One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[c.d.]

I think it is pretty obvious that Druitt wrote the GSG.

Men
nOt
NoTing

So we have MONT which would have been short for Monty. And why pick Goulston Street to leave the message? Could it have been the the T in Goulston and the T in street? Two T's just like in Druitt. Methinks the case is closed.

c.d.

[TTaylor]

And what of the fact that Maybrick was 50 years old in 1888? Not a single serial killer in recorded criminological history has commenced killing at that sort of age.

John Wayne Glover, the "granny killer" in Sydney, Australia, began his murder spree at the age of 57. So, this is possible, although very unusual. There is also the possibility, with older psycho killers, that they have committed earlier crimes, but undetected.

One thing I wished to comment on is the FM on Mary Kelly's wall. I do "see" it - and likewise my research assistant at work, could see it written on the wall. It seems clear, to me. The picture upon which I am relying is from Stephen Knight's book - therefore published before the Maybrick theories. I don't know what to make of the FM - the research assistant said it is probably something which has meaning to that individual, and we will probably never know.

[Iconoclast]

I think it is pretty obvious that Druitt wrote the GSG.

Men
nOt
NoTing

So we have MONT which would have been short for Monty. And why pick Goulston Street to leave the message? Could it have been the the T in Goulston and the T in street? Two T's just like in Druitt. Methinks the case is closed.

c.d.

Damn, I had meant to add to my previous post something along the lines of 'And we now await the mocking of the chattering classes'.

By any standards (and certainly by the standards of the mocking which has gone before on this site), your post was truly the feeblest I have ever seen. I mean, really - is that the best you could come up with to scythe down my argument??? Four letters culled randomly from a text and two tenuously plucked out of a location - amounting to 'Mont' and 'tt'? And you honestly think that makes a point?

If you think it was funny, you fell well short. If you think it in any way contradicted the argument, you fell an absolute chasm.

Make an argument, man - make a point. This feeble attempt at mockery makes a mockery of the very word!

I understand that you don't give the journal the credit it deserves, and I respect your right to hold that view. But make a point, man - not some spineless, trite, lame-brained 'analogy' to counter my (or anyone else's) argument.

[c.d.]

"By any standards (and certainly by the standards of the mocking which has gone before on this site), your post was truly the feeblest I have ever seen."

Hello Iconoclast,

Actually I have had some posts that were even more feeble but you probably just missed them.

I certainly meant no disrespect but it is quite clear that you are wearing Maybrick colored glasses. This is by no means uncommon on these boards the only difference being that the prescription changes depending on the wearer. Sometimes they are Hutchinson lenses or Lechmere lenses or the color of some other preferred suspect.

I saw no reason to spend time on a better argument. I was simply making a point. My analysis of the GSG was no different from yours. I simply cherry picked just like you are doing. You rely on inverting letters and you say my attempt was feeble...c'mon.

Again, I repeat that I meant no disrespect personally but when you post a very far out conclusion based on evidence that is questionable at best then expect to get some push back from other posters who have seen this type of game all too often on these boards.

As President Harry Truman said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

c.d.

[Harry D]

Why would he write his wife's initials on the wall, anyway?

[c.d.]

Why would he write his wife's initials on the wall, anyway?

...and why do we assume that that is the only thing for which those initials could stand for?

c.d.

[David Orsam]

I'm wondering this:

Is there a single confirmed example of the use of the phrase "one off instance" or similar in the 19th century?

If not, is this the incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary?

[Pcdunn]

Your resident librarian has access to the online version of The Oxford English Dictionary.

It returned nothing for the search "one-off instance", but returned 20th century results for "one-off", with the earliest example being 1934 or so. It also has examples from the 1950s, 1970s, and 2003.

https://www.oed.com.ezproxy.aclin.org:2048/view/Entry/262544?redirectedFrom=One-off+#eid

The link above may not work, in which case I suggest that curious people find a copy of the OED and check it out. It is The Authority on word origins.

[Iconoclast]

I saw no reason to spend time on a better argument. I was simply making a point. My analysis of the GSG was no different from yours. I simply cherry picked just like you are doing. You rely on inverting letters and you say my attempt was feeble...c'mon.
c.d.

Hi cd,

You and I both know that you attempted to illustrate that an argument is false because a trivial counter-argument can be made. That is, I demonstrate a complex set of 'coincidences' in the GSG, so you retort by offering a thoroughly superficial 'set' of coincidences and do so in an apparent attempt to undermine my argument.

