Who were they?

[Scott Nelson]

It would still be one heck of a coincidence for Mike to be hearing at first hand about the Battlecrease floorboards when his Battlecrease diary was waiting in the wings for its cue. Worse still, any imagined conversation providing that 'cue' makes little sense, because Mike would inevitably be asked where the diary had been, and he could hardly say it was under the floorboards of someone's house until that morning, whether it was or not. Hearing any information about the wiring job would have been no use to him at all as a potential provenance for the diary, so I can see no place for it in anyone's theorising. If anything, it should have put Mike off making that call on that day, on learning where a fellow Saddle customer had been working that morning. Considering his angry denials a year later, at the very suggestion of a Battlecrease provenance, why would he have loaded the dice in favour of a disastrous provenance, by knowingly calling Doreen on floorboards day?

What if Mike's only objective on that March 9th day was to notify the literary agent because he then discovered who was supposed to have written the Diary? His confidence to make the call was knowing it may have come from the house, but he wasn't going to tell anyone else about a Battlecrease provenance. In other words, he talks to Eddie, who tells him he just come from Maybrick's old house where floorboards were being lifted. One of the men tells Eddie something was found years earlier. Mike assumes it was what Tony gave him. Mike first makes the connection, not Eddie. So the only ones to know of a possible provenance before the Diary is taken to Crew are Mike and Eddie.

[FISHY1118]

How bout someone show some evidence that Maybrick knew how to , was skilled in the art of removing a human kidney , matched any description by a witness , was in Whitechapel at the times of the murders . Other wise just like Lechmere and Druitt he should forever to be eliminated as a JTR suspect.

All this current discussion is just all speculation and nonsense total made up scenarios of what ifs and maybe,s by some to keep a boring thread going.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks, Abby. I always like to return the favour when I read an insulting post.

The difference in this case is that I don't claim to know what I don't know.

You popped in with a trite and insulting one-liner, claiming that 'everyone' knows who wrote the diary, so I thought my question was a relatively simple one:

Who wrote it, assuming 'everyone' includes you? Who held the pen?

If you don't know, you could have admitted it, instead of responding so defensively without actually saying anything.

I'm none the wiser as a result, so I'm still waiting to learn something new from one of your diary posts.

Love,

Caz
X

ok caz, the Barretts wrote the diary. there, you learn something new every day. And youve spent half your life denying the obvious and wasting your time with this silly hoax, which has nothing to do with the field of Ripperology.

[erobitha]

Hi Caroline, what if Mike (who may have already had the Diary in his possession before March 9th) didn't know the Diary was supposed to be written by Maybrick before someone told him, or he figured it out for himself on that March date?

Hi Scott. It still does not explain why Eddie was attempting to sell it himself or that he told another electrician that he found something important. Why would Mike go and visit Eddie threatening him with legal action? Why did Eddie go with Mike to meet with Robert Smith?

I’m struggling to make the above fit with your theory.

[erobitha]

ok caz, the Barretts wrote the diary. there, you learn something new every day. And youve spent half your life denying the obvious and wasting your time with this silly hoax, which has nothing to do with the field of Ripperology.

I say this on behalf of only myself.

If one day it is proven that there is more evidence to James Maybrick being the Ripper, I fully expect all those so vehemently against the idea to apologise to those who have had to put up with the animosity and personal attacks to have the same bravery in accepting their position was wrong. Publicly.

As for wasting time, how long have you been on this forum?

[John Wheat]

How bout someone show some evidence that Maybrick knew how to , was skilled in the art of removing a human kidney , matched any description by a witness , was in Whitechapel at the times of the murders . Other wise just like Lechmere and Druitt he should forever to be eliminated as a JTR suspect.

All this current discussion is just all speculation and nonsense total made up scenarios of what ifs and maybe,s by some to keep a boring thread going.

Totally agree with what you're saying Fishy.

[John Wheat]

I've been on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper for well over fifteen years (first reading, then posting) and I have never once even been tempted to 'Ignore' a poster but now I finally have.

And what a relief it already is - it's 'ridiculous' how liberating it feels!

