The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Iconoclast]

Who, I might add, has made no comment regarding my mention of Kate Colquhoun's book. I do wonder why.

Graham

Sorry, my friend, it came across as showing off. I didn't think there was actually a question there.

What response were you expecting from a comment about a book that told you nothing more about Maybrick as the Ripper?

[GUT]

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.

How can it NOT be a requirement to show that someone who didn't live in Londin was actually in London on the night of the murders.

My post was in response to you claim that Maybrick's was being treated somehow different to any other suspect in this requirement and merely pointed out to you that the same questions were raised in relation to at least four other proposed Jacks. Not really too hard to grasp, Maybrick's is not, as you claim, being picked on merely held to the same proof as any other suspect.

[Graham]

Iconoclast, you are the one who is trying to convince the likes of me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. To do so, you must first prove to us the absolute basic requirement - was Maybrick in London on the nights of the Ripper murders? It is not up to me or anyone else to prove to you that all the other suspects you name were in London at the critical times. It is up to you to show us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that James Maybrick was. You have said you can't do this, so why not call an end to it right now?

Just to help you on your way - years ago, on this Forum (pre-crash) I rather jocularly proposed that W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan operetta fame) would make a good candidate for the Ripper, as he liked to walk alone through the streets of London on the first nights of his productions. I had two PM's from people who genuinely believed what I'd said....even though none of the first-nights of G&S productions coincided with a Ripper murder.


You have read Feldman's book, I presume? If so, what do you think of it?

Graham

[Bridewell]

the similarity of the journal's handwriting to the September 17 letter and the Goulston Street graffito may yet be the counter-curse).

If you are seeking to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper by comparing the handwriting in the diary with Sir Charles Warren's I think you're on a loser.

The one individual who comes out of the GSG saga with any credit was Hulse who realised that it might be important and was therefore more likely than anyone else to have made an accurate record of the wording.

The one thing absolutely vital with any artifact which purports to prove an issue is an unbroken chain of evidence. The diary (like the shawl) is an abject failure on that score. I'd start by filling the 90 year gap between the death of James Maybrick and the emergence of the Victorian scrapbook so-called diary. Another question which needs addressing is why an outwardly respectable businessman like Maybrick didn't write his 'diary' in something more suitable - like an 1888 diary, which would have been cheap and (in 1888 but not subsequently) readily available.

No Case To Answer - Not Guilty.

[GUT]

If you are seeking to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper by comparing the handwriting in the diary with Sir Charles Warren's I think you're on a loser.

The one individual who comes out of the GSG saga with any credit was Hulse who realised that it might be important and was therefore more likely than anyone else to have made an accurate record of the wording.

The one thing absolutely vital with any artifact which purports to prove an issue is an unbroken chain of evidence. The diary (like the shawl) is an abject failure on that score. I'd start by filling the 90 year gap between the death of James Maybrick and the emergence of the Victorian scrapbook so-called diary. Another question which needs addressing is why an outwardly respectable businessman like Maybrick didn't write his 'diary' in something more suitable - like an 1888 diary, which would have been cheap and (in 1888 but not subsequently) readily available.

No Case To Answer - Not Guilty.

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.

[Dane_F]

I'm sad no one has commented on my very important and all new link between WS and JM.

I mean the GSG was said to be the 2nd strongest point linking JM as Jack the Ripper. If the GSG is so valuable then clearly AND definitively linking WS to it is a huge deal. I'd personally say it's the biggest revelation to happen in ripperology since Patrica's book.

[Rosella]

I agree, Dane, I think you've unlocked the key to these murders. However, before I comment further I shall be borrowing a book from my local library on Sickert and minutely examining the reproductions of his paintings in the light of this discovery.

[GUT]

I'm sad no one has commented on my very important and all new link between WS and JM.

I mean the GSG was said to be the 2nd strongest point linking JM as Jack the Ripper. If the GSG is so valuable then clearly AND definitively linking WS to it is a huge deal. I'd personally say it's the biggest revelation to happen in ripperology since Patrica's book.