I have been here a long, long time and experienced far more wrath than probably anybody has ever experienced so I am not diverted nor particularly offended - it is frustration that compells me to respond. I get frustrated when an interesting argument is undermined by trivial counter-argument.

It is astonishing in the extreme that you can derive James, Thomas, William, Edwin, MM, and FM in the GSG, and even see in the formation of 'nothing' the very hand which wrote the Maybrick journal. That's may be wishful thining on my part, but an astonishing coincidence nevertheless. To this, you could have responded "That is a bizarre coincidence, but I don't buy it as anything other than chance". All you did do was find a random set of letters to attempt to mock my argument. That's not in debate. As I say, it doesn't offend me, but it certainly frustrates me as I feel it undermines the purpose of the Casebook itself (or - at least - the forums).

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Your resident librarian has access to the online version of The Oxford English Dictionary.

It returned nothing for the search "one-off instance", but returned 20th century results for "one-off", with the earliest example being 1934 or so. It also has examples from the 1950s, 1970s, and 2003.

https://www.oed.com.ezproxy.aclin.org:2048/view/Entry/262544?redirectedFrom=One-off+#eid

The link above may not work, in which case I suggest that curious people find a copy of the OED and check it out. It is The Authority on word origins.

You'll have read the two books by Harrison so you'll know that she covers this point. Expressions do not enter the lexicon immediately - they appear over time once they are well enough established to justify their being documented, so a first appearance of 1934 (or whatever) is no guarantee that the term wasn't in use much earlier.

She offers a reference to a builders merchant using the expression 'one-off' in the mid-1800s though I cannot say for certain that it has been confirmed.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

And what of the fact that Maybrick was 50 years old in 1888? Not a single serial killer in recorded criminological history has commenced killing at that sort of age.

John Wayne Glover, the "granny killer" in Sydney, Australia, began his murder spree at the age of 57. So, this is possible, although very unusual. There is also the possibility, with older psycho killers, that they have committed earlier crimes, but undetected.

One thing I wished to comment on is the FM on Mary Kelly's wall. I do "see" it - and likewise my research assistant at work, could see it written on the wall. It seems clear, to me. The picture upon which I am relying is from Stephen Knight's book - therefore published before the Maybrick theories. I don't know what to make of the FM - the research assistant said it is probably something which has meaning to that individual, and we will probably never know.

Thank you.

Ike

[Pcdunn]

You'll have read the two books by Harrison so you'll know that she covers this point. Expressions do not enter the lexicon immediately - they appear over time once they are well enough established to justify their being documented, so a first appearance of 1934 (or whatever) is no guarantee that the term wasn't in use much earlier.

She offers a reference to a builders merchant using the expression 'one-off' in the mid-1800s though I cannot say for certain that it has been confirmed.

Ike

Fair enough. But David asked about "one-off instance", which is not at all found in the Oxford English Dictionary. Should we assume that Maybrick coined the phrase himself, using the word "one-off", which may have already existed?

Perhaps I should try American sources, as Maybrick was an American.

[Iconoclast]

Why would he write his wife's initials on the wall, anyway?

The initials of his wife are referenced in the journal as being on Kelly's wall. It matters not why he would put them there (although if you believe the journal is authentic you will recognise the modern phenomenon of police-taunting - Maybrick got excitement out of leaving what he believed to be clues), the fact of the matter is someone did, and the journal purporting to be written by James Maybrick makes reference to them. This is rarified stuff because pretty much only Simon Wood had ever previously done so.

So here's the logic - the person who wrote the Maybrick journal either wrote those initials on the wall (in the journal, he or she writes 'An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother', and we know that the journal means this to be Maybrick's adulterous wife Florrie) or else they were a hoaxer who knew those initials were on Kelly's wall and was inspired by them to write the hoax journal. There isn't realistically a middle ground here as it is beyond reason to think that a hoaxer would start such an utterly implausible hoax and then discover those letters in a photograph of Kelly's death scene. You'd certainly get very long odds on that one at Ladbrokes.

In answer to your question, Maybrick was Jack, and Jack enjoyed what he believed to be taunting of the police. Whether we agree with him or not is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps I should try American sources, as Maybrick was an American.

Erm, I think you should do more research, mate!

He was a Scouser.

Ike

[c.d.]

When people say they see the initials FM on the wall I think what they are really saying is that they see something which resembles those initials. It could simply be that that is the pattern that the blood splatters took and therefore has no other meaning.

c.d.