Who were they?

[Aethelwulf]

Again, not a fact. There is evidence James Maybrickw could have been in London in September 1888. Refer to Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office in August 1889.

"I saw Mr Maybrick at his office and dined at his house whenever I had to run down to Liverpool. Last year in June Mr and Mrs M. both came up from Liverpool and were our guests, and my wife and I at the time commented on the evidently unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remember that when again Mr. M visited us a few months later he complained of his eyes watering and giving him trouble and I chaffed him about getting old. I did not see him this year as I have been travelling for 9 months in the East and only returned a few months ago, finding my poor friend dead.”

What do you constitute a "few months"? Also, were there some witness reports suggesting the suspect might have issues with their eyes?

Can you name some candidates who were proven to be in London on the exact dates of the murders?

As circumstantial evidence goes this is pretty weak. I don't know why anyone would even consider it with any seriousness TBH.

[erobitha]

As circumstantial evidence goes this is pretty weak. I don't know why anyone would even consider it with any seriousness TBH.

You know what they say about opinions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Again, not a fact. There is evidence James Maybrickw could have been in London in September 1888.


I wrote:

'... there is no evidence that Maybrick was even in London on the nights in question...'

I suggest that my statement is correct and yours,

'There is evidence James Maybrickw (sic) could have been in London in September 1888...'

does not invalidate it.



Refer to Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office in August 1889.


"I saw Mr Maybrick at his office and dined at his house whenever I had to run down to Liverpool. Last year in June Mr and Mrs M. both came up from Liverpool and were our guests, and my wife and I at the time commented on the evidently unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remember that when again Mr. M visited us a few months later he complained of his eyes watering and giving him trouble and I chaffed him about getting old. I did not see him this year as I have been travelling for 9 months in the East and only returned a few months ago, finding my poor friend dead.”

What do you constitute a "few months"?


I agree that the content of Witt's letter is not inconsistent with Maybrick's having been in London in September 1888, but his letter indicates that Maybrick did not stay in London for long.

Where is the evidence that Maybrick rented a room in Middlesex Street and stayed on in East London for the next ten weeks?



Also, were there some witness reports suggesting the suspect might have issues with their eyes?


I do not recall seeing any.



Can you name some candidates who were proven to be in London on the exact dates of the murders?


I cannot and I do not consider any 'candidate' to be a credible suspect, either.

[Lewis C]

There's more of a need to prove that someone was in London on the dates of the murders if the person didn't live in London than if they did. A working class person who lived in Whitechapel maybe can't be proven to have been there on the dates of the murders, but that's by far the most likely scenario.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There's more of a need to prove that someone was in London on the dates of the murders if the person didn't live in London than if they did. A working class person who lived in Whitechapel maybe can't be proven to have been there on the dates of the murders, but that's by far the most likely scenario.

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?

I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.

That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.

I think he came from abroad.

I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

[Iconoclast]

There's more of a need to prove that someone was in London on the dates of the murders if the person didn't live in London than if they did. A working class person who lived in Whitechapel maybe can't be proven to have been there on the dates of the murders, but that's by far the most likely scenario.

It is the classic difference between that which is possible and that which is plausible. Is it possible that Maybrick was in London at the time of each murder? Well, absolutely, yes, though possibility is the weaker of the two arguments. Is it plausible that he was in London at the time of each murder? It absolutely is. He was self-employed so he answered to no employer about his movements. He had his brother as a reason to be in London. He had Gustavus Witt (we discovered after the scrapbook came to light) to visit in the Minories.

Does that make him a credible suspect? Not really - it takes more than plausibly being in Whitechapel to be considered a serious candidate. But does the lack of any evidence that he was there necessarily rule him out of contention? Of course it doesn't and it shouldn't be a measure of whether he (or anyone else) was Jack. We don't have the records to answer the question, but that doesn't therefore mean that the answer is an immediate 'No'.

[Iconoclast]

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?
I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.
That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.
I think he came from abroad.
I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

Well you can't have it both ways here.

What is your evidence for these claims?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well you can't have it both ways here.

What is your evidence for these claims?

I do not know what you mean by 'claims'.

I have my opinion, based on circumstantial and identification evidence, and on an analysis of the well-known graffito.

I have never claimed that any person identifiable by name committed the Whitechapel murders.


