Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (27 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 08-13-2015, 01:17 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-13-2015, 01:25 PM
Hatchett Hatchett is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 425
Default

Hi,

Not to be picky, but you started this thread as submission in a court of law, but now you are resorting to blind speculation which would never been admitted into a court.

I think by doing this you have to admit that Maybrick has to be innocent, in law and in reasonable application of the law.

Best wishes.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-13-2015, 01:53 PM
Dane_F Dane_F is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
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
Hello Icon,

You are completely free to believe whatever you want and to take whatever logical leaps you think probable.

As Hatchett points out however, and was one of my points in the post you quoted, none of this GSG stuff would ever be admitted into court. Since your original post was as presenting it to a jury that is how I took it and responded.

When you boil down everything to its core the case against Maybrick is based: 1) around a diary not in any of his known handwriting, missing pages, which cannot even be proven to be his and is inconclusive as to whether it is even from the period and quite possibly a hoax. 2) writing on a wall which possibly has no link to JTR, if link is accepted has no visible connection to Maybrick at all, no actual picture of it even exists and the contemporary records of it contradict each other, and any link can only be established based off of flipping, rotating, and rearranging letters seeming at random to present whatever message the person wants to. 3) A watch that has some carvings in it that don't even list all of the proposed victims that he supposedly killed possibly being linked to one of his old friends.

This wouldn't even make it to trial much less come back a guilty verdict. If I were looking to build a circumstantial case around any suspect, Lechmere would have 100x a stronger argument simply because he was actually known to be the first person to discover a body.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-13-2015, 01:58 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
Hello Icon,

You are completely free to believe whatever you want and to take whatever logical leaps you think probable.

As Hatchett points out however, and was one of my points in the post you quoted, none of this GSG stuff would ever be admitted into court. Since your original post was as presenting it to a jury that is how I took it and responded.

When you boil down everything to its core the case against Maybrick is based: 1) around a diary not in any of his known handwriting, missing pages, which cannot even be proven to be his and is inconclusive as to whether it is even from the period and quite possibly a hoax. 2) writing on a wall which possibly has no link to JTR, if link is accepted has no visible connection to Maybrick at all, no actual picture of it even exists and the contemporary records of it contradict each other, and any link can only be established based off of flipping, rotating, and rearranging letters seeming at random to present whatever message the person wants to. 3) A watch that has some carvings in it that don't even list all of the proposed victims that he supposedly killed possibly being linked to one of his old friends.

This wouldn't even make it to trial much less come back a guilty verdict. If I were looking to build a circumstantial case around any suspect, Lechmere would have 100x a stronger argument simply because he was actually known to be the first person to discover a body.
In fact would most like get the prosecutor assigned to traffic court, (if they were really lucky).
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:00 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
Hello Icon,
3) A watch that has some carvings in it that don't even list all of the proposed victims that he supposedly killed possibly being linked to one of his old friends.
Not in any great disagreement on your points, Dane - opinions differ, go figure, etc..

But I'm sure there were 7 sets of initials in the watch corresponding (one assumes) to the seven women he believed he killed.

I'm probably wrong on that but I'll check it anyway ...

Your old mate,

Icon

No - looks like it was just the canonical five ...

Last edited by Iconoclast : 08-13-2015 at 02:05 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:02 PM
Dane_F Dane_F is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 246
Default

So I did some word search of my own on the GSG. Some will be shocked at what I found.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment...d=14394744 76
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:06 PM
Dane_F Dane_F is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Not in any great disagreement on your points, Dane - opinions differ, go figure, etc..

But I'm sure there were 7 sets of initials in the watch corresponding (one assumes) to the seven women he believed he killed.

I'm probably wrong on that but I'll check it anyway ...

Your old mate,

Icon
Let's assume there were 7. What were the dates of the 7 murders? Did any of the "non C5" happen before the GSG (I'm pretty sure at least one did)? If so then that would kinda blow the whole 4-0 thing out of the water. He would have claimed all the murders up to that point, not just the canonical we think of now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:06 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
So I did some word search of my own on the GSG. Some will be shocked at what I found.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment...d=14394744 76
I always thought it was Dane.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:06 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
So I did some word search of my own on the GSG. Some will be shocked at what I found.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment...d=14394744 76
Very good - I like it!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-13-2015, 02:07 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_F View Post
Let's assume there were 7. What were the dates of the 7 murders? Did any of the "non C5" happen before the GSG (I'm pretty sure at least one did)? If so then that would kinda blow the whole 4-0 thing out of the water. He would have claimed all the murders up to that point, not just the canonical we think of now.
Dane, the 4-0 represents 'win' as in ed-win.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.