The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[GUT]

I think that anyone posting their views on the Casebok is always going to get a non guilty verdict - I think we can all accept that that will ever be the case. I'm happy that the case has been made against Maybrick and that the Eternal Court of History will serve a different verdict on him.

I am drawn to a theme which is both recent and - I now realise - quite old.



Caz makes the point (which has been made many times since) that Casebook contributors frequently post trenchant views constructed more or less entirely on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Whilst the poster who wrote 'Liverpool' - by Caz's own subsequent admission - erred only slightly, the mere fact that she erred at all should be a warning to all who post and all who read those posts.

Like Caz, I have read the journal through scores of times, read all of the Maybrick works many times, and read as much of the Ripper tomes as reasonably possible - all with one honest aim, to find the facts so that the truth can be heard and understood. If Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, he truly was the most unfortunate person in criminal history because research just keeps putting him more in the frame rather than less in the frame, and that shouldn't be possible if he was not guilty of the crimes.

The Casebook is a wonderful discusson tool, but those who post their views - as Caz suggested in 2004 - ought to be well-read enough on the case to know when a point is established, when it is conjecture, when it is merely opinion, and when it is simply plain wrong.

If the jury were twelve men and women who had read as much as Caz (for example) has read, we might very well still get a non guilty verdict, but at least we would know that their verdict came from a full appreciation of the case, and that is something which is not always implied by many of the posts which appear on the Maybrick section of the Casebook.

Not meaning to be harsh.

Iconoclast

I hear that a lot, "The jury didn't listen/understand".

Unless they vote the way you wanted them to, then they are a wise and attentive jury.

[Iconoclast]

Looks like the prosecution isn't going to get anything close to a. Guilty verdict.

I think that anyone posting their views on the Casebok is always going to get a non guilty verdict - I think we can all accept that that will ever be the case. I'm happy that the case has been made against Maybrick and that the Eternal Court of History will serve a different verdict on him.

I am drawn to a theme which is both recent and - I now realise - quite old.

February 10, 2004

Hi John, All,

I don’t mean this to sound facetious, but would it also be a good idea for anyone outlining their views here to give us some idea of when they last actually read the diary, and how many times they have read it?

For example, I have read the diary through many times, and from different perspectives ie from the perspective of any one of the modern hoax suspects, or an unknown person, or persons, writing in modern times; an unknown person writing at any time before the late 1980s, or a relative or associate of James Maybrick; James Maybrick himself, pretending to be the ripper; the ripper himself, either James Maybrick or someone yet to be identified pretending to be James.

It would also be useful to know what other diary literature a poster has read, beyond what is available on the Casebook.

Sarah, you mention ‘two girls in Liverpool that [JM] supposedly killed which hasn’t been linked to Jack the Ripper before'. In fact, the diarist claims to have attacked two unidentifiable victims, one either side of the canonicals, the first while he was in Manchester, the last planned for Manchester again. But we get no actual confirmation of the last location, and more an assumption than certain knowledge that either attack proved fatal. The last was apparently ‘struck’ but not ‘cut’ (like Kelly), and only left ‘for dead’, while the first was apparently only strangled, with the diarist assuming she was ‘now with her maker’.

We all have a responsibility to faithfully represent the precise language used by the diarist before we start trying to put our own, sometimes very different interpretations on it. If we have to alter the diarist’s own words in any way, or read in something that isn't actually there, in order to strengthen a personal interpretation or argument, or weaken someone else’s, the risk of getting it wrong will increase accordingly.

Love,

Caz

Caz makes the point (which has been made many times since) that Casebook contributors frequently post trenchant views constructed more or less entirely on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Whilst the poster who wrote 'Liverpool' - by Caz's own subsequent admission - erred only slightly, the mere fact that she erred at all should be a warning to all who post and all who read those posts.

Like Caz, I have read the journal through scores of times, read all of the Maybrick works many times, and read as much of the Ripper tomes as reasonably possible - all with one honest aim, to find the facts so that the truth can be heard and understood. If Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, he truly was the most unfortunate person in criminal history because research just keeps putting him more in the frame rather than less in the frame, and that shouldn't be possible if he was not guilty of the crimes.

The Casebook is a wonderful discusson tool, but those who post their views - as Caz suggested in 2004 - ought to be well-read enough on the case to know when a point is established, when it is conjecture, when it is merely opinion, and when it is simply plain wrong.

