Comments on the Jack the Ripper Diary

[Gumshoe]

http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/JackTheRipper1.htm

[admin tim]

Finally! Another URL contributor!

Carry on, guv'nor; you are a regular toff, you are.

[How Brown]

Yeah, nice work Gumshoe.

Listen...would you work here for under minimum wage? Lemme know....

[Paul Butler]

I do wish that when people write things like this about the diary that they would at least try and get their facts right before deciding what they think it is.

Its not as if those facts are that hard to find! :nono:

[Chris G.]

I do wish that when people write things like this about the diary that they would at least try and get their facts right before deciding what they think it is.

Its not as if those facts are that hard to find! :nono:


Good point, Paul. She also references Casebook (see link to "Jack the Ripper") to an address which is way way out of date. It's to the original site that Stephen Ryder had in the 1990's at wildnet.co.uk !!!! I bet some of you newer to the case don't remember that far back when Spry had that site. :rolleyes:

Chris

[robingoodfellow]

Good point, Paul. She also references Casebook (see link to "Jack the Ripper") to an address which is way way out of date. It's to the original site that Stephen Ryder had in the 1990's at wildnet.co.uk !!!! I bet some of you newer to the case don't remember that far back when Spry had that site. :rolleyes:

Chris

Sorry Chris, Paul, who are you talking about here?

Robin, Bath

[Paul Butler]

Sorry Chris, Paul, who are you talking about here?

Robin, Bath

The woman that wrote that bloody awful diary article that Gumshoe kindly posted the link to above.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

The woman that wrote that bloody awful diary article that Gumshoe kindly posted the link to above.

Paul

Right, yes I'd already seen that one and taken a copy of it for my file. She just regurgitates the usual anti-diary arguments. One thing that I have a problem with in particular is the assertion that not many men of Maybrick's age become serial killers. This ignores the possibility that Maybrick may have had a psychopathic personality. I've literally just posted a load of stuff about psychopathy which I extracted from my exam revision notes (on one of the other threads you should see it easily enough).

There are certain points to be noted here. The first is that 'psychopathy' is a personality type not to be confused with the term 'serial killer'. Of the number of psychopaths that there are in society, only few of them, perhaps as little as 5-6% commit crime, still less murderous crime. The criteria for psychopathy was famously defined by Hervey Cleckley in 1941 and refined or reiterated by Robert Hare (1948 I think) in his PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist - which is still used today to identify psychopathy). It includes such things as poor parental attention (the first child of Maybrick's parents died thus possibly some resentment or poor attachment here), resentment (Maybricks 'famous brother'?) and substance abuse.

To my mind, I am quite willing to believe that psychopathic aggression can occur at any age because the conditions that breed it are created, fundamentally, during childhood, its like a volcano just waiting to blow.

So that point she makes about serial killers to my mind is b/s.

[How Brown]

Dear Robin:

Serial killers, as you have pointed out below, can start killing later on in their lives...Fish,Chikatilo,etc....and not necessarily fall in this "timeframe" in which to begin serial killing. Sure, most do start early...but again,not all.


One thing that I have a problem with in particular is the assertion that not many men of Maybrick's age become serial killers. This ignores the possibility that Maybrick may have had a psychopathic personality.

How about a latent psychopath fueled by drugs and a revenge motive...even if the reason or rationale for "revenge" was only in his mind and not borne from facts?

By the way, thanks for the outstanding posts you've contributed already in the last two days. They are much appreciated.:bowdown:

[robingoodfellow]

Dear Robin:

Serial killers, as you have pointed out below, can start killing later on in their lives...Fish,Chikatilo,etc....and not necessarily fall in this "timeframe" in which to begin serial killing. Sure, most do start early...but again,not all.


One thing that I have a problem with in particular is the assertion that not many men of Maybrick's age become serial killers. This ignores the possibility that Maybrick may have had a psychopathic personality.

How about a latent psychopath fueled by drugs and a revenge motive...even if the reason or rationale for "revenge" was only in his mind and not borne from facts?

By the way, thanks for the outstanding posts you've contributed already in the last two days. They are much appreciated.:bowdown:

Absolutely, I think this is entirely possible, even probably. And even without knowing too much about Maybrick's life, there's already some intriguing signs of possible latent psychopathy:

1. Parents who are mourning an earlier, dead child
2. A famous brother
3. Maybrick's description as being 'gentle' but having a tendency to fly into tempers.

Any psychologist interested in psychopathy would certainly turn around and look at that and want to know more. But I'd like to know if this aspect has been discussed previously, I might be duplicating old posts, but I think that this has real potential in making Maybrick a prime candidate even without the existence of the diary.

Thanks for your kind comments How, I am greatly touched!

Robin

[How Brown]

Robin:

To some, as Professor Leece has pointed out, just discussing Maybrick gets 'em irritated.

I say irritate them. Its never hurt anyone to discuss him. Look at all the hoopla they used to make about Stephenson, me included.

I definitely see a change in the wind as to how more people are less timid in sharing their views on this man.

I might be duplicating old posts, but I think that this has real potential in making Maybrick a prime candidate even without the existence of the diary.

Duplicate,replicate,imitate,speculate,emasculate and even eviscerate any posts or threads,ideas and concepts that you wish whenever and wherever you want.

[robingoodfellow]

Robin:

To some, as Professor Leece has pointed out, just discussing Maybrick gets 'em irritated.

I say irritate them. Its never hurt anyone to discuss him. Look at all the hoopla they used to make about Stephenson, me included.

