The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Graham]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

[Dane_F]

Goodness me, a triumverate of wind-ups.

Dane, sorry, I thought you were serious when you said 'I'm convinced', but I realise now that that was not the case.

Wait.

You mean you ARE serious? Your post read like Pink Floyd's "The Trial" in my mind. When I read the bit about the GSG and you didn't bother answering the questions I posed I thought for sure this was all very tongue in cheek.

Well at least you've been a good sport about it. I give you full credit for that.

[GUT]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

Doesn't match Jim's will but matches a copper writing down the GSG maybe he has solved it after all the copper wrote the diary.

Now I am really confused.

[Iconoclast]

Wait.

You mean you ARE serious? Your post read like Pink Floyd's "The Trial" in my mind. When I read the bit about the GSG and you didn't bother answering the questions I posed I thought for sure this was all very tongue in cheek.

Well at least you've been a good sport about it. I give you full credit for that.

Yes, Dane, I am very serious, but desperately hoping to avoid being sucked into the relentless vitriol which being a Maybrickian seems to inevitably bring with it.

I think I failed in my objective last evening with Graham, and even considered just not posting any further as none of it ever seems to be welcomed.

Hey ho, I am too old and too ugly to lose sleep about these things, but it would be amazing to engage in a discussion without being treated as an idiot.

[Iconoclast]

Doesn't match Jim's will but matches a copper writing down the GSG maybe he has solved it after all the copper wrote the diary.

Now I am really confused.

I get the feeling that confusion is a place you are familiar with so I'm not about to extricate you from your comfort zone.

[GUT]

I get the feeling that confusion is a place you are familiar with so I'm not about to extricate you from your comfort zone.

So when your arguments are all shown to be rubbish you throw insults.

Clever.

[Sam Flynn]

Warren ... engaged his brain long enough to think it would be worthwhile having a felicitous transcription of [the Goulston St Graffito]

Nothing says it was ever meant to be a carbon copy of what was on the wall - the transcript in Warren's memo is far too neat for that, besides which it resembles a generic educated Late Victorian hand. It might preserve the indentations, spelling and line-breaks (I have my doubts about the latter), but it almost certainly wasn't meant to be a faithful reproduction of how the words looked on the bumpy, vertical surface of that dark doorway.

It's worth recalling that the controversy surrounding the GSG was not about how it was written, but its apparently racist content and ambiguous spelling. This, rather than the handwriting, was almost certainly the reason for Warren getting the transcription made, namely to preserve accurately the quirky grammar and oddball spelling. There was therefore no need to record the formation of the letters with any kind of accuracy, still less to aim for such pinpoint precision as might befit a facsimile.

If this weren't the case, why didn't the police issue a copy of the transcript for public identification, as they did with the almost exactly contemporaneous "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" missives? A likely answer is that the transcript was never intended to preserve what the writing looked like, only what the message said.

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

Each to his own, Graham. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that Maybrickians witness more of the poo-poohing on the Casebook.

I know you know the arguments about the veracity or otherwise around Maybrick's will. Even if it is in his formal hand, his formal hand and his informal hand are not necessarily the same by any stretch of the imagination. If anything else were true, no books would have got as far as the publication stage.

But that's fine, my friend. We get the point. You don't know who Jack was but you know it wasn't Maybrick. No problem.

My tree doesn't shake that easily, as I'm sure yours doesn't either.

We have seen a much less confrontational Graham on this Casebook so I'm surprised by the hostility you have shown.

[Iconoclast]

Nothing says it was ever meant to be a carbon copy of what was on the wall - the transcript in Warren's memo is far too neat for that, besides which it resembles a generic educated Late Victorian hand. It might preserve the indentations, spelling and line-breaks (I have my doubts about the latter), but it almost certainly wasn't meant to be a faithful reproduction of how the words looked on the bumpy, vertical surface of that dark doorway.

It's worth recalling that the controversy surrounding the GSG was not about how it was written, but its apparently racist content and ambiguous spelling. This, rather than the handwriting, was almost certainly the reason for Warren getting the transcription made, namely to preserve accurately the quirky grammar and oddball spelling. There was therefore no need to record the formation of the letters with any kind of accuracy, still less to aim for such pinpoint precision as might befit a facsimile.

If this weren't the case, why didn't the police issue a copy of the transcript for public identification, as they did with the almost exactly contemporaneous "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" missives? A likely answer is that the transcript was never intended to preserve what the writing looked like, only what the message said.

All fair points, Sam - and points which I have considered too. What throws me is the remarkable implausibility of finding those six significant adults in Maybrick's life (whether reasonably so or by force of my will to discern them) as well as the literal copying of 'nothing' in the GSG and the journal.

[Iconoclast]

So when your arguments are all shown to be rubbish you throw insults.

Clever.

I guess so, yes, but in the scheme of these things, a relatively light one ...

[GUT]

I guess so, yes, but in the scheme of these things, a relatively light one ...

Well at least you admit your arguments have been shown to be rubbish.

But I give you credit for trying hard.

[Iconoclast]

Well at least you admit your arguments have been shown to be rubbish.

But I give you credit for trying hard.

Yes, my arguments have been shown to be rubbish in the most eloquent and insightful fashion.

I am giddy with the light they have shone on my slender grasp of the case.

It's been tough, but thank you for it.

[Pcdunn]

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.

I agree with the Honorable Defense attorney, as I think the Prosecutor is misunderstanding how "true and accurate" a record of the Goulston Street Graffiti we have. Did the officer who noted it down also imitate the handwriting? If he did, there are problems comparing the GSG with the Diary, as they are not similar, in my humble opinion (the "g" is completely different, for instance). If the officer transcribed only the words and not the appearance of the graffiti, then the handwriting doesn't matter at all.

[Graham]

Re: Post No 53.

I'm not hostile, just a long-term poster to these boards, and it's all been argued and discussed before, ad nauseam. Prior to the discovery (if that's the right word) of the 'Diary', the name of James Maybrick had never once been linked to The Ripper Murders, and he's in the waste-bin along with the likes of Vincent van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, and many more 'names' from the Victorian period that have been all but picked out of a hat. As I sit here in front of my lap-top I can see the line of Maybrick books on my shelves, and not one of them has convinced me that Maybrick penned the Diary, let alone was Jack the Ripper. Which is not to say that the 'Diary' is a modern production, as I don't believe it is, but whoever wrote it was not, as far as I am concerned, James Maybrick.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Did the officer who noted it down also imitate the handwriting?

Very probably not (see my previous post above).

If the officer transcribed only the words and not the appearance of the graffiti, then the handwriting doesn't matter at all.

Quite so, PC Dunn.