If the jury were twelve men and women who had read as much as Caz (for example) has read, we might very well still get a non guilty verdict, but at least we would know that their verdict came from a full appreciation of the case, and that is something which is not always implied by many of the posts which appear on the Maybrick section of the Casebook.

Not meaning to be harsh.

Iconoclast

[GUT]

Looks like the prosecution isn't going to get anything close to a. Guilty verdict.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

This Jurer believes that the Defendant is not only innocent but that there is no case to answer, and that this has been a case of wrongful arrest.

[Iconoclast]

Well I'm convinced. . .

Thanks Dane.

Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it would be, perhaps, useful to you if the learned Prosecutor could even remotely link the GSG to Jack the Ripper.

You mean, like maybe a piece of the 4th victim's bloody and soiled apron underneath it or would you have been expecting something rather more evidential? If you were, I'd be fascinated to now what that would be.

1. They are not comparing James' handwriting to the original

The journal is written in the hand which wrote the GSG. The journal purports to be written by James Maybrick. Inference is that Maybrick wrote the journal, and is thereore Jack the Ripper.

2. They can not prove that the handwriting in the diary belongs to James, remember our little discussion earlier about Forensic Document Examiners and Graphologists

It is true that the handwriting in the journal has not yet matched any proven example of James Maybrick's handwriting in private, for himself, possibly under the influence of arsenic, and possibly pumped-up from mutilating people.

3. They can't even get a consensus from experts that the GSG was written by Jack the Ripper.

These things come 'round - something is in vogue for a while and then the same thing is not. It's a fairground roundabout which sells a lot of books. In the case of the GSG, if it was not written by Jack the Ripper who was actually James Maybrick then its implausibility reaches greater heights for Jack would have to have randomly discarded Eddowes' apron underneath a message within which we can discern all six of James Maybrick's significant adult family (including himself) written in a hand which would be mirrored in a hoax journal one hundred years later. You would get very healthy odds on that one at Ladbrokes.

[Dane_F]

Well I'm convinced. . .

[GUT]

And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it would be, perhaps, useful to you if the learned Prosecutor could even remotely link the GSG to Jack the Ripper.

So what seems to me a major leg of their case fails on at least three grounds:

1. They are not comparing James' handwriting to the original

2. They can not prove that the handwriting in the diary belongs to James, remember our little discussion earlier about Forensic Document Examiners and Graphologists

3. They can't even get a consensus from experts that the GSG was written by Jack the Ripper.

So again I say if they cannot establish these things they fail miserably to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Iconoclast]

Well it is true that we don't have the original (and how frustrating is that?) but we do have the 'official' transcription written down as precisely as possible from the wall at Warren's request so that is a starting point. If the GSG is actually just a device for Maybrick to place all of his significant adult family into the crime scene for his own titillation, then it adds somewhat more than one iota to the case - it adds loads of iotas.

If Maybrick was not the author of the GSG (and in my argument also therefore not Jack the Ripper) then it should not be possible for us to discern James, Thomas, William, Edwin, MM, and FM from the otherwise-meaningless message on the wall, nor should the style of writing mirror the journal which emerged in 1991.

It just shouldn't be possible to discern all of this - correctly or otherwise - by sheer chance alone (or by a desperate eye). Statisticians would tell us it was so unlikely that it must be true - that those names must have been buried there deliberately in 1888, just for jolly.

[GUT]

Hi Phil (okay - the jury's pretty big though so it will be interesting to see what they all say), Pcdunn (I would love to know what happened to the red leather cigarette case, and the 'Diego Lorenz' letter to the Liverpool Echo - the football scores of course seem trivial and unimportant to us so long after the crimes, but they were context to him, whoever he was, and however tangentially he was aware of them), pinkmoon (your posts always make me smile), Scott (I think the case pivots on the journal not the watch which - whilst intriguing - is always going to be a little sideshow as I don't believe the journal can be a hoax whilst the watch is genuine, but you never know!), spyglass ("One Soothsayer, there's only one Soothsayer, One Soothsayer", etc), GUT (the handwriting remains a curse for the Maybrickian - but the similarity of the journal's handwriting to the September 17 letter and the Goulston Street graffito may yet be the counter-curse).

Iconoclast

This is the bit that puzzles, me which version of the GSG remember all we have are two or three copper's accounts of what was written, they can't even agree on the wording so how does it add one iota to the Case against Jimmy boy.

[Iconoclast]

Considering the GSG was never photographed they must be comparing James' handwriting to that of one of the police officials who took a note of it. So was James doubling up as a part time copper?

