The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[GUT]

I get the feeling that confusion is a place you are familiar with so I'm not about to extricate you from your comfort zone.

So when your arguments are all shown to be rubbish you throw insults.

Clever.

[Iconoclast]

Doesn't match Jim's will but matches a copper writing down the GSG maybe he has solved it after all the copper wrote the diary.

Now I am really confused.

I get the feeling that confusion is a place you are familiar with so I'm not about to extricate you from your comfort zone.

[Iconoclast]

Wait.

You mean you ARE serious? Your post read like Pink Floyd's "The Trial" in my mind. When I read the bit about the GSG and you didn't bother answering the questions I posed I thought for sure this was all very tongue in cheek.

Well at least you've been a good sport about it. I give you full credit for that.

Yes, Dane, I am very serious, but desperately hoping to avoid being sucked into the relentless vitriol which being a Maybrickian seems to inevitably bring with it.

I think I failed in my objective last evening with Graham, and even considered just not posting any further as none of it ever seems to be welcomed.

Hey ho, I am too old and too ugly to lose sleep about these things, but it would be amazing to engage in a discussion without being treated as an idiot.

[GUT]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

Doesn't match Jim's will but matches a copper writing down the GSG maybe he has solved it after all the copper wrote the diary.

Now I am really confused.

[Dane_F]

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.

Wait.

You mean you ARE serious? Your post read like Pink Floyd's "The Trial" in my mind. When I read the bit about the GSG and you didn't bother answering the questions I posed I thought for sure this was all very tongue in cheek.

Well at least you've been a good sport about it. I give you full credit for that.

[Graham]

Iconoclast,

if, as you seem to believe, the so-called 'Diary' was indeed written by James Maybrick, would you kindly explain to me and everyone else with an interest why the handwriting in the 'Diary' doesn't match that of Maybrick's will, which is known for certain was in his handwriting?

And with regard to poo-poohing each and every candidate for JtR, that I'm afraid is the name of the game on this Forum. Speaking purely personally, I'm damned if I know who the Ripper was, but I'm pretty confident I know who he wasn't.

Graham

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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.