The Hunt for Jack the Ripper

[admin tim]

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdf_his102/Ripper.pdf

William D. Rubinstein reviews the achievements of the ‘Ripperologists’
and lends weight to the argument surrounding the Ripper Diaries.


Anyone other than SPE ever seen this before?

[Steve Powell]

Prof. Rubenstein has done great work with his article,
but, unfortunately, when he is proved wrong about Maybrick
and knows that Steven Park and Feldman wrote the diary,
he shall be somewhat chagrined.
Never mind though, he has done well.
Such is life.

Steve Powell

[Chris G.]

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdf_his102/Ripper.pdf

William D. Rubinstein reviews the achievements of the ‘Ripperologists’
and lends weight to the argument surrounding the Ripper Diaries.


Anyone other than SPE ever seen this before?

Hi Tim

Yes I knew about it and downloaded it some time ago. I wonder if the editors of History Today know that this chap has put the article on the web? :rolleyes:

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

This letter has been kicked around (literally) before, but it's worth another look.

The case that Maybrick was the Ripper is strong even
without the diary. Perhaps the most striking evidence for this is
to be found in a number of unknown letters discovered by Paul
Feldman from Liverpool sources. On October 9th, 1888, the
Liverpool Echo printed a story (based on a letter it had received)
that Jack the Ripper was about to strike in Dublin. The following
day the same newspaper published the following,
written on a postcard:

I beg to state that the letters published in yours of yesterday
are lies. It is somebody gulling the public. I am
the Whitechapel purger. On 13th, at 3pm, will be on
Stage, as am going to New York. But will have some
business before I go.
Yours Truly,
Jack the Ripper DIEGO LAURENZ
(Genuine)


Feldman asks ‘What does Diego Laurenz mean? I have no idea.
Is it a clue?’ In my opinion, indeed it is—arguably the most important
clue that we have. ‘Diego’ is Spanish for James, while
‘Laurenz’ is meant to rhyme with ‘Florence.’ If this is what it
means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick
was Jack the Ripper. (Anyone familiar with the diary will know
Maybrick’s penchant for puns and word-games. And why was
a letter written with such assurance sent to a Liverpool newspaper?)
Another previously unpublished letter, sent by ‘Jack the
Ripper’ to the Metropolitan Police from New York in October
1888, also said that the Ripper was temporarily there, but would
be back. There was, indeed an inexplicable gap of five weeks
between the two murders on September 30th, 1888, and the fifth
killing on November 9th, which has always puzzled researchers.
Maybrick himself was known to have made regular
business trips to New York throughout his career.

[Chris G.]

Feldman asks ‘What does Diego Laurenz mean? I have no idea.
Is it a clue?’ In my opinion, indeed it is—arguably the most important
clue that we have. ‘Diego’ is Spanish for James, while
‘Laurenz’ is meant to rhyme with ‘Florence.’ If this is what it
means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick
was Jack the Ripper. (Anyone familiar with the diary will know
Maybrick’s penchant for puns and word-games. And why was
a letter written with such assurance sent to a Liverpool newspaper?)



What Feldman and Rubinstein fail to note, however, is that Diego Laurenz = "James" and "Florence" is a more sophisticated "word game" than anything written in the Diary. So once again, it's Feldman reaching and Prof. Rubinstein following along like a little puppy dog. :rolleyes:

Chris

[robingoodfellow]

Having just completed a criminology module I've been wondering about how far Maybrick's personality fits that of a psychopath. The first thing to note that 'psychopath' is a personality type, and not necessarily identifies someone who is going to be a serial killer. Only a minority of 'psychopaths' actually take to crime, still less murderous crime.

According to people like Hervey Cleckley (1941) and Robert Hare (1948), psychopathic traits include such things as 'superficial charm', 'lack of empathy', 'aggressive and irritable', 'impulsive', 'inability to form lasting relationships', but also fundamentally that they are manipulative, selfish and will stop at nothing to satisfy their own desires. For this reason psychopathic behaviour is seen by some to be useful in business as it makes for 'admirable leadership' (which rather makes you wonder somewhat about some of our politicians and corporation directors). Its also said to stem in part from poor parenting, especially lack of maternal attention.

