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

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

Yet in other answers the good Dr doesn’t seem convinced in terms of the writers connection with JTR.

Interviewer:
What does the diary say that makes you think as a psychologist that it was written by him though?

Dr Canter:
I’m not sure that I’m absolutely convinced that it was written by the person who did those killings in Whitechapel. It certainly was written by somebody who knows what it feels like to be angry and vicious – and somebody who can develop through the stages of thought that a vicious criminal will go through. It starts off with an exploration of what it might feel like, and what the particular mood might be, and it then develops from that into an almost enjoyment of the activities it reports that it has gone through. So that is a very subtle sort of development of the thought processes in the document. The other interesting thing, and important point, is it is not a diary in the usual sense – it’s not dated with what happened on any particular day – it’s a series of meandering thoughts that surround the different events.


Maybe we could describe Barrett as someone who could be angry and viscous. I don’t know.

Definitely angry and viscous, Yabs, and probably vicious and vacuous in equal measure; but - although he served time back in the early 1970s for robbing a lady in the street - he was not (to our knowledge) a serial killer and I think that bit would have been quite useful.

[erobitha]

The problem we have Ike is that only those willing to look beyond the superficial and try to understand why such a thing would exist are the ones most likely to be convinced that there is something worth investigating here.

Its all too easy to dismiss the Maybrick document outright for any frivolous reason you choose to find, there seems to be many. I believe Chris Jones has merely collated such reasons he has found, but I’m open to him having a smoking gun.

However, the inconvenient truth is that Mike never provided one jot of evidence that he forged it. There is no evidence at all that Ann did it. Yet, it exists. Someone wrote it and wrote it for a reason.

Then there is the watch. The watch for me is the crux of all of this and is actually why the diary exists in my view.

[Iconoclast]

Hi ero b,

The problem we have Ike is that only those willing to look beyond the superficial and try to understand why such a thing would exist are the ones most likely to be convinced that there is something worth investigating here. Its all too easy to dismiss the Maybrick document outright for any frivolous reason you choose to find, there seems to be many. I believe Chris Jones has merely collated such reasons he has found, but I’m open to him having a smoking gun.

I obviously agree with you, but it's worth noting that you describe it wonderfully clearly. Chris Jones may well have a smoking gun. Let's hope for his and Adam Mango's (his publisher) sakes he hasn't shot himself in the foot with it.

However, the inconvenient truth is that Mike never provided one jot of evidence that he forged it. There is no evidence at all that Ann did it. Yet, it exists. Someone wrote it and wrote it for a reason.

Not a shred, agreed; and what 'evidence' he came out with he quickly corrupted or turned on it head until all of its contents spilled out over the pub floor. I think it will be clear to our dear readers when I publish Society's Pillar 2025 possibly in 2025 (currently 651 pages - I may need to trim it back as the original was only 124) that Mike - once he started to stop just telling the Tony Devereux story - told whichever story he thought his audience wanted to hear, whether that be journalists, private detectives, authors, researchers, radio presenters, or porn movie moguls. This explains why sometimes he told contradictory versions within the same breath - sometimes the same sentence - if he sensed that the story needed to change, he changed it, and he thought nothing about whether this might be considered strange.

If anyone chooses to believe Barrett's story - and they have to pick out which bits they want to believe - we should all be asking ourselves how reasonable that process is, and Society's Pillar 2025 will definitely help everyone to do that. It's going to be brilliant, I suspect.

Then there is the watch. The watch for me is the crux of all of this and is actually why the diary exists in my view.

And do I not pay due homage to it by dedicating the first chapter of my brilliant Society's Pillar to it? This seemed to confuse the Lord Orsam in his long, withering response (which I will eventually read one day) to my wee booklet, but I reserved the right to lead on it because I agree with you - even though you haven't necessarily said it - that the story hinges on the watch (because it contains James Maybrick's signature - well, far more James Maybrick than I could have mustered had I carved it in random hope) not so much the scrapbook, though without the latter the former would have been much harder to decipher, I suspect, and certainly much harder to make a case from (we would not have had Maybrick's reference to 'FM' on Kelly's wall, for example, so no-one would have looked for it, and therefore - just like the 100 years that had already passed up to that point - no-one would ever have known that it was there).

By the way, I asked the Lord Orsam to review SocPill because I couldn't be arsed to check any of my facts (I was working full time at the time, for goodness sake - I needed a lackey to step in to save me the effort), and I knew his ego would rise to my challenge and therefore do it for me. Eventually, I'll read it and - if he ever makes a cogent, rational argument which corrects something I've written - I'll edit it appropriately (or just delete it). If he doesn't, I'll just shred it (or file it under 'Mince').

Palace at home this afternoon, ero b - could do with three points after that heart-wrenching last nanosecond at Anfield on Wednesday evening. I don't know if you have a footy team, young man, but - if you do - I hope they extract three points too today, assuming they're playing.

Yer old pal,

Ike

[Losmandris]

**** me, I didn't realise you gave your name at the foot of your post, Tristan. Lot easier than Lostmandrake or whatever the hell your username is.

At least answer me this (it's mega-massively simps, mate): Why would you expect James Maybrick to be anything other than a 'second rate writer'? Aside from merchanting cotton (******* easy life), what classics of literature did he bash out on his old Remington?

Ike

Probably not but then I would not expect him to write in the style of a second rate paper back either. To me it reads as if it is meant to be read by an audience rather that as something personal. Its a bit too salacious and sleay souding to me. Again just calling it as I see it!

[Iconoclast]

Probably not but then I would not expect him to write in the style of a second rate paper back either. To me it reads as if it is meant to be read by an audience rather that as something personal. Its a bit too salacious and sleay souding to me. Again just calling it as I see it!

