The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Iconoclast]

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.
...
...

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.

Dane,

Your post rattled around in my head for an hour or so until I finally remembered where I had heard it all before. From the video of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, on the subject of 'Juwes' making 'James in the GSG:

Martin Fido [obsessive diary-debunker, slightly right of Attila the Hun in his views]: To try to turn it into a James Maybrick message is to produce sheer, raving nonesense and anyone who holds it up as proof that the diary is genuine is going to be seen as barking mad. [No doubts where he stood on the matter, then, and probably representative of every Ripperologist/crime writer in town?]

Cut To:

Colin Wilson [Ripperologist and crime writer, bucking the trend slightly]: I don't think the 'Juwes' on the wall making 'James' is at all silly. On the contrary, you know, I think it's just one more little piece of evidence.

I don't think Colin Wilson was viewed as preposterous, Dane - but by implication of your post he surely would be (not as preposterous as I, of course, but getting there all the same).

If it is possible that 'Juwes' was James Maybrick's attempt to place his name in the records, then the rest of his message must yield some intentionality also. That's the position I took when I first sought to pursue the point, and I was not disappointed, nor - to be honest - terribly surprised. The rest of the GSG was Maybrick's attempt to place all of his significant adult family in the record. I don't think this is at all silly. On the contrary, you know, I think it's just one more little piece of evidence.

Icon

[Iconoclast]

It does that for PDFs - it's only images that get automatically displayed. Saving the PDF as an image file would have worked, I'm sure.

Cheers Sam - that makes sense. I imagine that is how Dane fixed it.

[Sam Flynn]

[ATTACH]16996[/ATTACH]

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.

It does that for PDFs - it's only images that get automatically displayed. Saving the PDF as an image file would have worked, I'm sure.

[Iconoclast]

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 ...
Graham

That's because he was a middle class Liverpool cotton merchant, you know.

Next time there's an arsenic-addicted serial killer on the loose, the Police will be straight up (or down) the M6, fishing in the Mersey, I promise you.

Just because he came to light in 1991-3 genuinely doesn't preclude him from being Jack.

Your Friend,

Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

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.

I appreciate it, Dane - and honestly enjoy the exchanges ...

[Iconoclast]

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, don't sit on the fence, mate - tell me exactly what you're thinking.



Seriously, don't give it another thought - you think X is preposterous and I think X is possible. Nothing to lose sleep over. In reality, I can take more vitriol than any man alive - I was just trying to be nice is all.

Personally, I am comfortable that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I happen to feel that a fair explanation of the GSG was that he was titillating himself by inserting his family into the crime scene on Sep 30. I happened to notice that the official Met Police transcription of the GSG yielded those names. I observed the statistical implausibility of that being the case whether it were true or not, and finally added that the hand of the GSG is evidenced in the journal. All I can use is the evidence that has passed down the years.

Here is the actual report itself (the one Warren attached to his Nov 6 1888 letter to the Home Office).



Someone more knowledgeable than I (shouldn't be difficult to find) will confirm for us if there is independent evidence supporting this being a felicitous transcription, but for now I think we can confidently say that this is the official version of the GSG, whether it was transcribed accurately or not.

PS Obviously the real issue here is why on earth this attachment has loaded properly when the other didn't.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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).

[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]

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.

[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.