Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

You are completely out of order.

You are accusing me of being one of the 'bandwagoners [who] leap onto any trendy new style' because I dare to say that the Dear Boss letter was not written by the Whitechapel Murderer?!

You claim that I 'just toady to the fashionistas masturbating in the corner.'

What kind of person would make such offensive remarks?

This kind.

The one whose mission in life is to defend the Maybrick scrapbook (and the Maybrick watch) against all stupidities, ill-thought out 'arguments', and fashionable misunderstandings.

[erobitha]

He just had to read the Dundee Evening Telegraph from November 17, 1888. I see that now.

And they called this a 'shoddy' hoax!

To be fair to PI Ike, there was also the Manchester Times and the New York Herald that mentioned an organ missing.

Of course when the hoaxer was doing his research he didn’t have the internet and there were no books yet that mentioned no heart. I believe actually Keith Skinner and Paul Begg had published Bond’s report in 1991, maybe that was the inspiration?

[Iconoclast]

To be fair to PI Ike, there was also the Manchester Times and the New York Herald that mentioned an organ missing.

Of course when the hoaxer was doing his research he didn’t have the internet and there were no books yet that mentioned no heart. I believe actually Keith Skinner and Paul Begg had published Bond’s report in 1991, maybe that was the inspiration?

That Victorian scrapbook hoaxer certainly sounds like a 'shoddy' worker to me, ero b!

[Iconoclast]

I should clarify here for the benefit of those who just 'pop by' occasionally that one of the central tenets of anti-Maybrickianism was always that the scrapbook was a 'shoddy' hoax. Like the ever-present 'enterprising' journalist (never knowingly undersold, that one), one could not refer to the scrapbook without the clinging epithet 'shoddy'. It was de rigueur. And - hey - possibly just one of those stereotypes and cliches that are repeated so often that people don't even realise they are falling for it!

[John Wheat]

I should clarify here for the benefit of those who just 'pop by' occasionally that one of the central tenets of anti-Maybrickianism was always that the scrapbook was a 'shoddy' hoax. Like the ever-present 'enterprising' journalist (never knowingly undersold, that one), one could not refer to the scrapbook without the clinging epithet 'shoddy'. It was de rigueur. And - hey - possibly just one of those stereotypes and cliches that are repeated so often that people don't even realise they are falling for it!

What a load of toss. It is a shoddy poorly written hoax.

[FISHY1118]

Good God, man, Fishy - here's me thinking that Dr. Brown had said that the incisions had shown clear evidence of extensive surgical knowledge and experience (to operate that quickly in the dark and what have you)!

I see now that actually we have one medic suggesting that Jack needed 'a good deal of knowledge'. Not quite the same, I think!

Three points we need you to clarify please:

1) What would Dr. Brown have said if he had been asked, "Do you mean that the killer would have needed 'a good deal of knowledge' if they were specifically targeting the kidney?".
2) Why did other medics disagree with Dr. Brown regarding the degree of 'knowledge' (skills and experience) Jack needed? Was it because he got lucky with the kidney and Dr. Brown therefore assumed he was aiming for it whilst completely arsing-up all the other mutiliations during his short criminal career?
3) Can we all go back to supporting our favourite candidates now that we've realised we aren't necessarily looking for a highly experienced surgeon?

Good God Ike just stick to what Dr Brown said , stop making up scenarios and narratives for Pete's sake .

Its total madness the length this topic has gone on based on nothing more than speculation ,guesswork , and conjecture

All About a fake diary and scribble on a watch .

There is no evidence Maybrick had any skill or knowledge in human organ removal as Dr Frederick Brown suggest in his inquest Statement
A man mind you who examined the body 20 mins after her murder and preformed the post mortem

134 year later some people seem to think this doesn't count, .

Its certainly the nail in the Maybrick coffin.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What a load of toss. It is a shoddy poorly written hoax.

It certainly is.

Here is another loan from the Dear Boss letter, except that he uses it incorrectly:

I am down on whores (Dear Boss letter)

... if I am to down a whore ('Maybrick' diary)


Here is a question for those who believe that the murderer wrote the Dear Boss letter:

Why did he write, 'The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.'

and then not do it?

[FISHY1118]

What a load of toss. It is a shoddy poorly written hoax.

And hence why the world doesn't believe it.

Only on this site will people believe Maybrick was jack the ripper.

If it indeed was the real deal, it would be plastered on every news media site all over the world , but its not , what does that say about the fake diary and watch

Just this , there both FAKKKKKKEEEEE

[Iconoclast]

It certainly is.
Here is another loan from the Dear Boss letter, except that he uses it incorrectly:
I am down on whores (Dear Boss letter)
... if I am to down a whore ('Maybrick' diary)
Here is a question for those who believe that the murderer wrote the Dear Boss letter:
Why did he write, 'The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.'
and then not do it?

Erm. This is such a brilliantly clever question. I'm totally stumped.

Oh - hold on, hold on, hold on - what if (and I'm just spitballing here) he just didn't do it? What if he said he would do it and then he just plain didn't do it?

Is that impossible? Is that ridiculous? Does his threat in the 'Dear Boss' letter become some sort of measure of his claim to be the killer? Would the police have used his failure to deliver on his promise as categorical evidence that it was not he who had written the letter?

Do you sense, even vaguely, that your question is not quite as brilliant and clever as we all may have initially thought?

[c.d.]

"What a load of toss" - Can someone help me out here. As a Yank, I am having trouble understanding this expression. I know what a tosser is. Great expression by the way. And I assume that load of toss means it is nonsense, garbage, b.s. etc. But how does that derive from the expression itself?

