The Curious Case of History vs. James Maybrick

[Henry Flower]

You only wonder that?

Of course, it makes sense now. He's kidding. It's a wind-up.

Nobody could realistically argue what he's argued.

Juwes is not James

The men is not Thomas

Will is a very common verb

Will is also not MM. MM appears nowhere in the GSG

B is not FM

And it's easy on even a cursory examination to see the the word 'nothing' as written in the diary is significantly and perhaps irreconcilably different from the 'nothing' written by the copper while transcribing the GSG.

Only a prankster or a fool could actually propose this nonsense. This is up there with Dale Larner.

[Mike J. G.]

Of course, it makes sense now. He's kidding. It's a wind-up.

Nobody could realistically argue what he's argued.

Juwes is not James

The men is not Thomas

Will is a very common verb

Will is also not MM. MM appears nowhere in the GSG

B is not FM

And it's easy on even a cursory examination to see the the word 'nothing' as written in the diary is significantly and perhaps irreconcilably different from the 'nothing' written by the copper while transcribing the GSG.

Only a prankster or a fool could actually propose this nonsense. This is up there with Dale Larner.

The believers are the men who will not be swayed by anything.

[Iconoclast]

The believers are the men who will not be swayed by anything.

By implication, you are suggesting that non-believers are flexible in their positions. I've never seen it, but it must be true if you say so.

A little like all men who ever wrote in copperplate must only have written in copperplate?

[Mike J. G.]

By implication, you are suggesting that non-believers are flexible in their positions. I've never seen it, but it must be true if you say so.

A little like all men who ever wrote in copperplate must only have written in copperplate?

Not really, it's just a little homage to the GSG, but there is truth to it, seeing as believers in such things are tunnel-visioned in their quest to believe.

We see it with ghost-believers, UFO-fans, Bigfooters, 9/11 "inside job" advocates, and on and on.

No amount of reasoning will make them see reason.

You keep avoiding the fact that Maybrick's own hand would've had plenty of details contained within that the diary's handwriting should also contain, regardless of bloody copperplate or arsenic, lol, or are you denying that such things exist and are not routinely used to detect fraud?

Same thing, over and over. Ignorance is bliss, though.

[Iconoclast]

Not really, it's just a little homage to the GSG, but there is truth to it, seeing as believers in such things are tunnel-visioned in their quest to believe.

We see it with ghost-believers, UFO-fans, Bigfooters, 9/11 "inside job" advocates, and on and on.

No amount of reasoning will make them see reason.

You keep avoiding the fact that Maybrick's own hand would've had plenty of details contained within that the diary's handwriting should also contain, regardless of bloody copperplate or arsenic, lol, or are you denying that such things exist and are not routinely used to detect fraud?

Same thing, over and over. Ignorance is bliss, though.

Your average reader will have already spotted that what you accuse you use.

"No amount of reasoning will make them see reason". See what you've done there? "I've already decided what 'reason' is, and anyone who disagrees with me must be blind". It honestly doesn't matter of course - whether I or anyone else operates from a place of reason doesn't alter the case.

No, I don't accept your argument that informal, rapidly-written writing is going to necessarily carry the trace of someone's contrived and formal copperplate hand. But then that's because I don't accept your 'reason', so clearly I will be wrong.

Doesn't change nowt.

[Mike J. G.]

Your average reader will have already spotted that what you accuse you use.

"No amount of reasoning will make them see reason". See what you've done there? "I've already decided what 'reason' is, and anyone who disagrees with me must be blind". It honestly doesn't matter of course - whether I or anyone else operates from a place of reason doesn't alter the case.

Well, Ike, most level-headed people don't add up all of the negatives and say to themselves, hey, this still seems reasonable. Nothing adds up, nothing matches what we know, but hey, it could still be legit! and that's what I'm clearly talking about when I talk about people not seeing reason.

I don't think anyone who disagrees is blind, but I do think they're doing the opposite of exercising logic and common sense in favour of a story which they prefer over reality.

Most logical people would be unimpressed by the laughable evidence being put across in favour of Maybrick being the Ripper, but some people are willing to ignore the strings and simply watch the puppet dancing all by itself.

No, I don't accept your argument that informal, rapidly-written writing is going to necessarily carry the trace of someone's contrived and formal copperplate hand. But then that's because I don't accept your 'reason', so clearly I will be wrong.

Doesn't change nowt.

This is remarkable, and yet more proof of people with tunnel-vision seeing whatever they wish to see. You're not only basically denying that people have visible traits within their handwriting that can and are routinely used to determine fraud and forgeries, but you're also of the opinion that people can and do change their entire mannerisms and suddenly erase all of their nuances when they're intoxicated, which is backed up by nothing whatsoever, lol.

There are many ways to study a person's methods of letter/word structure, like strokes, width, height, etc.

These are the same things that are used to determine whether Elvis really did sign that guitar or not, and to assume that this wouldn't apply to James Maybrick, international man of mystery, is beyond absurd.

