One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I'm sure I'm not the only one of our dear readers, RJ, who has spotted the obvious flaw in your argument here. This signature of James Maybrick which is scratched into the watch looks fundamentally like the one on his marriage certificate.

And yet only yesterday you wrote:

"one's handwriting, of course, can fluctuate, but you and I both know that one's signature yields not."

Suddenly you wish to reject the signature I presented as inappropriate?

You all but admit that you dug through the known examples of Maybrick's signatures to find the one that vaguely looks like the scratches on the watch, even though it was from over 7 years earlier than the proposed date of the scratches, whereas the one I chose was made within months--early 1889. Either way, anyone can see the letters are formed differently.

I put it to you that if we had 1,000 entries, we'd have zero successful fakes.

I put to you that if we had 1,000 entries, you would immediately accept any of them as James Maybrick's signature, provided you were led to believe that it was.

After all, you accept the diary's handwriting as Maybrick's, even though it bears no resemblance.

It seems to me, my good fellow, that you are engaged in what the philosopher Karl Popper warned us against: pseudoscience and pseudo-logic, because you allow no system that can falsify your theories. The way you work it, any result is a good result that confirms your belief.

If the handwriting looks vaguely like Maybrick's, it is a 'eureka!' moment, suggestive of authenticity.

If the handwriting looks nothing like Mabyrick's, it is inconclusive and need not worry us---Maybrick was simply writing in his 'private hand.'

Heads you win, tails we lose, and either way you get the confirmation that you so desperately seek.

But seeing that we are told that Anne Graham is about to release an updated statement about the diary's origins (that is, if your information is correct), I see little point in carrying on with what has become a repetitive discussion. I'll wait and see what happens in mid-September.

Enjoy your summer.

[Iconoclast]

And yet only yesterday you wrote:
"one's handwriting, of course, can fluctuate, but you and I both know that one's signature yields not."
Suddenly you wish to reject the signature I presented as inappropriate?

Your logic has me beat, RJ. The signature you presented was a more than passing facsimile of Maybrick's (and given the challenges of scratching in the back of a watch). I don't know why you would say I was rejecting it?

But seeing that we are told that Anne Graham is about to release an updated statement about the diary's origins (that is, if your information is correct) ...

Wow - Anne Graham is about to release an updated statement about the diary's origins? Amazing!

Who told you that?

Ike

[Caligo Umbrator]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;n789491]

I'm sure I'm not the only one of our dear readers, RJ, who has spotted the obvious flaw in your argument here. This signature of James Maybrick which is scratched into the watch looks fundamentally like the one on his marriage certificate. It may not be a perfect representation of it , but do bear in mind that he was writing into the back of a small watch with God knows what implement. What are the chances he'd do so good a job of it if he wasn't actually James maybrick and he'd simply taken a lucky punt?

Think of it this way. Imagine my neighbour Mr C. Palmer (honestly, you couldn't make it up) gave me a copy of his signature and I then asked every one of our dear readers to post an image of what they imagine his signature would look like (including you, RJ). How many do you think would get it so close that it would fundamentally appear (that word again!) to be his actual signature.

I put it to you that if we had 1,000 entries, we'd have zero successful fakes.

And yet we got One-Shot Robbie on the case back in '93 and he got it fundamentally spot-on, first time. Wow.

Time for me to exercise the old rotator cuff, I think, Old Boy ...

Ike[/QUO

Hello, all. I have not posted here for some time, but I have been following the discussion.
In what manner are the signatures or scrawled names on the watch and certificate similar? Other than they use the same letters in the same sequence? The letter 'M' has a differently angled and wider and longer second part to the letter on the watch, the same letter is more truncated and more noticeably concise in the signature.
The signature on the document has an open lowercase 'A' in 'MAYBRICK', the watch has an entirely closed, rounder, and differently shaped letter 'A'. The 'Y' and 'B' are part of the same flow and co-joined to the point of making separation almost impossible in the signature, on the watch they are quite distinctly placed apart from each other and separate. The 'C' and 'K' in the document signature are again flowing into each other, while on the watch the 'C' is overly large and separate and the 'K' is misformed to the extent it appears more to be the letter 'X'.
Clearly, one signature is on a flat horizontal paper, the other is scribed into a rounded metal case. So, while accepting there will be variations, had it been performed by the same individual, one would expect some significant similarities. But I observe no similarity between them.
Neither of the letter 'M's has the appearance that the supposed letter 'M' does in the photograph of the crime scene, although anyone with a surname beginning with 'M' and who signed business documents on a frequent basis would perhaps have a certain method of describing that letter if it was the first letter of their surname.

[rjpalmer]

Wow - Anne Graham is about to release an updated statement about the diary's origins? Amazing!

Well, what is she going to talk about then, Boris Johnson's hairstyle?