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Erm. This is such a brilliantly clever question. I'm totally stumped.

Oh - hold on, hold on, hold on - what if (and I'm just spitballing here) he just didn't do it? What if he said he would do it and then he just plain didn't do it?

Is that impossible? Is that ridiculous? Does his threat in the 'Dear Boss' letter become some sort of measure of his claim to be the killer? Would the police have used his failure to deliver on his promise as categorical evidence that it was not he who had written the letter?

Do you sense, even vaguely, that your question is not quite as brilliant and clever as we all may have initially thought?

I may or may not be brilliant and the questions I pose may or may not be brilliant, but that is not the point.

The point is that you cannot come up with an answer that makes sense.

You have suggested that the murderer originally put Kelly's breasts on the table, then moved them, and then forgot he had moved them.

Now you are suggesting that he threatened to cut off his next victim's ears and send them to the police, but then decided not to do either thing.

You do not explain why.

Perhaps you think he forgot again.

Readers will note the list of adjectives you have applied to my comments: that what I write is 'ridiculous', that I have 'restricted vision', that I cannot think for myself, that I 'toady' to people who are masturbating, that I write 'stupidities', and that my thinking is 'dumb'.

They may then note that you claim that there is in the diary inside knowledge which, you argue, suggests that it was written by the murderer, but that when the writer of the diary or letter writes something that suggests the opposite, you argue that he may have forgotten what he did or changed his mind.

That is not logical.

That is an example of having it both ways.

And it is because you are so demonstrably wrong on this point that you resort so readily to derision and the use of personal insult.

[rjpalmer]

Ike, Old Man,

I owe you an apology. I assumed (wrongly) that your 'little maroon doppelganger' theory was so dismally daft that no one could possibly take it seriously, but I see that someone has upvoted your explanation, so clearly you have convinced one poor bugger. One down, several million to go!

You still haven't explained why Barrett's doppelganger couldn't have been Zane Gray's Riders of the Purple Sage. If the description of the stolen goods was so incredibly vague that a little maroon memo book would have sufficed, he could have used nearly anything, including a biscuit tin full of Playboy magazines.

But mainly, you describe something that would never happen in the real world. It's the stuff of fiction. Bad fiction.

No one, on receiving stolen goods--let's say a stolen orange bicycle---goes out and immediately obtains another bicycle in case the cops come knocking. So, they can say, "yes officer, I received a stolen bicycle, but I swear it was THIS stolen bicycle and not THAT stolen bicycle. At least lock me up for obtaining the correct stolen bicycle!"

Good Gawd man, get a grip. It's insanity.

Imagine the scene. Barrett brings The Diary of Jack the Ripper to London. Rumors start to circulate that Barrett bought The Diary of Jack the Ripper in a pub in Fountains Road.

An investigation ensues.

Barrett, having planned for this eventuality, runs forward, "Fair cop, gov. I admit it. I did receive stolen goods from Eddie Lyons in the pub in Fountains Road! I confess! Lock me up! But I swear on the life of my only daughter that it was this tiny, blank maroon memo book, and not The Diary of Jack the Ripper, describing Battlecrease, that I just brought to London only a few weeks after Dodd had work done on his house. Take me away. Send me down. But for the love of truth, it was not The Diary of Jack the Ripper, which I bought off of Eddie Lyons, it was a blank maroon memo book, because God knows I wanted one! I jumped at the offer!"

Satisfied, Bonsey and Paul Dodd shrug their shoulders and leave, having accepted this ridiculous explanation. Nor do they ask why Barrett was so desperate for a blank maroon memo book that he paid Eddie Lyons (according to his own explanation) twenty-five quid for it, risking a visit back to one of Her Majesty's finer institutions.

In a word, Ike: no. It's bonkers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Can someone explain why a document supposedly providing the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer should first see the light of day more than a century after the death of its author?

It is not as though the diary had been buried by its author and then discovered a century later.

Why did it take a century to become newsworthy?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Can someone explain why a document supposedly providing the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer should first see the light of day more than a century after the death of its author?

It is not as though the diary had been buried by its author and then discovered a century later.

Why did it take a century to become newsworthy?

Hi PI,

Working from the assumption that the diary is genuine, then it had in essence been buried by it's author, under the floorboards where it wasn't found during previous rewiring work only seeing the light of day in 1992 when some electricians found it.

Or, it was knocking around in the 60's from which time knowledge of it's existence was limited to Anne Graham and her father, until she passed it on to Deveraux. So it couldn't be newsworthy as it's existence was being kept quiet.

Working from the assumption that the diary is genuine...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

Working from the assumption that the diary is genuine, then it had in essence been buried by it's author, under the floorboards where it wasn't found during previous rewiring work only seeing the light of day in 1992 when some electricians found it.

Or, it was knocking around in the 60's from which time knowledge of it's existence was limited to Anne Graham and her father, until she passed it on to Deveraux. So it couldn't be newsworthy as it's existence was being kept quiet.

Working from the assumption that the diary is genuine...

The diary is not genuine and here is the proof:



'Perhaps I should top myself and save the hangman a job.'

(Maybrick Diary)




The sense of topping oneself first showed up in the mid-20th century, according to the [Oxford English] dictionary’s citations. Here are some suicidal examples:

“He also took my tie and belt so that I could not top myself” (from Frank Norman’s Bang to Rights: An Account of Prison Life, 1958).


https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2...Life%2C%201958).