Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Diary's Fingerprints

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    I don't either Caz, when we've got the flamboyant playwright, Harry Dam to consider.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Hi Cris,

    To be fair, the overwhelming majority of posters who have fanned the flames of this debate over the years are among the most gullible human beings I ever encountered, given that they swallowed the various claims once made by serial liar, Mike Barrett, to have written the diary himself or to have known who did. Yet the handwriting cannot be attributed to any named individual, alive or dead.

    Nobody ever seems to want to look beneath the surface and ask themselves why Mike couldn't decide on a single straight story concerning his own involvement, but instead made a series of contradictory claims which were either unsupported, unsupportable, retracted or even disproven.

    While I don't see Maybrick's hand in the diary, that doesn't mean I've lost all my marbles and have to see a Barrett hand there. I have never understood why it has to be a case of either/or.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    The fact that this has even been a debate over all this time only highlights how gullible human beings can be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Mitchell
    replied
    I note with considerable amusement that the passing of almost a decade has not compromised the premises of the original post. The Diary's Fingerprints continue to point directly at James Maybrick being the Whitechapel killer and not a single argument has been made (nor piece of evidence produced) in the passing years (nor the twenty before it) which compromises that argument in any way. I am glad that I missed the statistical misrepresentations of 2017 - though I note they reared their ugly head, with their unaltered errors of calculation, again in another place as recently as this year. Some posters managed to overcome the easy mistakes which can be made when seeing the variables through myopic eyes, but others sadly succumbed to the horrors of misunderstanding the premises which underpin such analysis.

    Fatuous 'arguments' against the authenticity of the diary continue to haunt these pages, though, I also note. For example, the fact that James Maybrick did not live in Whitechapel, London, at the time of the crimes is taken by some to be evidenced towards a hoax. The reality is that it is obviously perfectly plausible (given that he was never caught) that he abided elsewhere and simply travelled in to kill. Such 'arguments' neither move the debate forwards nor backwards however adamantine the poster may be in claiming otherwise.

    Best wishes,

    Tom

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Er, where did I say I have ever believed the diary is the 'real thing', Chris?

    Read my post again, especially this:

    ...the argument for Maybrick being a terrible choice for Jack...

    And this:

    The diary author clearly saw no problem with portraying Maybrick as...

    And this:

    One might ask, in Chris's shoes, why any hoaxer would make it so hard on themselves by picking someone who had lived so far from the crimes. But my answer would be that this one didn't give two hoots about impressing Chris George, and would have been highly gratified to see a real live example, Colin Ireland, proving the point, just a year after the diary first came to light.

    Was this a case of seeing what you expected to see, Chris, and not what I actually wrote?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Hi All,

    The case of Colin Ireland, active from March to June 1993, between the Maybrick diary's emergence and publication, very much demonstrates that the argument for Maybrick being a terrible choice for Jack for geographical reasons fell down before it was ever made.

    The trains from Liverpool to London ran just as efficiently in the 1880s, and perhaps more so, than from Southend-on-Sea to London in the 1990s. Maybrick at least had legitimate reasons for going to London; not so much Ireland, who picked up all his victims from the same pub and seems to have had no other purpose for his travelling. The diary author clearly saw no problem with portraying Maybrick as a Colin Ireland type, before Colin Ireland had even begun killing, and despite Chris George's instincts that it would have been safer and far more credible to opt for a London based Jack.

    One might ask, in Chris's shoes, why any hoaxer would make it so hard on themselves by picking someone who had lived so far from the crimes. But my answer would be that this one didn't give two hoots about impressing Chris George, and would have been highly gratified to see a real live example, Colin Ireland, proving the point, just a year after the diary first came to light.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Thanks, Caz. I'm certain that the hoaxer of the Diary didn't think about impressing me. I'm surprised that you still believe the Diary is the real thing when in reality it's a rather crude artifact created to put James Maybrick in the frame for having been the Ripper. There are too many strikes against it having been written by the East End killer.

    Cheers

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Hi All,

    The case of Colin Ireland, active from March to June 1993, between the Maybrick diary's emergence and publication, very much demonstrates that the argument for Maybrick being a terrible choice for Jack for geographical reasons fell down before it was ever made.

    The trains from Liverpool to London ran just as efficiently in the 1880s, and perhaps more so, than from Southend-on-Sea to London in the 1990s. Maybrick at least had legitimate reasons for going to London; not so much Ireland, who picked up all his victims from the same pub and seems to have had no other purpose for his travelling. The diary author clearly saw no problem with portraying Maybrick as a Colin Ireland type, before Colin Ireland had even begun killing, and despite Chris George's instincts that it would have been safer and far more credible to opt for a London based Jack.

