James, the Dog Killer?

[MayBea]

Am I the only one underwhelmed by this? We have an allegation against Maybrick which was investigated and found untrue...

Assuming it is true. There does appear to be a reason behind the killings. This is not an example of a man getting his kicks from torturing and murdering animals.

Only the local newspaper concluded it was untrue. The reporter based his conclusion on the distance between the residences, which was considerable, and the fact there were other dogs in between, thereby eliminating the motive but, in my opinion, not the possibility of guilt.

[MayBea]

A circumstantial case is being built here. I agree it's only circumstantial.

But does it make sense to question a circumstantial argument by saying it's circumstantial?

Then there is the problem of having to follow the logic of someone else's theory of how lucky a hoaxer can be and what makes something so circumstantial it's irrelevant and should be chalked up to luck and inevitability.

http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.c...er-murder.html

My conclusion is the 'help' that incidents of violence provides a 'candidacy' depends on whom or what the violence is directed toward.

[GUT]

G'day Pat

My thoughts are that Mrs Maybrick framed James in revenge for being blamed for his death.

I once had the same thought, but where I became stuck was

"When did she frame him?"

[caz]

My understanding of Old Hoax theory, circa 1889, is that the Old Hoaxer knew James or was familiar with the Maybrick household, and had access to Battlecrease if the Diary came out of there decades later.

Hi MayBea,

There is no 'official' old hoax theory, nor indeed just the one. We are all free to speculate how an older hoax (or older document if you prefer) might work, in terms of possible dates (ranging from c.1889 to c.1989); motivation; inside knowledge and so on. All we can really say is that someone had the idea to compose the thoughts of James Maybrick/Jack the Ripper - someone who was arguably familiar enough with both subjects to believe they could make a decent fist of it.

The modern hoax theory is more limited - chiefly by the fact that Mike Barrett would have to be knowingly involved in some capacity, despite everything pointing to him not knowing any more than the rest of us who wrote it, when or why.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Am I the only one underwhelmed by this?

Cats, dogs, kittens, and puppies were killed daily by thousands of individuals who did not give the act a second thought. And neither did society condemn them for it. I suspect the only reason this story made the newspaper at the time was the offence against private property(the dogs) not because of its callousness or horror at the act.

To Jason

I take you're points about cats, dogs etc were killed regularly and know one gave it a second thought. However had Maybrick butchered one of these animals that would strengthen what I consider to be a weak case against Maybrick. But of course all he did was allegedly poison a couple of dogs which doesn't really strengthen the case against him very much at all.

Cheers John

[MayBea]

Hi, John (no relation to John "Wheaties", I hope!).

What do you think of Victimology vs Methodology? It seems most here think a murdering husband makes a good suspect, poisoning and strangling being acceptable M.O.s.


Methodology or M.O. doesn't sway me so much as Victimology. So it doesn't concern me that the dogs were poisoned, because the situation may have offered no alternative.

It doesn't say what kind of dog it was, so I don't know if a killer, no matter how brazen and brutal, would approach it to kill it with a hand weapon.

[John Wheat]

What do you think of Victimology vs Methodology? It seems most here think a murdering husband makes a good suspect, poisoning and strangling being acceptable M.O.s.

To Maybea

I think a murdering husband who uses a similar methodology to Jack makes a good suspect for example strangling or using a knife. Serial Killers rarely change there M.O. drastically so I don't see poisoning as anything to make someone a good suspect.

Cheers John

[MayBea]

To John and all,

The online percentages of animal abuse among serial killers range from 36 to 90 percent. I give the Ripper a 50-50 chance of being an animal abuser.

The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example.

Wouldn't the Ripper being a killer-husband be virtually unprecedented?

[John Wheat]

The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example. Wouldn't the Ripper being a killer-husband be virtually unprecedented?

To Maybea

What's wrong with Christie as an example as a serial killer who killed his wife? Plus what about Chapman he poisoned three of his wives? So I wouldn't say the Ripper being a killer husband is unprecedented.

Cheers John

[GUT]

G'day MayBea

The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example.

Frederick Deeming too.

[pinkmoon]

Hitler poisoned his dog Blondie just before he shot himself and we all know what a nice fellow he was.

[Sam Flynn]

The modern hoax theory is more limited - chiefly by the fact that Mike Barrett would have to be knowingly involved in some capacity

Is Barrett's complicity a necessary condition for a modern hoax, Caz? I don't think it is. He could have been duped by a modern hoax as much as by an old one.

[pinkmoon]

Is Barrett's complicity a necessary condition for a modern hoax, Caz? I don't think it is. He could have been duped by a modern hoax as much as by an old one.

Hi Sam,nobody in their right mind would involve Mr Barrett in anything let alone a complicated hoax trust me

[MayBea]

Frederick Deeming too.

Deeming, like Chapman, only counts if you broaden the definition.

If one type of killer, such as domestic, is to be included as a good suspect, there should be others like them that fit without extending the definition of serial killer to include non-stranger murders and murder for personal gain, or limiting it just to anyone who kills three or more with a gap.

Then, as far as I know so far, you only have Christie. Whereas animal abusers among strictly-defined serial killers numbers in the dozens if not hundreds. Bundy, Ridgeway, Berkowitz, Dahmer, Kemper....

[John Wheat]

Deeming, like Chapman, only counts if you broaden the definition.

If one type of killer, such as domestic, is to be included as a good suspect, there should be others like them that fit without extending the definition of serial killer to include non-stranger murders and murder for personal gain, or limiting it just to anyone who kills three or more with a gap.

Then, as far as I know so far, you only have Christie. Whereas animal abusers among strictly-defined serial killers numbers in the dozens if not hundreds. Bundy, Ridgeway, Berkowitz, Dahmer, Kemper....

To Maybea

I don't consider Deeming or Chapman good Ripper suspects by any stretch of the imagination in fact I consider them as weak suspects. However they were both serial killers wether you like it or not.

As reguards Serial Killers often abusing animals you would probably expect Jack to have abused animals and I'm not talking about poisoning a couple of dogs.

Cheers John