The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Mike J. G.]

I don't need to 'make up stories' (charming)

I'm not sure that I claimed you were making up stories, but it's funny to note that you take my post so seriously considering the fact that you gave me stick for not spelling a difficult surname correctly, lol.

[Mike J. G.]

See my post earlier today on this very topic on Ike's Greatest Thread.

I don't need to 'make up stories' (charming), and my two sources for the Liverpool "post house" didn't need to either. No flying pig chasing by me.

Incidentally, IMHO the handwriting in the diary is not Maybrick's and the prankster never expected anyone to think it was.

Love,

Caz
X

The thing is, though, that I've found absolutely no evidence of the name "poste house" being attributed to any pub of that period. Can these sources of which you speak offer any actual evidence of any pub being known or talked about as "the poste house"?

I even have the "Liverpool Pubs" series of books and can find no mention of this name in there.

I honestly don't see why we need to assume much more than a lack of proper research on the part of the hoaxer, as they specifically mentioned the "Poste House" pub, which is a pub one would assume is very old, because it is, but the pub is far older than its latter-given name.

To me, it's like the forger was merely trying to think of a really old pub, and incorrectly named the Poste House. Trying to shift that to say that they were actually talking about the Old Post Office, but gave it the nickname of the Poste House, is a bit of a reach.

If anyone can point me to some information which states without doubt that the Old Post Office was known locally as the Poste House then I'll be happy to reconsider, but until then, it's an obvious error of the forger and another indicator showing that they really didn't research much at all, and essentially just threw some crap at the wall and hoped it'd stick.

[caz]

When you have people trying to make up stories about how another random pub or cafe in Liverpool was likely known as the "Poste House" then it's plain to see that simple logic and common sense has gone out of the window to chase a flying pig.

See my post earlier today on this very topic on Ike's Greatest Thread.

I don't need to 'make up stories' (charming), and my two sources for the Liverpool "post house" didn't need to either. No flying pig chasing by me.

Incidentally, IMHO the handwriting in the diary is not Maybrick's and the prankster never expected anyone to think it was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Thats exactly it mate
You immediately switch off don't you...

And - by the fickleness of Fate - I actually had ...

But a few hours later, I'm briefly back. It's been an entertaining evening chaps - enjoyed it. We must do it again ...

[andy1867]

I thought his suspect was plausible enough - as plausible as most - but what was disappointing was the fact he had to have one. Publishers are desperate to end the blurb on the back of the book with "At last, the crimes have been solved and the identity of Jack the Ripper confirmed", etc.. I'll bet he couldn't get published unless he added in a suspect.

Trevor?

Thats exactly it mate
You immediately switch off don't you...

[Iconoclast]

I have to say, I found the whole Feigenbauhm (couldn't be bothered Googling the name for correct spelling!) angle to be quite unconvincing. Marriot makes some good points about several things, but then I'm at a loss for why he chooses such an odd suspect.

I thought his suspect was plausible enough - as plausible as most - but what was disappointing was the fact he had to have one. Publishers are desperate to end the blurb on the back of the book with "At last, the crimes have been solved and the identity of Jack the Ripper confirmed", etc.. I'll bet he couldn't get published unless he added in a suspect.

Trevor?

[Mike J. G.]

I have to say, I found the whole Feigenbauhm (couldn't be bothered Googling the name for correct spelling!) angle to be quite unconvincing. Marriot makes some good points about several things, but then I'm at a loss for why he chooses such an odd suspect.

[Iconoclast]

I'll happily work for a pint of Blue Moon (with added orange slice) and a selection of bar-snacks (preferably pork-scratchings, but I'm also good with cashews and dry-roasted nuts.)

You can have a pint of McEwan's Scotch (a favourite of mine growing up in barcode city) and a saveloy and pease pudding stotty cake and that's your lot, young man.

[Iconoclast]

Its not Mr Marriots expertise in the field that bothered me Ike to be honest..It was his stubborn resistance to what I thought well presented arguments against his theory on Rippercast, and on here....I got sick of hearing the "Tampon Theory"...and thought it ridiculous that woman armed with numerous devices, would rip her apron and shove it where the sun don't shine..
There was little evidence that Feigunwotsit had visited England,
There was was one of his lawyers saying he spoke to him in private, and another saying he needed an interpreter...So I didn't buy the book..
If such as yourself present it as a decent read...I might well reconsider...
but is it a decent read regarding the subject we discuss on here...or is it simply...a decent read?

It is a decent read, but has little or nothing to contribute to Maybrickology.

A good thing, I hear you all shout!

[Mike J. G.]

Personally, I suspect that I would have to hire you as a bodyguard ...

I'll happily work for a pint of Blue Moon (with added orange slice) and a selection of bar-snacks (preferably pork-scratchings, but I'm also good with cashews and dry-roasted nuts.)

[Mike J. G.]

I found this book (Death at the Priory: Sex, Love, and Murder in Victorian England by James Ruddick) very interesting. It's about a different case, but has similarities. Perhaps you would like it.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Priory-...=Ruddick+James.