    One might ask, in Chris's shoes, why any hoaxer would make it so hard on themselves by picking someone who had lived so far from the crimes. But my answer would be that this one didn't give two hoots about impressing Chris George, and would have been highly gratified to see a real live example, Colin Ireland, proving the point, just a year after the diary first came to light.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • J.W. Sage
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post

    The trouble is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that James Maybrick was a serial killer. Yes it's known that he was abusive to his wife but a lot of husbands are, and abusive husband doesn't make a serial killer. The Diarist makes a weak attempt to suggest that Maybrick committed a murder in Manchester but there's no evidence of it historically. No, the bottom line is that someone, probably a Liverpudlian, had the bright idea to make James Maybrick the Ripper because he died at the right time to have been the killer in the East End of London.

    J. W. Sage, before you go off saying Maybrick was the Ripper and the Diary is authentic, you should read the recent take down of the Diary by Maybrick expert Chris Jones, published in the Whitechapel Journal. Chris provides a blow-by-blow analysis of the elements of the Diary to compare them with what was published in late 20th century books on the Ripper case and on the Maybrick case. He demonstrates that a modern-day forger could have obtained all the information needed to fabricate the Diary and that the work contains nothing new, no revelations that might prove it to be authentic. In fact, the person behind the Diary missed family details that the real Maybrick should have known, e.g., that his son James Chandler Maybrick was nicknamed not just "Bobo" but "Sonny" as Florence Aunspaugh's correspondence reveals, and that James Maybrick's younger brother Thomas went by the name of "Tom" which the writer of the Diary appears not to know. More recently, in the June 2021 issue of the Whitechapel Journal, similarly shows that Shirley Harrison's attempt to pin the 1884-1885 Austin, Texas, servant girl axe murders on Maybrick doesn't work timewise either.

    Best regards

    Chris
    Thanks for the considered reply.

    There is no evidence that Kosminski was a serial killer. There is no evidence Lechmere was a serial killer. There is no evidence Druitt was a serial killer. Yet, here we are. Maybrick was a drug addict, adulterer and had a history of violence against his wife. He also had strong connections to that part of London.

    One cannot be expected to place all relevant details that make researchers comfortable into a document in the belief maybe one day someone can find the thing that ultimately identifies him. Rarely ever do things like that come in a nice neat bow.

    I have said on the other forum that I am open to the idea that the scrapbook could be a hoax but I do not see the killer blows others seemingly do with regards to its authenticity. It is not conclusively proven. Neither is its legitimacy. So it warrants a continued discussion.

    I stay in the hunt for Maybrick primarily because of the watch. Robbie Johnson was no expert in the technical craft of forging embedded brass particles into corroded gold. Those scratches are from 1974 at the absolute latest and nothing has been inconsistent with them not being from 1888.

    People forget there are two items, not one. The watch always seems to be disregarded simply because of the ironic quirk of 'timing'.

    Regards,

    Ero

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by J.W. Sage View Post

    Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

    It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.
    The trouble is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that James Maybrick was a serial killer. Yes it's known that he was abusive to his wife but a lot of husbands are, and abusive husband doesn't make a serial killer. The Diarist makes a weak attempt to suggest that Maybrick committed a murder in Manchester but there's no evidence of it historically. No, the bottom line is that someone, probably a Liverpudlian, had the bright idea to make James Maybrick the Ripper because he died at the right time to have been the killer in the East End of London.

    J. W. Sage, before you go off saying Maybrick was the Ripper and the Diary is authentic, you should read the recent take down of the Diary by Maybrick expert Chris Jones, published in the Whitechapel Journal. Chris provides a blow-by-blow analysis of the elements of the Diary to compare them with what was published in late 20th century books on the Ripper case and on the Maybrick case. He demonstrates that a modern-day forger could have obtained all the information needed to fabricate the Diary and that the work contains nothing new, no revelations that might prove it to be authentic. In fact, the person behind the Diary missed family details that the real Maybrick should have known, e.g., that his son James Chandler Maybrick was nicknamed not just "Bobo" but "Sonny" as Florence Aunspaugh's correspondence reveals, and that James Maybrick's younger brother Thomas went by the name of "Tom" which the writer of the Diary appears not to know. More recently, in the June 2021 issue of the Whitechapel Journal, similarly shows that Shirley Harrison's attempt to pin the 1884-1885 Austin, Texas, servant girl axe murders on Maybrick doesn't work timewise either.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by J.W. Sage View Post

    Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

    It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.
    I totally agree, why researchers are so fixated in their belief that the killer was local amazes me. The dates of the killing are suggestive of somone coming into Whitechapel. killing and then leaving.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • J.W. Sage
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post

    You don't think that a better candidate for the Ripper might be someone who already lives in the neighborhood and not an occasional visitor from a city 200 miles away? Don't forget we're talking about a murderer who got away time and time and again. A man who may or may not have been seen by any known witness. That might signify local knowledge that someone like James Maybrick probably didn't possess.