Anyway, I asked my criminology lecturer about Maybrick this afternoon and she said that he doesn't really fit the typical psychopathic stereotype. I do kind of agree with this, but on the other hand, I've read in various quarters, and its mentioned in the Rubinstein article, that Maybrick much of the time appeared to be gentle, but that he was given to ferocious tempers (which is one sign of a psychopath).

It would be interesting to find out, if it were possible which I doubt, some details of Maybrick's upbringing especially his relationship with his parents and especially his mother, whether he was bullied as a child, what his relationship pattern was like prior to meeting Florence. Psychopaths also have a negative view of the world, often having resentments from childhood, blaming others for personal misfortunes, and having desires for revenge upon those who they see as having wronged them.

My criminology lecturer also said that she doubted he fits the psychopath type, but that the effect of the arsenic on the brain could be a more likely factor in bringing about sudden bouts of insanity.

Not sure how much use these observations are but please follow them up if you are so inclined.

[Paul Butler]

James' parents had a previous child they called James. He died in infancy and our James became a sort of replacement.

Later on his younger brother Michael became famous and mixed with the high and mighty.

I don't know if that helps in the making of a psycho, but it sure as hell would have given me a bit of an inferiority complex!

Just like Sir Jim in the diary in fact.......!

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

James' parents had a previous child they called James. He died in infancy and our James became a sort of replacement.

Later on his younger brother Michael became famous and mixed with the high and mighty.

I don't know if that helps in the making of a psycho, but it sure as hell would have given me a bit of an inferiority complex!

Just like Sir Jim in the diary in fact.......!

Paul

This fits or could fit with the criteria regarding poor or neglectful parenting. We can surmise from this then that James's parents were at the least affected by the death of their first child, as any parent would. This attitude would then have influenced the manner in which James was brought up. It would be quite possible in such a situation for the child to detect a certain resentment or at least the feeling of longing on the part of the parents for their first child. According to the information I obtained during the psychopathy part of my criminology module, and last years module on Development Psychology, this ties in to Bowlby's studies on Attachment (I actually have Bowlby's book on my bookshelf, but haven't read it yet). I'm sure in my notes somewhere that even as early as nine months old, any neglectful or reluctant parenting can induce the child to feel irritable, angry, resentful etc Some theorists believe that some dysfunctional behaviour in children could in theory by classified as 'child psychopathy' as opposed to the more usual categorisation of 'delinquency' or 'conduct disorder'. If so, its highly likely that such psychopathy starts young.

The bit you mention about Maybricks brother becoming famous is another possible factor, especially if Maybrick was already suffering problems resulting from poor attachment during childhood. It could have bred jealousy and resentment in him that was exacerbated by all the childhood stuff.

Another indication and/or cause of psychopathy is substance abuse.

Here's some extracts from my exam revision notes:

On Attachment:

Children can become wary, distressed, distrustful, resistant or angry if not securely attached by the first nine months of their lives
Studies show that securely-attached children tend to be more competent and well-adjusted later in life
It may be the case that childhood psychopathy forms at this important stage, especially if there is a neurological predisposition in terms of lack of behavioural inhibition and sensation-seeking
On child psychopathy:

They might not become killers but they will learn how to manipulate, deceive and exploit others for their own gain
It is generally believed that they have failed to develop affectional bonds that allow them to empathize but have instead developed arrogance, dishonesty, narcissism, shamelessness and callousness
They are fearless and probably have a weak behaviour inhibition system
Lykken (Canadian psychologist) - most antisocial behaviours caused by poor parenting, including absent fathers and inadequate mothers who fail to properly socialize their child
psychopaths speak more quietly than non-psychopaths
Common traits in the background of psychopathic children include:


A mother exposed to deprivation or abuse as a child
A mother who shows a tendency towards isolation
A transient father or the family migrates frequently
A mother who cannot maintain stable emotional connections with her child
Low birth weight or birth complications
Hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity to pain
Hyperactivity
Failure to make eye contact when touched
Absence of fear of strangers
Low frustration tolerance
Transient psychotic episodes
Sense of omnipotence
Easily distracted
Transient relationship
Cruelty toward others
This is a list of the criteria set by Robert Hare's (1948) 'Psychopathy Checklist' (PCL-R):

Hare's PCL characterized psychopathy according to the following criteria:

lack of remorse or empathy
shallow emotions
manipulativeness
lying
egocentricity
glibness
low frustration tolerance
episodic relationships
parasitic lifestyle
the persistent violation of social norms
need for stimulation
criminal versatility
Hare described psychopaths as:

"intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation and violence to control others and satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse"

"What is missing in other words are the very qualities that enable a human being to live in social harmony with others"

These are the characteristics of 'malevolent psychopaths' identified by Millon & Davis (1996):

tough, strong-willed, outspoken, competitive, and unsentimental.
characteristically forceful; controlling, contentious, and at times overbearing,
power-oriented tendencies
occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors.
When they feel strongly about something, these individuals can be quite blunt, brusque, and impatient, with sudden, abrupt outbursts of an unwarranted or precipitous nature.
The most extreme variants of this pattern are aggressive;
they are intimidating, domineering, argumentative, and precipitously belligerent.
They derive pleasure from humiliating others and can be quite malicious.
For this reason, people often shy away from these personalities, sensing them to be cold, callous, and insensitive to the feelings of others.
All variants of this pattern tend to view tender emotions as a sign of weakness, avoid expressions of warmth and intimacy, and are suspicious of gentility, compassion, and kindness.
Many insist on being seen as faultless; however, they invariably are inflexible and dogmatic, rarely concede on any issue, even in the face of evidence negating the validity of their position.
They have a low frustration threshold and are especially sensitive to reproach or deprecation.
When pushed on personal matters, they can become furious and are likely to respond reflexively and often vindictively, especially when feeling humiliated or belittled.
Thus, they are easily provoked to attack, their first inclination being to dominate and demean their adversaries. (Millon, 1996, pp. 483, 487)
Psychopathic aggression can be defined in terms of:


Psychopathic aggression follows mostly predatory and/or instrumental patterns. Many psychopaths behave like wounded predators and so the aggression is symptomatic of their lifelong pain.
Psychopathic aggression might be linked to the following motives:
Self defence and/or prevention of depression, psychosis or suicide (Cleckley 1984)
Restoration of self-organization, structure, confidence and positive self-image after a period of disillusion, frustration, disappointment and/or the harmful or threatening actions of others.
An effort to control persons/situations as a consequence of a lack of positive coping, lack of social/emotional skills and/or social isolation
An attempt to reduce pain from the past by hitting back. This can be considered as a form of self-liberation
An intense need to share anger with others through aggressive/violent acts
Self-hate and the hatred of others and the unconscious wish to understand that mechanism of hate
Envious attitude toward normal people who have been brought up in healthy, caring families and who are able to a) adapt themselves to the rules of society and b) to interact adequately with and love others.
A strong tendency to sensation seeking which is associated with lack of fear and excessive uninhibited drive. This may lead to impressive, confronting experiences that might lead to self-awareness and remission.
These might be brought out by deep-rooted frustrations and negative experiences in the past, such as:

being rejected, neglected, abused and humiliated;
lack of parental attention, warmth, guidance and chaotic and/or violent family life
parental anti-social behaviour
parental divorce
substance abuse
bad or violent neighbourhood
Now, I went out this afternoon and bought some more JTR books, including the Feldman book which I've started reading. On page 13 of the paperback copy Feldman refers to Hannah, the graphologist who assisted the Israeli government. She took a look at the handwriting in the diary and this is what she came up with:


Disturbed, possibly mentally
Very strong imagination
Fluctuating self esteem. Varying from domineering to deprived
Sexual problems - lack of satisfaction
Problems with mother image
Ambivalent feeling about father
Much aggression - also toward self
Multiple personality
Lack of stability
Changes his mind (in other words 'impulsive')
Dramatic sense - me as 'victim'
Has ideas, is imaginative - but can't always execute
Likes games - sees people as pawns (i.e. 'manipulative')
On the outside he can control himself - inside he is like a volcano which sometime will burst out
No trust for others
Hypochondria
Stubborn
Has had disappointments in the emotional area
Very strong guilt feelings
Compulsive thoughts - neuroses - repetitive
Drugs or alcohol? Something psychological
Personally I think that she in that analysis completely duplicated the criteria in Cleckley's and Hare's psychopathy checklists!

But of course, this may be criticized depending on whether or not you accept the abilities of graphologists.

The thing I'm wondering though, aside from any reference in the diary and Hannah's comments, is how closely Cleckley's and Hare's psychopathy criteria match the known personality traits of Maybrick both in childhood and adulthood.

Anyone know anything about this? I haven't read anything about Maybrick other than in the books about the diary unfortunately.