Hi GUT,

It is true that the GSG was not photographed, of course, but Warren at least had the presence of mind to ask for the text to be transcribed 'faithfully' from the wall and it is to that transcription I feel we are safest to turn.

It has been said, of course, that Jack was indeed a serving police officer, but in terms of the GSG, I hope he was simply a diligent artist!

Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

Hi Phil (okay - the jury's pretty big though so it will be interesting to see what they all say), Pcdunn (I would love to know what happened to the red leather cigarette case, and the 'Diego Lorenz' letter to the Liverpool Echo - the football scores of course seem trivial and unimportant to us so long after the crimes, but they were context to him, whoever he was, and however tangentially he was aware of them), pinkmoon (your posts always make me smile), Scott (I think the case pivots on the journal not the watch which - whilst intriguing - is always going to be a little sideshow as I don't believe the journal can be a hoax whilst the watch is genuine, but you never know!), spyglass ("One Soothsayer, there's only one Soothsayer, One Soothsayer", etc), GUT (the handwriting remains a curse for the Maybrickian - but the similarity of the journal's handwriting to the September 17 letter and the Goulston Street graffito may yet be the counter-curse).

Iconoclast

[GUT]

Here is the final image of the Goulston Street graffito with annotations - it falls within the 293kb limit fortunately. If anyone knows how to embed the image into a post, please let me know (I've seen it done on the Casebook so unless the facility has been removed, I'm evidently just not seeing how it's done from the icons provided).

Full version of original post available from historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com - please give subject line of 'Original'. I believe it probably makes for easier reading (in PDF) and clearer reading (with the images embedded in the text).

Iconoclast

Considering the GSG was never photographed they must be comparing James' handwriting to that of one of the police officials who took a note of it. So was James doubling up as a part time copper?

[Iconoclast]

Here is the final image of the Goulston Street graffito with annotations - it falls within the 293kb limit fortunately. If anyone knows how to embed the image into a post, please let me know (I've seen it done on the Casebook so unless the facility has been removed, I'm evidently just not seeing how it's done from the icons provided).

Full version of original post available from historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com - please give subject line of 'Original'. I believe it probably makes for easier reading (in PDF) and clearer reading (with the images embedded in the text).

Iconoclast

[GUT]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.

I appear for the defense and will address The handwriting issue raised by my learned friend for the prosecution.

Please bear in mind that the defense need prove nothing, that burden lies with the prosecution, it is up to them to not only prove the case but prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have not a shadow of a doubt that at the end of this case you will decide that they have failed in that duty.

Briefly to the Handwritting that my leaned friend said we would leave to last, but rather I bring to you first. I repeat the defense needs prove nought in this case, that's the prosecutions job.

My friend admits that the hand in the diary isn't the same as in the only known sample of Maybrick's, that of his will.

But they bring not a shadow of evidence,

Briefly there are two types of Handwritting analysis:

There is a Forensic Document Examiner, that's the expert that will say things like.

1. They writings are consistent with each other because

A. The shape of the letter y in the known sample is similar, or

B. The dot in the "I" is different one is a circle the other a dash staring high to the right and descending to the left.

C. The written in one lifts his pen after making the letter "k" every time, the othe doesn't.

That sort of evidence would be admitted by the Court.

The other is a Graphologist, she will say things like:

A. He was as mad as a hatter because he crossed his "t" high, or

B. he hated his mummy because the defenders on his letters (that's the tail on letters like "y" ang "g") barely went below the line.

The Courts rightly laugh at this sort of evidence.

Want to have a guess what sort of so called expert the prosecution took it to. Maybe that's why we won't hear about it.

The ink

Now my friend is right about one thing, he will not produce one tiny bit of evidence to show that the ink was available to Jimmy, he has a duty as an officer of this Court to produce the evidence of the dating of the ink, that shows that IT WAS NOT available to him, and on this piece of evidence alone, you the good members of the jury will have no choice but to say, well they haven't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As an aside there will be no DNA in this case, I am sure that of late you have all read that Jack was some crazy Jew, and the DNA proves it, or that they want to dig poor Mary up for DNA testing to prove she was some blokes aunt, an amazing discovery if so but far from solving who killed her, let alone he rest.

Now I note it is morning tea, so I will leave the rest of the prosecutions issues till after the adjournment.

Now I am sure that His Honour will instruct you to not talk about what you ave heard and t hat indeed what you have heard isn't evidence, but that you should keep it in mind, and indeed mull it over.