The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Iconoclast]

Very probably not (see my previous post above).
Quite so, PC Dunn.

Both of you will know, of course, that Sir Charles Warren - when explaining his actions to the Home Office on November 6, 1888 - stated that 'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

The duplicate he enclosed is typed in The Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (page 184) in exactly the structure we see in the accepted format. If it was simply a copy of the words, it would presumably be one sentence, but the transcriber had clearly copied the actual line structure including line breaks.

'If' is a word which cuts both ways. The transcriber may have felicitously copied down the structure of the handwriting or he may not. We cannot say either way, but whether it is felicitous or not, that format is the accepted version and Maybrick's six significant adult family members can be discerned in what we have and the word 'nothing' is fundamentally mirrorred in the journal, absolutely no debate about that, erring 'g' or otherwise. He was about to drop on the floor an article which would hang him so I have to assume he was in a hurry as he finished the sentence and rather pumped-up somewhat from having just killed two women and two police forces looking for him.

A great deal of fuel for thought here, not the cut-and-dried issue previous posts might imply.

[Sam Flynn]

Both of you will know, of course, that Sir Charles Warren - when explaining his actions to the Home Office on November 6, 1888 - stated that 'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

Well, yes - but a "copy", NB, not a "true copy", still less a "facsimile".

If it was simply a copy of the words, it would presumably be one sentence, but the transcriber had clearly copied the actual line structure including line breaks.

I'm not so sure that the "Warren" transcript preserves the actual line structure, as Detective Constable Halse records it thus:



Which is the more faithful representation of the layout? Personally, I favour DC Halse, for reasons I won't bore you with here. The main issue is that, even if one or other transcriber tried to preserve the layout, it doesn't mean that either intended to replicate the hand. I can't see why they'd want to, either.

[Iconoclast]

Well, yes - but a "copy", NB, not a "true copy", still less a "facsimile".
I'm not so sure that the "Warren" transcript preserves the actual line structure, as Detective Constable Halse records it thus:

[ATTACH]16992[/ATTACH]

Which is the more faithful representation of the layout? Personally, I favour DC Halse, for reasons I won't bore you with here. The main issue is that, even if one or other transcriber tried to preserve the layout, it doesn't mean that either intended to replicate the hand. I can't see why they'd want to, either.

I think Warren had a great deal to answer for in sponging out the GSG as clearly we are left with yet more debate. Nevertheless, there is the official version and there is Halse's version. I feel that there are so few categoricals in the case of Jack, that we should consider the official version above that of 'someone else writing it down'. The jamb wasn't very wide (I think the width is on record somewhere if anyone is interested), which brings into question how likely Halse's second line is in terms of the original.

I think that even in 1888 they would have had the savvy to consider transcribing the GSG literally for posterity - especially as it was clearly an attempt to substitute the literal nature of the camera lens.

We are also left with the utter implausibility of the discerning of the names (correctly or otherwise) and the mirroring of journal writing (when mirroring a will would have made so much more sense).

Anyway, nothing is gained and nothing is lost in all this as we are left with such frustrating imponderables when critical elements such as the GSG weren't preserved for us.

Two things:
1) My wireless keyboard must need a new battery so apologies for what I imagine are the typos (I'm sick of correcting them), and
2) How did you embed the image in your post?

[Sam Flynn]

Two things:
1) My wireless keyboard must need a new battery so apologies for what I imagine are the typos (I'm sick of correcting them)

I recommend Sanyo/Panasonic "Eneloop" rechargeable batteries. They do run out, of course, but they keep their charge much longer than conventional ones.

and
2) How did you embed the image in your post?

See this entry in the FAQ: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=157

Any problems with that, let me know

[Iconoclast]

Hi Sam,

Okay, looks like you can't preview it so fingers crossed it appears (it has the 'attach' syntax around it so that's a start).

I've found those batteries on Amazon so thanks for the tip!

[ATTACH]16993[/ATTACH]

Ha ha - it didn't work. I'll need to practice this one a bit more I think ...

[Bridewell]

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.

This is what Warren later wrote (something you yourself have quoted):

'I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate'.

N.B. He says he took a copy, not that he issued orders for a copy be taken.

It's not unusual for senior police officers to involve themselves in this way (although it has to be said that their involvement is not always beneficial!).
In this instance it would seem that (quite properly in view of his controversial decision to erase the writing) he took it upon himself to record what was written.

[NeilG]

I am fairly non versed in these matters (noob) but I do remember reading the diary around 2004 and found myself questioning why a serial killer would be so reckless as to write down such things in the event it was discovered in the first place. Sure fire way to get caught I would surmise.

But then naturally a serial killer tends to have some ego about themselves, which if we were to believe all the letters and wall doodles, Jack most certainly had an ego. A REALLY BIG ego. However I digress.

Given the author professed to it (diary) being a forgery on two separate times and even going into detail about how it was forged, ink and an old photo album that pages were torn out of, it is of no surprise to me that the case of Maybrick is as heavily thrown into doubt as it is.

If for instance it actually was penned back then, could it not be considered someone was trying to frame Maybrick?

I appreciate arguments on both sides both for and against I really do, but, for me personally I respectfully pass a verdict of not guilty also.

[Bridewell]

Which is the more faithful representation of the layout? Personally, I favour DC Halse, for reasons I won't bore you with here. The main issue is that, even if one or other transcriber tried to preserve the layout, it doesn't mean that either intended to replicate the hand. I can't see why they'd want to, either.

