One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

A major candidate like Druitt, or Kosminski. What links have they got to the crimes (none whatsoever that I'm aware of beyond desperate, even vain, speculation) and yet they are right up there at the top of the list.

In Druitt's case, his family thought he might have been the murderer. That was it!!!

More than can be said for Maybrick.

And both those you name were named by senior police, so more going for them than Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

Awww so the answer is

"maybrick has no links to the crimes"

Thanks.

Other than a journal and a watch, no, there's absolutely no link.

Other than reasons to be in London and Whitechapel, I guess. Mustn't forget those!

Other than means, motive, and opportunity, there is absolutely nothing in support of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, you are right.

[GUT]

Other than a journal and a watch, no, there's absolutely no link.

Other than reasons to be in London and Whitechapel, I guess. Mustn't forget those!

Other than means, motive, and opportunity, there is absolutely nothing in support of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, you are right.

Motive???

Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.

[Iconoclast]

More than can be said for Maybrick.

And both those you name were named by senior police, so more going for them than Maybrick.

And truly the boys in blue did such an amazing job tracking down Jack that their sentimental musings twenty years later are obviously evidence of guilt on the part of the poor unfortunates they chose to name!

[Sticks pin in list of names] "At the time, we knew John Smith to be the criminal but we didn't think it would be helpful to arrest him or even reassure the public by informing them that he was dead".

Named by senior police! Honestly, GUT, I very nearly spat my arsenic out when I read that ...

[Iconoclast]

Motive???

Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.

Hmmm. If you ever read the comic book, you'll know the motive.

What are you back to, though? The senile musings of losers twenty years retired desperately clinging to the belief they'd done a good job?

[Iconoclast]

Motive???

Oh well waste of time. As the claim was that without the Diary and watch he was still a leading suspect, but I see you are already back to the comic book and the tick tick.

I love the twist. Did anyone else spot it?

Exchange 'leading' for 'valid', and you have what Spyglass actually wrote. The former implies strong candidature (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously not true. The latter simply states that Maybrick was as good a candidate as any other (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously true.

Keep up, everyone. Sometimes it is tiring having to proof read every twist and turn to prevent the insidious creep of confusion and error ...

[GUT]

I love the twist. Did anyone else spot it?

Exchange 'leading' for 'valid', and you have what Spyglass actually wrote. The former implies strong candidature (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously not true. The latter simply states that Maybrick was as good a candidate as any other (without the journal and the watch) and is obviously true.

Keep up, everyone. Sometimes it is tiring having to proof read every twist and turn to prevent the insidious creep of confusion and error ...

Still seen nothing that even makes him a valid candidate once the comic book and Mackey mouse watch get thrown out.

[Iconoclast]

Still seen nothing that even makes him a valid candidate once the comic book and Mackey mouse watch get thrown out.

Valid just means possible, GUT.

So, to turn it around, what stops Maybrick (or Maybrick's neighbour Bill, etc.) being a valid candidate?

[GUT]

Valid just means possible, GUT.

So, to turn it around, what stops Maybrick (or Maybrick's neighbour Bill, etc.) being a valid candidate?

Or pretty much any other human being alive in 1888 Strewth talk about casting a wide net.

[Iconoclast]

Or pretty much any other human being alive in 1888 Strewth talk about casting a wide net.

This has always been the case. In the absence of evidence, very few people aren't valid candidates. Clearly. That was, I felt, Spyglass's point.

[spyglass]

This has always been the case. In the absence of evidence, very few people aren't valid candidates. Clearly. That was, I felt, Spyglass's point.

Blimey....it's all kicked off without me.
Thanks for the back up Iconoclast, and yes that was the point I was making and completely agree with your point about Druitt earlier.

Things can change over the years, for example one fact used to discredited the diary for many years was the writer referring to the coins found at Chapman ' s feet.
The likes of Sugden and others claimed that this had been proved an urban myth and so the author had been caught out.
Now it would seem the tide has turned back again concerning the coin issue, and is now generally excepted again as being true.

Regards.

[spyglass]

The Diary is a forgery. The watch evidence is a joke. With that in mind Mabrick is a poor suspect.

Hi,
Ok... so Maybrick isn't your choice.
That's fine, but like a lot of posters on here, you state categorically that it's a hoax as if it's a well established fact.
Remember the title of this thread and the point of it.
Great you know it's a hoax, so please share.

Regards

[John Wheat]

Hi,
Ok... so Maybrick isn't your choice.
That's fine, but like a lot of posters on here, you state categorically that it's a hoax as if it's a well established fact.
Remember the title of this thread and the point of it.
Great you know it's a hoax, so please share.

Regards

Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.

[Iconoclast]

Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.

Once again, your 'crackpots' comment gives you away.

The fact the majority of the people who post on this site express grave doubts (or outright hostility) towards the journal is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Only the evidence matters.

There have been far more significant cases in history of one or two people standing up to the popular view and ultimately being proven right in time. This may well prove to be a minor example of that same principle.

My outstandingly-brilliant History vs. Maybrick thread even makes that prediction.

Ike

[spyglass]

Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.

Hi,
I'll be straight with you, I follow all aspects of the case and all suspects with equal intrest.
I have no favoured suspect, and have always treated the diary with suspicion, I have also favoured the argument on it being an old hoax rather than modern.
That said I will always keep an open mind on this as I do on all suspects.
But until the day it is proved to be a hoax ( if it is of course ) then I will stay intrested in it.
Let's face it, surely a simple badly executed forgery could be outed by now in this day and age...but it can't and it hasn't.

Regards