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.

[FISHY1118]

To Iconoclast

You have "No Evidence" he did !!, Your whole story is just speculation, conjecture and opinion ,whilst the whole time trying to join the dots to make Maybrick the killer to no avail. Because they don't add up.

Its been debunked here by so many posters over the years who have spotted to many flaws in your story , its mind boggles to say the least. That anyone actually cares anymore to argue with you, its staggering.

For pete sake please don't start another crazy "Maybrick is the killer ,ive done it ive done it " I've solved the puzzle" kinda thread . Surely enough is enough .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry Ike but I’ll make one post on this thread and one only. ‘One off instance’ 100% categorically and without a single shadow of a doubt proves the diary to be a forgery imo. The phrase cannot (and I don’t mean ‘was unlikely to have been’) I mean cannot, under any circumstances, have been used by James Maybrick in 1888/9. Every single attempt to explain it has fallen before it’s got within 100 yards of the first hurdle. I realise that there are other points to that refute it but we only need one and ‘one off instance’ is the one. I afraid that the cigar goes to the Dark Lord.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. I hope that you’re well Ike

[Iconoclast]

Sorry Ike but I’ll make one post on this thread and one only. ‘One off instance’ 100% categorically and without a single shadow of a doubt proves the diary to be a forgery imo. The phrase cannot (and I don’t mean ‘was unlikely to have been’) I mean cannot, under any circumstances, have been used by James Maybrick in 1888/9. Every single attempt to explain it has fallen before it’s got within 100 yards of the first hurdle. I realise that there are other points to that refute it but we only need one and ‘one off instance’ is the one. I afraid that the cigar goes to the Dark Lord.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. I hope that you’re well Ike

My Dear Herlock and Fishy118,

Everyone who reads or posts to this site has one or both of two options, it seems to me:

1) Discuss the actual evidence which favours a candidate - so in 130+ years that's basically a scrapbook, a watch, and a shawl. I think I've got all the evidence there (it's easy to forget some when it's so overwhelming) but if anyone can add to that list, please feel free to do so; and/or

2) Debate niche (read irrelevant) issues such as Mrs Puddleduck's socks on the night of the double event. Were they grey or were they off-white or were they just dirty or was it just the lack of light (let's debate the light in Picklemaker Lane, everyone!). Were they old, were they new? Were they hers or had she borrowed them? Were they secondhand (so old and someone else's, everyone!). Were they knee-length or were they ankle socks? Was she doing a Grealish and they were the former but looked like the latter?

I happen to choose the first option. I believe that the Maybrick scrapbook is almost certainly the actual work of Jack the Ripper and I'm prepared to (continue to) stand up and say it regardless of the opprobrium which comes my way. How can I keep doing this over so many years now, I hear you ask? Well, as a Newcastle (and Hearts) fan, I am well-versed in disappointment so - when it finally comes my way - I will smile wrily, raise my eyebrows briefly, and probably tut at my own naivety. If that's all that error is going to cause me, I think I may just about cope with it.

I'm constantly drawn back to old posts which conclusively assured us that - for example - 'to top myself' was an anachronism, and Maybrick's brother did not write the lyrics to songs. If anyone walked home with half an hour still to play, then more fool them, but I'm not for walking until the overweight lass blows her whistle at last.

I make no apologies for having an opinion and for sharing it with you all and - Fishy, please take note - I refuse to post regularly on a thread which quite clearly cannot apply to me so I'm sorry if you don't welcome my new home. My last one was repossessed. What should I do, sofa-surf for the next thirty years?

I am well, by the way, thanks for asking (Herlock), but would have been far weller had Joelinton not switched off four minutes into five minutes of added time yesterday at the Palace.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Can you elaborate on the " one off instance " Herlock referenced ( seeing how, and probably for the best i might add he won't post on this thread again)

Proving the diary a hoax?

[Iconoclast]

Can you elaborate on the " one off instance " Herlock referenced ( seeing how, and probably for the best i might add he won't post on this thread again)

Proving the diary a hoax?

I already have, Fishy, and reasonably fulsomely too - you'll find my response from 2019 in Society's Pillar where you will also find my responses to all of the other tedious canards chucked-out routinely from a place in peoples' minds where light simply does not ever seem to shine.

The next version of Society's Pillar may go into more depth on this subject (I don't recall off the top of my head).

If I recall correctly, in my 2019 version, I acknowledge that 'one off instance' is problematic (without being in any way conclusive).

Hope this helps.

[FISHY1118]

Druitt, Lechmere, Kosminski, Hutchinson, Gull, and others, their all Problematic ! ,such is the nature and mystery that is JtR.

The fact that Maybrick by your own admission fits into this category ,can only lead one to conclude that he is no more or less JtR than those above, due to the many inconsistencies with so called "Evidence." !

Its all well and good to belive you have solved the puzzle , but when several pieces are missing or refuse to fit in there places, all you've managed to do is convince yourself and not the rest of us that Maybrick is JTR .

"Circumstantial Evidence" ( and there's a lot of it i might add) is not and never will be be Proof of anything , especially if it is used to try and reveal the true identity of JtR.

Good day to ya.