Robin, Bath

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Robin,

Welcome to the Forums and many thanks for contributing.

An interesting exercise might be to look at the diary content and see how many factors the author managed to cram in, which closely match the criteria you have given us here. It might help to build up a picture of how clued up the author was, if he/she was trying to portray 'Sir Jim' as a psychopath.

The real James Maybrick evidently had 'superficial charm': he was a notorious womaniser, who bowled over the young, attractive Florence easily enough and they soon became engaged. But he never stopped seeing his mistress, and even gave her two more children during his marriage to Florie.

He didn't have an obvious 'lack of empathy' - he appears to have adored his wife and children, and he was kind and thoughtful towards a young female guest of the family. He could certainly be 'aggressive and irritable' on occasion, however. The young guest remembered seeing James 'angered' on several occasions and 'furious' on two. On one of these, he threatened to kick the nursery nurse down the steps and break every bone in her, because she had dealt severely with the young guest.

James must have been 'impulsive' to an extent, to have dosed himself up so liberally with goodness knows what noxious substances, with little thought of the possible consequences. But he couldn't have suffered from an 'inability to form lasting relationships', since he had at least one if not two or more mistresses on the go for years (even if one was a brothel keeper in Virginia, who saw him at least two or three times a week before his marriage). His inability concerned sticking with one relationship at a time.

Manipulative, selfish and stopping at nothing to satisfy his own desires must all apply to James to one degree or another, considering the ways and means he employed to keep his romantic attachments and drug supplies and suppliers all in separate, often secretive compartments.

I know very little about James's early life and how he and his brothers were treated by mum and dad. I believe it was not uncommon to name a child after one who had died in infancy, and it was almost par for the course for Victorian families of every class to lose one or more infants. So it may not have had the devastating effect we imagine it might today, to discover that your name had been used and recycled, like hand-me-down clothes. At least there had been no baby girls, otherwise he could have been renamed Ethel, and been understandably bitter. :)

How James managed to lose all five of the infants he is meant to have sired with one mistress out of wedlock is another matter - we don't even know their gender, names or birth/death details.

The diary author certainly gave 'Sir Jim' a negative view of the world and a 'resentful one minute, admiring the next' attitude towards his brother Michael's creative abilities, which is presumably meant to have carried over from their shared boyhood. If we had access to any of the brothers' schoolwork, I can imagine James doing better in maths and science, but would not expect him to compare favourably with Michael when it came to the arts - hardly surprising considering the different directions they took.

'Sir Jim' also heaps plenty of blame on others for his own misfortunes, and his desire for revenge upon anyone he thinks has wronged him is all too evident.

Love,

Caz
X

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Robin,

Welcome to the Forums and many thanks for contributing.

The real James Maybrick evidently had 'superficial charm': he was a notorious womaniser, who bowled over the young, attractive Florence easily enough and they soon became engaged. But he never stopped seeing his mistress, and even gave her two more children during his marriage to Florie.

He didn't have an obvious 'lack of empathy' - he appears to have adored his wife and children, and he was kind and thoughtful towards a young female guest of the family. He could certainly be 'aggressive and irritable' on occasion, however. The young guest remembered seeing James 'angered' on several occasions and 'furious' on two. On one of these, he threatened to kick the nursery nurse down the steps and break every bone in her, because she had dealt severely with the young guest.

James must have been 'impulsive' to an extent, to have dosed himself up so liberally with goodness knows what noxious substances, with little thought of the possible consequences. But he couldn't have suffered from an 'inability to form lasting relationships', since he had at least one if not two or more mistresses on the go for years (even if one was a brothel keeper in Virginia, who saw him at least two or three times a week before his marriage). His inability concerned sticking with one relationship at a time.

Manipulative, selfish and stopping at nothing to satisfy his own desires must all apply to James to one degree or another, considering the ways and means he employed to keep his romantic attachments and drug supplies and suppliers all in separate, often secretive compartments.

X

Thanks Caz, thats very enlightening. One point about the 'inability to form lasting relationships' criteria though, is that usually that point is discussed in such a way which makes me believe that its single, monogamous, relationships that are being referred to. I've also read somewhere that psychopaths are usually or quite often promiscuous. From that angle then, Maybrick's tendency to have two or three mistresses on the go at any one time appears to fit the criteria, bizarrely enough.

