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

[Iconoclast]

The GSG names was one of the less convincing bits of TBSP. Firstly, it only works with Longs transcript, Halse having a different version. Secondly, much like the diary itself, the sample Ike uses isn't in Maybricks hand. So unless it's a carbon copy, and not just the handwriting of whoever jotted it down, the whole things a bit pointless.

And yes, I'm aware that it's one of the more peripheral parts of the Maybrick candidacy. As such, perhaps drop it from the upcoming remix of TBSP?

Hi Abe,

The GSG I use is the accepted official version which stems directly from Charles Warren's request that the message be 'copied' before it was extinguished. Like everything else connected with Jack, ambiguity abounds. Was the 'copy' simply a verbatim of the text, or was it a literal copy of the message as it was written? The fact that Halse remembered the message text differently just adds to the frustration of Warren's controversial decision.

What I don't want to do is to compromise TBSP (for the cooks out there, this is not 'tablespoon', okay?) for the sake of a theory which relies on Maybrick being Jack to have any consequence so I will bow to the cacophony of recent pressure and remove it from TBSP 2025, though the 'Juwes' equals 'James' theory is staying in because it helps us to understand what went before it and what went after it in the scrapbook and because I just plain like it.

On that note, the ever-vigilant Mr. Skinner has corrected me:

Robert commissioned me to be a consultant on Shirley's book around July 1992 and I then immediately suggested bringng on board Paul Begg and Martin Fido. I was much more interested in exploring JM and felt that Robert and Shirley would be better served by Paul and Martin for the JTR content. Feldy came into the project at the end of 1992 but I had little to do with him as my commitment was to Shirley as my contract was with Robert. At that time my head was full of James Maybrick and I remember remarking about JAmes MaybriCK. [This] observation was [n]ever meant to be taken seriously or offered up as any sort of evidential support that JM was JTR.

The JUWES/JAMES observation came from Martin Howells. Feldy pointed this out to Mike and Anne when he visited them at the beginning of 1993 with Paul and Martin and I remember Paul telling me that the Barretts were absolutely dumbfounded by this revelation - so much so that Paul said afterwards - had he forged the diary he would not have been able to have kept a straight face.

This is not the first time Keith has had to correct me on this point and I do hope to engage my brain next time. What I would say, in conclusion, and I've said it many many times before: we must all be wary of framing our view of Jack the Spratt so heavily upon our underlying assumptions of the man (for man he undoubtedly was, not solely monster); he lived in the dust and dirt, the sunshine and rain of 1888, and we did not. He lived his life and we did not. If you come to the analysis of Jack with a closed mind or a fixed set of assumptions around why he acted as he did, you will almost certainly be describing a hybrid of the Jack you have read about and the Jack which resides in the very darkest recesses of your soul that you never talk about at parties (thank you, Jack Nicholson's character).

Ike
Don't be Fooled, Compromise is NOT my Middle Name

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The GSG names was one of the less convincing bits of TBSP. Firstly, it only works with Longs transcript, Halse having a different version. Secondly, much like the diary itself, the sample Ike uses isn't in Maybricks hand. So unless it's a carbon copy, and not just the handwriting of whoever jotted it down, the whole things a bit pointless.

And yes, I'm aware that it's one of the more peripheral parts of the Maybrick candidacy. As such, perhaps drop it from the upcoming remix of TBSP?

[FISHY1118]

I beg to differ, and beg most loudly. You cannot say, which you seem to be implying, that all pigs are equal here. You cannot say, "Your candidate has not been proven unequivocally, therefore he is as likely or unlikely as any other". That's not how evidence weighs on the scales. Maybrick - in terms of evidence - is so far out in front of the second-most-likely candidate for Jack the Ripper that you'd be excused for thinking they weren't actually taking part in the same race. Neither can you simply list a load of qualities and thereby imply they too have equal weight in any argument: Opinion, speculation, conjecture, and guesswork you can throw away as worthless stocking fillers on Christmas morning - we resort to these when we don't have the fifth quality you cited, evidence. Maybrick is off the scale on evidence - both hard facts and circumstantial. The rest of the 200 candidates are just news you read on a bang-average day - **** all content but the best there is that day.