In your opinion, Maybrick wrote in two entirely different hands, adopting totally different techniques, something which is quite unique for any human being in the natural world, but then again, this was no average man, was it? This was Spring-Heeled James the Ripper!

[Pcdunn]

Mike, I suppose Maybrick was a regular Jekyll and Hyde, to Ike's way of thinking.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, I suppose Maybrick was a regular Jekyll and Hyde, to Ike's way of thinking.

That's exactly what we're being asked to believe, Pat. It's certainly a comedy of errors!

[curious]

Thank you, curious. What is it short for? Curiosity, I wonder? Such a nice name.

Yes, I've taken a few batterings down the years, I can tell you - probably in the Top 3 of The Bruised and Battered, but I come back calmly for I am in possession of the Answer to The Riddle. Ho ho.

In time, you'll all recognise my genius!

Ah, well. Don't we all keep hoping time will . . . recognise your genius, solve this mystery or see me win the lottery?

I'm glad you like my name. I chose curious because I was curious about the subject. My son was writing a play and therefore talking about all the people involved. I knew nothing but wanted to understand what he was saying. So, he directed me here, wrote the play and left. I've remained.

curious

[caz]

The thing is, though, that I've found absolutely no evidence of the name "poste house" being attributed to any pub of that period. Can these sources of which you speak offer any actual evidence of any pub being known or talked about as "the poste house"?

I even have the "Liverpool Pubs" series of books and can find no mention of this name in there.

I honestly don't see why we need to assume much more than a lack of proper research on the part of the hoaxer, as they specifically mentioned the "Poste House" pub, which is a pub one would assume is very old, because it is, but the pub is far older than its latter-given name.

To me, it's like the forger was merely trying to think of a really old pub, and incorrectly named the Poste House. Trying to shift that to say that they were actually talking about the Old Post Office, but gave it the nickname of the Poste House, is a bit of a reach.

If anyone can point me to some information which states without doubt that the Old Post Office was known locally as the Poste House then I'll be happy to reconsider, but until then, it's an obvious error of the forger and another indicator showing that they really didn't research much at all, and essentially just threw some crap at the wall and hoped it'd stick.

Hi Mike,

Naturally you are welcome to your opinion. I'll stick with the two local sources (one a local pub and history buff in his late sixties, the other the landlord of Rigby's at the time) who didn't hesitate to identify the Old Post Office pub as Liverpool's "post house". I checked my records and Gores directory gives it as the Post Office Tavern in 1887/8. No doubt its regular refreshment takers would have had their own nicknames for it over the years, but it was certainly the post house in its early days, serving as such until the first post office was established adjacent to the old tavern.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If you do think that the hoaxer was purposely allowing for inconsistencies, then why do you not feel that the "Poste House" reference is another one of these purposeful/ignored errors?

When people make stories up, they often fall short on apparently avoidable errors, because they're only human.

Because, Mike, it would have been one of the easier things to get right, or to simply avoid a specific reference if any modern hoaxer didn't know enough about the history of The Poste House in Cumberland Street and couldn't be bothered to find out.

The fact that the diarist misspells 'post haste' as 'poste haste' allows for a similar misspelling of the 'Post House', by someone who was not thinking of the tiny pub in Cumberland Street at the time [hardly big enough to swing a cat o' nine tails], but possibly the term 'poste restante' - the only 'poste' in my Chambers dictionary, and one which would have been in common usage at the right time for the more discerning hoaxer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

One hopes not. That would be a very childish waste of people's time and energy.

Mind you, even if Ike truly believes he has 'found' 'MM' by turning the word 'will' upside down, it's still a monumental waste of time and energy trying to reason with him. He's either a kidder or else a True Believer and no amount of reasoning will dissuade him.

Well Henry that's the way it looks to me. Mike JG, who I might add has posted some very wise posts in this thread, apparently frequents a number of the conspiracy theory web-sites, and has seen this ilk before. What I'm referring to of course is the firmly held "belief" that the GSG conceals the names of a number of the participants associated with the Maybrick case. I haven't personally visited said conspiracy theory sites, but I'd be amazed if they contain theories as bizarre as the GSG theory put forward by Mr Iconoclast. It's beyond the pale, it can only be a wind-up in my opinion.

[Observer]

By implication, you are suggesting that non-believers are flexible in their positions. I've never seen it, but it must be true if you say so.

A little like all men who ever wrote in copperplate must only have written in copperplate?

Hi Mr Iconoclast

Would the copperplate examples, to which you refer, be the business correspondence of James Maybrick which reside in a certain archive in America?

[caz]

George Grossmith... need there be any other explanation?

Or one of his ilk, Scotty, with connections to Liverpool and ripper commentators such as George Sims or Melville MacNaghten? A Dan Leno type? Or a 'nest' of old pranksters having a lark?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...and let's be honest, we know that their research consisted of a few books that weren't hard to get hold of at all.

'We' know nothing of the sort, Mike. Yes, let's be honest about this. You name the few books you know the hoaxer consulted, in order to write every line in the diary, and I'll reconsider what I thought I knew.

Fair enough?

Love,

Caz
X