What is the Point of it All?

[Iconoclast]

A rather salutary question occurred to me last evening and it has stayed with me sufficiently through my long dark night of the soul to ask it here:

Am I the only person on the planet (at least, those who read and/or post on Casebook) who believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that James Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook text?

For obvious reasons, I'm not expecting a flood of positive replies here on Casebook. If there are any souls out there of a kindred spirit, there's a half decent chance they aren't registered but simply read.

So, if you believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that James Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook text, I'd like to ask you to drop me an email to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com with the subject line, "I Agree". I may even reply with a Dear Reader Merit Badge (it's not bribery before anyone starts!) which I will have to make if anyone actually responds.

If no-one responds, it would rather beg the question of why was I investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief no-one else believes, would it not?

This is going to be very interesting indeed. If it transpires that I am a lone voice in the vast wilderness of the web.net then I may just decide to go back to my previous cause instead ...



Ike

Ike Iconoclast
Iconoclast to the Stars

[The Baron]

Am I the only person on the planet (at least, those who read and/or post on Casebook) who believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that James Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook text?

I don’t even believe you believe this.

It feels less like a conviction and more like performance act, like you’re cosplaying as the last true believer in a lost religion.

If you were stranded on a desert island, cut off from the internet and without an audience, would you still insist Maybrick was the Ripper, or is the belief only real when spoken aloud?



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

I should have added that I obviously won't be naming anyone who actually emails. They get their merit badge and we all move on ...

[John Wheat]

Maybrick was not the Ripper.

[rjpalmer]

why was I investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief

Hi Ike,

I'm not a licensed psychiatrist, but your frequent use of religious imagery is both interesting and curious, and some might even see it as borderline offensive (or at least inappropriate) considering that you often allude, sometimes with a slightly boastful air, to your own atheism and contempt for religion. Similarly, you've made no secret of your particular contempt for the 'viperous' Melvin Harris, despite him being, rather famously, a critic of religious belief to the point of writing for Free Inquiry, knocking the Miracle at Knock, etc. And yet there is not a hint that you see him as a kindred spirit.

It does rather raise the question if your 'proseltizing' for something as irrational, illogical, and downright barmy as a belief in the Maybrick diary's authenticity is somehow connected to this lack of belief in other aspects of your life. A substitute, a surrogate, --the need for a cause--and the more irrational and unpopular the cause, the better. The cult of the diary seems like a particularly weird substitute for God, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, etc., but the thought has crossed my mind more than once, and when I see you alluding to the 'dark night of the soul'--the loss of religious faith---this thought becomes all the stronger.

One also tends to infer from your outburst that even Mrs. Iconoclast is not a believer in the diary and that your find little comfort in the realization that Robert Smith and Peter Wood and Colin Wilson and Shirley Harrison shared your beliefs. It's as if you want to convert a skeptic--a cynic--an atheist--to your cause, and that you despair that you cannot. No one enjoys being psychoanalyzed, but there's something going on beneath the surface, Old Boy.

Regards.

[Lombro2]

How can an Iconoclast be religious? We uphold out icons! Maybrick is our Icon! He's our idol! Ike is trying to tear him down.

We are the religious ones. Then again, he could be a Protestant.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

As a rather militant atheist/antitheist myself, I don't understand the need to try to "convert" others to my way of thinking....here or in other aspects of my life. I'm a live and let live kind of libertarian, and it neither causes me pain nor puts a penny in my pocket if anyone agrees/disagrees with me. I was very intrigued when the news of the diary came out, and even seriously considered Maybrick as a leading suspect after reading the book. Imagine my disappointment when it came out that it was a hoax. See, for the longest time, I wanted Jack The Ripper to be the man of the myth: top hat, cane concealing a sword, insane doctor type. Maybrick, to my young mind, came closest to the image of the RipperI had formed. Many years later, the Ripper has absolutely no face for me, and I have no favorite suspect; it could literally be anyone. After visiting each of the murder sites back in August, I was faced with the fact that JTR was probably of humble origins, who lived and worked in the immediate district. My question is: why would anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the diary when it has been debunked by the very person who introduced it??

[Lombro2]

It’s probably because the guy who introduced it and confessed admitted he believed a major proponent was having an affair with his wife. Most objective people would dismiss the confession and ask for proof.

Some people would accept the one negative Cloroacetamide test like they’d accept one negative paternity test. Not us. We ask Maury for more paternity tests or show the positive paternity test that was a “false positive” and throw out the negative.

We don’t need proof. We have faith in Mike.

[rjpalmer]

My question is: why would anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the diary when it has been debunked by the very person who introduced it??

Hi H.I.B.,

Just to warn you that Lombro's above commentary has a major flaw.

When Barrett first confessed to having forged the diary, to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, Paul Feldman and Anne were not romantically involved.

In fact, although they had met previously, they barely knew one another because Anne had stayed largely behind the scenes for the first two years of the diary's life.

It was only after Barrett began spilling the beans in the summer of 1994 that Anne resurfaced and had a long telephone conversation and meeting with Paul Feldman. Some claim that this led to a romantic involvement, but Barrett's confession had preceded that allegation.

Lombro will once again have to dust himself off and come up with a new theory.

With all good wishes,

RP

[Lombro2]

So that was before the allegation?

All I know is that it was before the Sugar Lumps, the Square Compass and the Donkey Beside The Grave....

