The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Bridewell]

Warren was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police - he wouldn't have transcribed the GSG, he would have given the order for it to be transcribed.

This is what Warren later wrote (something you yourself have quoted):

'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

N.B. He says he took a copy, not that he issued orders for a copy be taken.

It's not unusual for senior police officers to involve themselves in this way (although it has to be said that their involvement is not always beneficial!).
In this instance it would seem that (quite properly in view of his controversial decision to erase the writing) he took it upon himself to record what was written.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Sam,

Okay, looks like you can't preview it so fingers crossed it appears (it has the 'attach' syntax around it so that's a start).

I've found those batteries on Amazon so thanks for the tip!

[ATTACH]16993[/ATTACH]

Ha ha - it didn't work. I'll need to practice this one a bit more I think ...

[Sam Flynn]

Two things:
1) My wireless keyboard must need a new battery so apologies for what I imagine are the typos (I'm sick of correcting them)

I recommend Sanyo/Panasonic "Eneloop" rechargeable batteries. They do run out, of course, but they keep their charge much longer than conventional ones.

and
2) How did you embed the image in your post?

See this entry in the FAQ: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=157

Any problems with that, let me know

[Iconoclast]

Well, yes - but a "copy", NB, not a "true copy", still less a "facsimile".
I'm not so sure that the "Warren" transcript preserves the actual line structure, as Detective Constable Halse records it thus:

[ATTACH]16992[/ATTACH]

Which is the more faithful representation of the layout? Personally, I favour DC Halse, for reasons I won't bore you with here. The main issue is that, even if one or other transcriber tried to preserve the layout, it doesn't mean that either intended to replicate the hand. I can't see why they'd want to, either.

I think Warren had a great deal to answer for in sponging out the GSG as clearly we are left with yet more debate. Nevertheless, there is the official version and there is Halse's version. I feel that there are so few categoricals in the case of Jack, that we should consider the official version above that of 'someone else writing it down'. The jamb wasn't very wide (I think the width is on record somewhere if anyone is interested), which brings into question how likely Halse's second line is in terms of the original.

I think that even in 1888 they would have had the savvy to consider transcribing the GSG literally for posterity - especially as it was clearly an attempt to substitute the literal nature of the camera lens.

We are also left with the utter implausibility of the discerning of the names (correctly or otherwise) and the mirroring of journal writing (when mirroring a will would have made so much more sense).

Anyway, nothing is gained and nothing is lost in all this as we are left with such frustrating imponderables when critical elements such as the GSG weren't preserved for us.

Two things:
1) My wireless keyboard must need a new battery so apologies for what I imagine are the typos (I'm sick of correcting them), and
2) How did you embed the image in your post?

[Sam Flynn]

Both of you will know, of course, that Sir Charles Warren - when explaining his actions to the Home Office on November 6, 1888 - stated that 'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

Well, yes - but a "copy", NB, not a "true copy", still less a "facsimile".

If it was simply a copy of the words, it would presumably be one sentence, but the transcriber had clearly copied the actual line structure including line breaks.

I'm not so sure that the "Warren" transcript preserves the actual line structure, as Detective Constable Halse records it thus:



Which is the more faithful representation of the layout? Personally, I favour DC Halse, for reasons I won't bore you with here. The main issue is that, even if one or other transcriber tried to preserve the layout, it doesn't mean that either intended to replicate the hand. I can't see why they'd want to, either.

[Iconoclast]

Very probably not (see my previous post above).
Quite so, PC Dunn.

Both of you will know, of course, that Sir Charles Warren - when explaining his actions to the Home Office on November 6, 1888 - stated that 'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

The duplicate he enclosed is typed in The Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (page 184) in exactly the structure we see in the accepted format. If it was simply a copy of the words, it would presumably be one sentence, but the transcriber had clearly copied the actual line structure including line breaks.

'If' is a word which cuts both ways. The transcriber may have felicitously copied down the structure of the handwriting or he may not. We cannot say either way, but whether it is felicitous or not, that format is the accepted version and Maybrick's six significant adult family members can be discerned in what we have and the word 'nothing' is fundamentally mirrorred in the journal, absolutely no debate about that, erring 'g' or otherwise. He was about to drop on the floor an article which would hang him so I have to assume he was in a hurry as he finished the sentence and rather pumped-up somewhat from having just killed two women and two police forces looking for him.

A great deal of fuel for thought here, not the cut-and-dried issue previous posts might imply.

[Sam Flynn]

Did the officer who noted it down also imitate the handwriting?

Very probably not (see my previous post above).

If the officer transcribed only the words and not the appearance of the graffiti, then the handwriting doesn't matter at all.

Quite so, PC Dunn.

[Graham]

Re: Post No 53.

