The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

"35 in the dark usually means 45. Unless you’re a professional night time witness."

It is noticeable how quickly the Maybrick theorists will abandon the case evidence and instead rely on their own impressions while throwing in unsourced 'factoids.'

In his statement to Abberline, Hutchinson recounted how he specifically moved underneath the lamp of the Queen's Head pub so he could get a good look at the man as he passed through the light. When the man did pass through the light, Hutchinson crouched down so he could stare directly in the man's face.

Does gaslight shave 15 years off your age and make you look Jewish? Or does it only make you look like Cillian Murphy?

Lombro would be better off arguing that Maybrick ate so many Arsenic Complexion Wafers that he had pale, youthful skin. Hutchinson believed he saw the same man again in broad daylight, though he couldn't be certain.

[John Wheat]

I don't put much stock in the witness statements. As we don't know who did and didn't see the Ripper and witness statements are notoriously unreliable. However it's obvious that Maybrick wasn't the Ripper. The evidence is just not there. And the diary is clearly a modern fake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"35 in the dark usually means 45. Unless you’re a professional night time witness."

It is noticeable how quickly the Maybrick theorists will abandon the case evidence and instead rely on their own impressions while throwing in unsourced 'factoids.'

In his statement to Abberline, Hutchinson recounted how he specifically moved underneath the lamp of the Queen's Head pub so he could get a good look at the man as he passed through the light. When the man did pass through the light, Hutchinson crouched down so he could stare directly in the man's face.

Does gaslight shave 15 years off your age and make you look Jewish? Or does it only make you look like Cillian Murphy?

Lombro would be better off arguing that Maybrick ate so many Arsenic Complexion Wafers that he had pale, youthful skin. Hutchinson believed he saw the same man again in broad daylight, though he couldn't be certain.

As witnesses go Hutchinson, if he was being truthful, couldn’t have got any nearer to look at the guy and under the light of a lamp as you say Roger. Is Maybrick immune from scrutiny Roger? Has there been a new ripperological rule?

[Lombro2]

James also had an Irish grandmother.

I don’t think Hutch factored that in.

Ever seen Maybrickian James Johnson. He looks 14. So add quarter Irish and darkness and you got 50.

[rjpalmer]

or that red handkerchiefs are not common.

Red handkerchiefs are indeed common...in the Ripper books of the 70s and 80s.

I think one would be hard pressed to convince readers familiar with those books that the reference to a red handkerchief in the Kelly murder isn't a reference to George Hutchinson's suspect.

The diarist himself saw to that by throwing in all the obligatory tidbits from Ripper lore...the farthings, the torn envelope, the Lusk kidney, the 'Dear Boss' letter, the shying pony in Dutfield's Yard, etc. The astute reader will see the red handkerchief as just another example of the diarist staying very close to the 'canon.'

Had the diarists strayed further from the lore in the rest of the text....maybe. But that's not the case.

The historian Alex Chisholm once opined that the real diary of Jack the Ripper would almost certainly have been an unprintable harangue of perversion and violence. The diarist, by contrast, takes great pains to keep the text PG-13, and thus suitable for a mass audience.

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that this is contrived too. Just to fit in with the letter.

“if I am to down a whore..”

[rjpalmer]

Tell it to

Rubenstein
Canter
Feldman (late great)

As you seem to be unaware of it, Professor William Rubenstein is also among the 'late great.' Sadly, he died last summer.

He was a well-known figure among those interested in the Shakespeare authorship debate.

Professor Bill Rubenstein (1946-2024)

[Iconoclast]

Why is this such an issue and why are people so reluctant to accept the slightest point that’s not in favour of Maybrick.

I think - if you bothered to properly analyse comments - it is far more common that I (for one) tend to react to comments made against Maybrick which do not logically follow from the evidence. I don't need evidence in favour of Maybrick - I have shitloads of that for SocPill - what I need is for posters to not make claims against him unless they are substantive. I don't give a fig whether the poster is challenged - what I care about is that my dear readers are not misled into thinking an argument against Maybrick has been successfully made.

What I’ve said is simple….the author of the diary is claiming to be the man that Hutchinson saw and the description that he gives isn’t a description of James Maybrick.

