One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

You're right. Racking up debt and excessive spending cannot in any way be connected. They are two completely distinct things. Honestly RJ. Talk about clutching.
It must be completely and utterly unfeasible that Maybrick knew about her debt generation before April 1889?
Maybe James did not want the world and its doctor to know about his wife's financial indiscretions. Perhaps he was embarrassed and opted to handle the issues privately.
Perhaps the sudden realisation of finding out about his wife's debts ultimately killed him. It must have been such a shock. He probably had zero idea.

I thunk it would be impossible for anyone to say that this was not a very reasonable argument, ero b. Whether it is correct or not, it is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It feels a little bit like how I said "We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889". Seemed reasonable to me at the time I wrote it but somehow it immediately was translated by Muddy the Mud Boy as my saying someone else was responsible for establishing the truth or falsehood of this.

Muddy loves to say that "X lives rent-free in your head". Sometimes I think I must be living rent-free in Muddy's?

[Iconoclast]

You're right. Racking up debt and excessive spending cannot in any way be connected. They are two completely distinct things. Honestly RJ. Talk about clutching.
It must be completely and utterly unfeasible that Maybrick knew about her debt generation before April 1889?
Maybe James did not want the world and its doctor to know about his wife's financial indiscretions. Perhaps he was embarrassed and opted to handle the issues privately.
Perhaps the sudden realisation of finding out about his wife's debts ultimately killed him. It must have been such a shock. He probably had zero idea.

I meant to add that the reasonableness of your argument largely lay in the very real likelihood that Maybrick had bailed-out Florrie's debts prior to April 1889 - perhaps a few times, indeed - and each time she swore blind that she would not incur such debts again and maybe she did go weeks and months without swimming with the sharks until temptation got the better of her and she hit the borrowing again. This would perfectly reasonably allow Hopper (who may not even have known about Florrie's previous financial indiscretions) to suggest that she "make a clean breast of it".

I don't know if this is correct or incorrect, but it is both possible and plausible (given the entry in the scrapbook in September 1888).

Detractors really need stronger material than this for demonstrating that the Victorian scrapbook is a hoax.

[Pcdunn]

I thought "make a clean breast of it" meant to confess to her husband the full extent of her debt. He may not have ever heard this from her before, even if knew of her overspending in smaller, sporadic bits.

[Iconoclast]

I thought "make a clean breast of it" meant to confess to her husband the full extent of her debt. He may not have ever heard this from her before, even if knew of her overspending in smaller, sporadic bits.

Perfectly possible and perfectly plausible, Pcdunn. Florrie could have "made a clean breast of it" during any period of spending which she had been keeping from hubby. There is nothing whatsoever spectacularly revealing about Hopper suggesting it to her in April 1889 - unless, of course, your mind is just looking for it.

Yours is obviously not so well done on this considered position.

[Iconoclast]

Perfectly possible and perfectly plausible, Pcdunn. Florrie could have "made a clean breast of it" during any period of spending which she had been keeping from hubby. There is nothing whatsoever spectacularly revealing about Hopper suggesting it to her in April 1889 - unless, of course, your mind is just looking for it.

Yours is obviously not so well done on this considered position.

Of course, what we'll get next from Muddy are a series of unconnected quotations from various questionable sources (the newspapers, probably - that bastion of truth and honour) in which some highly tenuous argument will be spun as cast-iron fact that - absolutely! - there was no way Maybrick could have known about his wife's debts in September 1888 or indeed at any time prior to April 1889.

You see, dear readers, when Dr. Hopper suggested that Florrie "make a clean breast of it", he was self-evidently saying, "You've kept it all from him for years, Florrie, but now the cat's out the bag so you need to totes fess up, girl" and here's the profoundly innocuous 'evidence' to prove it.

Not.

[rjpalmer]

the reasonableness of your argument largely lay in the very real likelihood that Maybrick had bailed-out Florrie's debts prior to April 1889 - perhaps a few times, indeed - and each time she swore blind that she would not incur such debts again and maybe she did go weeks and months without swimming with the sharks

Can you prove any of this or are you just writing a novel?

[John Wheat]

Can you prove any of this or are you just writing a novel?

Yes let's see some proof.

[Scott Nelson]

[In case anyone else doesn't get it, I reserve the right to test and reassess my personal conviction of what happened that day, against all the evidence as it continues to come into my possession, if and whenever I see fit, without having my reasoning or my reason questioned by those who do not possess all the facts. I suspect Keith Skinner is of the same mind, but he will soon let me know if not. Currently - as in today, 4th May 2023 - my conviction remains at 100%. Tomorrow, as The Beatles famously told us, never knows.]