We are told that we will be given an authoritative answer to the Maybrick Diary's origins, and you have told us that Anne Graham has contributed.

I have no idea what Mr. Jones prepares to tell us, but Graham must have made some sort of statement. "Updated" need not be a retraction--it could be a confirmation.

She could tell us "Mike got it from Tony and that's all I know." Or, "I already told you, my father got it after the war." Or, maybe we'll get a third version, and she'll now say that Barrett bought it off a man in a pub for twenty-five quid. Or maybe she'll tell us that Barrett's confessional affidavit was fundamentally true.

I have no idea.

Do you?

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=Caligo Umbrator;n789497]

Clearly, one signature is on a flat horizontal paper, the other is scribed into a rounded metal case. So, while accepting there will be variations, had it been performed by the same individual, one would expect some significant similarities. But I observe no similarity between them.

Hi Caligo,

I do think you've answered your own question in recognising the surface Maybrick was signing on. I can't imagine for a moment that it is easy to inscribe into a small watch case. Given that, I could not say and therefore would not say that any dissimilarities between the signatures on the two surfaces are more pronounced than their rather obvious overall similarities. Maybe we should all try it? I suspect we'd end up with many examples of our signatures which are caricatures (that word again) of our more familiar ones. That said, I'd say it was a very decent punt by Maybrick.

The way to think about it is as follows:

1) The hoaxer was not likely to have witnessed Maybrick's signature (it's not certain that they didn't but it would have taken a fair bit of effort); and
2) Despite this, the signature in the watch is rather obviously a reasonable facsimile of the formal one we have on his marriage licence.

If 1) is true then 2) is yet another Maybrick miracle and you just shouldn't expect too many of those in a typical Lucky Bag.

But well done on posting - I wish more posters would grow a pair of gonads and say something. Preferably complimentary to me.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well, what is she going to talk about then, Boris Johnson's hairstyle?

We are told that we will be given an authoritative answer to the Maybrick Diary's origins, and you have told us that Anne Graham has contributed.

I have no idea what Mr. Jones prepares to tell us, but Graham must have made some sort of statement. "Updated" need not be a retraction--it could be a confirmation.

She could tell us "Mike got it from Tony and that's all I know." Or, "I already told you, my father got it after the war." Or, maybe we'll get a third version, and she'll now say that Barrett bought it off a man in a pub for twenty-five quid. Or maybe she'll tell us that Barrett's confessional affidavit was fundamentally true.

I have no idea.

Do you?

I don't, no. My understanding is that she doesn't want to talk about the scrapbook at all. That's her prerogative, of course, but as she is about the only person left on the planet who knows for certain whether she saw it or not in 1968 or 1969, I do hope she's left a wee note in a biscuit tin under her floorboards. It seems to have worked the first time ...

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

The initials are the one biggest concrete link between the scrapbook and the crimes, yes.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others and - if there are any - they won't be anything like as transparent as this one.

Off the top of my head, though, some people might say that Maybrick's "If it is a Jew they want then a Jew I shall be" shortly before the GSG appeared is a very plausible link but - for that - you have to be willing to accept that the GSG is absolutely meaningless except as a vehicle for James to insert 'James' and make it look for all the world like 'Juwes'. Afterwards, he wrote "I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke?" and the answer to that is - of course - no, because they assumed it meant something more than a silly game.

I'll keep thinking, but the initials are the crown jewels here.

Outside of the scrapbook is the signature in the watch - absolutely not a straightforward conjuring trick on any level if it's a hoax.

Outside of the scrapbook and the watch, you'd need to read my brilliant Society's Pillar (what's kept you?) where we can find Maybrick creeping out of every corner of this case, constantly.

Just saying ...

Ike

Ok. But sorry Ike i just dont see them as Initials , the Mary Kelly Photo as you know has been available to view by many Ripperoligist all over the world for many dacades .Just because someone claimed in a scrapbook to ''Seek and ye shall find such Initials'' doesnt sit well with me im afaide . Too many unknowns.

[erobitha]

I think Ike’s rationale is pretty good to be fair. I do personally see the F and M but perhaps I have a heavy bias.

If the F and M are there then it is a solution of sorts. Ike’s rationale of the scrapbook mentioning the initials, and there they are on the wall, means there is a very good possibility it was the killer who put them there.

We then have this document that is the only document in the world before 1992 that even mentions the hint of any initials on Kelly’s wall. Over a hundred years it was never mentioned and then there it is. The same applies to the heart being missing - this was not public knowledge I believe until very recently up to 1992.

I have written about this on my blog and basically I see realistically one of two scenarios. I do not believe a hoaxer simply got lucky independently on their own.