And - for the record - asking people what their views are on a candidate they've almost all read almost nothing about is never going to produce anything other than a sense of what the mood music is around here. Indeed, I think that was what ero b was seeking to achieve, perhaps not realising that people would read the results as some sort of testimony in favour or against. It's very much like those Tories who today voted personality-explant Liz Truss in as party leader and therefore as prime minister. Come 2024, she and her government will face the British electorate and they like Rishi more than they like Truss so - if they had one eye on getting re-elected - today's vote may not have been as utilitarian as it could have been for them. Big mistake, big mistake (thank you, Julia Roberts' character).

Don't make the big mistakes, dear readers. The Good News today is that I am here to keep you all honest.

Honestly.

Ike

Provide me Evidence that there is ''More Proof'' that Maybrick was the ripper other than Druitt or Lechmere ? , thats what my post was about , im not sure what your reply was about .

My point being all the suspects ever mentioned are so based solely on speculation , circumstancial evidence opinions , judgement, and guesswork .

But not Proof.

''Maybrick is off the scale on evidence - both hard facts and circumstantial.''[circumstantial evidence and $4.50 will get you warm latte]

Hard facts about Maybrick not ''hard facts'' he was the killer , huge difference there.

[Iconoclast]

You are a good sport Ike. Shy bairns get nowt and all that.

My thoughts on this haven't changed and can be summed up in four words: what the actual F***!

You must have ankylosaurus grade hide because I would have wilted under the embarrassment.

This all stemmed from a throwaway comment from Keith Skinner to Paul Feldman in the mid-1990s once the latter had got on board the Maybrick train and had commissioned the former to assist him in his research. Noting the bit in the scrapbook before the GSG which reads, 'If it is a Jew they want then a Jew I shall be' and then the bit after the GSG which reads, 'I wonder if they liked my funny Jewish joke?', Keith apparently pointed-out to Feldman - quite whimsically - that 'Juwes' in the GSG could be read as 'James'. Feldman, to Keith's surprise (at the time - Feldman later proved to be quite capricious in this way), published it. And I - for one - think he was right to because it provides the missing link between the two comments in the scrapbook.

It's used in Feldman's 1997 video and it has always intrigued me - after all, as a statistician (in my past) I understood immediately that that was a remarkable coincidence if James Maybrick were not Jack the Ripper (whether Jack wrote the GSG or not). Statisticians shouldn't really rely on coincidence on big scales because far-out coincidences are significantly rarely than routine ones (obviously), although they can and indeed do, of course, occur.

Anyway, fully two decades passed and one day I was looking at the official, accepted version of the GSG again, and again marvelling at how much fortune our erstwhile hoaxer had to have enjoyed in the creation of his or her masterpiece, and it suddenly occurred to me that - if James had cryptically buried his own name into the message - then maybe he had gone further and done the same with other significant people in his life. I looked, and immediately saw that the shape of 'The men' fitted 'Thomas' (very weakly, but fitted just about - the space reduced the 'fidelity', sadly). The 'the' was capitalised which struck me as fortuitously appropriate (though it did start a new line, I acknowledged to myself). Anyway, spurred on, I then saw the 'Will' - capitalised entirely inappropriately in the GSG but perfect if it was meant to act as a cypher for 'William'. Then I looked to see if 'William' itself could be formed and was amazed to find that the 'lam' in 'blamed' sat right underneath the 'Will'. Contiguous, even if on another line. At this point, I was confident that there would be more. I noticed that the rest of 'Blamed' spelled 'Ed' and obviously then thought of Edwin. Looking to see if I could find the missing 'win' (though I'd have settled for 'Ed' if that was all there was), I noticed the 'for nothing' and I thought of 'four-zero' and wondered if that could be the missing 'win' - at very least I was struck by the coincidence that it was there. I'd used up all the full words and figured that was it except I felt sure that James would have included brother Michael in his funny Jewish joke. I turned the GSG upside down, purely on a whim, and immediately noticed that 'Will' looked like 'MM'. Another remarkable coincidence. I then homed-in on the suspicious 'B' in 'Blamed'. It's not a 'B' (nor is it a Charles Warren 'B' as Orsam claims - I'm pretty sure that he did not write the official version of the GSG) - it's not even vaguely a 'B'. I was struck by the fact that it sits proud of the rest of the word. This to me looked like Maybrick had started the word 'Blamed' too early (or even deliberately) and had had to move the 'lamed' further right to sit underneath the 'Will'. Perfectly possible. But back at the 'B', I first noticed that the left-hand side leg was a mirror of the 'f' in 'for' (last line). I then looked at what remained of the 'B' and - lo and behold - it was as good an 'M' as you could hope to find under the circumstances.

