The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Mike J. G.]

Well, let me take you up on the offer. Find me 'John', and find me 'Gertrude', and find me 'Celia', and find me 'Daniel'. Just let me know how to 'see' them and I'll take your point.


If you can't (and you won't), then take my point.

What example of the GSG are we using here? Just asking, since there's a few versions out there.

Let's assume it's this:

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

John can be found within the J of "Juwes," especially if it was capitalized, Gertrude could be alluded to in the same manner, in the G of "nothing," Daniel in the "d."

When we start trying to find the names of people cryptically contained within the still-unknown text written on a wall over 100 years ago, we're firmly in the grip of hysteria.

[Mike J. G.]

And yet you can find all those Maybricks, but no Horaces, Henrys, Davids, Duncans, Georges, Meryls, Roberts, Cuthberts - where to stop in the long long list of the unmentioned?????????????

Even if the GSG were not a felicitous copy, what are the odds of those names being referencable by sheer chance alone and what chance that the word 'nothing' would be written exactly as written in the journal (unless we say that the hoaxer mirrored the GSG when hoaxing the diary but couldn't be arsed to check the known examples of Maybrick's actual known and formal handwriting?).

For the record, Commissioner Warren asked the local Plod to make a 'duplicate' before he sponged out of history our only solid clue. Now, a 'copy' would be ambiguous ... but a duplicate? To me, that's pretty compelling language.

1) You obviously have no idea what was actually written on that wall, because there's no evidence to show us.

2) You can, in all probability, find any number of random words, phrases and names contained within that message, the message that we've no actual evidence on other than several varying accounts.

3) Assuming that the message was intended to be some sort of cryptic clue containing James's families names is nothing short of ridiculous.

4) There's no evidence to suggest that "the Ripper" even wrote that message, just as there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't already there hours before the murder.

[c.d.]

Hello Ike,

I mean no disrespect but I have to wonder if most of what you write is tongue in cheek and you simply enjoy a good leg pull just for jolly. Is that true? Fess up now.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

People find whatever they like when they're looking desperately, though, Ike. Some people see the image of Jesus on pieces of toast.

Ah ha! And so I refer you back to my original post on this very thread!

[Iconoclast]

What example of the GSG are we using here? Just asking, since there's a few versions out there.

Let's assume it's this:

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

John can be found within the J of "Juwes," especially if it was capitalized, Gertrude could be alluded to in the same manner, in the G of "nothing," Daniel in the "d."

When we start trying to find the names of people cryptically contained within the still-unknown text written on a wall over 100 years ago, we're firmly in the grip of hysteria.

No, no, no, no, no. I'm looking for you to show me a word or a grouping of letters that form a cryptic reference to 'Gertrude' etc.! Don't get all lazy on my here, Mike. Have you even read my post and the resulting posts which depict exactly what I'm talking about???

[Iconoclast]

1) You obviously have no idea what was actually written on that wall, because there's no evidence to show us.

Fortunately, a duplicate was made and accepted by the Met Police. Phew - close one there!

2) You can, in all probability, find any number of random words, phrases and names contained within that message, the message that we've no actual evidence on other than several varying accounts.

Who's looking for 'random' words or phrases here??????? James, Thomas, William, Ed'win', etc. are not random words in the context of the Maybrick journal!!!!!!!!!!

3) Assuming that the message was intended to be some sort of cryptic clue containing James's families names is nothing short of ridiculous.

Erm, not if Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! Are you keeping up here?

4) There's no evidence to suggest that "the Ripper" even wrote that message, just as there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't already there hours before the murder.

Oh dear. You don't know your Jack the Ripper, do you?

Shocking ...

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike,

I mean no disrespect but I have to wonder if most of what you write is tongue in cheek and you simply enjoy a good leg pull just for jolly. Is that true? Fess up now.

c.d.

I vascillate between genius, common or garden inspiration, frustration, depression, mania, and then back to genius.

As a rule.

Nae tongue. And nae cheek, son!

[Henry Flower]

Fortunately, a duplicate was made and accepted by the Met Police. Phew - close one there!



Who's looking for 'random' words or phrases here??????? James, Thomas, William, Ed'win', etc. are not random words in the context of the Maybrick journal!!!!!!!!!!



Erm, not if Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! Are you keeping up here?



Oh dear. You don't know your Jack the Ripper, do you?

Shocking ...

Those names do not appear in the GSG. You perform illogical gymnastics to manufacture their presence, and when asked why they would be there you say "don't ask me! Maybrick put them there, not me!"

No he didn't. You did.

[Iconoclast]

Those names do not appear in the GSG. You perform illogical gymnastics to manufacture their presence, and when asked why they would be there you say "don't ask me! Maybrick put them there, not me!"

No he didn't. You did.

Nope, they are there.

[Iconoclast]

Those names do not appear in the GSG. You perform illogical gymnastics to manufacture their presence, and when asked why they would be there you say "don't ask me! Maybrick put them there, not me!"

No he didn't. You did.

And the word 'nothing' is EXACTLY as it is written in the journal. Doesn't occur to you to give it some weight or is that me just seeing what I want to see? (I don't think you'll be able to swing that argument.)

[Mike J. G.]

Fortunately, a duplicate was made and accepted by the Met Police. Phew - close one there!

Oddly, more than one duplicate seems to have been made, though, so we're not actually certain on which one was the real version.

Who's looking for 'random' words or phrases here??????? James, Thomas, William, Ed'win', etc. are not random words in the context of the Maybrick journal!!!!!!!!!!

The point being that you can obviously find many names and words contained cryptically within that piece of text, meaning that the likelihood that those family names are actually there is rather slim indeed. What's being done here is people are simply seeing what they wish to see in order to make the story fit, a la Dan Brown.

Erm, not if Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! Are you keeping up here?

Ah, right, because the Ripper was a prankster and a fan of puzzles...based on no evidence whatsoever, Ike.

Oh dear. You don't know your Jack the Ripper, do you?

Shocking ...

I certainly smell bullsh*t when I see it!

[Mike J. G.]

No, no, no, no, no. I'm looking for you to show me a word or a grouping of letters that form a cryptic reference to 'Gertrude' etc.! Don't get all lazy on my here, Mike. Have you even read my post and the resulting posts which depict exactly what I'm talking about???

I think the definition of "lazy" pretty much sums up what you're doing when you're claiming that those names are contained in the GSG, Ike. Kinda like those people who see an "FM"on the wall in Kelly's room but ironically don't see the glaring red flags contained within the diary itself. It's special pleading and selective attention, which is what people who believe in such things as Bigfoot use when throwing logic and common sense out of the window.

[Observer]

Hello Ike,

I mean no disrespect but I have to wonder if most of what you write is tongue in cheek and you simply enjoy a good leg pull just for jolly. Is that true? Fess up now.

c.d.

There's a poster who spots a wind-up when he sees one.

[Henry Flower]

There's a poster who spots a wind-up when he sees one.

One hopes not. That would be a very childish waste of people's time and energy.

Mind you, even if Ike truly believes he has 'found' 'MM' by turning the word 'will' upside down, it's still a monumental waste of time and energy trying to reason with him. He's either a kidder or else a True Believer and no amount of reasoning will dissuade him.

[Harry D]

Hello Ike,

I mean no disrespect but I have to wonder if most of what you write is tongue in cheek and you simply enjoy a good leg pull just for jolly. Is that true? Fess up now.

c.d.

You only wonder that?