1) The diarist is someone close enough to the ripperology community to have been aware of the rumours of the initials (which first started emerging around 1989) and incorporated that into the work. Which begs the question of how did it end up in Mike’s hands?
2) The initials were there all along and we nearly saw them - but it took the killer to tell us what they were. The initials of the whoring mother. Florence Maybrick. Which means James Maybrick was JtR. However, we also have to be mindful that we know Florence was unfaithful with Alfred Brierly the following year - so his reference to Florence must have either been paranoia or she was having another affair at the time we may not have documented evidence for. Perhaps her dalliance with Brierly started earlier

I maintain that I believe the diary is most likely the work of someone looking to point the finger at Maybrick because he was JtR and the watch alone would never be enough. I find it compelling the more I dig (and others) the more circumstantial evidence goes against him rather than exonerating him.

It is rather peculiar of any of the named suspects.

[Iconoclast]

Ok. But sorry Ike i just dont see them as Initials , the Mary Kelly Photo as you know has been available to view by many Ripperoligist all over the world for many dacades .Just because someone claimed in a scrapbook to ''Seek and ye shall find such Initials'' doesnt sit well with me im afaide . Too many unknowns.

No-one is asking you to see them as initials, Fishy. I see them as initials but I clearly have a theory and a book to sell here. When "the initials" are mentioned, it's basically a shorthand for "those marks on Kelly's wall which have the appearance of an 'F' and an 'M' right next to each other, in the correct order". It's just quicker for us all to refer to "the initials". In this regard, c.d. was correct which is a shame 'cos he went off in a huge strop and took his gonad with him thereby spoiling the game for the rest of us.

''Seek and ye shall find such Initials''? You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but you do appear to be somewhat blind to the statistical miracle this all entails, Fishy. If a hoaxer wrote those lines entirely randomly into the scrapbook and we then take that prediction and find exactly what he or she was intimating would be there, despite no-one having ever noticed them before, then we are dealing in a coincidence bordering on a miracle, looking increasingly like the miracle of the 'Double Event' of March 9, 1992.

When this point is made, most posters scurry back to the position that the hoaxer must have seen the initials first - first as in history and first as in before the scrapbook - and then backward-engineered a story around them. If that's good for you, fair enough. But the truth is that that would also be a miracle in its own right: the initials are spotted, they are associated with Florence Maybrick, a tale is woven around her husband James Maybrick, and then Maybrick just starts fitting-in time after time after time (pun entirely intended, by the way).

So - at this point - most posters run even further away from the trenches and by doing so they cease to hear the shells and the guns and so soothe themselves by saying there's no war here to be seen, guv'nor, and those pesky initials simply do not exist.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. Polite request, here: when you pay your money and take your choice, don't piss all over mine on your way home.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I think Ike’s rationale is pretty good to be fair. I do personally see the F and M but perhaps I have a heavy bias.
The same applies to the heart being missing - this was not public knowledge I believe until very recently up to 1992.

I'd have to check, ero b, but I think it may have been published in Fido or some other tome in 1987 or possibly 1988-1989. Thus, the modern hoax theory holds that Mike Barrett was simply regurgitating what he read in which Jack books he had to hand at that time.

However, we also have to be mindful that we know Florence was unfaithful with Alfred Brierly the following year - so his reference to Florence must have either been paranoia or she was having another affair at the time we may not have documented evidence for. Perhaps her dalliance with Brierly started earlier.

There is evidence that Florrie (and James) were first introduced to Brierly in December 1887 (though I don't recall the source off the top of my head). That does give the whole of 1888 for the two of them to initiate a dalliance or - indeed - for her to have one with some other lothario.

I maintain that I believe the diary is most likely the work of someone looking to point the finger at Maybrick because he was JtR.

The same issue of the pesky initials raises its head here, ero. If the scrapbook was written to finger James as Jack but was not written by James, how did the writer know that he or she could mention Florrie's initials in the context of Kelly's room and then they turn out to (appear to) be there?

I find it compelling the more I dig (and others) the more circumstantial evidence goes against him rather than exonerating him.

I agree. The circumstantial evidence against him is as compelling as the actual physical evidence.

It is rather peculiar of any of the named suspects.

Well, in fairness to their proposers, some of them possibly once went to Whitechapel or maybe somewhere sort of near it. That's more than we can say about Maybrick. Cough cough.

Yer Old Mucker,

The Ikester

[Tab]

2) Despite this, the signature in the watch is rather obviously a reasonable facsimile of the formal one we have on his marriage licence.

I created the below for my own benefit but just wanted to confirm this is the signature you are referring to.

[FISHY1118]

No-one is asking you to see them as initials, Fishy. I see them as initials but I clearly have a theory and a book to sell here. When "the initials" are mentioned, it's basically a shorthand for "those marks on Kelly's wall which have the appearance of an 'F' and an 'M' right next to each other, in the correct order". It's just quicker for us all to refer to "the initials". In this regard, c.d. was correct which is a shame 'cos he went off in a huge strop and took his gonad with him thereby spoiling the game for the rest of us.