Lastly, I noticed that 'nothing' in the GSG was written exactly as it is written in the scrapbook. Just saying - it could have been that the hoaxer copied from the GSG, I realised. After that, I checked other male (for simplicity) Victorian names. I found around 800 and was struck by how none of them seemed to be cryptically represented in the GSG. How could that be? How could James Maybrick's six significant adults be somewhere in the GSG but apparently no other cryptic interpretations?

And then it occurred to me that people had tried for 130 years to decipher the strange message of the GSG with only utterly contrived results, and I wondered - not unreasonably I felt - whether they had been wasting their time because all along there was no meaning whatsoever in those lines.

So there you have it. If I'd looked and found nothing (in the same way I didn't find any of the other 800 male names), I'd have still been intrigued by Keith's whimsy with the 'Juwes' looking very much like 'James', but I couldn't ignore what else I saw, however much opprobrium I knew would inevitably come my way. That's why it's important never to give a sh*t. You have to put the possible out there to test how plausible it is.

Here's an interesting thing, in my list of Maybrick references posted yesterday was [41] Time Reveals All: The “Funny Little Games” of Jack the Ripper, SC Davies, 2019, [Self-Published – ISBN: 9781093937336]. I found this to be a very intriguing work. The James Maybrick as drawn in the scrapbook is a joker and a game-player. Davies has shown that many of the Ripper letters make sense when viewed through a James Maybrick prism. For example, he cites a postcard which contained the otherwise rather pointless line, separate from all others, 'I am 35 and still alive'. Davies pointed-out that 'I am 35' could easily be read as 'James'.

This is circumstantial evidence. I understand it is not hard evidence. But if the scrapbook was a hoax, then these coincidences should not have been happening. Someone writes to a provincial Liverpool newspaper claiming to genuinely be Jack the Ripper and leaves the otherwise irrelevant clue, 'Diego Laurenz' which then, conveniently translates as 'James' and a poor rhyme for 'Florence'.

You clearly think that considering these circumstances as circumstantial evidence makes an idiot of me. That's the bit I cannot afford to give a sh*t about. I hope the preceding helps to explain why.

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

Let me make it easy for you, Aethelwulf. I am that cruel so just be relieved it's mine not yours. Small mercies and all that.

I genuinely do not give a sh*t what people think.

You are a good sport Ike. Shy bairns get nowt and all that.

My thoughts on this haven't changed and can be summed up in four words: what the actual F***!

You must have ankylosaurus grade hide because I would have wilted under the embarrassment.

[rjpalmer]

but I am surprised someone as smart as you is happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes but someone like Mike Barrett.

Sorry to disappoint you, Old Man, but those of us who believe the diary is a modern fake were not fooled by Mike Barrett. We have always acknowledged that Barrett was a liar. Lying and tall tales are par for the course when dealing with hoaxers and scam artists.

In reality, had Barrett never confessed, and had the 5 January 1995 affidavit never surfaced, we would still believe that the diary is a modern fake and that the Barretts were up to their arm pits in it. Our beliefs are not and have never been dependent on Mike's confessions.

Sadly, many of the old players such as Nick Warren and Melvin Harris and Martin Fido are no longer with us, but if you asked some of the other skeptics who were around at the time, I am confident that they all suspected Barrett's involvement at some level long before he got drunk and started spilling the beans.


