very good - I like it: bog roll (what an image)!

[StevenOwl]

Surely one of (among many) problems relating to the diary being genuine, is the fact that it reads like a clumsy pastiche.

The interior monolgues are entirely ludicrous, the rambling often embarassingly clumsy, and the carefully dropped little clues just don't ring true.

I have read the diary several times, and rather than recoil in horror at the ramblings and innermost thoughts of a psychopathic serial killer, I just find myself smiling and often laughing at the clumsiness of it all.

And yet Bruce Robinson (that's Academy Award nominated screen writer Bruce Robinson) states on record that if it were a hoax, and if he'd written it, he'd consider it the summit of his literary achievement. A very different opinion to yours - you pays yer money...

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I hope your trip to the supermarket was as successful as your demolition of RJ's rampant nonsense. Mince in the one and mince in the other, I venture!

What is actually remarkable about Fuller's magic five words is not that James Maybrick - who literally stood next to him and heard them spoken - should report him felicitously in his scrapbook, but rather that Bernard Ryan would come along numerous decades later and cite only those five words as literally as Maybrick heard them. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why he chose those five words as if he was paraphrasing Fuller when in fact he was quoting him but we can rest assured that none of it was at Fuller nor Maybrick's prompting. Yet another juicy coincidence which this case seems to be dripping with, but this one undoubtedly a true coincidence indeed.

Anyway, did you remember the Greek yoghurt and the Fairy Liquid?

Cheers,

Ike

Just catching up after a few DAirY-free days, Ike.

I guess it's just a case of two minds thinking alike here. Whoever wrote the diary found those words spoken by Dr Fuller more significant than any other regarding the outcome of his examination. Bottom line - the doctor could find very little the matter with Jim.

Ryan also found those words most appropriate for his retelling of the story, so he simply put them in with his own narrative without any direct attribution to Fuller.

No hoaxer could have known what Ryan did there without reference to what Fuller had to say on the subject. So it just required a tiny concession on RJ's part, that his hoaxers found Fuller's words in an earlier source - one which actually supplied them. But first he had to understand the argument.

The truly uncanny thing is, I did remember the Greek yoghurt and Fairy Liquid! How on earth did you know both were on my list??

Mister Brown needed Greek yoghurt to make his own tzatziki, to go with the lamb meatball dish he cooked, and I was nearly out of washing up liquid.

It's just as well he does most of the cooking while I do the clearing up, or we'd have had Fairly Liquid with Greek style meatballs, and the dishes washed in yoghurt.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Genius, Caz - how clever of you to have spotted what the real Mike Barrett could not have, but which the David Barrat version equally-skilfully noted (without any evidence to do so) that there were errors in Ryan which needed to be ignored.

Did Mike skip the obvious temptation to mention the Brittanic and/or Gladys' birthday in his nascent scrapbook or are we living in the real world for a moment and recognising that you can't have it both ways where Mike only uses Ryan for Maybrick content but inexplicably avoids the errors in Ryan which would have manifestly buggered-up his greatest work of hoaxing genius?

In fairness, Mike could have mentioned the Brittanic in error and it would not have proven the scrapbook to be a hoax as James Maybrick could have genuinely misremembered which of his many steamer journeys he had met Florrie on; but getting Gladys' birthday wrong would have been about as implausible as spelling her middle name incorrectly in a Will purportedly written in his own hand, so well done Mike on avoiding that little sink hole.

Speaking of which, did you remember the bright yellow marigolds - I'm sure, like I, that hubby does not like his hands to burn whilst he's whisking-up the bubbles?

Cheers,

Ike

This just shows how wrong you can be, Ike.

As I'm the one who operates the dishwasher and washes up any surplus dishes by hand, after we have demolished hubby's latest splendid repast, he doesn't need the marigolds - and I have asbestos hands. I do have pink marigolds, which I wear once in a blue moon when I can be arsed to use Mr Muscle on the oven.

Better luck next time with the guesswork.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

This just shows how wrong you can be, Ike.

As I'm the one who operates the dishwasher and washes up any surplus dishes by hand, after we have demolished hubby's latest splendid repast, he doesn't need the marigolds - and I have asbestos hands. I do have pink marigolds, which I wear once in a blue moon when I can be arsed to use Mr Muscle on the oven.

Better luck next time with the guesswork.

Love,

Caz
X

Damn - my All-Seeing Eye was doing so well too!

As I could easily burn the ice cream, I am restricted to marigold duties in Iconoclast Manor. We do have a dishwasher, thankfully, too, but - tell me - does the upper half (cups and glasses) always fill up quicker than the lower half (plates and bowls), or am I just drinking too much tea?

Cheers,

Ike