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

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Hey Ike, wouldn't the photographer have taken a picture of this, since Maybrick would have made it so obvious?

[erobitha]

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

Correct. There is no proof of that James Maybrick wrote it. So we have a selection of candidates who could have wrote it and no proof that any of them did.

So the 'ill informed' should keep their mouths shut, or should the 'ill informed' try and get conclusive proof one way or another?

...and then I come back to watch, and around we go again.

Thirty years this has gone on for. I really hope Chris has nailed it case closed for good.

[erobitha]

Hey Ike, wouldn't the photographer have taken a picture of this, since Maybrick would have made it so obvious?

My theory Scott is the room was dark, the walls were dirty and grimy and when blood dries on wood it goes very dark too. That wall is not a wall at all but a wooden partition door.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_residue

I don't think anyone spotted it at the time. The flash of the photograph caught it.

[Harry D]

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

As pointed out, that's an unusually awkward position for the killer to choose for the graffito, and one that could have easily been missed in the photo. If Maybrick was the killer, he had no need to be discreet. In fact, he was so discreet that none of the investigators at the crime scene or examiners of the photograph ever remarked on the purported "FM" left in 13 Miller's Court. And after the GSG incident, you would've expected them to be on the look out for messages left by the killer.

It's wasn't until modern researchers were told about 'an initial here, an initial there,' and no doubt influenced by pareidolia, made out what could've been "FM" in that peculiar spot. Notwithstanding the fact that 'an initial here, an initial there,' implies the initials were not written side-by-side.

[Iconoclast]

As pointed out, that's an unusually awkward position for the killer to choose for the graffito, and one that could have easily been missed in the photo. If Maybrick was the killer, he had no need to be discreet. In fact, he was so discreet that none of the investigators at the crime scene or examiners of the photograph ever remarked on the purported "FM" left in 13 Miller's Court. And after the GSG incident, you would've expected them to be on the look out for messages left by the killer.

It's wasn't until modern researchers were told about 'an initial here, an initial there,' and no doubt influenced by pareidolia, made out what could've been "FM" in that peculiar spot. Notwithstanding the fact that 'an initial here, an initial there,' implies the initials were not written side-by-side.

Flashbulb. Pedantic.

[John Wheat]

The provenance of the Diary is terrible. The FM is random blood spatter. Nothing anyone types can alter this.

[John Wheat]

Flashbulb. Pedantic.

Harry is not being pedantic he is correct.

[John Wheat]

Correct. There is no proof of that James Maybrick wrote it. So we have a selection of candidates who could have wrote it and no proof that any of them did.

So the 'ill informed' should keep their mouths shut, or should the 'ill informed' try and get conclusive proof one way or another?

...and then I come back to watch, and around we go again.

Thirty years this has gone on for. I really hope Chris has nailed it case closed for good.

The absence of proof the diary is legit puts the emphasis on those that believe to be the real thing. Especially considering Mike Barrett a published author admitted writing it. The absence of proof the watch is legit also puts the emphasis of proof on those that believe it's the real deal.

[erobitha]

The absence of proof the diary is legit puts the emphasis on those that believe to be the real thing. Especially considering Mike Barrett a published author admitted writing it. The absence of proof the watch is legit also puts the emphasis of proof on those that believe it's the real deal.

Cop out argument in my view.

There is no absence of proof for any of the candidates, even Mike Barrett. The issue is the proof presented is not conclusive. Those trying to convince the world of a Barrett hoax have done just as poor a job as those presenting it as a Maybrick authorship in terms of what would stand up in a court of law as conclusive proof. So the responsibility should be on the collective to make it conclusive one way or another.

People are entitled to opinions and theories but saying "it smells like a hoax so it must be a hoax" is rather poor. Let's prove it conclusively by finding out who wrote it really and why. It may not be what it purports to be, but why it came to be and who wrote it could yet still be quite important.

I believe the diary was written to support the watch. So I believe JM was JTR. If my theory is right, then it means the diary is a hoax and Maybrick is JTR. How does one go about proving that theory John without at least understanding who wrote the diary and why?

I am also open-minded to the small possibility it could be genuine. I am open to the idea that both items are hoaxes, but yet the arguments have not been conclusive, In fact, with the watch, the science dates the scratches of some age and it remains in the family that bought it.

I am only asking John.

[erobitha]

Cop out argument in my view.

There is no absence of proof for any of the candidates, even Mike Barrett. The issue is the proof presented is not conclusive. Those trying to convince the world of a Barrett hoax have done just as poor a job as those presenting it as a Maybrick authorship in terms of what would stand up in a court of law as conclusive proof. So the responsibility should be on the collective to make it conclusive one way or another.

People are entitled to opinions and theories but saying "it smells like a hoax so it must be a hoax" is rather poor. Let's prove it conclusively by finding out who wrote it really and why. It may not be what it purports to be, but why it came to be and who wrote it could yet still be quite important.

