The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Dane_F]

I'm sad no one has commented on my very important and all new link between WS and JM.

I mean the GSG was said to be the 2nd strongest point linking JM as Jack the Ripper. If the GSG is so valuable then clearly AND definitively linking WS to it is a huge deal. I'd personally say it's the biggest revelation to happen in ripperology since Patrica's book.

[GUT]

If you are seeking to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper by comparing the handwriting in the diary with Sir Charles Warren's I think you're on a loser.

The one individual who comes out of the GSG saga with any credit was Hulse who realised that it might be important and was therefore more likely than anyone else to have made an accurate record of the wording.

The one thing absolutely vital with any artifact which purports to prove an issue is an unbroken chain of evidence. The diary (like the shawl) is an abject failure on that score. I'd start by filling the 90 year gap between the death of James Maybrick and the emergence of the Victorian scrapbook so-called diary. Another question which needs addressing is why an outwardly respectable businessman like Maybrick didn't write his 'diary' in something more suitable - like an 1888 diary, which would have been cheap and (in 1888 but not subsequently) readily available.

No Case To Answer - Not Guilty.

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.

[Bridewell]

the similarity of the journal's handwriting to the September 17 letter and the Goulston Street graffito may yet be the counter-curse).

If you are seeking to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper by comparing the handwriting in the diary with Sir Charles Warren's I think you're on a loser.

The one individual who comes out of the GSG saga with any credit was Hulse who realised that it might be important and was therefore more likely than anyone else to have made an accurate record of the wording.

The one thing absolutely vital with any artifact which purports to prove an issue is an unbroken chain of evidence. The diary (like the shawl) is an abject failure on that score. I'd start by filling the 90 year gap between the death of James Maybrick and the emergence of the Victorian scrapbook so-called diary. Another question which needs addressing is why an outwardly respectable businessman like Maybrick didn't write his 'diary' in something more suitable - like an 1888 diary, which would have been cheap and (in 1888 but not subsequently) readily available.

No Case To Answer - Not Guilty.

[Graham]

Iconoclast, you are the one who is trying to convince the likes of me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. To do so, you must first prove to us the absolute basic requirement - was Maybrick in London on the nights of the Ripper murders? It is not up to me or anyone else to prove to you that all the other suspects you name were in London at the critical times. It is up to you to show us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that James Maybrick was. You have said you can't do this, so why not call an end to it right now?

Just to help you on your way - years ago, on this Forum (pre-crash) I rather jocularly proposed that W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan operetta fame) would make a good candidate for the Ripper, as he liked to walk alone through the streets of London on the first nights of his productions. I had two PM's from people who genuinely believed what I'd said....even though none of the first-nights of G&S productions coincided with a Ripper murder.


You have read Feldman's book, I presume? If so, what do you think of it?

Graham

[GUT]

I think you should read Graham's question again. It was:

'Can you absolutely and definitely place James Maybrick in London on the night of each of The Ripper murders?' [My emphasis, of course].

Maybrick can unequivocally be placed in London 'at the time' (i.e. the Autumn of Terror) because his visits to his brother Michael are on the record, but he can't be placed there on Aug 31, Sept 7 (night before Chapman's murder), Sept 30, or Nov 8 (night before Kelly's murder). So, run me through Sickert's, Druitt's, Deeming's, and Van Gogh's known movements in Whitechapel on those evenings as it sounds as though the argument here is that that is a requirement before candidates can be considered.

How can it NOT be a requirement to show that someone who didn't live in Londin was actually in London on the night of the murders.

My post was in response to you claim that Maybrick's was being treated somehow different to any other suspect in this requirement and merely pointed out to you that the same questions were raised in relation to at least four other proposed Jacks. Not really too hard to grasp, Maybrick's is not, as you claim, being picked on merely held to the same proof as any other suspect.

[Iconoclast]

Who, I might add, has made no comment regarding my mention of Kate Colquhoun's book. I do wonder why.

Graham

Sorry, my friend, it came across as showing off. I didn't think there was actually a question there.

What response were you expecting from a comment about a book that told you nothing more about Maybrick as the Ripper?

[Iconoclast]

You must be joking.

The first question on almost any suspect is, can he be placed in London at the time, here's just a few

Sickert
Druitt (Cricket commitments)
Deeming (South Africa)
Dare I say it Van Gogh (France)

So no, no one is picking on Maybrickists just asking standard questions.

I think you should read Graham's question again. It was:

'Can you absolutely and definitely place James Maybrick in London on the night of each of The Ripper murders?' [My emphasis, of course].

Maybrick can unequivocally be placed in London 'at the time' (i.e. the Autumn of Terror) because his visits to his brother Michael are on the record, but he can't be placed there on Aug 31, Sept 7 (night before Chapman's murder), Sept 30, or Nov 8 (night before Kelly's murder). So, run me through Sickert's, Druitt's, Deeming's, and Van Gogh's known movements in Whitechapel on those evenings as it sounds as though the argument here is that that is a requirement before candidates can be considered.

[Graham]

You must be joking.

The first question on almost any suspect is, can he be placed in London at the time, here's just a few

Sickert
Druitt (Cricket commitments)
Deeming (South Africa)
Dare I say it Van Gogh (France)

So no, no one is picking on Maybrickists just asking standard questions.

I'm with you all the way, GUT!

Iconoclast is falling into the old trap of asking his debunkers to prove the credentials of other suspects - been done before, doesn't work. Iconoclast has stated that he thinks Maybrick is The Ripper, but has yet to prove his theory. Other posters have stated with massive confidence (or bravado)that So-and-so is The Ripper, and have never proved their case. Dale Larner and van Gogh, for one. Nothing special about Maybrick - just prove your point then we can wrap up this entire Forum and go home. Back in your court, Iconoclast. Who, I might add, has made no comment regarding my mention of Kate Colquhoun's book. I do wonder why.