RP

[Iconoclast]

2000+ posts on the subject would suggest that you might give a smidgen.

Well, okay, maybe a little bit ...

[Harry D]

I genuinely do not give a sh*t what people think.

2000+ posts on the subject would suggest that you might give a smidgen.

[Iconoclast]

Why would the truth offend anyone? Unless your motives for not caring for the truth outweigh the motives for discovering it? Do they?

I do not profess to be Galileo or anything of the sort, but I am surprised someone as smart as you is happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes but someone like Mike Barrett. I had you down as being brighter than that. You must have the same whiff of BS drifting up your nostrils as I do with regards to Mike and Anne being the hoaxers.

Oh - touché, ero b! Nice one ...

The thing about Galileo or Darwin or the Hillsborough families or anyone else who stood up for what they believed was true in the face of significant opposition is not that these were significant beliefs (though they were) but that they held them despite the opposition thrown at them and the risks some of them faced, largely from self-interested idiots dressed as cardinals or constables or concerned citizens.

It's not the significance of what you believe, it's about having the gonads to stand up for what you believe despite the vitriol and consequences.

I should add here that I'm not including my interpretation of the GSG. It's no more obscure than all that have gone before it, but I really don't take it terribly seriously and couldn't give a sh*t if I turn out to be utterly wrong. I just like to understand the possible because that is often a prelude to the plausible.

[Iconoclast]

Don't worry your little cotton socks Ike, I'm not that cruel so I won't post it.

As for what you've written above - nasty case of the verbal trots, you get that seen to.

Let me make it easy for you, Aethelwulf. I am that cruel so just be relieved it's mine not yours. Small mercies and all that.

I genuinely do not give a sh*t what people think.

[erobitha]

You might be better off forgetting about courts of law, or 'the court of history' as Keith Skinner calls it, or the court of public opinion, and instead concentrate on being a modern-day Galileo, battling for an unpopular truth among a rabble of ignorant and prejudiced minds.

Why would the truth offend anyone? Unless your motives for not caring for the truth outweigh the motives for discovering it? Do they?

I do not profess to be Galileo or anything of the sort, but I am surprised someone as smart as you is happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes but someone like Mike Barrett. I had you down as being brighter than that. You must have the same whiff of BS drifting up your nostrils as I do with regards to Mike and Anne being the hoaxers.

[Aethelwulf]

Honestly, laugh away, I couldn't give a ****.

But - unlike the useless VAR at St. James' Park on Saturday - at least have the honesty to give the correct angle to your referees. The correct angle is to give my argument properly which is that:

1) If James Maybrick is ever proven to be Jack the Ripper, no-one will argue about my interpretation of the GSG (though I should care - it's not as though the previous ones have been anything other than truly farcical) - indeed, they'll think themselves arses for having missed it; and
2) In the meantime, it is an astonishing coincidence that there are cryptic versions of James' six significant adults within the GSG - and only those six. No Georges, no Roberts, no Henrys, etc.. There were around 800 common male names in the LVP, and the only ones which cryptically 'take shape' in the GSG are James (capital 'J', note), Thomas (capital 'T', note), and William (capital 'W', note). Edwin, and the two sets of initials are interesting. Orsam tried to make 'Arthur' out of 'are the' but that's not only two words on separate lines and non-contiguous (unlike 'William') and also only six letters not seven. Fail!
3) I'm not hanging on this interpretation, but it's definitely intriguing.

So make sure you make those points. I trust you'll all snygger [sic - the editor clearly doesn't allow any word which contains the last six letters, however innocently) and then scurry back to discussing whether it is was 'Juwes' or 'Jewes' and whether the double-negative was important, and completely failing to ask the obvious question: 'If the GSG is so obscure to decipher, maybe it was never meant to mean anything literal in the first place?'.

Fill yer boots. As I say, I couldn't give a ****.

Don't worry your little cotton socks Ike, I'm not that cruel so I won't post it.

As for what you've written above - nasty case of the verbal trots, you get that seen to.