I'm not hostile, just a long-term poster to these boards, and it's all been argued and discussed before, ad nauseam. Prior to the discovery (if that's the right word) of the 'Diary', the name of James Maybrick had never once been linked to The Ripper Murders, and he's in the waste-bin along with the likes of Vincent van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, and many more 'names' from the Victorian period that have been all but picked out of a hat. As I sit here in front of my lap-top I can see the line of Maybrick books on my shelves, and not one of them has convinced me that Maybrick penned the Diary, let alone was Jack the Ripper. Which is not to say that the 'Diary' is a modern production, as I don't believe it is, but whoever wrote it was not, as far as I am concerned, James Maybrick.

Graham

[Pcdunn]

I'd go so far as to say that comparing James' handwriting to anyone else's just shows how desperately weak the evidence against Maybrick is.

I agree with the Honorable Defense attorney, as I think the Prosecutor is misunderstanding how "true and accurate" a record of the Goulston Street Graffiti we have. Did the officer who noted it down also imitate the handwriting? If he did, there are problems comparing the GSG with the Diary, as they are not similar, in my humble opinion (the "g" is completely different, for instance). If the officer transcribed only the words and not the appearance of the graffiti, then the handwriting doesn't matter at all.

[Iconoclast]

Well at least you admit your arguments have been shown to be rubbish.

But I give you credit for trying hard.

Yes, my arguments have been shown to be rubbish in the most eloquent and insightful fashion.

I am giddy with the light they have shone on my slender grasp of the case.

It's been tough, but thank you for it.

[GUT]

I guess so, yes, but in the scheme of these things, a relatively light one ...

Well at least you admit your arguments have been shown to be rubbish.

But I give you credit for trying hard.

[Iconoclast]

So when your arguments are all shown to be rubbish you throw insults.

Clever.

I guess so, yes, but in the scheme of these things, a relatively light one ...

[Iconoclast]

Nothing says it was ever meant to be a carbon copy of what was on the wall - the transcript in Warren's memo is far too neat for that, besides which it resembles a generic educated Late Victorian hand. It might preserve the indentations, spelling and line-breaks (I have my doubts about the latter), but it almost certainly wasn't meant to be a faithful reproduction of how the words looked on the bumpy, vertical surface of that dark doorway.

It's worth recalling that the controversy surrounding the GSG was not about how it was written, but its apparently racist content and ambiguous spelling. This, rather than the handwriting, was almost certainly the reason for Warren getting the transcription made, namely to preserve accurately the quirky grammar and oddball spelling. There was therefore no need to record the formation of the letters with any kind of accuracy, still less to aim for such pinpoint precision as might befit a facsimile.

If this weren't the case, why didn't the police issue a copy of the transcript for public identification, as they did with the almost exactly contemporaneous "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" missives? A likely answer is that the transcript was never intended to preserve what the writing looked like, only what the message said.

All fair points, Sam - and points which I have considered too. What throws me is the remarkable implausibility of finding those six significant adults in Maybrick's life (whether reasonably so or by force of my will to discern them) as well as the literal copying of 'nothing' in the GSG and the journal.

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

Each to his own, Graham. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that Maybrickians witness more of the poo-poohing on the Casebook.

I know you know the arguments about the veracity or otherwise around Maybrick's will. Even if it is in his formal hand, his formal hand and his informal hand are not necessarily the same by any stretch of the imagination. If anything else were true, no books would have got as far as the publication stage.

But that's fine, my friend. We get the point. You don't know who Jack was but you know it wasn't Maybrick. No problem.

My tree doesn't shake that easily, as I'm sure yours doesn't either.

We have seen a much less confrontational Graham on this Casebook so I'm surprised by the hostility you have shown.

[Sam Flynn]

Warren ... engaged his brain long enough to think it would be worthwhile having a felicitous transcription of [the Goulston St Graffito]

Nothing says it was ever meant to be a carbon copy of what was on the wall - the transcript in Warren's memo is far too neat for that, besides which it resembles a generic educated Late Victorian hand. It might preserve the indentations, spelling and line-breaks (I have my doubts about the latter), but it almost certainly wasn't meant to be a faithful reproduction of how the words looked on the bumpy, vertical surface of that dark doorway.

It's worth recalling that the controversy surrounding the GSG was not about how it was written, but its apparently racist content and ambiguous spelling. This, rather than the handwriting, was almost certainly the reason for Warren getting the transcription made, namely to preserve accurately the quirky grammar and oddball spelling. There was therefore no need to record the formation of the letters with any kind of accuracy, still less to aim for such pinpoint precision as might befit a facsimile.

If this weren't the case, why didn't the police issue a copy of the transcript for public identification, as they did with the almost exactly contemporaneous "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" missives? A likely answer is that the transcript was never intended to preserve what the writing looked like, only what the message said.