Which could be an argument against Maybrick or else an argument against a hoaxer. Why would a hoaxer claim that Maybrick was the man with the red handkerchief if he or she knew as well as you appear to do that Maybrick did not fit the brief?

Does anyone think that Maybrick is such a case closed that there are no points against him?

The points against Maybrick are:

1. The possibility that 'one off instance' meant 'one-off instance' and literally could not have been thought in 1888
2. The handwriting which fails to match the public writings of Maybrick

To my recollection, every other point I have ever heard made against Maybrick's candidature is a non sequitur dressed-up as reasoned argument. Like I say, I don't care if the poster themselves can't see this - what I intend when I reply is to prevent my dear readers being mugged of a very strong candidate on the basis of Rendell-like, soft-minded, horrendously presumptive, lazy and vaingloriously gloating logic fails.

[Iconoclast]

The Stride murder throws up more doubt (not proof I hasten to add) Maybrick couldn’t be claiming to be BS man because, apart from the description not matching, he doesn’t mention Schwartz or Pipeman so the assumption must be that he arrived after Schwartz left. The body was found at 1.00.

‘Maybrick’ said in the diary : “Within the quarter of the hour I found another dirty bitch willing to sell her wares.”

So around 1.10 he meets Eddowes and kills her? And yet Eddowes is seen talking to a man in Duke Street 20-25 minutes later.

Does anyone think it likely that Eddowes, being released at 1.00 and walks for 10 minutes in an unknown direction. She bumps into Maybrick and for some reason they walk to Mitre Street and then stand around talking for what, 20 minutes or so?

Another one ready for the broom and the Axminster.

Here we go again.

How does Maybrick meeting Eddowes at or around 1.10am prevent him from talking to her at 1.20am or 1.30am. As long as she isn't yet dead, there's nothing stopping the conversation from flowing freely. Please make it make sense, man!

If you re-read your post, you'll see your logic fails at "and kills her". You missed out the "talks to her and then".

[Iconoclast]

I don't put much stock in the witness statements. As we don't know who did and didn't see the Ripper and witness statements are notoriously unreliable. However it's obvious that Maybrick wasn't the Ripper. The evidence is just not there. And the diary is clearly a modern fake.

Oh ****. You started off so well for once.

And then the old tropes crept in ...

[Iconoclast]

As witnesses go Hutchinson, if he was being truthful, couldn’t have got any nearer to look at the guy and under the light of a lamp as you say Roger. Is Maybrick immune from scrutiny Roger? Has there been a new ripperological rule?

No, but don't stray too far from what is unequivocal whilst using the word 'unequivocal' (or implying it).

[Iconoclast]

The diarist himself saw to that by throwing in all the obligatory tidbits from Ripper lore...the farthings, the torn envelope, the Lusk kidney, the 'Dear Boss' letter, the shying pony in Dutfield's Yard, etc. The astute reader will see the red handkerchief as just another example of the diarist staying very close to the 'canon.'

OMG - logic fail!!! What if the 'canon' was true????????????????????

The historian Alex Chisholm once opined that the real diary of Jack the Ripper would almost certainly have been an unprintable harangue of perversion and violence. The diarist, by contrast, takes great pains to keep the text PG-13, and thus suitable for a mass audience.

And - of course - the history of crime should be determined by the assumptions of Alex Chisholm. Is that what you're saying, RJ?

Could he be wrong?

[Iconoclast]

I think that this is contrived too. Just to fit in with the letter.

“if I am to down a whore..”

Or it wasn't contrived!

Our opinions mean absolutely **** ALL!!!!!

[Iconoclast]

I think that this is contrived too. Just to fit in with the letter.

“if I am to down a whore..”

I think Mrs Puddleduck's socks were grey and down around her ankles on the night of the 'double event'.

[Iconoclast]

Tell it to

Rubenstein
Canter
Feldman (late great)

As you seem to be unaware of it, Professor William Rubenstein is also among the 'late great.' Sadly, he died last summer.

He was a well-known figure among those interested in the Shakespeare authorship debate.

Professor Bill Rubenstein (1946-2024)

The first to start to unravel the Diego Laurenz clue. Great guy.