Ike

I assume it's me you are ignoring. And that's because there is no credible evidence Maybrick was the Ripper. Seems Caz is ignoring me too as she has no evidence the diary was written by anyone other than the Barretts. It's embarrassing really.

[John Wheat]

I say this on behalf of only myself.

If one day it is proven that there is more evidence to James Maybrick being the Ripper, I fully expect all those so vehemently against the idea to apologise to those who have had to put up with the animosity and personal attacks to have the same bravery in accepting their position was wrong. Publicly.

As for wasting time, how long have you been on this forum?

That won't happen. There is no evidence Maybrick was the Ripper apart from a poorly written phoney diary and a watch with fake carvings.

[FISHY1118]

Totally agree with what you're saying Fishy.

[StevenOwl]

It is true. You keep going on about the diary not being written by the Barretts but you never provide any evidence that it was written by someone else. So basically put up or shut up.

Ridiculous post. There is no evidence that a Barrett wrote the Diary.

[Iconoclast]

I say this on behalf of only myself.

If one day it is proven that there is more evidence to James Maybrick being the Ripper, I fully expect all those so vehemently against the idea to apologise to those who have had to put up with the animosity and personal attacks to have the same bravery in accepting their position was wrong. Publicly.

As for wasting time, how long have you been on this forum?

Hear hear, ero b.

Personally, I think there is an inherent spinelessness in just constantly repeating the same short critical (and insulting) mantras time after time despite the attempts of people like you and me (and Caz, and Owly, and some others) to at least present the case for the alternative view rather than simply accepting the easy way out and claiming the facts are too obvious to dig any deeper.

One of my biggest gripes with these people is that they have read nothing about the case against Maybrick bar the baying nonsense of the donkeys who do not want to understand the nuances of evidence which point directly at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. If you do not attempt the intellectual rigour of investigation (not researching, just reading) then you have no right (barring wind-up rights) to come on here and casually dismiss the well-intentioned efforts of certain posters to present the evidence and have it properly assessed.

The indolence, the vanity, and the outright ignorance of critics of the Maybrick case is highlighted every time they respond with their facile arguments. I'm not talking Orsam here and I'm not even talking Palmer (though his twisted conclusions are frequently bridges too far for me in trying to make a point where a point is not there to be made). I'm talking Wheat, Fish, Normal, way back when Flynn, Omlor - the I've-Made-My-Mind-Up-and-I'm-Therefore-Not-Listening gang who operate on the assumption of being correct without grounds to believe it to be so.

Fish is a good example. His recent aphoristic outburst against Maybrick's candidacy consisted of:

1) Witness statements did not identify Maybrick (an argument utterly bereft of depth given what we know about witness testimony coupled with the blindingly obvious fact that we can’t be certain that anyone definitely saw Jack the Ripper);
2) Maybrick's lack of surgical prowess (as if it were an established fact that Jack had surgical expertise) where in truth a random grab at the viscera could have produced a range of organs to cut away (Jack left no calling card to say "I definitely intended to get a kidney, by the way"); and
3) The lack of evidence that Maybrick was in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Terror (a failing of a huge number of candidates) despite there being every good reason for Maybrick to be there or thereabouts (a brother who lived in London, a business partner in the Minories, and even nothing more complex than a complete lack of restraints stopping him from being in London and venturing to Whitechapel or simply being solely in Whitechapel, London).

Their inability to properly address the thorny issues is now legendary. Not a single one of them can articulate a good reason why Florence Maybrick’s initials should be on Mary Kelly’s wall having had our attention drawn there by a clear prediction in the Victorian scrapbook. Bloody awkward, that one, old chap – let’s just say there’s nothing there or it’s wishful thinking or it’s blood splatters or how come no-one saw them in the half-light of Kelly’s room (the weather was particularly dreich on November 9 and 10 in Whitechapel but obviously they wouldn’t arse themselves to check that); or – worse – just say ‘Ridiculous post’ and then congratulate themselves with Smileys and digital fist bumps whilst the rest of us are reminded about solitary vices. And their disgraceful disregard for the evidence of the Maybrick signature in the back of the gold watch - a smoking gun which has never been shown to be modern but it's not a smoking gun these indolents want, it is simply a bucket of water they frantically fill to try to put it out because that's the easy, lazy way.