<< Amazon.com Review: The fatal poisoning of Charles Bravo in 1876 remains a great, unsolved mystery. As James Ruddick shows in this engrossing account, there was no shortage of suspects. Among them were Bravo's wife, Florence, who married the young barrister in part to erase the taint of a recent sexual scandal; Jane Cox, a servant caught spinning a web of lies about what happened the night Bravo died; and James Gully, an esteemed doctor who was also once Florence's lover. "In time, the case passed into the pantheon of English crime, a riddle that drew the interest in speculation of every passing generation," writes Ruddick. It's not hard to see why. Death at the Priory is full of compelling personalities and titillating revelations about what happened behind the closed doors of Victorian England. Ruddick promises something more than a rehash of the established facts: "I discovered the new evidence which has enabled me to expose Charles Bravo's murderer." The author ultimately does not point his finger in a surprising direction, though he has added substantial details to what's known about the case. Fans of true-crime literature will enjoy this book, especially if they're attracted to its historical setting. --John Miller >>

Very interesting, cheers. I actually think there's a chapter on this in a book my father has. I'll have to dig it out and have another look.

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

Despite me not being a believer in any Maybrick diary, or him being a suspect, I have always loved (in a weird way) the history of the James/Florence case, and I'm a glutton for local history. I was brought up on such things, and was told about Maybrick at a very early age.

I found this book (Death at the Priory: Sex, Love, and Murder in Victorian England by James Ruddick) very interesting. It's about a different case, but has similarities. Perhaps you would like it.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Priory-...=Ruddick+James.

<< Amazon.com Review: The fatal poisoning of Charles Bravo in 1876 remains a great, unsolved mystery. As James Ruddick shows in this engrossing account, there was no shortage of suspects. Among them were Bravo's wife, Florence, who married the young barrister in part to erase the taint of a recent sexual scandal; Jane Cox, a servant caught spinning a web of lies about what happened the night Bravo died; and James Gully, an esteemed doctor who was also once Florence's lover. "In time, the case passed into the pantheon of English crime, a riddle that drew the interest in speculation of every passing generation," writes Ruddick. It's not hard to see why. Death at the Priory is full of compelling personalities and titillating revelations about what happened behind the closed doors of Victorian England. Ruddick promises something more than a rehash of the established facts: "I discovered the new evidence which has enabled me to expose Charles Bravo's murderer." The author ultimately does not point his finger in a surprising direction, though he has added substantial details to what's known about the case. Fans of true-crime literature will enjoy this book, especially if they're attracted to its historical setting. --John Miller >>

[andy1867]

I have long since accepted that the invitation I got to the party was for the east wing along with old Spyglass and some cold canapes ...



Interestingly enough, despite the fact that Trevor can be seriously illiterate when he comes on here (maybe he's just typing really fast?) and despite the fact that I love citing the fact that he published the very best example of 'FM' I've ever seen (probably not his intention :-)), I did find his 21st Century Investigation a decent read and is probably worth a wee trip to Amazon.

There you go, Mr. Marriott - an endorsement from the great Iconoclast!

Its not Mr Marriots expertise in the field that bothered me Ike to be honest..It was his stubborn resistance to what I thought well presented arguments against his theory on Rippercast, and on here....I got sick of hearing the "Tampon Theory"...and thought it ridiculous that woman armed with numerous devices, would rip her apron and shove it where the sun don't shine..
There was little evidence that Feigunwotsit had visited England,
There was was one of his lawyers saying he spoke to him in private, and another saying he needed an interpreter...So I didn't buy the book..
If such as yourself present it as a decent read...I might well reconsider...
but is it a decent read regarding the subject we discuss on here...or is it simply...a decent read?

[Iconoclast]

Despite me not being a believer in any Maybrick diary, or him being a suspect, I have always loved (in a weird way) the history of the James/Florence case, and I'm a glutton for local history. I was brought up on such things, and was told about Maybrick at a very early age.

I'm quite looking forward to the Sept. conferences in town, and will be attending any talks on Maybrick. So if anyone's attending, I'll be glad to say "allo."

Personally, I suspect that I would have to hire you as a bodyguard ...

[Iconoclast]

As for the "Diary"..nah I can't quite get my head to accept it Ike..

I have long since accepted that the invitation I got to the party was for the east wing along with old Spyglass and some cold canapes ...

Its an industry...If folk make money out of amusing us all with it...thats fair enough...I pay me money , I takes me choice...
Reading stuff on here has made me more discerning...Thats why I didn't buy Trevor Marriots book...

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that Trevor can be seriously illiterate when he comes on here (maybe he's just typing really fast?) and despite the fact that I love citing the fact that he published the very best example of 'FM' I've ever seen (probably not his intention :-)), I did find his 21st Century Investigation a decent read and is probably worth a wee trip to Amazon.

There you go, Mr. Marriott - an endorsement from the great Iconoclast!