The Question of Motive

[BrickMay]

If the diarist is to be believed, James Maybrick, a ‘gentle man born’ was turned into a serial killer as a result of his wife’s affair. He displaces his anger with her by murdering the prostitutes of London.

There are many reasons for doubting this as a possible motive for the Ripper murders.

Firstly, James Maybrick would not have just stood back and allowed his wife to have had an affair. Florence flirted with Alfred Brierley at the Grand National in March 1889 and he hit her.

Secondly, although James was capable of violence, he would not have travelled to London and killed prostitutes as a proxy for his wife. He had never shown any hatred towards prostitutes. During his time in Norfolk, Virginia, before his marriage, he had spent many a night in Mary Hogwood’s brothel. If James was going to kill anyone, then Brierley would have been top of his list. Just after James died, Charles Ratcliffe sent a letter to John Aunspaugh in which he provided a detailed account of events at Battlecrease at that time. The letter included the sentence that James had found out about events at Flatman’s Hotel and he expected him to ‘plug Brierley at any time.’

Thirdly, the diarist, if he is to be believed, abruptly stopped his murderous campaign after supposedly rediscovering his love for his wife. This flies in the face of everything that we know about serial killers; they do not stop unless they are caught, arrested for another offence, or die.

For those of you who still feel James Maybrick remains a credible candidate to be Jack the Ripper, then you have a serious question to answer. Thomas Stevenson, in a letter written to the Home Office (HO 144/1638/A50678/D16), recalls a conversation between himself and Dr Humphreys which had taken place on the last day of Florence’s trial. Humphreys told Stevenson he had treated Florence after she had suffered a miscarriage in early 1889. Humphreys said James Maybrick had told him he had not had sexual intercourse with his wife for a lengthy period of time and, as a result, he wanted to know “how old is this thing.” When Humphreys told him it was 4 or 5 months, James then told Humphreys he couldn’t possibly be the father of it. If James had truly been Jack the Ripper and his motive for murder was his anger at his wife, then this news would have made him angry beyond belief. He would have killed again. Yet none of that happens; instead, if the diarist is to be believed, he just has loving thoughts about his wife. This is simply absurd.

It is also notable that the diarist never once mention Florence’s miscarriage. This would have a major event. It would have been at the forefront of James’ mind. Why then is it not mentioned in the Diary? There is only one possible reason, the diarist did not know about the miscarriage and that in turn can only mean the person who wrote he Diary was not James Maybrick. It is yet another reason for coming to the clear and obvious conclusion that the Diary is a modern forgery.

Chris Jones, Author of the Maybrick A to Z and co-author of The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The End Game. (See www.brickmaypublishing.com)

[Lombro2]

So you’re basically saying that a man like James Maybrick can’t make it out the front door.

I like the good Georgian and Victorian handwriting. It matches the Diary. Is it a forgery?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, that’s a letter. The forgery is the diary. You know…the one that the well-to-do Maybrick wrote in someone else’s handwriting in an old photograph album/scrapbook with pages torn out…because he couldn’t afford the few pennies for a proper journal/diary or indeed any old notebook.

[Lombro2]

The Diary was "Scrooge Approved".

[Lombro2]

I also didn't understand James Maybrick's given motive but I do now.

Again, it doesn't even matter if the Diary is a forgery. It got things right. The number one and most glaring is that there are indeed 50 year old serial killer rookies. We just had one start at 58. He got away with it for eight years.

I know a prostitute victim, who was killed during a spree shooting, and my friends knew the killer. The killer's wife had a baby and he was jealous of the baby. His girlfriend on the side wanted to go to Niagara Falls on the long weekend. Then he went out looking for prostitutes on Victoria Day, of course.

"Niagara falls. Step by step. Slowly I turned. Bang Bang Bang!"

[Mike J. G.]

I also didn't understand James Maybrick's given motive but I do now.

Again, it doesn't even matter if the Diary is a forgery. It got things right. The number one and most glaring is that there are indeed 50 year old serial killer rookies. We just had one start at 58. He got away with it for eight years.

I happen to know a male (transvestite at the time) prostitute who was killed in a spree by someone who was profiled by the FBI Ripper profiler. Care to know what the "Motive" was?

Nobody's arsed, mate. Take a break.

[Mike J. G.]

If the diarist is to be believed, James Maybrick, a ‘gentle man born’ was turned into a serial killer as a result of his wife’s affair. He displaces his anger with her by murdering the prostitutes of London.

There are many reasons for doubting this as a possible motive for the Ripper murders.

Firstly, James Maybrick would not have just stood back and allowed his wife to have had an affair. Florence flirted with Alfred Brierley at the Grand National in March 1889 and he hit her.

Secondly, although James was capable of violence, he would not have travelled to London and killed prostitutes as a proxy for his wife. He had never shown any hatred towards prostitutes. During his time in Norfolk, Virginia, before his marriage, he had spent many a night in Mary Hogwood’s brothel. If James was going to kill anyone, then Brierley would have been top of his list. Just after James died, Charles Ratcliffe sent a letter to John Aunspaugh in which he provided a detailed account of events at Battlecrease at that time. The letter included the sentence that James had found out about events at Flatman’s Hotel and he expected him to ‘plug Brierley at any time.’

Thirdly, the diarist, if he is to be believed, abruptly stopped his murderous campaign after supposedly rediscovering his love for his wife. This flies in the face of everything that we know about serial killers; they do not stop unless they are caught, arrested for another offence, or die.

