One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[FISHY1118]

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

With this one post i believe is why we have 9089 previous ones .

If it was good enough for Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert with the R.C i dont see why the Maybrick Consprisory should be any different. ''A whooping big fib'' i heard someway say once?. But thats just my opinion, you believe what you want . Just way to much circumstanial evidence, conjector and pure speculation , nothing concrete enough for me to consider j.m as jtr.

[Iconoclast]

Just way to much circumstanial evidence, conjector and pure speculation, nothing concrete enough for me to consider [all other possible candidates] as jtr.

I think you got a wee bit too parochial there, Fishy, with your focus solely on James Maybrick so I corrected what you presumably meant.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't?

[Iconoclast]

Dissimilarities outweigh the similarities by quite a margin for me.

Right, that's Appendix 28 deleted.



PS I think you were too forensic in your list, Tab - by anyone's definition, scratching into the back of a watch is never going to be as fluent or consistent or as straightforward as simply signing onto paper with a pen on a hard surface. I think your comparison shows up very favourably given what he had to work with.

[Iconoclast]

With this one post i believe is why we have 9089 previous ones .

Seriously, Fishy? (I've been dwelling on this.)

I laid out the logical implications of your position and the best you got was to imply that I twisted something to keep the debate going. Which bit did I twist?

Or did it simply suit you to imply something else to avoid answering what I'm sure many of our dear readers would like an answer to?

[erobitha]

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

I’m not sure if you intended to or not, but you have cut off what to me is the the most important similarity.

The K has a double loop at the top on both. It’s faint on the watch but it is there. The Ja which I assume is what the first letters are is something he did on numerous signatures - so the forger got lucky again.

The K convinced me but more importantly, the aged brass particles embedded in the base of the engravings really nailed it for me. I can accept slight variance of style due to the nature of the dexterity required for this but to me it is very similar. I guess we are down to confirmation bias again.

My main challenge with the scrapbook has always been the handwriting. I can match Maybrick’s handwriting with his marriage certificate of 1881 with the bible inscription of 1865 - but as yet I cannot find a match to the scrapbook. It could be in his informal hand, and I cannot disprove it isn’t but my instincts tell me it’s unlikely.

I have always found the watch more interesting scientifically than the scrapbook but I will defend it from being declared a fake when there is no absolute proof that it is.

[milchmanuk]

insurance man wanted my signature for "the Jam Jar"
they sent copies of previous signatures, about five of them from different insurers , and are all different in some way's didn't recognize my own hand,

i wonder if there is any other signatures of his to be found in insurance shipping companies and such, he was a cotton merchant's.

[Scott Nelson]

Right, that's Appendix 28 deleted.

No, you should include it if you believe there are more similarities than not.

[Iconoclast]

No, you should include it if you believe there are more similarities than not.

I was joking, Scott. Of course it's staying in.

Good call, though, young man - I admire the challenge.

[rjpalmer]

No, you should include it if you believe there are more similarities than not.

I don't think there is much similarity, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there is.

What would have prevented a hoaxer from mailing three or four pounds to the GRO and asking for a copy of Maybrick's marriage record?

People on this site and on Howard's site do it all the time--no questions asked.

Isn't that the obvious thing a hoaxer might do, provided he wasn't as lazy as Barrett and just bluffed his way through, knowing the gullible would turn the other cheek?

Yet Ike considers the idea bordering on "miraculous."

[Iconoclast]

I don't think there is much similarity, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there is.
What would have prevented a hoaxer from mailing three or four pounds to the GRO and asking for a copy of Maybrick's marriage record?
People on this site and on Howard's site do it all the time--no questions asked.
Isn't that the obvious thing a hoaxer might do, provided he wasn't as lazy as Barrett and just bluffed his way through, knowing the gullible would turn the other cheek?
Yet Ike considers the idea bordering on "miraculous."

I have actually thought about this before, RJ, and the obvious reason why a hoaxer would seek to avoid such a strategy would, presumably, be the paper trail it would leave behind?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I have actually thought about this before, RJ, and the obvious reason why a hoaxer would seek to avoid such a strategy would, presumably, be the paper trail it would leave behind?

Ike

Risk is inherent in any hoax. Less so when everyone is convinced you are Honest Abe.

Did anyone check?

RP

[FISHY1118]

I think you got a wee bit too parochial there, Fishy, with your focus solely on James Maybrick so I corrected what you presumably meant.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't?

But were not talking about all other suspects are we ,?just your one J.M . Lets us not divert.

[FISHY1118]

Seriously, Fishy? (I've been dwelling on this.)

I laid out the logical implications of your position and the best you got was to imply that I twisted something to keep the debate going. Which bit did I twist?

Or did it simply suit you to imply something else to avoid answering what I'm sure many of our dear readers would like an answer to?

I think you missed my point, all i was saying is what you posted was the one of, if not the main argument for such a large number of objectional post on the Maybrick Hoax Subject. Thats all, its no big secret im sure most of our dear readers would agree .

[erobitha]

The below are three examples of Maybrick's handwriting. The 1865 Bible inscription (my research found Sarah Ann Taylor born on 2nd of August - matches birthdate in the inscription so I have no doubt it is genuine), the 1881 marriage registration and the 1881 marriage certificate itself.

The J for example varies significantly across all three examples, and that could be influenced with the type of pen used, ink used, paper type etc. The M on the other hand has almost zero variance from the 1881 certificate to the 1865 bible inscription. It literally is the same.



Etching letters into metal requires dexterity that would never be the same as using a pen on paper. So you have to look for commonalities of repeat patterns / traits.

[Iconoclast]

But were not talking about all other suspects are we ,?just your one J.M . Lets us not divert.

I was most certainly not diverting, Fishy. I was ensuring perspective which is so often lacking when people casually dismiss Maybrick as a candidate for Jack.