The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Iconoclast]

1) You obviously have no idea what was actually written on that wall, because there's no evidence to show us.

Fortunately, a duplicate was made and accepted by the Met Police. Phew - close one there!

2) You can, in all probability, find any number of random words, phrases and names contained within that message, the message that we've no actual evidence on other than several varying accounts.

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!!!!!!!!!!

3) Assuming that the message was intended to be some sort of cryptic clue containing James's families names is nothing short of ridiculous.

Erm, not if Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! Are you keeping up here?

4) There's no evidence to suggest that "the Ripper" even wrote that message, just as there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't already there hours before the murder.

Oh dear. You don't know your Jack the Ripper, do you?

Shocking ...

[Iconoclast]

What example of the GSG are we using here? Just asking, since there's a few versions out there.

Let's assume it's this:

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

John can be found within the J of "Juwes," especially if it was capitalized, Gertrude could be alluded to in the same manner, in the G of "nothing," Daniel in the "d."

When we start trying to find the names of people cryptically contained within the still-unknown text written on a wall over 100 years ago, we're firmly in the grip of hysteria.

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???

[Iconoclast]

People find whatever they like when they're looking desperately, though, Ike. Some people see the image of Jesus on pieces of toast.

Ah ha! And so I refer you back to my original post on this very thread!

[c.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.

[Mike J. G.]

And yet you can find all those Maybricks, but no Horaces, Henrys, Davids, Duncans, Georges, Meryls, Roberts, Cuthberts - where to stop in the long long list of the unmentioned?????????????

Even if the GSG were not a felicitous copy, what are the odds of those names being referencable by sheer chance alone and what chance that the word 'nothing' would be written exactly as written in the journal (unless we say that the hoaxer mirrored the GSG when hoaxing the diary but couldn't be arsed to check the known examples of Maybrick's actual known and formal handwriting?).

For the record, Commissioner Warren asked the local Plod to make a 'duplicate' before he sponged out of history our only solid clue. Now, a 'copy' would be ambiguous ... but a duplicate? To me, that's pretty compelling language.

1) You obviously have no idea what was actually written on that wall, because there's no evidence to show us.

2) You can, in all probability, find any number of random words, phrases and names contained within that message, the message that we've no actual evidence on other than several varying accounts.

3) Assuming that the message was intended to be some sort of cryptic clue containing James's families names is nothing short of ridiculous.

4) There's no evidence to suggest that "the Ripper" even wrote that message, just as there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't already there hours before the murder.

[Mike J. G.]

Well, let me take you up on the offer. Find me 'John', and find me 'Gertrude', and find me 'Celia', and find me 'Daniel'. Just let me know how to 'see' them and I'll take your point.


If you can't (and you won't), then take my point.

What example of the GSG are we using here? Just asking, since there's a few versions out there.

Let's assume it's this:

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

John can be found within the J of "Juwes," especially if it was capitalized, Gertrude could be alluded to in the same manner, in the G of "nothing," Daniel in the "d."

When we start trying to find the names of people cryptically contained within the still-unknown text written on a wall over 100 years ago, we're firmly in the grip of hysteria.

[Mike J. G.]

And you should hold true to your opinions (based as they are on assumptions) and I will happily stick with the evidence, which is that James Maybrick wrote himself into every one of the canonical murders in one way or another (maybe not Stride's) and we have evidence - however tenuous you may feel it is - to support it. It's all in my thread. My brilliant, brilliant thread.

It's not evidence, though, is it? Let's be honest. The glaring issue is that you cannot prove that James wrote anything contained within that diary, meaning you have no evidence of James writing himself into any murder. James never even wrote like that, and you'll have a rather bothersome time trying to prove that he did.

[Mike J. G.]

Well, let me take you up on the offer. Find me 'John', and find me 'Gertrude', and find me 'Celia', and find me 'Daniel'. Just let me know how to 'see' them and I'll take your point.

If you can't (and you won't), then take my point.

People find whatever they like when they're looking desperately, though, Ike. Some people see the image of Jesus on pieces of toast.

[Iconoclast]

Now now, be humble for once.

That was me being humble. You should see me when I'm really on fire. I write amazing threads like this one, amongst others ...

[Iconoclast]

And you're not embarrassed to put this forward as an argument?

You are correct.

[Iconoclast]

that's all just nonsense that would allow any of us to find whatever we wanted.

Well, let me take you up on the offer. Find me 'John', and find me 'Gertrude', and find me 'Celia', and find me 'Daniel'. Just let me know how to 'see' them and I'll take your point.

If you can't (and you won't), then take my point.

[Observer]

In time, you'll all recognise my genius!

Now now, be humble for once.

[Henry Flower]

That is correct.

And you're not embarrassed to put this forward as an argument?

[Henry Flower]

You will of course have the view you have. James, Thomas, William, Ed'win', FM, MM, and 'nothing' written exactly as it is written in Maybrick's journal.

Anyone winning the lottery wouldn't expect such an implausibility.

Find me Roger. Find me Horace. Find me Frank. Hey - find me Henry. None of these are to be discerned in the GSG. And yet James, his four brothers, and his wife all appear gamely in there, and in the hand of the journal (just as the Sept 17 'Dear Boss' letter is in the hand of the journal).

I don't have to defend that in the slightest!

But Ike, the things you purport to find are not there either. You've listed hundreds of names that don't appear in the GSG, but the latitude you allow yourself when trying to insert the names you want to find - looking for initials upside down, turning letters on their side to see what they resemble - that's all just nonsense that would allow any of us to find whatever we wanted. FM is not there. MM is not there. Edwin is not there. Etc. You've performed absurd acrobatic contortions to crowbar them in.

If you can't see that, if you can't honestly admit that, there's little point debating this with you.

And by the way, I genuinely don't appreciate that "You will of course have the view you have" attitude. There is no "of course" about it. I have an open mind about JtR and accept good evidence and good reasoning wherever I see it.

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure how or why people argue over the GSG, when we consider that there's no solid example of how it actually looked, the text varies, IIRC, in different accounts. We've no idea when it was written, or why.

And yet you can find all those Maybricks, but no Horaces, Henrys, Davids, Duncans, Georges, Meryls, Roberts, Cuthberts - where to stop in the long long list of the unmentioned?????????????

Even if the GSG were not a felicitous copy, what are the odds of those names being referencable by sheer chance alone and what chance that the word 'nothing' would be written exactly as written in the journal (unless we say that the hoaxer mirrored the GSG when hoaxing the diary but couldn't be arsed to check the known examples of Maybrick's actual known and formal handwriting?).

For the record, Commissioner Warren asked the local Plod to make a 'duplicate' before he sponged out of history our only solid clue. Now, a 'copy' would be ambiguous ... but a duplicate? To me, that's pretty compelling language.