The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[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.

[Iconoclast]

Well I'm convinced. . .

Thanks Dane.

Iconoclast

[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.

[GUT]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.