Tweet
Originally posted by Iconoclast
View Post
-
Just as long as you know ,and you'll be continually reminded each time you claim it as a fact ,that all you have is a "theory" surrounding James Maybrick and the dairy , watch debacle. There is no proof as yet that either has been shown to be authentic .
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman -
"Secret History" provides a definitive answer to the James Maybrick as Ripper theory.
SimonNever believe anything until it has been officially denied.Comment
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
Oh my gosh - this is beyond exciting!
Assuming I have the right one, I'm just 51 minutes away from certainty over whether James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper or not!
Simply beyond excited!
What will it be, the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts which refute the diary?
I'm all a-quiver, dear readers!Last edited by Iconoclast; 10-06-2023, 07:09 AM.Comment
-
Oh dear, it's a bad start. It's Tumblety ...Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
Oh my gosh - this is beyond exciting!
Assuming I have the right one, I'm just 51 minutes away from certainty over whether James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper or not!
Simply beyond excited!
What will it be, the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts which refute the diary?
I'm all a-quiver, dear readers!
Still, the program promises a clue previously untold, etc., which reveals the truth about Jack. Let's see what it is, shall we?
Okay, I know this one. It's the one that just makes up what it wants to believe.
10:33: "We have now established that it was in fact written by two journalists. They wanted to give the story an extra spin by coining the famous nickname".
Well, that's it, then! That's what definitely proves James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. If the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic, James had to have written the infamous 'Dear Boss' letter, but clearly he couldn't have written it because "we have now established that it was in fact written by two journalists".
And the proof of that claim is about to be explained. Hold your breath everyone!Last edited by Iconoclast; 10-06-2023, 07:39 AM.Comment
-
Oh, that's strange.
The program has simply moved on to its next point?
It has just made the most sensational claim in the history of Jack the Ripper (bar the revelation that he was James Maybrick, of course), and not a word of explanation to support it.
Extraordinary.
This just doesn't bode well for the rest of Jessel's already deeply flawed analysis, does it, now, Simon?Comment
-
Oh dear, Fishy, this one is bad news for you, mate!
13.38: Dr. Iain West, Forensic Pathologist, Guy's Hospital. "He certainly appears to have had some basic anatomical knowledge. In other words, where he can find a kidney [Ed: assuming he was looking for a kidney in the first place, of course], erm, and to remove the uterus [Ed: assuming he was looking for the uterus in the first place, of course]. It's unlikely that he would have not known roughly where the organs were in the body [Ed: assuming he was looking for specific organs in the first place, of course] but certainly from the passion of cutting, there was no sign that he was used to handling a knife, erm, perhaps on the fringes of the medical world, perhaps somebody who was trying to disguise, maybe more than on the fringes of the medical world".
I thought this was supposed to be the end of James Maybrick's candidature not further potential support for it!
Anyway, let that be the last time Fishy bores us with his unsubstantiated 8-Minute Miracle tale. Unless Fishy knows more than a forensic pathologist, of course!Comment
-
Oh I love this!
14:06:
Jessels: Police surgeons of the day said that to do that amount of evisceration would have taken about fifteen minutes or so. Is that your view?
West: About two minutes.
Jessels: Two minutes?
West: That's right. It's been very crudely done. Crudely, rapidly done. Moving a knife quickly, I would imagine that everything could have been done perhaps in two, perhaps in three minutes.
Fishy: Bollocks. Now I'll have to come up with another facile argument against Maybrick.
Iconoclast: Na-na-na-na-na!Last edited by Iconoclast; 10-06-2023, 08:12 AM.Comment
-
Jessels has already flagged-up that Batty Street will be important to the story so next he perpetrates a terrible lie to justify what I am guessing will be a tenuous argument.
14:52: At last, the police had found a clue. A piece of the victim's apron covered in blood some distance from the body showing the direction which the killer must have fled in panic, back towards Berner Street and Batty Street.
Really????????????
I don't know if this clipping shows up very well but those of us who know the case well already know anyway that the killer left Mitre Square (not necessarily "in a panic") and left the apron after a huge delay [Ed: During which, Maybrick simply got changed in his rented room in Middlesex Street and waited for the furore to die down] in the entranceway to Wentworth Dwellings in Goulston Street.
Nowhere near Berner Street and Batty Street.