[Iconoclast]

Genuinely laughed out loud when I read this.

Do us a favour Ike, post a screenshot of your Appendix II of Prick Soc or whatever it's called on one of the GSG threads so we can discuss. You keep saying how good privvy soc is, and you have provided the link, so I might just do it myself.

Honestly, laugh away, I couldn't give a ****.

But - unlike the useless VAR at St. James' Park on Saturday - at least have the honesty to give the correct angle to your referees. The correct angle is to give my argument properly which is that:

1) If James Maybrick is ever proven to be Jack the Ripper, no-one will argue about my interpretation of the GSG (though I should care - it's not as though the previous ones have been anything other than truly farcical) - indeed, they'll think themselves arses for having missed it; and
2) In the meantime, it is an astonishing coincidence that there are cryptic versions of James' six significant adults within the GSG - and only those six. No Georges, no Roberts, no Henrys, etc.. There were around 800 common male names in the LVP, and the only ones which cryptically 'take shape' in the GSG are James (capital 'J', note), Thomas (capital 'T', note), and William (capital 'W', note). Edwin, and the two sets of initials are interesting. Orsam tried to make 'Arthur' out of 'are the' but that's not only two words on separate lines and non-contiguous (unlike 'William') and also only six letters not seven. Fail!
3) I'm not hanging on this interpretation, but it's definitely intriguing.

So make sure you make those points. I trust you'll all snygger [sic - the editor clearly doesn't allow any word which contains the last six letters, however innocently) and then scurry back to discussing whether it is was 'Juwes' or 'Jewes' and whether the double-negative was important, and completely failing to ask the obvious question: 'If the GSG is so obscure to decipher, maybe it was never meant to mean anything literal in the first place?'.

Fill yer boots. As I say, I couldn't give a ****.

[Aethelwulf]

Maybrick is off the scale on evidence - both hard facts and circumstantial. The rest of the 200 candidates are just news you read on a bang-average day - **** all content but the best there is that day.

Ike

Genuinely laughed out loud when I read this.

Do us a favour Ike, post a screenshot of your Appendix II of Prick Soc or whatever it's called on one of the GSG threads so we can discuss. You keep saying how good privvy soc is, and you have provided the link, so I might just do it myself.

[erobitha]

And you know this...how?

There is no 'court of law' to decide such things and never will be, so all we have is the court of public opinion.

And your own poll suggests that your arguments have been far from persuasive.






27 of the respondents believe (correctly) that the diary is a modern fake, with the majority of them suspecting Bongo Barrett and friends.

Only 3 respondents believe it to be genuine, and since Ike admitted to being one of them, his arguments and your own have convinced exactly two people unless the other two be "Soothsayer" and "Tom Mitchell" or "Erobitha," which seems at least possible.

By contrast, the arguments set out by Melvin Harris, Nick Warren, Martin Fido, Kenneth Rendell, Maurice Chittenden, Joe Nickell, Dr. David Baxendale, David Barratt, and others seem to have been far more persuasive. A poll conducted some years ago was even more lopsided, if I recall.

You might be better off forgetting about courts of law, or 'the court of history' as Keith Skinner calls it, or the court of public opinion, and instead concentrate on being a modern-day Galileo, battling for an unpopular truth among a rabble of ignorant and prejudiced minds.

Good to see you back RJ.

The general consensus is wrong about a Mike Barrett hoax. You know that. I know that. Chris Jones knows it. Modern hoax possibly, but not a Barrett one.

All you do by reposting that poll is make my point for me. Most have assumed it to be a Barrett hoax. You and Orsam continue adding flames to that knowing deep down how limited Mike’s abilities as a writer was. So you adopt a hybrid of Mike/Anne hoax and the public on here at least have swallowed it. All those other experts did not conclusively prove anything, likewise it must be said on the other side. But the bloody thing exists!

I don’t know if Maybrick wrote it. He most likely didn’t, but who did and why? Surely, that must interest you too? I know you have an inquisitive mind RJ and I believe even if you are absolutely certain it is a modern hoax, a part of you wants to know the real truth.