Someone else mentioned the point that this kind of personality trait and its attendant behaviour must have been common in Victorian times because of the large amount of infant mortality that was experienced at that time. I forgot to mention the point in response that it is also common now. The trouble is that, largely due to Hollywood movies, such as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence of the Lambs, most people associate psychopaths with serial killers. As Robert Hare pointed out in his studies of psychopathy, only a small number of psychopaths go on to commit crime, perhaps as little as 5 to 6%. That means that there are a great many more psychopaths around you as you go about your daily business than you think there are. They might appear to be normal to you most of the time, but they have odd quirks in their behaviour which will be mostly visible to family and friends. So if this is true now, then it must also have been true then. This also means that, if successfully applied to Maybrick, it only implies that he had the potential, however small, for his psychopathy to develop into the kind of malevolent psychopathy that would produce a serial killer, NOT that he did. He could still have been a psychopath without even remotely being associated with the Whitechapel murders, nevetheless, if it can be surmised that Maybrick was a psychopath, and to me from whats been said it seems possible, it does tend to give the diary A LITTLE bit more legitimacy - but not enough to overcome the enormous problems that it suffers unfortunately.

[Stephen Leece]

That's true- the most common psychopath I have come across I have referred to as the 'office psychopath.' You know the sort I mean- the greasy little a**elicker that cannot get a promotion through dint of their own talent- they gain high office by stabbing their colleagues in the back.

[robingoodfellow]

That's true- the most common psychopath I have come across I have referred to as the 'office psychopath.' You know the sort I mean- the greasy little a**elicker that cannot get a promotion through dint of their own talent- they gain high office by stabbing their colleagues in the back.

Exactly Stephen!!!! There have been some studies which have actually praised psychopathy because of its ability to grant qualities of 'audacious leadership' on the sufferer - in other words, tyrannical bosses who enjoy pushing everyone around just for entertainment. You can see that in a multinational corporate capitalist economy such qualities can be of use, by virtue of trying to exist in a hugely competitive environment. However, its a double edged sword because the same qualities can result in the sufferer defrauding the organisation and undermining the team purely for his/her own greed and selfishness.

[Chris G.]

James' parents had a previous child they called James. He died in infancy and our James became a sort of replacement.

Later on his younger brother Michael became famous and mixed with the high and mighty.

I don't know if that helps in the making of a psycho, but it sure as hell would have given me a bit of an inferiority complex!

Just like Sir Jim in the diary in fact.......!

Paul

Hi Paul B et al.

If that's the sort of thing that made you a psycho, there would have been Jack the Rippers throughout the length and breadth of the realm. But there weren't. Mixed up childhoods, children who died in infancy, more successful siblings, hardships, etc., etc., were all par for the course in the Victorian era. Just look at the fictional examples in Dickens' and Thomas Hardy's stories as well as real life accounts of the irregular and hardscrabble lives lived back then not only among the direly poor but throughout Victorian society.

Chris

[robingoodfellow]

Hi Paul B et al.

If that's the sort of thing that made you a psycho, there would have been Jack the Rippers throughout the length and breadth of the realm. But there weren't. Mixed up childhoods, children who died in infancy, more successful siblings, hardships, etc., etc., were all par for the course in the Victorian era. Just look at the fictional examples in Dickens' and Thomas Hardy's stories as well as real life accounts of the irregular and hardscrabble lives lived back then not only among the direly poor but throughout Victorian society.

Chris

Hi Chris, I reiterate, the views of Robert Hare, which are used as the main criteria for modern diagnosis of psychopathy, are quite clear in that they suggest, in my view realistically, that only 5-6% of 'psychopaths' go on to commit crime, still less end up murdering someone. Therefore, technically, you are right, there would have been potential 'Jack the Rippers' up and down the length and breadth of the realm, as there may very well be today. However, potential and fruition are two very different things, just because Maybrick may have been a psychopath it doesn't necessarily mean to say that he killed anyone, or even committed a crime, it merely creates a psychological environment more suitable for the descent into serial killing than someone who doesn't suffer psychopathy. Psychopathy is fundamentally a personality type based on neuroses and characterised by odd and intense behaviour, it just happens to be the case that many serial killers are psychopaths, but that doesn't mean all, or most psychopaths are killers, or even criminals.