And not even on the road to them.Comment
-
Okay, I'm giving-up at 19:30 because the Big Reveal was the Littlechild letter naming Francis Tumblety.
So much for putting the Maybrick case to bed, then.
Unless there's something I've missed in the remaining 30 minutes or so of this turgid, melodramatic piece of fantasy ...Comment
-
But at least we've learned that the 'Secret History' research team "established that [the Dear Boss letter] was in fact written by two journalists".
That's a relief, then.
Now we just need to await their publication of that sticky, pesky little detail which we might call 'the evidence to support such a claim'.Comment
-
By the way, dear readers, I have established that the Maybrick scrapbook was in fact written by James Maybrick!
Who needs proof, eh?Comment
-
Yes, it's difficult to imagine a Maybrickian being slow on the uptake, but...Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
And so to bed.
Comment
-
The more erudite amongst you will have noticed that I have dealt with this idiotic program before, albeit under a different YouTube posting, on pages 100-101 of my brilliant Society's Pillar (in chapter 'An Arsenal for the Indolent'):
On a closely related theme, the ‘Dear Boss’ letter is now – it would appear – a proven fake. On December 29, 2017 Jack The Ripper: The Whitechapel Murders was published on YouTube by Timeline - World History Documentaries. Very early on in the video [9:53], the most sensational of pronouncements is made which – if true – absolutely condemns the Victorian scrapbook as an unequivocal hoax. The voiceover states regarding ‘Dear Boss’ (the September 25 version) with an unflinching solemnity reserved only for the most established of truths, ‘We have now established that it was in fact written by two journalists. They wanted to give the story an extra spin by coining the famous nickname.’ Really?
In Ripper circles, of course, this would be a seismic moment in the case - to prove (rather than simply assert) that ‘Dear Boss’ was concocted by newspapermen keen to keep the story alive (as if it needed that in September 1888). So, where is the research which proved that two journalists wrote ‘Dear Boss’? Unexpectedly, and very disappointingly, this is not explained. To quote Martin Fido on the Victorian scrapbook, ‘It’s just not good enough’.
And so it goes on. On January 26, 2018, a video was uploaded to YouTube. Called The Grisly Murders of Jack the Ripper, it consisted of the usual superficial analysis common to the vast majority of Ripper reviews. Amongst other unfounded claims, the authors amateurishly (but most decisively) dismissed the Lusk letter (and kidney) with the astonishing claim [43, 13:03] that ‘The kidney at the time was believed to be Catherine Eddowes’ missing kidney. However, it was found to be a prank by a medical student.’ So, there you have it. The mystery of the Lusk letter and kidney – by sheer dint of time passed and lazy research – becomes ‘resolved’. Science does not work this way. History should not work this way.
And yet so it goes on. On Thursday, April 4, 2019, Sky TV broadcast Jack the Ripper – The Case Reopened featuring TV actress Emilia Fox and David Wilson, a professor of criminology at Birmingham City University. Quite apart from becoming certain that the HOLMES 2 police computer system had categorically proven that Martha Tabram was the first victim of the ripper and thereby tarnishing their subsequent geoprofiling analysis (and thus the entire programme) with this uncertain claim, Wilson makes the truly outrageous claim when considering James Maybrick as the ripper (for all of ten seconds), ‘... when that diary was subjected to scientific tests, the paper and the ink date from later than the Victorian period and so if there are doubts about the authenticity of the diary there’s actually nothing that’s going to link Maybrick – or any member of his family – to the Ripper murders.’
Wholly inaccurate in his claims about the paper and ink. Wholly inaccurate in his claim that only the scrapbook links Maybrick to the crimes. Ill-informed and disgraceful in equal and thoroughly predictable measure. By such means are the ripper myths and the Maybrick myths so casually and lazily perpetuated. Based upon a completely false premise, it takes just ten seconds to discard the case’s most likely candidate for Jack. And so it goes on.
There will be many other claims that the Maybrick scrapbook has already been proven to be a hoax. It is indolence of the highest order to simply assert something is true without providing any evidence to support it, and even greater indolence to then act as though the assertion is beyond dispute. The James Maybrick story is truly becoming mired in it.
Comment
-
Simon, I wish you'd ******* said so!Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Yes, it's difficult to imagine a Maybrickian being slow on the uptake, but...
And so to bed.
That's an hour and a half of my life I ain't getting back ...Comment
-
Comment