The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[Iconoclast]

It pains me to say this, Ike, but I suspect that the more astute readers of this forum will know the real reason that you suddenly abandoned a thread which you had previously contributed to without protest or qualm....

With testicles of steel, mate, I ain't afraid of the odd debate or two. I just don't want to have it on a thread that basically reads, "Maybrick clearly didn't do it and - if you post on this thread - you're totally agreeing with that". Happy to have it here, though, RJ.

...faced with several startling revelations--some of them introduced by your own good self---each and every one of them utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause, you decided to change the subject.

Never one to knowingly walk away from a meaningful debate. Let's see what you've got, shall we?

1. Anne Graham's startling admission that she fully planned to collaborate with Mike on the writing of a story about Maybrick-as-Ripper (couched, in my opinion, in the lie that the diary had already existed), manipulating him into thinking it was his own idea.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my Dandelion and Burdock! When did Anne Graham make a startling admission that she blah. blah, blah? I suspect there's now a shortage of Kool Aid at the nearest store to Palmer Mansions. I'm not saying she didn't, I just don't recall this remarkable moment in this long, often challenging, tale.

2. An equally debilitating revelation that the chief witness for the 'Battlecrease' provenance gave an account so muddled and contradictory that it leaves his worth as a witness in tatters.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my Newcastle Brown! When did a chief witness in the Battlecrease provenance give an account so blah, blah, blah? Are we talking about Brian Rawes here?

3. A series of interesting photographs uploaded by Jon Menges showing for the first time the suspicious oily patterns on the inside cover of the photo album---consistent with someone rubbing the upper left-hand corner so vigorously that he wore the endpaper down to the boards.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my pease pudding and saveloy scottie! These are photographs which show the very things Mike Barrett homed-in on when giving his surreal January 5, 1995 affy David, man - now, does that mean he was confessing how they got there or simply building a story around them 'cos they were already there when he first got his mitts on James Maybrick's scrapbook?

Little wonder then, that you decided, as we say here in 'Merica, "to get out of Dodge," and to start a new thread.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my black bullets! I had to get out of Dodge to save my reputation when realising I had foolishly neglected to pay attention to the thread title. No harm, no foul and all that as you Yankee boys are wont to say.

As The Greatest Thread of All was recently demolished, I have had to re-build the brand elsewhere, and where better than The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper? Hey, we're all friends here, right?

[rjpalmer]

utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause

Maybe that should have read udderly debilitating the dairy's [sic] cause.

The hoax was certainly milked for all it was worth by Robert Smith.

[rjpalmer]

I still cannot (and possibly never will) bring myself to post on a thread which so blatantly excludes me ...

It pains me to say this, Ike, but I suspect that the more astute readers of this forum will know the real reason that you suddenly abandoned a thread which you had previously contributed to without protest or qualm....

...faced with several startling revelations--some of them introduced by your own good self---each and every one of them utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause, you decided to change the subject.

1. Anne Graham's startling admission that she fully planned to collaborate with Mike on the writing of a story about Maybrick-as-Ripper (couched, in my opinion, in the lie that the diary had already existed), manipulating him into thinking it was his own idea.

2. An equally debilitating revelation that the chief witness for the 'Battlecrease' provenance gave an account so muddled and contradictory that it leaves his worth as a witness in tatters.

3. A series of interesting photographs uploaded by Jon Menges showing for the first time the suspicious oily patterns on the inside cover of the photo album---consistent with someone rubbing the upper left-hand corner so vigorously that he wore the endpaper down to the boards.

Little wonder then, that you decided, as we say here in 'Merica, "to get out of Dodge," and to start a new thread.

All the best.

[Iconoclast]

And no, don't try to pull me into this.
c.d.

Only in so far as you are to be congratulated for also posting in a reasonable manner on a theme which usually brooks little calm consensus at all.

My own feeling regarding the use of 'one off instance' (no hyphen, remember) is that it certainly appears to be an anachronism if it was in fact intended to read 'one-off instance' but that what appears to be something may not necessarily be that thing. Orsam would disagree, of course (as would Herlock by the sounds of it) but I am reminded of the certainty which surrounded the scrapbook's 'anachronistic' use of 'top myself' to mean hang oneself, and - tangentially - the scrapbook's claim that Maybrick's brother Michael wrote lyrics as well as music which turned out to be surprisingly accurate (despite so many claims to the contrary).

'Freshly picked carrots' wasn't an expression ever used before 1947 according to Google Ngrams. Just saying.

Ike

[c.d.]

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

I agree completely. In order to be conclusive you would have to show that you somehow designed a computer program that was able to scan every book written before 1888/1889. You would then have to demonstrate that it would have been impossible to have missed any book in your search. You would also have to demonstrate that you were somehow able to review every spoken conversation prior to that time period.

So with all due respect to Herlock, I think he got a little carried away with his response.

"One off" only goes to probability. It can't be used to form a definite conclusion.

And no, don't try to pull me into this.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Maybrick wasn't the Ripper. End of.

[Iconoclast]

I still cannot (and possibly never will) bring myself to post on a thread which so blatantly excludes me ('Maybrick Diary - Old Hoax or New?') so I must 'reply' here - my new home - to Caz's excellent riposte to RJ Palmer on the offending thread.

The one thing you can rest assured you will get with the Cazster is:

1) A well-thought-out and balanced post;
2) A resolute refusal to be pigeonholed as a diary-defender (I think it was I who referred to Mike as a mental vegetable, by the way - possibly a moment of hyperbole when I did); and
3) The odd timely pun.

Sadly for Caz, such reasonableness and good grace are all too often taken as masks for a belief that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I think she would love to know who wrote the scrapbook and who committed those murders but I also don't think she thinks there would be any repetition in the answer (whereas I obviously do). Her point about Lechmere was totally on point.

Ike

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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 .

[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.

[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).