I believe the diary was written to support the watch. So I believe JM was JTR. If my theory is right, then it means the diary is a hoax and Maybrick is JTR. How does one go about proving that theory John without at least understanding who wrote the diary and why?

I am also open-minded to the small possibility it could be genuine. I am open to the idea that both items are hoaxes, but yet the arguments have not been conclusive, In fact, with the watch, the science dates the scratches of some age and it remains in the family that bought it.

I am only asking John.

Let me just add to this. I know it must be tempting and tantalising to those pushing a modern Mike Barrett hoax theory to go with it as it is a closure to the diary (of sorts).

Mike offered a nice way out to those who ever had any doubts to close their minds for good, and most took it. They needed not much more than a broken man who spent the last years of his life drunk and bitter, but what he said was not the truth. Even those like Chris Jones must know that.

To those who don't believe a word Mike said (or at least very unconvinced) in those years are still left trying to understand how this thing come to be.

The watch is an inconvenience to all of it.

[Iconoclast]

What he said, everyone.

Except the bit where the scrapbook is written to support the watch. Although the watch has the Maybrick signature which makes it very powerful evidence, the scrapbook stands alone as it has the 'FM' which the author of the scrapbook knew had been left in Miller's Court.

To the likes of John Wheat, I would say that ero b has put it so much kinder and more eloquently than I ever would.

And, please, everyone, let's not have to keep saying this over and over and over again: the burden of proof sits with anyone making a claim about anything. If you make a claim about the price of fish on Shetland this morning, you have acquired a burden of proof to support it.

PS None of this will get Newcastle their two points back from Saturday's travesty at home to Palace (even when the PGMOL apologise later today to us and Wet Spam fans), nor the three points we lost at Anfield because Isak was given offside by an atom (the Septic Six must never have a key decision go against them!). There are many more examples, but these were the worst and the most costly. You would think VAR's role is to make football as scoreless and boring as possible.

Ike

[John Wheat]

Cop out argument in my view.

There is no absence of proof for any of the candidates, even Mike Barrett. The issue is the proof presented is not conclusive. Those trying to convince the world of a Barrett hoax have done just as poor a job as those presenting it as a Maybrick authorship in terms of what would stand up in a court of law as conclusive proof. So the responsibility should be on the collective to make it conclusive one way or another.

People are entitled to opinions and theories but saying "it smells like a hoax so it must be a hoax" is rather poor. Let's prove it conclusively by finding out who wrote it really and why. It may not be what it purports to be, but why it came to be and who wrote it could yet still be quite important.

I believe the diary was written to support the watch. So I believe JM was JTR. If my theory is right, then it means the diary is a hoax and Maybrick is JTR. How does one go about proving that theory John without at least understanding who wrote the diary and why?

I am also open-minded to the small possibility it could be genuine. I am open to the idea that both items are hoaxes, but yet the arguments have not been conclusive, In fact, with the watch, the science dates the scratches of some age and it remains in the family that bought it.

I am only asking John.

I don't agree with any of this.

[Iconoclast]

I don't agree with any of this.

Sadly, your "I don't agree with any of this" comes with no supporting evidence as to why ero b's logic is faulty, whereas ego b's logic is backed-up by the available evidence although he freely (and correctly) admits that it is not necessarily conclusive (obviously, if it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion).

My brilliant Society's Pillar 2025 which may or may not become available in 2025 will clarify - I suspect - once and for all that Michael Barrett was an unreliable, lying bastard.

Like we didn't already know!

Ike

[John Wheat]

Sadly, your "I don't agree with any of this" comes with no supporting evidence as to why ero b's logic is faulty, whereas ego b's logic is backed-up by the available evidence although he freely (and correctly) admits that it is not necessarily conclusive (obviously, if it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion).

My brilliant Society's Pillar 2025 which may or may not become available in 2025 will clarify - I suspect - once and for all that Michael Barrett was an unreliable, lying bastard.

Like we didn't already know!

Ike

Ero B's logic was not backed up by any evidence. Barrett may have been an unreliable, lying bastard but he still wrote the Diary. Surely it's up to others to decide how good your book is? Proclaiming it brilliant does you no favours

[Iconoclast]

Ero B's logic was not backed up by any evidence. Barrett may have been an unreliable, lying bastard but he still wrote the Diary. Surely it's up to others to decide how good your book is? Proclaiming it brilliant does you no favours

Everyone agrees it's brilliant, though that wouldn't have mattered to me. Some things are just obvious. Michael Barrett creating the Victorian scrapbook is not one of them.

PS Did you know that Barrett also created the scratches in the back of the watch in 1990 using meths, matches, and Brasso, and that he paid a mate £150 to pawn it at a jewellers (I need to check if it's even possible that it was the correct one) so that Albert Johnson could come along and buy it two years later? It was that simple, apparently.