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 Darryl Kenyon 40 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Varqm 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 5 hours ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Varqm 5 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.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (28 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (14 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (4 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
  #4201  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:07 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You only get to turn this into a Jack the Ripper comment by ...
The issue is not whether or not this is actually a Jack the Ripper comment. The issue is that this line in Florence's letter provided our lucky hoaxer with a very convenient link for his or her journal. It allows 'Maybrick' to say that 'my dear Bunny knows all' and the letter is there to rather conveniently suggest that he actually had told dear Bunny that he was Jack, and that he was therefore Jack.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4202  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:09 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But that "coincidence" has always existed. You're just following the narrative of the author of the diary.

What if the author of the diary had written: "Aha, I'll go and kill women in London because it begins with the letter "L" just like Liverpool"?

Would that have impressed you as another coincidence?
On our reliable coincidence scale, it would warrant a 0 out of 10. It's very like John G absurdly arguing that the probability of finding all six significant adults in Maybrick's life cryptically hidden in the GSG was exactly the same as the probability that you would find the constituent letters somewhere in it.

Not the same odds at all!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4203  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
The coincidence does not lie in the 'well-established' element. The coincidence lies in the rather convenient fact (now) that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and also took strychnine.

If these facts were well-established in 1889, it does not change the coincidence which once again worked in the hoaxer's favour.

I think you have focused on my use of 'well-established' where you may have been better employed arguing that his addiction was a not a rather convenient coincidence for our hoaxer.
But it's not a "coincidence" at all. If the diary is a forgery then all it means is that the author has read a book in which it is said that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and incorporated it into the bogus journal.

How is that a "coincidence" as opposed to a forger knowing something about Maybrick that they had read in a book?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4204  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:13 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
No, you are making the claim so I want you to tell me.
17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4205  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:14 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
On our reliable coincidence scale, it would warrant a 0 out of 10. It's very like John G absurdly arguing that the probability of finding all six significant adults in Maybrick's life cryptically hidden in the GSG was exactly the same as the probability that you would find the constituent letters somewhere in it.

Not the same odds at all!
But there's no "odds" involved here at all. The information about there being a Whitechapel in both London and Liverpool was available to any hoaxer.

So, if the diary is a forgery, it would mean no more than the forger has taken an already existing "coincidence" and woven it into the story.

If you want to give the forger marks out of ten for spotting this fact and creatively incorporating it into the journal then fine but it's not something that goes one jot towards showing that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4206  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:15 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons
Yeah, I've compared them and they look different to me.

You have an expert opinion that they are the same do you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4207  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:15 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But it's not a "coincidence" at all. If the diary is a forgery then all it means is that the author has read a book in which it is said that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and incorporated it into the bogus journal.

How is that a "coincidence" as opposed to a forger knowing something about Maybrick that they had read in a book?
If every man who lived in 1888 was addicted to arsenic/strychnine, I'd agree with you. I have a suspicion they weren't.

The hoaxer had the good fortune to find a candidate who was addicted to arsenic/strychnine which provided the psychopathology of the murders.

It is a coincidence unless you argue that it was discovering this fact which caused our hoaxer to focus in on Maybrick as his or her fake Jack.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4208  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:15 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yeah, I've compared them and they look different to me.

You have an expert opinion that they are the same do you?
I have an opinion that they are the same.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4209  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:17 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But there's no "odds" involved here at all. The information about there being a Whitechapel in both London and Liverpool was available to any hoaxer.

So, if the diary is a forgery, it would mean no more than the forger has taken an already existing "coincidence" and woven it into the story.

If you want to give the forger marks out of ten for spotting this fact and creatively incorporating it into the journal then fine but it's not something that goes one jot towards showing that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper.
It demonstrates our hoaxer's amazing good fortune. It is not designed to show "that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper".

You can argue that any of these coincidences are not a coincidence because they were the reason why the hoaxer chose Maybrick as his guilty party, but you can't wish them all away in that way.

Last edited by Iconoclast : 02-04-2018 at 12:22 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4210  
Old 02-04-2018, 12:19 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Read it properly. It wasn't simply to frighten her. It was to "frighten the truth" out of her.
In what sense have I not read it properly?

In attempting to frighten the truth out of her about her affair, he attempted to terrify her by telling her that her affair had directly led to his murderous acts in Whitechapel.

That fits.
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 12:09 AM.


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