I definitely see a change in the wind as to how more people are less timid in sharing their views on this man.

I might be duplicating old posts, but I think that this has real potential in making Maybrick a prime candidate even without the existence of the diary.

Duplicate,replicate,imitate,speculate,emasculate and even eviscerate any posts or threads,ideas and concepts that you wish whenever and wherever you want.

Thanks very much. Its just that I can see some key areas that the anti-diarists don't really address, such as this possibility of Maybrick's psychopathy.

Professor Leece? Wild, I didn't realise Stephen was a Professor, wicked! Although having said his knowledge of the subject and of other subjects is massively impressive, so I expect I should have guessed!

Thanks for your support

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho robingoodfellow (I'm going to have to be shortening that I reckon.....)

I appreciate that paranoia and defence positions are par for the course on a Maybrick thread but I'm going to risk it and with all due respect have a god at this psychopath thingy...........

This business of saying Maybrick/anyone was a psychopath/serial killer because he exhibited x/did Y always troubles me.

If you stuck Maybrick in a crowd of 100 Victorian men.....there is no way you would or could pick him out of that posse and say he was a potential psychopath.

You couldnt. Because in an era when children were karking it from everything ranging from the cold to scarlet fever loads of couples had dead kids.

How famous was his brother? I assure you, pick any famous Victorian chap and at least half of them had brothers who were married and who lost a kid.

As to his being "gentle" and having a temper.....

So I am confused as to how you ascribe these tendencies of psychopathy to him?

Normally I am quite good with logic flaws but I cannot remember this one.

Its where one has a false precept or notion (maybrick as killer), which allows for or initiates the application or justification of a possibly true concept (maybrick had X,Y,Z and could have been psychopathic) and therefore the first false concept becomes true because the second now fits or something..........

Someone better than me will have to identify the flaw in the logic.

Im not saying he may not have been psychopathic. But if you had never heard of his being a Ripper and had to pick him out of 100 men as the potential psychopath..............you'd never manage it?

p

[Paul Butler]

Morning all.

What we mustn't forget here is that the ONLY reason JM is in the frame as a possible Jack is a very suspect diary. Without it, there is no more reason for suspecting him than any other able bodied male alive in 1888.

Take the diary away, and there is no reason to include him at all.

Assuming as we must for now, that the real James didn't write it, then the key to the whole thing can only be answered by finding out who did, when and why. If the diary really is old and written by someone who maybe suspected James, then in my view his place as a serious candidate is confirmed.

If its a recent fake, (I still don't think there is good evidence that it is mind you), then its case closed for me.

We are lucky to have quite a bit of background on James life, and the likely insecurities he may have developed from being James the second, and playing second fiddle to a much more successful opera singer and composer brother are played out to perfection in the diary.

If we're all being hoaxed, then I take my hat off to the perpetrator.

As Mr. P says, the diary contains a lot of detail unnecessary in a hoax. All this detail increases the potential for the author to make a serious cock up, and yet in many respects he has carried it off to perfection!

Keep the discussion going guys. Its all good stuff.

regards to all.

Paul

[robingoodfellow]

hi ho robingoodfellow (I'm going to have to be shortening that I reckon.....)

I appreciate that paranoia and defence positions are par for the course on a Maybrick thread but I'm going to risk it and with all due respect have a god at this psychopath thingy...........

This business of saying Maybrick/anyone was a psychopath/serial killer because he exhibited x/did Y always troubles me.

If you stuck Maybrick in a crowd of 100 Victorian men.....there is no way you would or could pick him out of that posse and say he was a potential psychopath.

You couldnt. Because in an era when children were karking it from everything ranging from the cold to scarlet fever loads of couples had dead kids.

How famous was his brother? I assure you, pick any famous Victorian chap and at least half of them had brothers who were married and who lost a kid.

As to his being "gentle" and having a temper.....

So I am confused as to how you ascribe these tendencies of psychopathy to him?

Normally I am quite good with logic flaws but I cannot remember this one.

Its where one has a false precept or notion (maybrick as killer), which allows for or initiates the application or justification of a possibly true concept (maybrick had X,Y,Z and could have been psychopathic) and therefore the first false concept becomes true because the second now fits or something..........

Someone better than me will have to identify the flaw in the logic.

Im not saying he may not have been psychopathic. But if you had never heard of his being a Ripper and had to pick him out of 100 men as the potential psychopath..............you'd never manage it?

p

Hmm, good point. Yes, I was forgetting to factor in the nature of Victorian society. There were probably huge amounts of men with potentially latent psychopathy, perhaps this goes some way to explaining why many men went off with prostitutes even though happily married, since frustrations must have a release somewhere, and what with the Victorian 'straight laced' attitude, one had to keep one's temperament under control. The criteria I was applying certainly does explain quite a lot by modern standards though. Having said that, one of the first researchers to identify psychopathy was Phillippe Pinel who in the 19th century described psychopathy as "insanity without delirium", so there must have been some recognition of the condition in those times. How it was recognised or how it manifested itself to the extent of being recognisable though is something that I, at present, am not aware of.

If I was intending to do a Masters in History or Psychology after uni, that might have made a good research topic, Victorian psychopathy, but I favour English literature alas.

On the other hand, I think probably the criteria I mentioned is something to bear in mind, and I think I would probably want to look deeper into this question and compare Maybrick with other men of the period in more detail in order to try and answer the question you have raised in response. Fascinating stuff.