The partial truth Mike told was that he got the diary from a Fountains Road resident. The fact that there were two of them, one living and one not, would have given him an incentive to choose the latter for his provenance. Dead men rarely split on a mate in my experience.

Clearly I don't have possession of all the facts in the matter, Caroline. If what you know rules out Devereux as a participant, fine. We'll have to wait for further revelations. It just seems to me that the logical place for a lay person who found what they thought to be an old diary would be the local newspaper office, like the Liverpool Echo.

[StevenOwl]

Clearly I don't have possession of all the facts in the matter, Caroline. If what you know rules out Devereux as a participant, fine. We'll have to wait for further revelations. It just seems to me that the logical place for a lay person who found what they thought to be an old diary would be the local newspaper office, like the Liverpool Echo.

But what if they'd stolen it or knew it was stolen?

[FISHY1118]

Yes let's see some proof.

Proof ,Proof !!!!! Nah whos needs proof when all this circumstantcial, dubious, ambiguous , magic eye initials type evidence is more than enough. According to some .

[Iconoclast]

From: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...101#post520101

The spelling isn't actually that terrible though, is it? Words like 'blamed' and 'nothing' are spelt correctly. Only 'Juwes' (if that's what it said) was spelt incorrectly. Why was that word, and that word only, wrongly spelt?As it was written in 'a good schoolboy hand' it could have been any one of several words properly spelt. (D'Onston Stevenson's) 'Juives', 'Juries' or perhaps even 'James'. Was there a James gang in the 19th century East End?

[My emphasis.]

I do so love the fact that - in discussions about all things Jack the Ripper - it is legitimate to postulate absolutely any idea whatsoever and by common consent and regardless of the potential for inanity it is expected to be respected. But then every rule must have an exception, and the exception here is always James Maybrick.

Above, we see Bridewell happily suggest that 'Juwes' in the GSG may actually have been 'James', but not in the context of James Maybrick. Because of this crucial distinction, we see that Bridewell gets an easy ride. No lambasting or accusations of rank stupidity or even malicious intent. Same thought process, different focus - one considered perfectly acceptable to the jury of History, the other considered gibberish and childish and possibly even utterly contrived for ulterior motives.

Apparently it is impossible that 'Juwes' was actually a simple play on 'James', despite the Victorian scrapbook pointing us (for the first time ever) to that possibility. Believe that and be damned (at least on here). But - hey - tell the tale a different way, and it's suddenly just one more totally plausible notion to be thrown into the mix.

I think we call this 'double standards', don't we? (And there's no interpreting what that means.)

Interesting.

[rjpalmer]

"Why was that word, and that word only, wrongly spelt?As it was written in 'a good schoolboy hand' it could have been any one of several words properly spelt. (D'Onston Stevenson's) 'Juives', 'Juries' or perhaps even 'James'. Was there a James gang in the 19th century East End?"

[Emphasis added]

Hmmm. Any number of words could have been misspelled in that post, but only Stephenson's name gets the treatment.

What message was Bridewell attempting to send us?

Was it an allusion to Jekyll and Hyde?

[Iconoclast]

"Why was that word, and that word only, wrongly spelt?As it was written in 'a good schoolboy hand' it could have been any one of several words properly spelt. (D'Onston Stevenson's) 'Juives', 'Juries' or perhaps even 'James'. Was there a James gang in the 19th century East End?"
[Emphasis added]
Hmmm. Any number of words could have been misspelled in that post, but only Stephenson's name gets the treatment.
What message was Bridewell attempting to send us?
Was it an allusion to Jekyll and Hyde?

RJ,

For the love of mud, stop with the mud fights, man! This is an allusion, I assume, to Lord Orsam's own point made during the thread in question, but I trust that you understand the point that I was making which was clearly that thinking 'Juwes' could actually have been 'James' is positively encouraged in one context whilst it is positively vilified in another.

Ike
Clean as a whistle (no mud for miles around)

[rjpalmer]

but I trust that you understand the point that I was making which was clearly that thinking 'Juwes' could actually have been 'James' is positively encouraged in one context whilst it is positively vilified in another.

Did we read the same thread, Ike?

The effusive praise came from one poster--Pierre. But even Pierre did not endorse the idea that the word 'Juwes' meant 'James.' Rather, Pierre praised the observation that since one word, and only one word, was misspelled, it suggested (to him, at least) that that word held some special significance. What that significance was he did not reveal.

At best, Pierre only made a few halting steps down the same garden path that you so eagerly tread.

Pierre was active during my long hiatus. I don't recall if he ever named his suspect.

[Abby Normal]

pierre thought juwes was actually judges and her (yes it turns out he was actually a she) suspect was mr maxwell, husband of the kelly witness.