Nope, ero b, if there ever is a day where the case against Maybrick is so watertight that even the naysayers can no longer ‘nay’ it away, then there will be no apologies and no contrition. Just a yawning silence from their deregistered accounts whilst they scuttle off looking for other wind-up opportunities on an internet which seems to be powerless to restrain them …

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous post. There is no evidence that a Barrett wrote the Diary.

The Barretts are the obvious and logical writers of the diary. If this is not your stand point then please provide credible evidence of an alternative writer.

[John Wheat]

Hear hear, ero b.

Personally, I think there is an inherent spinelessness in just constantly repeating the same short critical (and insulting) mantras time after time despite the attempts of people like you and me (and Caz, and Owly, and some others) to at least present the case for the alternative view rather than simply accepting the easy way out and claiming the facts are too obvious to dig any deeper.

One of my biggest gripes with these people is that they have read nothing about the case against Maybrick bar the baying nonsense of the donkeys who do not want to understand the nuances of evidence which point directly at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. If you do not attempt the intellectual rigour of investigation (not researching, just reading) then you have no right (barring wind-up rights) to come on here and casually dismiss the well-intentioned efforts of certain posters to present the evidence and have it properly assessed.

The indolence, the vanity, and the outright ignorance of critics of the Maybrick case is highlighted every time they respond with their facile arguments. I'm not talking Orsam here and I'm not even talking Palmer (though his twisted conclusions are frequently bridges too far for me in trying to make a point where a point is not there to be made). I'm talking Wheat, Fish, Normal, way back when Flynn, Omlor - the I've-Made-My-Mind-Up-and-I'm-Therefore-Not-Listening gang who operate on the assumption of being correct without grounds to believe it to be so.

Fish is a good example. His recent aphoristic outburst against Maybrick's candidacy consisted of:

1) Witness statements did not identify Maybrick (an argument utterly bereft of depth given what we know about witness testimony coupled with the blindingly obvious fact that we can’t be certain that anyone definitely saw Jack the Ripper);
2) Maybrick's lack of surgical prowess (as if it were an established fact that Jack had surgical expertise) where in truth a random grab at the viscera could have produced a range of organs to cut away (Jack left no calling card to say "I definitely intended to get a kidney, by the way"); and
3) The lack of evidence that Maybrick was in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Terror (a failing of a huge number of candidates) despite there being every good reason for Maybrick to be there or thereabouts (a brother who lived in London, a business partner in the Minories, and even nothing more complex than a complete lack of restraints stopping him from being in London and venturing to Whitechapel or simply being solely in Whitechapel, London).

Their inability to properly address the thorny issues is now legendary. Not a single one of them can articulate a good reason why Florence Maybrick’s initials should be on Mary Kelly’s wall having had our attention drawn there by a clear prediction in the Victorian scrapbook. Bloody awkward, that one, old chap – let’s just say there’s nothing there or it’s wishful thinking or it’s blood splatters or how come no-one saw them in the half-light of Kelly’s room (the weather was particularly dreich on November 9 and 10 in Whitechapel but obviously they wouldn’t arse themselves to check that); or – worse – just say ‘Ridiculous post’ and then congratulate themselves with Smileys and digital fist bumps whilst the rest of us are reminded about solitary vices. And their disgraceful disregard for the evidence of the Maybrick signature in the back of the gold watch - a smoking gun which has never been shown to be modern but it's not a smoking gun these indolents want, it is simply a bucket of water they frantically fill to try to put it out because that's the easy, lazy way.

Nope, ero b, if there ever is a day where the case against Maybrick is so watertight that even the naysayers can no longer ‘nay’ it away, then there will be no apologies and no contrition. Just a yawning silence from their deregistered accounts whilst they scuttle off looking for other wind-up opportunities on an internet which seems to be powerless to restrain them …

What a load of toss.

[Iconoclast]

By the way, and apropos of genuinely nothing whatsoever, I wish I'd discovered the 'Ignore' facility earlier - it's ridiculous how wonderful it is not to be assailed by vacuous naysaying!