How many 'normal' people do you know in your place of work? I would bet that a surprising number of those people, if you knew them better, would demonstrate behaviour characteristic of psychopathy. Nevertheless, most, almost certainly all of those people are going to die peacably in their beds having never once committed any sort of crime.

We're basically talking 'risk factors' here, but risk factors doesn't mean reality - except perhaps in a few cases!

[robingoodfellow]

I notice that cgp or Chris in other words wrote this on the Casebook a short while ago:


"There is a slightly more serious aspect to this (though I suspect not many people take anything written on www.jtrforums.com (http://www.jtrforums.com/) very seriously these days).

We may as well be clear about it - what's being referred to is another post on www.jtrforums.com (http://www.jtrforums.com/) written by the person who calls himself SirRobertAnderson. As well as the insult about "misogynist fan boys", clearly directed at myself and John Omlor (and accompanied, ironically enough, by a little phalanx of "emoticons" labelled "Crazy", "Offinhead" and "Tinfoil3"), there is yet another diatribe against "a author [having] a suspect to tout and books to pimp" finding Maybrick "awfully inconvenient", and being characterised as "deluded", evidently for stating that the diary is a fake.

This drivel would be offensive enough coming from anyone, but it is particularly contemptible coming as it does from someone described as a "Super Moderator" on Howard Brown's site. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Howard Brown has got to decide whether he is going to continue to allow his website to be used as a platform for these cowardly and scurrilous attacks. It's no use pretending that these insults aren't directed against anyone in particular. Everyone knows who is being referred to as Caroline Morris's "fan boys", and everyone knows which author is being referred to.

Last June Howard Brown gave me his personal assurance that he would not tolerate any personal insults - he said "I guarantee you...and please keep this email for proof...that the first disparaging word about you and I will shut the thread down and never bring it back up should you care to participate." [my emphasis] And later, after I had terminated my membership of his site, I asked him to confirm that he would also take action against insults against people who were not subscribers. He replied "I will take action immediately about disparaging remarks about you and anyone else not "on" the site."

If he wants to persuade people that his word means anything, Howard Brown needs to stop these insults.

Chris Phillips"

Can I respectfully respect, How, that you just ignore this bile since to me it is an obvious 'thin edge of the wedge' from certain parties on the Casebook who may very well attempt to castigate diary supporters on here as well, and personally I prefer this site as I can discuss the diary without being labelled a simpleton, demented, or anything else.

If you perhaps like the idea of telling this poster on the Casebook to 'blankety-blank off!' you would certainly have my support for sure.

And to Sir Robert, I think you scored a direct hit there. Well done old chap!!! May all your arrows fly so straight and true!

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Robin...I was aware of what Chris mentioned.



What Chris Phillips needs to do before I take him seriously or anything he says seriously, is provide me with the email that he alleges Sir Robert wrote claiming that he and I had a problem ,which to me was an attempt to create some sort of wedge between Bob and myself right around the time he joined the site. I had no problem with Chris....still don't...and once considered hooking up an alternative, all-Ripper-only site and contemplating asking him first ( Since Tim Mosley and Tom Wescott aren't liars like I am, ask them ) above all people to participate.

There's not going to be any changes to how we conduct things here,Robin. Occasionally people get testy and a little passionate about subject matter. I'd say the site runs pretty smoothly on the whole.

And don't get me wrong, I appreciate it when Chris mentions me or the site in his posts. I ought to put him on the payroll.:kiss:

[Paul Butler]

Morning How.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Thanks for keeping this site going as it is. Its much appreciated to be able to discuss things here with real grownups and without all the silliness. (Its also good to have the light hearted silliness where its appropriate too.)

The site is growing, and its not hard to see why.

All the best and keep it up.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

Yeah, I'd second that. I think this site is great. Don't get me wrong I quite like the Casebook too, its just that it seems to be dominated by a little clique who think that just because they are all 'experts' the rest of us should cow tow to them and kiss their boots and worship every word they say. Not really a one for doing that kind of thing though.

This site is hugely refreshing in comparison.

:high5:

[robingoodfellow]

I think really what this is about is that having secured one piece of territory, just over the border, like over here, there's all these insurgent diary supporters, yet sadly the Casebook Cartel can't fly in their B52's and napalm us all into oblivion, so now they're getting pissed off.

Hilarious!!!

Robin

Here's a riled Casebook supporter by the way - :frusty:

[Mr. Poster]

Hang on a second....