For those of you who still feel James Maybrick remains a credible candidate to be Jack the Ripper, then you have a serious question to answer. Thomas Stevenson, in a letter written to the Home Office (HO 144/1638/A50678/D16), recalls a conversation between himself and Dr Humphreys which had taken place on the last day of Florence’s trial. Humphreys told Stevenson he had treated Florence after she had suffered a miscarriage in early 1889. Humphreys said James Maybrick had told him he had not had sexual intercourse with his wife for a lengthy period of time and, as a result, he wanted to know “how old is this thing.” When Humphreys told him it was 4 or 5 months, James then told Humphreys he couldn’t possibly be the father of it. If James had truly been Jack the Ripper and his motive for murder was his anger at his wife, then this news would have made him angry beyond belief. He would have killed again. Yet none of that happens; instead, if the diarist is to be believed, he just has loving thoughts about his wife. This is simply absurd.

It is also notable that the diarist never once mention Florence’s miscarriage. This would have a major event. It would have been at the forefront of James’ mind. Why then is it not mentioned in the Diary? There is only one possible reason, the diarist did not know about the miscarriage and that in turn can only mean the person who wrote he Diary was not James Maybrick. It is yet another reason for coming to the clear and obvious conclusion that the Diary is a modern forgery.

Chris Jones, Author of the Maybrick A to Z and co-author of The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The End Game. (See www.brickmaypublishing.com)

Interesting stuff, as usual, Chris.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, the handwriting in the letter doesn't match Maybrick's formal hand and seems to match the "forgery".

P.S. The Diary was "Scrooge Approved".

If you are saying that the handwriting in the letter posted by Chris Jones seems to match the handwriting in the forged diary, is it then your opinion that the forger of the diary could be Dr Thomas Stevenson, the author of the letter?

Or did you just not bother to read Chris' post properly?

[erobitha]

Serial killers are not rational people. This may come as a shock to some.

It has been proven in numerous studies that narcissistic serial killers use whatever stories or angles they think will garner the most sympathy from those they wish to influence or delude. It has often been an effective tactic to convince psychologists and parole boards that if it weren't for "insert bad thing happening to me", I would not have killed any of those people. They use this technique on themselves the most. To convince themselves of false realities.

In actual reality, they are succumbing to an urge that overwhelms them and for which they enjoy. Catering to their deep-seated urges and desires. Their addictions.

James Maybrick had numerous addictions. That is fact.

[Losmandris]

How many nails in the coffin will it take to finally lay this whole thing to rest? Surely it is glaringly obvious that Maybrick was not JtR. It is in many ways a real shame as Maybrick is a very interesting historical character as is his wife and the whole sorry affrair around the trial and his death. The whole diary thing is a real distraction from something well worth diving into. Something that Chris is doing such a great job with. I would be far more interested in a thread/discussion about whether Florence actually killed James/a wider discussion on narcotics/addiction in Victorian times. Without all the diary nonsense coming into it. Far, far more interesting IMHO.

[c.d.]

How many nails in the coffin will it take to finally lay this whole thing to rest?

How many rivets were in the Titanic?

c.d.

[Patrick Differ]

As a newcomer to Casebook forum there is much attention paid to this supposed diary by Jack the Ripper. Having read it twice it appears to match events but the Press at the time was aggressive. Most of these details were available in some cases the next day or within days. That would tell me that this could have theoretically be written at anytime up until it's original finding.The diary in my mind should be viewed without these event details. From that perspective it makes little sense to me with regard to motive to kill prostitutes, much less gut them and take organs.
With regard to the selection of Middlesex Street as the lair where Maybrick rented a room, I found it a strategic move by whoever wrote this work. Census in 1891 shows rooms for rent on Middlesex. Street. That information is easily found.
Strategic because it ties into the Eddowes narrative of the disappearance between murder and finding the apron and message and also the George Hutchinson sighting post Kelly murder.
Why Middlesex Street? Likely because Nichols was not the Rippers first victim. If you Replace her with Tabrum you get a completely different plot for where this killer might live. Middlesex Street is closer than say Fieldgate Street or Brick Lane for example. It is even more attractive from a lair perspective if it is located on the London City side of Middlesex Street as all the murders except Eddowes were in Metro.
Also find it interesting that if this work were discovered in 1993, that is 6 years before Levy was discovered by Mark King in 1999. Levy living on the London City side of Middlesex.

Whoever wrote this work, they thought hard about key aspects of the murders. Middlesex Street? That puts Maybrick in the mix in my opinion. But the work, for me, feels a bit convenient

My 2 cents.

[Lombro2]

That’s another profiling bolt hole-in-one. Michael Barrett must be another Kim Rossmo. He doesn’t even need a formula. He’s a natural.

Now back to Motive:

There’s a difference between triggers and motives. Motives are more deep-seated and a killer may not admit them even to himself. Instead he’ll blame his triggers as in the diary.

But you can still read a deeper motive related to jealousy of Michael Maybrick and frustrated artistic ambitions.

I know! "Nobody asked." But I gave the Trigger/Motive anyway.

[rjpalmer]

With regard to the selection of Middlesex Street as the lair where Maybrick rented a room, I found it a strategic move by whoever wrote this work.

I don't see it that way; I suspect your concerns about geography are more sophisticated than anything that had occurred to the hoaxer.

To me, the choice of Middlesex Street is nothing more than a convenient way to make a 'joke'---a rather childish play on the word 'sex.'

"I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street, that in itself is a joke."

The joke is that the 'Ripper' set himself up in the middle of the sex trade.'

Yes, it's rather lame, but Mike Barrett, the diary's main man, had written word games and puzzles for Look-In magazine in the 1980s and seemed to enjoy a play on words.

[Lombro2]

How many nails in the coffin will it take to finally lay this whole thing to rest?

How many rivets were in the Titanic?

c.d.

This is Noah’s Ark. Ike uses pegs.