Purely as a matter of interest, how many 'Maybrick Diary' books have you read?

Just asking for a friend ...

[Scott Nelson]

Probably a bit off topic, but Ike, can you comment on the positioning of the "FM" on Kelly's wall? To me, it seems to be written too low without the writer having to awkwardly bend over in front of the bed or squat down behind it. And the supposed initials may have been totally obscured by the bed and her body had the photographer taken the picture from a different angle.

[John Wheat]

Probably a bit off topic, but Ike, can you comment on the positioning of the "FM" on Kelly's wall? To me, it seems to be written too low without the writer having to awkwardly bend over in front of the bed or squat down behind it. And the supposed initials may have been totally obscured by the bed and her body had the photographer taken the picture from a different angle.

The supposed FM is just random blood spatter.

[paul g]

VAR cost us dearly.
Never a foul in a million years.

[Iconoclast]

VAR cost us dearly.
Never a foul in a million years.

Hi Paul,

Just watching MoTD on iPlayer and Shearer is giving the VAR officials a right rogering up the rectal area. Leeds denied a stonewall penalty, Wet Spam denied a beautiful finish (even though the ref gave the goal to begin with), and Newcastle robbed of a goal (even though the ref gave the goal to begin with) for an infringement on our own player! You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't. 'Minimum interference, maximum impact' VAR trumpeted when it was brought in. Well, it's gradually eroded into 'Minimum insight, maximum insanity'. Wilson's 'goal' chalked-off against Brighton, a blatant tug on Longstaff produces no penalty, Schar gets pole-axed against Citeh (no penalty), Isak is 'offside' by an atom at most against Liverpool, and now this disgraceful decision. The VAR doesn't do his job and to make sure the ref can't disagree, he only shows the angle where the push on Willock into the goalkeeper can't be seen - so of course the ref's going to chalk it off! The Wet Spam one was far far worse. I'd be raging if I was an Unhappy Hammer right now.

On a positive note, Michael Oliver had the gonads to finally be the first ref this season to go to the monitor and stick with his decision (to award a penalty to Forest). VAR is supposed to identify 'clear and obvious errors' and Oliver knew he hadn't made a clear and obvious error (a debatable one, yes, but then that's his job to interpret it). I can understand why the VAR asked him to check it, but I am delighted on behalf of all football fans that Oliver didn't assume the checking his decision meant he had to overturn it. First time this season but - after yesterday's disaster for VAR - you watch, it will now become the norm for refs to check and then stick with their original decision.

Absolutely raging ...

Ike

[Harry D]

Probably a bit off topic, but Ike, can you comment on the positioning of the "FM" on Kelly's wall? To me, it seems to be written too low without the writer having to awkwardly bend over in front of the bed or squat down behind it. And the supposed initials may have been totally obscured by the bed and her body had the photographer taken the picture from a different angle.

The killer made sure to awkwardly position himself to write it low-down on the wall, where it was conveniently just caught on camera. Obviously Maybrick didn't want this to be too obvious because the "FM" would tip the police off straight away that it was done by a Liverpudlian cotton-merchant. Serial killers are always subtle when leaving messages at crime scenes...

[Iconoclast]

The killer made sure to awkwardly position himself to write it low-down on the wall, where it was conveniently just caught on camera.

That's right Harry because - as you can see below - had Maybrick written those two initials any higher on Kelly's wall (even just centimetres higher) they would never have been seen:



Not!

From Scotty Nelson:

To me, it seems to be written too low without the writer having to awkwardly bend over in front of the bed or squat down behind it.

I think it's pretty obvious that the killer could have leaned over the bed or could have been kneeling on the bed (straddling the corpse). I think in either of those scenarios, low rather than high becomes more plausible but ultimately I can't answer for how Maybrick wrote his wife's initials on Kelly's wall 'cause I wasn't in Kelly's room at the time, and I suspect I am not the only person who wasn't there at the time so I'm in good company.

And the supposed initials may have been totally obscured by the bed and her body had the photographer taken the picture from a different angle.

Think through the logic of what you're saying, Scotty, and you'll realise that you're actually saying, "If we had photographs from various different angles in that room, who knows what else we may have found Maybrick had written". If you follow the implications of the scrapbook, you would very possibly find more examples of 'F's and 'M's, but we don't have any other photographs so we have to settle for the 'FM' on the wall, and the large 'F' carved into Kelly's arm. For me, that's enough, but others might insist on other examples. I'm just relieved that we have the one example because if the only example Maybrick had left was above the fireplace, we'd have no way of now knowing it.

Cheers,

Ike

[John Wheat]

The Diary was written by The Barrett's.

[erobitha]

The Diary was written by The Barrett's.

That solves it then.

Minor detail, but what actual hard proof is that either of them created it? Drunken confessions? Phantom auction tickets? Phantom auctions? Phantom ink? Phantom linseed oil?

Has there been one iota of evidence that actually confirms a Barrett hoax?

The answer remains no.

[John Wheat]

That solves it then.

Minor detail, but what actual hard proof is that either of them created it? Drunken confessions? Phantom auction tickets? Phantom auctions? Phantom ink? Phantom linseed oil?

Has there been one iota of evidence that actually confirms a Barrett hoax?

The answer remains no.

There isn't that much hard proof but it's obvious they did.

[John Wheat]

That solves it then.

Minor detail, but what actual hard proof is that either of them created it? Drunken confessions? Phantom auction tickets? Phantom auctions? Phantom ink? Phantom linseed oil?

Has there been one iota of evidence that actually confirms a Barrett hoax?

The answer remains no.

There is also no proof whatsoever that James Maybrick wrote the Diary but it doesn't stop the ill informed going on about it.