New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

[Aethelwulf]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

I recall someone else found a jolly little Scottie dog on Kelly's wall, alongside Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps it was Sickert after all and he did a few doodles..

[The Baron]

I found a dog lying under Kelly's window!

Do we know if Maybrick was fond of dogs?!

[Aethelwulf]

Somewhere along the lines, the Hoax Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are actually contradicted by the evidence.

We can all see those initials. We understand why you can't admit to their being there.

We understand your panic at their mere presence in MJK/1.

Amazing how Phillips made his examination of the relevant areas in pitch dark and missed them though:

I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads

Don't say it was too dark because that is clearly a load rubbish.

[Iconoclast]

Somewhere along the lines, the Diary Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are even credible.

Somewhere along the lines, the Hoax Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are actually contradicted by the evidence.

We can all see those initials. We understand why you can't admit to their being there.

We understand your panic at their mere presence in MJK/1.

[Iconoclast]

Have you read Dr Bonds post mortem?

Its very detailed and extensive wouldn't you say, ?

Where's the part that he mentions F.M initials on her forearm ?

Were not talking about a casual observer but a trained medical professional , who after his post mortem which covered just about ever part of her anatomy , he fails to mention the F.M initials ?

Then I am in good company, Fishy, because I don't mention them either.

The 'F.M.' is very obvious on Kelly's wall, whilst her arm has what appears to be a very deliberate 'F' carved into it. If Bond failed to say this, there are a number of potential reasons why but I won't speculate because we don't know.

[FISHY1118]

And how exactly would people have commented 'at the time' on the initials on Kelly's wall so evident now on MJK/1 when the photograph wasn't published with any acuity until Dan Farson in 1972?

If you are referring to those people who had the misfortune to enter Kelly's room 'at the time', I strongly suggest you think the lighting situation through. We can see her initials because the photographer used a flashbulb. No non-photographer could have done that in 1888 so how do you imagine the casual observer noticed them in the gloom of her room and when set against such terrible gore?

Have you read Dr Bonds post mortem?

Its very detailed and extensive wouldn't you say, ?

Where's the part that he mentions F.M initials on her forearm ?

Were not talking about a casual observer but a trained medical professional , who after his post mortem which covered just about ever part of her anatomy , he fails to mention the F.M initials ?

[rjpalmer]

I would suggest you try to learn from him.

TB

No worries, Baron. When I am being insulted, I just think of the phrase "bumbling buffoon" and have a good laugh. I'm in your debt for that discovery.

Really, what are we doing here, anyway?

What can we possibly say to theorists like Thomas Mitchell and Jay Hartley who don't think the top dogs at Scotland Yard --from Dr. Robert Anderson to Inspector Fred Abberline to Dr. Thomas Bond--were smart enough to have someone bring a pair of lanterns into Kelly's room in order to conduct the medical examination and to make an inventory of the room's contents? Probably not even smart enough to toss aside the old coat that was covering the window...

Someone is groping around in the dark, but I don't think it was Scotland Yard's C.I.D.

Somewhere along the lines, the Diary Faithful stopped caring whether their arguments are even credible.

[Iconoclast]

I don't see any evidence of initials on Mjk that was reported at the time. . If they were then you could use the diary as evidence in the way that you suggested.

And how exactly would people have commented 'at the time' on the initials on Kelly's wall so evident now on MJK/1 when the photograph wasn't published with any acuity until Dan Farson in 1972?

If you are referring to those people who had the misfortune to enter Kelly's room 'at the time', I strongly suggest you think the lighting situation through. We can see her initials because the photographer used a flashbulb. No non-photographer could have done that in 1888 so how do you imagine the casual observer noticed them in the gloom of her room and when set against such terrible gore?

[The Baron]

I could make a suggestion or two dear Caz, but it would probably get me banned for life.

On the contrary to this, RJ was always able to express his educated views and opinions politely and professionally without getting himself banned.

I would suggest you try to learn from him.


TB

[FISHY1118]

I know what you mean, Fishy! Just because some diary with a reference to initials in Kelly's room which subsequently were identified on MJK/1 and a watch which bears James Maybrick's actual and highly idiosyncratic signature have been found just leaves Maybrick as yet one more Ripper suspect with cast-iron evidence of their guilt.

And let's face it, we don't need any more of those!

I don't see any evidence of initials on Mjk that was reported at the time. . If they were then you could use the diary as evidence in the way that you suggested.

[StevenOwl]

I'm not sure what RJ's problem is here.

I could make a suggestion or two dear Caz, but it would probably get me banned for life.

