The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Mike J. G.]

Your average reader will have already spotted that what you accuse you use.

"No amount of reasoning will make them see reason". See what you've done there? "I've already decided what 'reason' is, and anyone who disagrees with me must be blind". It honestly doesn't matter of course - whether I or anyone else operates from a place of reason doesn't alter the case.

Well, Ike, most level-headed people don't add up all of the negatives and say to themselves, hey, this still seems reasonable. Nothing adds up, nothing matches what we know, but hey, it could still be legit! and that's what I'm clearly talking about when I talk about people not seeing reason.

I don't think anyone who disagrees is blind, but I do think they're doing the opposite of exercising logic and common sense in favour of a story which they prefer over reality.

Most logical people would be unimpressed by the laughable evidence being put across in favour of Maybrick being the Ripper, but some people are willing to ignore the strings and simply watch the puppet dancing all by itself.

No, I don't accept your argument that informal, rapidly-written writing is going to necessarily carry the trace of someone's contrived and formal copperplate hand. But then that's because I don't accept your 'reason', so clearly I will be wrong.

Doesn't change nowt.

This is remarkable, and yet more proof of people with tunnel-vision seeing whatever they wish to see. You're not only basically denying that people have visible traits within their handwriting that can and are routinely used to determine fraud and forgeries, but you're also of the opinion that people can and do change their entire mannerisms and suddenly erase all of their nuances when they're intoxicated, which is backed up by nothing whatsoever, lol.

There are many ways to study a person's methods of letter/word structure, like strokes, width, height, etc.

These are the same things that are used to determine whether Elvis really did sign that guitar or not, and to assume that this wouldn't apply to James Maybrick, international man of mystery, is beyond absurd.

In your opinion, Maybrick wrote in two entirely different hands, adopting totally different techniques, something which is quite unique for any human being in the natural world, but then again, this was no average man, was it? This was Spring-Heeled James the Ripper!

[Iconoclast]

Not really, it's just a little homage to the GSG, but there is truth to it, seeing as believers in such things are tunnel-visioned in their quest to believe.

We see it with ghost-believers, UFO-fans, Bigfooters, 9/11 "inside job" advocates, and on and on.

No amount of reasoning will make them see reason.

You keep avoiding the fact that Maybrick's own hand would've had plenty of details contained within that the diary's handwriting should also contain, regardless of bloody copperplate or arsenic, lol, or are you denying that such things exist and are not routinely used to detect fraud?

Same thing, over and over. Ignorance is bliss, though.

Your average reader will have already spotted that what you accuse you use.

"No amount of reasoning will make them see reason". See what you've done there? "I've already decided what 'reason' is, and anyone who disagrees with me must be blind". It honestly doesn't matter of course - whether I or anyone else operates from a place of reason doesn't alter the case.

No, I don't accept your argument that informal, rapidly-written writing is going to necessarily carry the trace of someone's contrived and formal copperplate hand. But then that's because I don't accept your 'reason', so clearly I will be wrong.

Doesn't change nowt.

[Mike J. G.]

By implication, you are suggesting that non-believers are flexible in their positions. I've never seen it, but it must be true if you say so.

A little like all men who ever wrote in copperplate must only have written in copperplate?

Not really, it's just a little homage to the GSG, but there is truth to it, seeing as believers in such things are tunnel-visioned in their quest to believe.

We see it with ghost-believers, UFO-fans, Bigfooters, 9/11 "inside job" advocates, and on and on.

No amount of reasoning will make them see reason.

You keep avoiding the fact that Maybrick's own hand would've had plenty of details contained within that the diary's handwriting should also contain, regardless of bloody copperplate or arsenic, lol, or are you denying that such things exist and are not routinely used to detect fraud?

Same thing, over and over. Ignorance is bliss, though.

[Iconoclast]

The believers are the men who will not be swayed by anything.

By implication, you are suggesting that non-believers are flexible in their positions. I've never seen it, but it must be true if you say so.

A little like all men who ever wrote in copperplate must only have written in copperplate?

[Mike J. G.]

Of course, it makes sense now. He's kidding. It's a wind-up.

Nobody could realistically argue what he's argued.

Juwes is not James

The men is not Thomas

Will is a very common verb

Will is also not MM. MM appears nowhere in the GSG

B is not FM

And it's easy on even a cursory examination to see the the word 'nothing' as written in the diary is significantly and perhaps irreconcilably different from the 'nothing' written by the copper while transcribing the GSG.

Only a prankster or a fool could actually propose this nonsense. This is up there with Dale Larner.

The believers are the men who will not be swayed by anything.

[Henry Flower]

You only wonder that?

Of course, it makes sense now. He's kidding. It's a wind-up.

Nobody could realistically argue what he's argued.

Juwes is not James

The men is not Thomas

Will is a very common verb

Will is also not MM. MM appears nowhere in the GSG

B is not FM

And it's easy on even a cursory examination to see the the word 'nothing' as written in the diary is significantly and perhaps irreconcilably different from the 'nothing' written by the copper while transcribing the GSG.

Only a prankster or a fool could actually propose this nonsense. This is up there with Dale Larner.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.)

[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.

[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]

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!