The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[Iconoclast]

It seems most unseemly that the world's most read, revered, and respected Maybrickian should be threadbare and slumming it on the streets where the chattering classes loiter looking for trouble. It is only right that his dear readers know exactly where to turn to read more of his heartfelt, beautiful prose, and that place - dear friends - is here, the 'James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper' bit of the Casebook thingy.

Welcome one and all to my less than humble abode. Come in, wipe your feet, make yourself at home, try your best not to nick anything, and - for goodness sake - get the kettle on, I'm gasping for a brew but I can't be arsed to make myself one.

Here's our first topic of conversation (mine's a Chocolate Digestive, by the way):

1) If it were ever proven that the Maybrick scrapbook was the real deal and Maybrick was indeed Jack the Ripper, what impact would it have on your life given that you're so certain it's a heap of ****, and
2) Would you then stop creating threads about what colour Mrs Puddleduck's socks were on the night of the double event, et cetera, and
3) How much more would you read, revere, and respect the greatest ever Maybrickian?

Ike
Ike Iconoclast
He's Probably Right You Know

[Scott Nelson]

Hey Ike,

1) It would be incredible -- the greatest serial murder mystery of all time solved by you. Books would have to be rewritten (and authors would have your revised book to use as a guide).

2) Yes, although I haven't created too many offbeat et cetera threads. But other people still might to so.

3) More so than I do now. I'm eagerly awaiting your revised book next year.

But if you're right, then my Harry Dam/Devereux theory on the diary would be left by the wayside.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Scotty,

It's great to be back on a thread whose purpose lacks any ambiguity!

Hey Ike,
1) It would be incredible -- the greatest serial murder mystery of all time solved by you. Books would have to be rewritten (and authors would have your revised book to use as a guide).

Honestly - I can't wait!

2) Yes, although I haven't created too many offbeat et cetera threads. But other people still might to so.

I have no desire to kill debate, in truth, but some of the threads do get a wee bit too nitpicking for my boredom threshold - but they are probably a reflection of peoples' strong desire to discuss the case and deep-down frustration at the lack of hard evidence to debate.

3) More so than I do now. I'm eagerly awaiting your revised book next year.

It is fair swinging 'round, that's for sure (but the actual date is dependent on certain factors outside of my control).

But if you're right, then my Harry Dam/Devereux theory on the diary would be left by the wayside.

I have a sneaking feeling that 1) may never actually happen, Scotty. My hope with SocPill25 is that my dear readers get the opportunity to decide more fully for themselves by seeing and reading (maybe even hearing) what I have seen and read (and heard).

Keep up the great work, Scotty - Harry may not yet be damned!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I hope this isn't too confusing but I'm not posting on a thread which is clearly a false dichotomy(for me), so here is my response to John Wheat from the 'Maybrick Diary - Old Hoax or New?' (or whatever it's called) thread ...

Right then I will rephrase the question. What evidence is there that someone other than Anne and Mike Barrett wrote the diary?

So we can be agreed that there is only a very small, tangential case for Anne and Mike Barrett being creators of the Maybrick scrapbook (see the thread, above, for that case), but I'd say that there is no concrete case against anyone else at all. Not even James Maybrick. The reason for this is that we have no handwriting to match any known author's hand. Nor do we have anything in the scrapbook which we could say was unequivocally someone specific (such as James Maybrick, obviously). There is nothing new in the scrapbook which we could say categorically was quantifiably different to what a clever hoaxer could either research or make up. That's obviously a problem for both believers and non-believers because it means that the scrapbook in itself is not categorical proof of either the case for authenticity nor for inauthenticity.

So, we have to turn to other evidence which might place someone as the author of the scrapbook, and that's where two main factors come to prominence:

1) The Maybrick watch. It bears James Maybrick's signature. I've seen the watch. I've held the watch. And - believe me - that signature is recognisably Maybrick's and it was scratched on what is quite honestly the smallest watch of its type I have ever seen (I've hardly seen any, mind) so to get a close facsimile of Maybrick's signature onto so small and awkward a surface - to me - points firmly towards James Maybrick as the person who signed it. That doesn't mean he was Jack the Ripper but it does point strong towards it; and

2) The circumstantial evidence of the scrapbook and related Ripper material. I won't list that evidence here - it's mainly in my 2019 Society's Pillar - but it's strongly suggestive of James Maybrick as Jack, and my 2025-ish version will hopefully evidence that connection between the two men more firmly than the 2019 one does.

So - in short - I can be no more certain of the creator of the Maybrick scrapbook than you can, but I can provide a reasoned case for it being James Maybrick. You (and so many others) have to rely on inference from a couple of Mike Barrett-related events and his extremely incoherent claims.

I don't live in a world where what I want to believe is actually what I believe without firm evidence and I think I can make a strong case for Maybrick without ever hoping to prove it categorically (but you never know).

[Iconoclast]

To Fishy118 ...

Two things we know to be true ,
Someone wrote a fake diary claiming James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper
James Maybrick did not write the diary.

This is factually untrue, Fishy. You (and many others) think James Maybrick did not write the text in the Maybrick scrapbook, but you have so little 'evidence' to support that assertion and what 'evidence' you have is easily argued against.

I only care about what is true not what I would like to be true and what you have is a million miles away from adequate to close the debate with.