I am not and never have been a Diary supporter (as it being genuine).

I is however a Diary Discussion Supporter should people feel the need.

And also a Diary Testing Supporter.

because if people can see the need for testing known hoax letters for DNA, and Eddowes "Shawl" and all the other relics and discuss them with no fear of opprobrium.....then we should equally be allowed to this hoax.

I also reckon that if people can write letters about known hoax letters and make a few quid then people can pretty much discuss a known hoax diary without fear of retribution.

Unless someone wants to argue that th eletters are really written by jtR.....

p

[Caroline Morris]

Hi How, All,

It's quite simple. If XXXXXX had always treated others as he expects others to treat him, he wouldn't have to spend any of his precious time pulling arrows out of his paper-thin skin.

I laughed when he likened appointing me as a moderator to putting XXXX in charge of a XXXX - and still expected me to obey his every command. Unbelievable.

I don't think we are doing too badly so far, are we? The only spoiled child who could benefit personally from a short sharp lesson in how to behave among his peers stubbornly refused to join us and prefers to look through the window and sulk. His loss I'm afraid, and all his own doing.

Anyone know the Viz character 'Spoilt Bastard'? ;)

Love,

Caz
X

[robingoodfellow]

Hang on a second....

I am not and never have been a Diary supporter (as it being genuine).

I is however a Diary Discussion Supporter should people feel the need.

And also a Diary Testing Supporter.

p

Well fine, thats good enough for me. And besides, I just love your commentary on you-know-who's behaviour, first class satire, totally brilliant!!!

:becky:

[robingoodfellow]

Hi How, All,

It's quite simple. If XXXXXXX had always treated others as he expects others to treat him, he wouldn't have to spend any of his precious time pulling arrows out of his paper-thin skin.

I laughed when he likened appointing me as a moderator to putting XXXX in charge of a XXXX - and still expected me to obey his every command. Unbelievable.

I don't think we are doing too badly so far, are we? The only spoiled child who could benefit personally from a short sharp lesson in how to behave among his peers stubbornly refused to join us and prefers to look through the window and sulk. His loss I'm afraid, and all his own doing.

Anyone know the Viz character 'Spoilt Bastard'? ;)

Love,

Caz
X

Don't get me wrong, I know there's loads of anti-diarists on here, but they appear to be rather more well-mannered, and don't insult us diary supporters as simpletons or try to suppress debate on the subject like the Casebook Cartel do. And thats what makes this site just so much more refreshing.

You're doing excellent work How. Keep it up!!!

:high5:

[How Brown]

Dear Caz:

Do you remember where XXX mentioned the reference to XXX ? Maybe Sir Bob knows.....

Please send it to me in an email.

[SirRobertAnderson]

How and I have pow-wowed, and I am editing a few snippets of posts that refer to a former member and referenced a deleted post.

This, no doubt, will succeed in pissing everyone off as it will be seen as censorship by some, and not going far enough in the eyes of others.

I will let the Casebook Cartel remark stand but ask that it not be used again, or for that matter any terms derogatory towards what will always be the best Ripper site on the planet.

We're How and Tim's guests here, and beef from other sites should be checked at the door. I've been guilty of it myself, and will sin no more. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Let's turn the Maybrick boards into the best on the Net.

[robingoodfellow]

How and I have pow-wowed, and I am editing a few snippets of posts that refer to a former member and referenced a deleted post.

This, no doubt, will succeed in pissing everyone off as it will be seen as censorship by some, and not going far enough in the eyes of others.

I will let the Casebook Cartel remark stand but ask that it not be used again, or for that matter any terms derogatory towards what will always be the best Ripper site on the planet.

We're How and Tim's guests here, and beef from other sites should be checked at the door. I've been guilty of it myself, and will sin no more. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Let's turn the Maybrick boards into the best on the Net.

Agreed. I was only ever really interesting in two things a) counteracting the notion that diary supporters are simpletons b) doing my bit to protect freedom of speech.

I certainly agree that the Casebook is an incredible and very worthwhile resource. I've posted a message on there saying that I'm not the least bit interested in continuing confrontational discussions, but I would also hope that the tendency towards dehumanising diary supporters has been nipped in the bud and that lessons have been learned by certain people.

Now, I think, its time to move on.

:rockon:

[admin tim]

http://jdurand.cocc.edu/Classes/HST+103/Jack+the+Ripper/default.aspx