The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[Iconoclast]

Judging by the comments in Feldman's book, Keith believes that the confessional photograph album was written by an unidentified person that was not Maybrick, Graham, or Barrett. In which case, not only do I think Keith was wrong, but you do, too.

I've just finished reading Inside Story again and I honestly don't recall the argument being implied that Maybrick did not write the text into the Maybrick scrapbook. If Keith genuinely subscribed to that view then you are quite right - I obviously think Keith was wrong to exclude Maybrick whilst you think he was wrong to exclude the Barretts. But did (and does) Keith subscribe to that view? I only know for certain who Keith has concluded did not write the text into the scrapbook (and that is the Barretts) and I'm sure he is right in that regard. I don't think he has quite the same powerful mindset regarding Maybrick who - by anyone's definition - remains a plausible author and always will until the day the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the scrapbook is revealed. I can't be certain but I don't think he's ever excluded Maybrick on the basis of any specific piece of evidence (if he has, it was probably the handwriting but I do think that's a given), but unless Maybrick was in concert with Druitt, I guess he's very very doubtful indeed about Maybrick.

That a person has no specific author in mind does not preclude the possibility that their conclusions were wrong.

But of course. And what is also logically true is that having a specific author in mind does not preclude the possibility that their conclusions were wrong. (Except - of course - for me.)

For the same reason, I also think Caz is wrong, as do you.

Well, I only know who Caz has concluded did not write the text into the scrapbook (and that is the Barretts) and I'm sure she is right in that regard. I don't think she has quite the same powerful mindset regarding Maybrick who - by anyone's definition - remains a plausible author and always will until the day the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the scrapbook is revealed. I can't be certain but I don't think she's ever excluded Maybrick on the basis of any specific piece of evidence (if she has, it was probably also the handwriting but I do think that's a given)

Happy Christmas and a bountiful New Year.

Aye, and lang may yer lum reek, young man!

Ike

[Patrick Differ]

As a newcomer to the Forum I thought I would read the Diary Transcript and put my 2 cents plus tax opinion out there. My initial surprise was to see the acid reference from the apparent Miriam Angel murder. The second was " blunt object", which was a reference to Emma Smith. This diary appears to be an outline of a timeline of the murders and in my own opinion something that could be produced by information in the public domain. That was a first pass but I agree with those who believe it to be fake.

[Iconoclast]

As a newcomer to the Forum I thought I would read the Diary Transcript and put my 2 cents plus tax opinion out there. My initial surprise was to see the acid reference from the apparent Miriam Angel murder. The second was " blunt object", which was a reference to Emma Smith. This diary appears to be an outline of a timeline of the murders and in my own opinion something that could be produced by information in the public domain. That was a first pass but I agree with those who believe it to be fake.

Hi Patrick,

It's always good to have newbies appearing on the scene as old foggies like RJ and me are way past our bedtimes with this stuff and probably should be put to sleep with whisky-laced Horlicks (my favourite bedtime drink, by the way) to save the youngsters from having to 'listen' to us drone on about the same old stuff all the time. Then again, if you're about sixty, scrub that introduction entirely.

That said, I would ask you to think through your thought processes again:

Vitriolage was - in relative terms - a 'known' or 'popular' offence around the time of the Whitechapel murders so Maybrick could very easily have considered it as part of his fantasy life ("Next time I will throw acid over them. The thought of them riding [?] and screaming while the acid burns deep thrills me."). It is actually arguably more likely that Maybrick would have thought of this in 1888 than that a hoaxer would in 1990 or there or thereabouts but - either way - we can draw no firm conclusions from its inclusion.

On your second point, Maybrick actually says, "I think I will ram a cane into the whoring bitches mound and leave it there for them to see how much she could take". Now this may or may not have been prompted by the attack on Emma Smith in April 1888 (IIRC) but the fact that Maybrick mentions it and that it could have been inspired by something which happened which he was not involved in (it was a small group of thugs) does not tell us anything about whether the scrapbook is a hoax or not. He may have been inspired by the Smith murder to quote it, he may have been inspired by the Smith murder to actually think about doing it, or he may not have been inspired by the Smith murder at all but have thought it all by himself. Or it could have been a hoaxer being a bit linear about Maybrick's actions.

You should be wary of citing 'that which went before' as a reason why it did not occur again (and therefore as evidence of a hoax) as this would be a very obvious non sequitur in all cases and certainly would not produce even the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook, I'm afraid (actually, I'm relieved to say).

Good to have you onboard, Patrick. What else have you got, sir, in your second or subsequent passes?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I don't think she has quite the same powerful mindset regarding Maybrick who - by anyone's definition - remains a plausible author

You two have built such a rapport, Ike, that I would certainly hesitate before challenging your perception. It might indeed be so.

Off-hand, I can't recall Caz ever challenging the 'Maybrick dunnit' hypothesis with the vigor and contempt she has shown for the utterly simple and sensible suggestion that he who brought it, wrought it...with the help of his long-suffering wife, of course, the future co-authoress of an entirely different book on the Maybrick case.

A double event?

But why quibble on this holy night?

Sláinte

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Ike,
Thank you for indulging my first impression. I'm actually 72 years yound and have been reading Ripper books for over 30 years. Also an engineer by trade so logic and theory are ingrained into this head. Will research more on Maybick and Bury since they appear to be argued for and my guess would be for good reason. Cheers.