[Iconoclast]

Having said that, if his your guy all well and good ,but like Trevor and his phantom organ harvesting theory, J.M as the Ripper just because some diary and a watch surrounded by so much controversy says so doesn't cut the mustard with the me or the masses..

I know what you mean, Fishy! Just because some diary with a reference to initials in Kelly's room which subsequently were identified on MJK/1 and a watch which bears James Maybrick's actual and highly idiosyncratic signature have been found just leaves Maybrick as yet one more Ripper suspect with cast-iron evidence of their guilt.

And let's face it, we don't need any more of those!

[FISHY1118]

Hi ero b,

So you will have been impressed - I have no doubt - by my brilliant Society's Pillar which rather courageously leads with the watch not the scrapbook?

Great minds, as they say, my young posting chum, great minds ...

Ike

I'm sure you can lead with whatever you like, but if in the end the majority of posters here and even those who may have heard of James Maybrick outside of casebook will have already made up there minds he wasn't jack the ripper. The amount of back and forth between rj and yourself and others over 1000s of post just shows to much uncertainty and doubt that which one could ever hope to acknowledge the truth lies with JM as the infamous murdered.

Having said that, if his your guy all well and good ,but like Trevor and his phantom organ harvesting theory, J.M as the Ripper just because some diary and a watch surrounded by so much controversy says so doesn't cut the mustard with the me or the masses..

In the end all we have is multiple suspects with a whole bunch of unproven theories. J.M included .

[Iconoclast]

It’s convenient thinking by some to always put the watch secondary to the diary. I have always felt it was the other way round.

Hi ero b,

So you will have been impressed - I have no doubt - by my brilliant Society's Pillar which rather courageously leads with the watch not the scrapbook?

Great minds, as they say, my young posting chum, great minds ...

Ike

[erobitha]

Thinking about this a bit more, I'm left wondering how convoluted and contrived RJ or Chris Jones would have allowed their speculations to become, to keep the diary as a 1992 Barrett hoax in the event that the watch engravings had proved to be much older than that, beyond reasonable doubt.

If those engravings really do date back decades, it doesn't follow that the diary would be any likelier to be in James Maybrick's handwriting.

The diary does not appear to have been written in any known person's heavily disguised hand. That should effectively have ruled out both Barretts along with James Maybrick, but instead we get convoluted and contrived speculations to explain how one of these three people [depending on the colour of one's scarf] might still have held the pen - or, in the Barretts' case, might even have persuaded the Invisible Man to do their dirty work for them, while young Caroline looked on.

If the writing was not done by James Maybrick or a Barrett, would it not be reasonable to speculate that whoever else held the pen, at whatever time, either transferred the words into the scrapbook from their own original script - since lost or destroyed - or simply copied or adapted someone else's work? We have a perfect example, with the Crashaw quote, of someone using someone else's words - imperfectly - in the scrapbook. At school we had to choose a favourite poem, learn it by heart and then recite it to the class. I picked The Charge of the Light Brigade. I don't think I fluffed any lines, but nobody would have assumed it was all my own work!

This concept is not a new one. We are asked to believe that there was a typescript sitting on Mike Barrett's word processor, which was either transferred by hand into the scrapbook, in early April 1992, by the same person who composed the words [which is where the heavy disguise speculation comes in and tends to fall down], or copied out by a very accommodating third party with inky fingers, who might reasonably have wondered what the hell the story was. I don't believe such a typescript ever existed, but it would not have survived, and would almost certainly have been deleted before Scotland Yard could have found it.

If the diary is meant to have begun life in another form, in Goldie Street in the early 90s, why could it not have begun life in another form, but in another place and time? If the watch is considered to be a kind of companion piece, it was destined to be disappointed by a diary in the wrong handwriting.

Love,

Caz
X

The above neatly describes my own struggle with the diary. I have always been convinced by the watch and I believe I have made a strong case for it to seriously be considered as being scratched by Maybrick’s hand.

It’s convenient thinking by some to always put the watch secondary to the diary. I have always felt it was the other way round. The watch is genuine of that I am convinced. Perhaps whoever discovered it originally was too. How it reached Stewart’s of Wallasey is the key for me. The fact it was repaired in the spring of 1992 and sold by July of the same year does strongly suggest a timing correlation with the floorboards being up and Mike’s call to Doreen.

Can I categorically state it came from Battlecrease House on 9th March 1992? No I can’t, but the timing is rather interesting if we accept that the watch scratches are by James Maybrick.

Clear as K to me. The diary, less so.