[FISHY1118]

Hear hear, ero b.

Personally, I think there is an inherent spinelessness in just constantly repeating the same short critical (and insulting) mantras time after time despite the attempts of people like you and me (and Caz, and Owly, and some others) to at least present the case for the alternative view rather than simply accepting the easy way out and claiming the facts are too obvious to dig any deeper.

One of my biggest gripes with these people is that they have read nothing about the case against Maybrick bar the baying nonsense of the donkeys who do not want to understand the nuances of evidence which point directly at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. If you do not attempt the intellectual rigour of investigation (not researching, just reading) then you have no right (barring wind-up rights) to come on here and casually dismiss the well-intentioned efforts of certain posters to present the evidence and have it properly assessed.

The indolence, the vanity, and the outright ignorance of critics of the Maybrick case is highlighted every time they respond with their facile arguments. I'm not talking Orsam here and I'm not even talking Palmer (though his twisted conclusions are frequently bridges too far for me in trying to make a point where a point is not there to be made). I'm talking Wheat, Fish, Normal, way back when Flynn, Omlor - the I've-Made-My-Mind-Up-and-I'm-Therefore-Not-Listening gang who operate on the assumption of being correct without grounds to believe it to be so.

Fish is a good example. His recent aphoristic outburst against Maybrick's candidacy consisted of:

1) Witness statements did not identify Maybrick (an argument utterly bereft of depth given what we know about witness testimony coupled with the blindingly obvious fact that we can’t be certain that anyone definitely saw Jack the Ripper);
2) Maybrick's lack of surgical prowess (as if it were an established fact that Jack had surgical expertise) where in truth a random grab at the viscera could have produced a range of organs to cut away (Jack left no calling card to say "I definitely intended to get a kidney, by the way"); and
3) The lack of evidence that Maybrick was in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Terror (a failing of a huge number of candidates) despite there being every good reason for Maybrick to be there or thereabouts (a brother who lived in London, a business partner in the Minories, and even nothing more complex than a complete lack of restraints stopping him from being in London and venturing to Whitechapel or simply being solely in Whitechapel, London).

Their inability to properly address the thorny issues is now legendary. Not a single one of them can articulate a good reason why Florence Maybrick’s initials should be on Mary Kelly’s wall having had our attention drawn there by a clear prediction in the Victorian scrapbook. Bloody awkward, that one, old chap – let’s just say there’s nothing there or it’s wishful thinking or it’s blood splatters or how come no-one saw them in the half-light of Kelly’s room (the weather was particularly dreich on November 9 and 10 in Whitechapel but obviously they wouldn’t arse themselves to check that); or – worse – just say ‘Ridiculous post’ and then congratulate themselves with Smileys and digital fist bumps whilst the rest of us are reminded about solitary vices. And their disgraceful disregard for the evidence of the Maybrick signature in the back of the gold watch - a smoking gun which has never been shown to be modern but it's not a smoking gun these indolents want, it is simply a bucket of water they frantically fill to try to put it out because that's the easy, lazy way.

Nope, ero b, if there ever is a day where the case against Maybrick is so watertight that even the naysayers can no longer ‘nay’ it away, then there will be no apologies and no contrition. Just a yawning silence from their deregistered accounts whilst they scuttle off looking for other wind-up opportunities on an internet which seems to be powerless to restrain them …

2) Maybrick's lack of surgical prowess (as if it were an established fact that Jack had surgical expertise)



Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - ''He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them''.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? -'' It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane''.

Its good to see Ike that you just ignored the medical opinion of a man who not only witnessed the body some 20 mins after her death ,who also later performed the post mortem on her .!!!!!

And yet here we are some 134 years later posting stupid comments about a professional Doctors medical knowledge which by the way he gave under oath!!!. Its a shame and and insult to the memory of Dr Frederick Brown if you ask me. Just so you can brag about how youve somehow found JTR, because you foolishly accept the a writings of a clumsy attempted dubious dairy and some child like scribble of initials on the back of a watch .
.

The plug has been well and truely pulled on Maybricks watertight bathtub Longgggggg ago .