[caz]

Hi Ike,

I'm not a licensed psychiatrist, but your frequent use of religious imagery is both interesting and curious, and some might even see it as borderline offensive (or at least inappropriate) considering that you often allude, sometimes with a slightly boastful air, to your own atheism and contempt for religion. Similarly, you've made no secret of your particular contempt for the 'viperous' Melvin Harris, despite him being, rather famously, a critic of religious belief to the point of writing for Free Inquiry, knocking the Miracle at Knock, etc. And yet there is not a hint that you see him as a kindred spirit.

It does rather raise the question if your 'proseltizing' for something as irrational, illogical, and downright barmy as a belief in the Maybrick diary's authenticity is somehow connected to this lack of belief in other aspects of your life. A substitute, a surrogate, --the need for a cause--and the more irrational and unpopular the cause, the better. The cult of the diary seems like a particularly weird substitute for God, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, etc., but the thought has crossed my mind more than once, and when I see you alluding to the 'dark night of the soul'--the loss of religious faith---this thought becomes all the stronger.

One also tends to infer from your outburst that even Mrs. Iconoclast is not a believer in the diary and that your find little comfort in the realization that Robert Smith and Peter Wood and Colin Wilson and Shirley Harrison shared your beliefs. It's as if you want to convert a skeptic--a cynic--an atheist--to your cause, and that you despair that you cannot. No one enjoys being psychoanalyzed, but there's something going on beneath the surface, Old Boy.

Regards.

A bit personal, 'Old Boy'?

If Palmer actually believes there is something 'wrong' with Ike upstairs, and is not just making mischief, would it not have been kinder to put this in a private message?

[caz]

As a rather militant atheist/antitheist myself, I don't understand the need to try to "convert" others to my way of thinking....here or in other aspects of my life. I'm a live and let live kind of libertarian, and it neither causes me pain nor puts a penny in my pocket if anyone agrees/disagrees with me. I was very intrigued when the news of the diary came out, and even seriously considered Maybrick as a leading suspect after reading the book. Imagine my disappointment when it came out that it was a hoax. See, for the longest time, I wanted Jack The Ripper to be the man of the myth: top hat, cane concealing a sword, insane doctor type. Maybrick, to my young mind, came closest to the image of the RipperI had formed. Many years later, the Ripper has absolutely no face for me, and I have no favorite suspect; it could literally be anyone. After visiting each of the murder sites back in August, I was faced with the fact that JTR was probably of humble origins, who lived and worked in the immediate district. My question is: why would anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the diary when it has been debunked by the very person who introduced it??

I dare say your disappointment would be nothing, compared with that of a Barrett Believer, if they ever actually opened their eyes and saw that the person who introduced the diary could never have 'debunked' it on his own. If he could have done that, he wouldn't have needed such an indecent amount of outside help, to try and elevate the 'evidence' against his ex wife from zero to where it stands today: zero.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi H.I.B.,

Just to warn you that Lombro's above commentary has a major flaw.

When Barrett first confessed to having forged the diary, to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, Paul Feldman and Anne were not romantically involved.

In fact, although they had met previously, they barely knew one another because Anne had stayed largely behind the scenes for the first two years of the diary's life.

It was only after Barrett began spilling the beans in the summer of 1994 that Anne resurfaced and had a long telephone conversation and meeting with Paul Feldman. Some claim that this led to a romantic involvement, but Barrett's confession had preceded that allegation.

Lombro will once again have to dust himself off and come up with a new theory.

With all good wishes,

RP

It's like the argument that Florie Maybrick was not romantically involved with a 'whoremaster' when 'Sir Jim' first accuses her in the diary. She may not have been, but husbands are often the last to know and the first to suspect - but maybe Palmer should not be expected to know this.

Anne didn't 'resurface' as far as Mike was concerned. They saw each other between January and June 1994 back in Goldie Street, and Mike already knew from Feldman's pestering that he was sniffing around like a terrier for some link back from the Barretts or the Grahams to Maybrick. It would have been all too easy for a man in Mike's position to imagine the wife who has left him will be on the lookout for another man in her life before long. In this case, however, Mike was on the receiving end of Anne's suspicions, that he was sleeping with a new girlfriend, and he was absolutely furious about this, denying that it was true. His initial confession came shortly afterwards.

[caz]

A rather salutary question occurred to me last evening and it has stayed with me sufficiently through my long dark night of the soul to ask it here:

Am I the only person on the planet (at least, those who read and/or post on Casebook) who believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that James Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook text?

For obvious reasons, I'm not expecting a flood of positive replies here on Casebook. If there are any souls out there of a kindred spirit, there's a half decent chance they aren't registered but simply read.

So, if you believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that James Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook text, I'd like to ask you to drop me an email to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com with the subject line, "I Agree". I may even reply with a Dear Reader Merit Badge (it's not bribery before anyone starts!) which I will have to make if anyone actually responds.

If no-one responds, it would rather beg the question of why was I investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief no-one else believes, would it not?

This is going to be very interesting indeed. If it transpires that I am a lone voice in the vast wilderness of the web.net then I may just decide to go back to my previous cause instead ...



Ike

Ike Iconoclast
Iconoclast to the Stars

Chin up, Ike. Now the other one. [Only joking. God knows we need it.]

Whether the popular vote goes to the 'confessional' claims and statements made by an insignificant little liar and con artist 30 years ago, or to someone at the other end of the spectrum, who is assuming the power and influence of a Bond villain, it rarely ends well for the bad guy, or for the masses who have skipped their history lessons to follow the unashamedly mad one all the way to the brink and over it.

Enjoying popular support for your position in these strange times can be a very bad sign.

Love,

Caz
X