Very well put. I too favour Halse's as more likely to be the accurate rendition because he was the officer present who saw in the GSG a potential significance which others seemingly failed to recognise. Neither, in my view, can be described as the "official" version because the principle of 'best evidence' should have led to the preservation ( or at least photographing) of the script.

[Bridewell]

How did you embed the image in your post?

I struggled with that too.

If on the "Quick Reply" format, click 'Go Advanced', then 'Manage Attachments'. Select the appropriate file & click 'Upload'. If the file is too large it'll let you know. Once that's done you should find the image available to post within the 'Attachments' icon just above the message frame.

[Bridewell]

I am fairly non versed in these matters (noob) but I do remember reading the diary around 2004 and found myself questioning why a serial killer would be so reckless as to write down such things in the event it was discovered in the first place. Sure fire way to get caught I would surmise.

But then naturally a serial killer tends to have some ego about themselves, which if we were to believe all the letters and wall doodles, Jack most certainly had an ego. A REALLY BIG ego. However I digress.

Given the author professed to it (diary) being a forgery on two separate times and even going into detail about how it was forged, ink and an old photo album that pages were torn out of, it is of no surprise to me that the case of Maybrick is as heavily thrown into doubt as it is.

If for instance it actually was penned back then, could it not be considered someone was trying to frame Maybrick?

I appreciate arguments on both sides both for and against I really do, but, for me personally I respectfully pass a verdict of not guilty also.

Welcome to Casebook!

I'm of the same mind with regard to the authenticity or otherwise of the 'diary'. In fairness to Iconoclast though, it has to be pointed out that the admission of forgery was retracted at one point. No-one has ever come up with a convincing explanation of why Maybrick, if he wrote it, would do so in a scrap book with pages torn out of it. The only explanation of the use of a scrap book for this purpose which convinces me is that it was necessary to use something which could be dated to the late 1880's. The scrap book was the only item available to the writer from that time period (ergo the writer was someone other than Maybrick).

[Iconoclast]

I struggled with that too.

If on the "Quick Reply" format, click 'Go Advanced', then 'Manage Attachments'. Select the appropriate file & click 'Upload'. If the file is too large it'll let you know. Once that's done you should find the image available to post within the 'Attachments' icon just above the message frame.

Darn it - I've tried all of that too but it just puts the name of the file in.

I'm clearly doing something wrong here.

[Bridewell]

Darn it - I've tried all of that too but it just puts the name of the file in.

I'm clearly doing something wrong here.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong. That's what happens. If you add a line of script and post it the image itself should appear.

[Iconoclast]

I don't think you're doing anything wrong. That's what happens. If you add a line of script and post it the image itself should appear.

Goulston Street Graffito.pdf

I'm doing everything in Ally's post (from Sam) and your post, but it just puts a link in to the file rather than the actual image.

Very strange.

[Dane_F]

Hi Sam,

Okay, looks like you can't preview it so fingers crossed it appears (it has the 'attach' syntax around it so that's a start).

I've found those batteries on Amazon so thanks for the tip!

[ATTACH]16993[/ATTACH]

Ha ha - it didn't work. I'll need to practice this one a bit more I think ...

Honestly Icon, I think this post exemplifies exactly why people have been giving you such a hard time. The logical leaps that must take place for all of those things to be true in the GSG puts your theory in the realm of black arts, the killing sites making symbols, and the royal conspiracy. It is, to put it frankly, an outrageous claim that on many levels is asinine to even propose.

I think back to the very famous case of a guy who found hidden messages in the bible predicting world events. He had a lot of people who thought he was full of bunk, so he issued a challenge. Find the assissination of a prime minister in moby dick and he will believe them. I'm sure you can see where this is going. People did just that. Not just assassinations of prime ministers but also JFK, MLK, and multiple others.

The simple truth of the matter is, when allowed to flip reverse, morph, read into, and exegarate letters and words you can find all sorts of things. There is no court of law that would allow any of the GSG stuff. And yet you list it (if I remember correctly) as the 2nd strongest reason for Maybrick as the Ripper. Not only is it a huge stretch to begin with but then on top of that it isn't even based off of the actual GSG but a copy written by someone else who may or may not have copied it completely accurately or with even proper spacing and on the right lines.

It all adds up to the entire argument being beyond preposterous. It isn't allowing the evidence to form your opinion. It's trying to warp the evidence to fit your opinion. No completely objective person would attempt to do any of the ludicrous and ridiculous stuff presented here. I also feel if you honestly stood back and tried to objectively look at the evidence as well you would feel the same way.

I realize this is very frank but the reason I took the time to type this isn't because I'm mad at you or I hate you. It's actually the opposite. You seem like a decent person who spent a lot of time on a theory and is somewhat put off by the reaction you have gotten. You come across as a pretty alright guy in most of your posts, especially in how you have handled the criticisms for the most part.

I have no idea if my post will make any difference to you or if you will even take it how I truly mean it, but I thought it important to lay out very clearly one of the main reasons that your original post was met with such vitriol.

[Dane_F]

Here. To show I'm not trying to just be a jerk I'll even show the image for you. Sorry it looks like it does but Im on my iPad so it's the way I had to do it.

Edit: might have found a way to get it reasonable.