Graham

[GUT]

No, of course I can't place him in London on the nights of the crimes. Can you just pop down a quick list of which of the other 200 candidates - many of whom have their navals gazed at endlessly on this Casebook - are known to have been in London on all five of those nights?

What is it about James Maybrick that the rules of engagement for his consideration have to be so very different? It can't be on the basis of implausibility as that's been a well-worn theme for 127 years in Ripperology. It must be something else.

You are permitted to propose almost anyone on this Casebook and you will be treated with civility.

Unless you propose Maybrick, that is.

You must be joking.

The first question on almost any suspect is, can he be placed in London at the time, here's just a few

Sickert
Druitt (Cricket commitments)
Deeming (South Africa)
Dare I say it Van Gogh (France)

So no, no one is picking on Maybrickists just asking standard questions.

[Iconoclast]

I just looked at Post No 10. That's no answer! I think you're making it up as you go along, my friend. But then, you wouldn't be the first by any means. At least Feldman made a (very) serious attempt to lay down a serious argument for Maybrick being The Ripper, which you have not done.

My question to you is this: can you absolutely and definitely place James Maybrick in London on the night of each of The Ripper murders? If you can, it strengthens your case but doesn't necessarily prove it. If you can't, well, you have no case whatsoever, have you?

Graham

Which bits am I making up as I go along, my friend? I don't place any great store by the watch and I think my brief response in post #10 reflected that precisely. Bar the Goulston Street graffito re the brothers and Florence, everything I wrote was already in the published domain so if those points (many of which were Feldman's) were not serious, I shan't take offence as they weren't established or proposed by me.

No, of course I can't place him in London on the nights of the crimes. Can you just pop down a quick list of which of the other 200 candidates - many of whom have their navals gazed at endlessly on this Casebook - are known to have been in London on all five of those nights?

What is it about James Maybrick that the rules of engagement for his consideration have to be so very different? It can't be on the basis of implausibility as that's been a well-worn theme for 127 years in Ripperology. It must be something else.

You are permitted to propose almost anyone on this Casebook and you will be treated with civility.

Unless you propose Maybrick, that is.

[Graham]

See Post #10, Graham.

Iconoclast

I just looked at Post No 10. That's no answer! I think you're making it up as you go along, my friend. But then, you wouldn't be the first by any means. At least Feldman made a (very) serious attempt to lay down a serious argument for Maybrick being The Ripper, which you have not done.

My question to you is this: can you absolutely and definitely place James Maybrick in London on the night of each of The Ripper murders? If you can, it strengthens your case but doesn't necessarily prove it. If you can't, well, you have no case whatsoever, have you?

Graham

[Dane_F]

I am confused about just a couple little things. That is, if Maybrick did at least one of the torso murders and wrote about it in the diary why did he not engrave her initials or make some mark to indicate he killed her on the watch. It seems very strange he would claim only the C5 if he killed more.

Also, the GSG. I understand the turning of the letters but what if instead of turning the B down to make a "M" we turn it up to make a "W"? Then instead of separated F actually representing a F, as we all know if you move the 2nd line of the F down and to the left it becomes a "S". Now this is going to blow some of you guys minds but those initials don't actually say Florence Maybrick but instead they say. . . WALTER SICKERT. Possibly two people did the killings? Why did Maybrick indicate he had assistance from Sickert in the GSG? Are there other hidden messages in Sickert's paintings that indicate a link to Maybrick?

One last thing. Why did he get the breast placement wrong? This is a guy who had enough thought to carve initials into the wall, into the body, to avoid detection numerous times, to be so smart to leave clues at multiple crime scenes, to be smart enough to write cryptic messages in the GSG, to have the ability to completely change his handwriting, but he somehow forgot where he put the breasts? Why not write about the missing heart he had with him at the time? There'd be no mistaking that clue.

[Iconoclast]

Someone recently asked Iconoclast where he thinks the Watch fits into all his theorising, and I don't believe an answer was given, forgive me if I'm wrong.
Graham

See Post #10, Graham.

Iconoclast

[Phil Carter]

In answer to your questions.

I last read it 4 months ago

I have read it at least 40 times in 20 odd years.

I have also read the 3 main books about the diary, including the Caz effort, many many times.

Maybrick = Jack the Ripper ?

Not guilty.


Phil

[Graham]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Iconoclast is one of many posters who deceives himself into believing that what he thinks and what he writes in the absence of hard, concrete fact is the pure, unvarnished truth. Same as Dale Larner who, if Vincent van Gogh returned to Earth and told him in words of fire that he wasn't Jack the Ripper, I feel that Larner wouldn't believe him. The late Paul Feldman is in the same category with regards to unbridled enthusaism, but I do have a lot of respect for him given the huge amount of energy and expense he put into his researches. Frankly, I've never believed that Maybrick was the Ripper, nor that he penned the so-called 'Ripper Diary', but what does my humble opinion matter?

Someone recently asked Iconoclast where he thinks the Watch fits into all his theorising, and I don't believe an answer was given, forgive me if I'm wrong.

I'm currently part-way through "Did She Kill Him?", Kate Colquhoun's book about the death of Maybrick and the trials and tribulations of Florence Maybrick. This was published in 2014, and I have to say that so far it is a fascinating and highly-detailed read, and obviously the result of fastidious research. I have to confess that I did turn to the back of the book to see what she has to say about Maybrick as the Ripper, and she dismisses this idea in a very few words.

Graham