Wow bigger than Cornwall that's big.

I think it s F.S. for Finally Solved.

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast, you are the one who is trying to convince the likes of me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. To do so, you must first prove to us the absolute basic requirement - was Maybrick in London on the nights of the Ripper murders? It is not up to me or anyone else to prove to you that all the other suspects you name were in London at the critical times. It is up to you to show us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that James Maybrick was. You have said you can't do this, so why not call an end to it right now?

Just to help you on your way - years ago, on this Forum (pre-crash) I rather jocularly proposed that W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan operetta fame) would make a good candidate for the Ripper, as he liked to walk alone through the streets of London on the first nights of his productions. I had two PM's from people who genuinely believed what I'd said....even though none of the first-nights of G&S productions coincided with a Ripper murder.


You have read Feldman's book, I presume? If so, what do you think of it?

Graham

Of course I've read Feldman, Graham, many times. What's your point?

'You have said you can't do this, so why not call an end to it right now?'. If I trawl trough the Casebook at suspect after suspect, will I find that you have challenged every poster who has ever proposed or even just discussed the other 200 candidates and then dismissed their interest when they have said 'No, I don't know for certain where my candidate was on the evening of each murder' with 'So why not call an end to it right now?'.

If you don't do it for them, why would you do so for Maybrick's candidacy?

[Iconoclast]

If you are seeking to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper by comparing the handwriting in the diary with Sir Charles Warren's I think you're on a loser.

Please tell me this is a wind-up?

In the highly unlikely event that it is not a wind-up:

1) Warren was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police - he wouldn't have transcribed the GSG, he would have given the order for it to be transcribed. The attachment I added around post #5 (?) shows very clearly that whatever was transcribed (correctly or otherwise) mirrors the journal which emerged in 1991. Obviously, the 'hoaxer' could have used the GSG as a starting point, but - as I argued in my OP - a strage choice when Maybrick's will was ignored (given that the 'hoaxer' is evidently attempting to finger Maybrick).

2) I'll take it as read that you didn't read my original post. I appreciate it was long, but you could home in fairly quickly on the GSG bit.

[Iconoclast]

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.

Now I know this is a wind-up.

[Iconoclast]

I'm sad no one has commented on my very important and all new link between WS and JM.

I mean the GSG was said to be the 2nd strongest point linking JM as Jack the Ripper. If the GSG is so valuable then clearly AND definitively linking WS to it is a huge deal. I'd personally say it's the biggest revelation to happen in ripperology since Patrica's book.

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.

[GUT]

Now I know this is a wind-up.

No wind up i you need to compare the diary handwriting to the handwriting of one of the people who wrote down the words of the GSG (remembering that they couldn't even agree on the wording) you are clutching at straws.

[GUT]

And if you think anyone, even an expert forger, could copy something off the wall and give a true enough example of how the writing actually appeared, that was good enough to get a handwriting comparison the case is really dead in the water.

[Iconoclast]

And if you think anyone, even an expert forger, could copy something off the wall and give a true enough example of how the writing actually appeared, that was good enough to get a handwriting comparison the case is really dead in the water.

It's truly so much easier than this.

Warren - rightly or wrongly - insisted on the GSG being removed from the wall, but before he did so he engaged his brain long enough to think it would be worthwhile having a felicitous transcription of it (I know you know what this means, but just for clarity here for everyone else, it means "Copy it down exactly as it appears").

This transcription is the accepted formal version of the GSG from the perspective of the Met Police. The other versions were written down or remembered by others informally and therefore are not reliable.

The last word of the GSG was transcribed in the very hand that wrote the Maybrick journal, so:

1) Staggering coincidence, or
2) The hoaxer saw the GSG and copied its style for the journal (ignoring the rather more obvious will in James Maybrick's name), or
3) The same person wrote the GSG and the journal (and that would be James Maybrick, then).

No need for obfuscation and complication, it's genuinely this simple.