As I wrote in a comment on another thread a few minutes ago, the murderer must have lived within easy reach of Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, and Goulston Street.

That means he must have lived in Spitalfields.

[FISHY1118]

People seem to be taking this thread too seriously especially when it's the joke part of Ripperology.

Totally agree Wheat .

Not really worth getting worked up over.
After all, only on here by a tiny select few is the Maybrick dairy and watch seen as somehow proof that James Maybrick was indeed jack the ripper.

In the real world most people would laugh at such a suggestion as nothing more than the good old fashion fairytale its turn out to be .

[Pcdunn]

Thank you, A.B. that really helps clear it up. Well, sort of.

I hope you don't consider me a tosser for simply asking the question and I appreciate that you took the time to respond as opposed to not giving a toss and that you didn't respond with lot of toss.

Now "toss pot"..."toss pot"....let's see....

c.d.

I think a "tosser" is just a British version of an American "jerk." Don't know about the pot, though.

[c.d.]

I think a "tosser" is just a British version of an American "jerk." Don't know about the pot, though.

I looked up toss pot. As far as I can tell, it means jerk or stupid person. The traditional meaning had more to do with being a heavy drinker.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?

I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.

That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.

I think he came from abroad.

I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

I guess when I say "Whitechapel", I really mean "Whitechapel or Spitalfields". I agree that there's a good chance that he lived in Spitalfields. That seems to be the direction that he was headed after the Eddowes murder.

What I meant to say in my 2nd sentence is that if someone lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, that doesn't prove that they were in that area at the times that the murders occurred, but it's much more likely that they were than that they weren't.

[erobitha]

I guess when I say "Whitechapel", I really mean "Whitechapel or Spitalfields". I agree that there's a good chance that he lived in Spitalfields. That seems to be the direction that he was headed after the Eddowes murder.

What I meant to say in my 2nd sentence is that if someone lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, that doesn't prove that they were in that area at the times that the murders occurred, but it's much more likely that they were than that they weren't.

I much prefer language around “it is less probable” than outright “impossible” when making any claims of absolute evidence. It”s my biggest bug bear in this debate.

Unless there is proof a candidate was not in London or even the country on the specific murder dates we cannot rule them being there as impossible.

It less probable the murderer was Walter Sickert, MJD or Tumblety as it is highly possible that all of them were someone else on at least one date of the murders. Not impossible.

It could be argued it is more probable the murderer was a local than someone who came into the area. Not impossible.

In the absence of absolutes probability is the best we have.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I looked up toss pot. As far as I can tell, it means jerk or stupid person. The traditional meaning had more to do with being a heavy drinker.

c.d.

Hi CD,

Yeah, that's exactly what it means. For a Scottish variation, you can use "Bam Pot". For context, here's it in an everyday sentence:

"That's a load of dingies y' wee bam pot, y' ken hee haw"

[Iconoclast]

I do not know what you mean by 'claims'.
I have my opinion, based on circumstantial and identification evidence, and on an analysis of the well-known graffito.
I have never claimed that any person identifiable by name committed the Whitechapel murders.
As I wrote in a comment on another thread a few minutes ago, the murderer must have lived within easy reach of Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, and Goulston Street.
That means he must have lived in Spitalfields.

I find it unusual to see 'opinion' separated from 'claim' because the one frequently leads to the other (in your case, the evidence has caused you to form an opinion which you have then expressed in what looks for all the world like a claim).

Now, all I was asking you to do is to elaborate on the specific evidence that led you to form such an opinion and thereby - albeit apparently unknowingly on your part - make a claim about where the murderer 'must have' lived. Your evidence led you to say 'must have' and that's such a strong claim to make (whether you recognise it or not as a claim). It feels rather self-predicting: you have homed-in on three locations which were close within the Spitalfields orbit but completely ignored Durward Street, Henriques Street, and Mitre Square which were well outside of the Spitalfields orbit (in the case of the former two).

I'm just trying to understand why you would be so adamant about where the murderer 'must have' lived? As it happens, your opinion very much suits my argument as it includes Middlesex Street at its south-west edge, but it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me to 1) restrict your known loci and 2) be so categorical that you feel you can state that something 'must have' been true. Apologies for rubbish screenshot - best I could do in the moment.