''Seek and ye shall find such Initials''? You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but you do appear to be somewhat blind to the statistical miracle this all entails, Fishy. If a hoaxer wrote those lines entirely randomly into the scrapbook and we then take that prediction and find exactly what he or she was intimating would be there, despite no-one having ever noticed them before, then we are dealing in a coincidence bordering on a miracle, looking increasingly like the miracle of the 'Double Event' of March 9, 1992.

When this point is made, most posters scurry back to the position that the hoaxer must have seen the initials first - first as in history and first as in before the scrapbook - and then backward-engineered a story around them. If that's good for you, fair enough. But the truth is that that would also be a miracle in its own right: the initials are spotted, they are associated with Florence Maybrick, a tale is woven around her husband James Maybrick, and then Maybrick just starts fitting-in time after time after time (pun entirely intended, by the way).

So - at this point - most posters run even further away from the trenches and by doing so they cease to hear the shells and the guns and so soothe themselves by saying there's no war here to be seen, guv'nor, and those pesky initials simply do not exist.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. Polite request, here: when you pay your money and take your choice, don't piss all over mine on your way home.

Ike

''When this point is made, most posters scurry back to the position that the hoaxer must have seen the initials first - first as in history and first as in before the scrapbook - and then backward-engineered a story around them. If that's good for you, fair enough''. But the truth is that that would also be a miracle in its own right: the initials are spotted, they are associated with Florence Maybrick, a tale is woven around her husband James Maybrick, and then Maybrick just starts fitting-in time after time after time (pun entirely intended, by the way).''


It certainly is good enough for me .

The truth is, its also certainly possible to build such a story.

The tale is easily woven once the teller of such a tale is convinced the marking on the wall are F.M . Not that difficult

[Iconoclast]

I created the below for my own benefit but just wanted to confirm this is the signature you are referring to.

This indeed looks like the correct one, Tab (and a huge welcome to The Greatest Thread of All).

How clever of you to break them down in this way (I think I'll steal this for my brilliant 2025 Society's Pillar!).

Are you thinking there is more dissimilarities or more similarities between the two?

This is more ero b's bag than mine so I'd be interested in his thoughts around your breakdown of the two signatures too.

Ta Tab and Ta Ta,

Ike

PS You're now in there as Appendix 28 - how exciting for you!

[Iconoclast]

It certainly is good enough for me .
The truth is, its also certainly possible to build such a story.
The tale is easily woven once the teller of such a tale is convinced the marking on the wall are F.M . Not that difficult

Well, as I say, you're obviously welcome to your opinion. So, just to be clear, you believe that what happened was that someone (whether setting out to be a hoaxer or not) started off by looking at Mary Kelly's death scene photograph and they became the first person ever to see what they thought was an 'F' and an 'M' - right next to one another - and they decided from this to write a story around it. So they racked their brains thinking of someone who they could link these initials too, and they eventually thought of James Maybrick because his wife's initials were 'FM', and then they wrote the scrapbook text as if Maybrick were Jack the Ripper. They then got it into the hands of Michael Barrett and then sat back and waited for the sparks to fly. And then they were amazed at not only how it flew off the shelves but also how James Maybrick just kept on being Jack over and over and over again? That's your theory, or have I misrepresented you?

This reminds me of the 'Imagine' thread which was started over ten years ago I think. Someone had spotted 'Damn Michael Barrett' in the scrapbook and had used that to tell what I assume was a contrived and whimsical version of the tale. Unfortunately for its author, it all quickly unravelled.

Unlike the scrapbook.

Ike

[Tab]

This indeed looks like the correct one, Tab (and a huge welcome to The Greatest Thread of All).

How clever of you to break them down in this way (I think I'll steal this for my brilliant 2025 Society's Pillar!).

Are you thinking there is more dissimilarities or more similarities between the two?

This is more ero b's bag than mine so I'd be interested in his thoughts around your breakdown of the two signatures too.

Ta Tab and Ta Ta,

Ike

Thank you for the welcome, I have been skulking around this thread and indeed these boards for a very long time. Please feel free to use this comparison for your 2025 edition of Society's Pillar.

My thoughts regarding the signatures:

J/a/m/s?? - I am not exactly sure of all the letters at the start except for the J, but I don't see any similarities between the two
M - I don't see any similarities
a - I don't see any similarities
y - Possibly similar, but the 'y' descender on the watch is clearly much longer
b - I don't see any similarities
r - The watch is too distorted/degraded to determine
i - The watch is too distorted/degraded to determine
c - I don't see any similarities
k - I don't see any similarities. If that X on the watch is meant to be the flourish as seen on the licence, it doesn't seem to have worked.

Dissimilarities outweigh the similarities by quite a margin for me.