    Chris
    Actually, I think we would be very limited in our scope if we believe that to be so. I know often geographical profilers like to use the Ripper murders as a good case study for 'local killers' but there actually is very little evidence of that. Just how deep knowledge of the streets does one need? I have lived in Dublin for 13 years now. I grew up in London. I know the city far better than my wife who grew up here and most of her family. James lived in that area (or close proximity) for possibly the best part of a decade.

    It is clear Whitechapel was JtR's preference and that could be for many reasons, but to simply assume that an anchor zone for a serial killer cannot be someone travelling in and out of the area would be dismissive based on very little fact. Ted Bundy created multiple anchor zones as he travelled. There are other examples of "commuter" killers basing their anchor zones outside where they live. Some also base it near where they work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by J.W. Sage View Post

    Hi Chris,

    I find it fascinating that so many people see it as 'contrived' to have to try and 'fit going to London' in the 'hoax'. If this was a hoax it was with absolute remarkable luck they found a subject who did have to travel to London frequently. Not only London but the City of London - the doorstep of Whitechapel. Not only that, a man who probably spent a decade of his life with a woman from the edge of Whitechapel. Extraordinary shoehorning of luck into a 'hoax' one would argue. James Maybrick can be connected to a work address at 46 Lime Street near Aldgate in 1866, which is 8 years after he started working in the city of London. Coincidentally two minutes from the murder scene of Catherine Eddowes. The man knew that part of London and was comfortable. Whitechapel, Liverpool = Whitechapel, London plays to his narcissistic belief he is a wordsmith. Also, why would he commit the murders on his own doorstep and risk suspicion?

    He believed he was clever and was outwitting all. It fits the psychological profile of a malignant narcissistic serial killer.

    Regards,

    Ero
    You don't think that a better candidate for the Ripper might be someone who already lives in the neighborhood and not an occasional visitor from a city 200 miles away? Don't forget we're talking about a murderer who got away time and time and again. A man who may or may not have been seen by any known witness. That might signify local knowledge that someone like James Maybrick probably didn't possess.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • J.W. Sage
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post

    The early passage in the Diary doesn't indicate he's having the "bevvie" in the pub, which again he expressly says was "the Poste House," just before he hops on the train to Aigburth. It's the same sentence in which he says "it was there I finally decided London it shall be" to take his revenge on his unfaithful wife. And that's where the ridiculousness of the Diary storyline exists. The hoaxer of the Diary has to get Maybrick to London to make him Jack the Ripper, despite the fact that as a world class seaport Liverpool was crammed with prostitutes, so the journey wasn't needed. The scenario is entirely contrived.

    Cheers

    Chris
    Hi Chris,

    I find it fascinating that so many people see it as 'contrived' to have to try and 'fit going to London' in the 'hoax'. If this was a hoax it was with absolute remarkable luck they found a subject who did have to travel to London frequently. Not only London but the City of London - the doorstep of Whitechapel. Not only that, a man who probably spent a decade of his life with a woman from the edge of Whitechapel. Extraordinary shoehorning of luck into a 'hoax' one would argue. James Maybrick can be connected to a work address at 46 Lime Street near Aldgate in 1866, which is 8 years after he started working in the city of London. Coincidentally two minutes from the murder scene of Catherine Eddowes. The man knew that part of London and was comfortable. Whitechapel, Liverpool = Whitechapel, London plays to his narcissistic belief he is a wordsmith. Also, why would he commit the murders on his own doorstep and risk suspicion?

    He believed he was clever and was outwitting all. It fits the psychological profile of a malignant narcissistic serial killer.

    Regards,

    Ero

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    Hi Chris,

    How is it a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" if it wasn't called the Poste House until long after his death?

    Sorry, Chris, I knew what you meant. But the real JM would have had to 'trek over' to the School Lane area at the end of the working day anyway, to take the train back to Aigburth from Central Station. So what could be more logical than to imagine 'Sir Jim' having a swift one after work, if he reached the old posthouse before his train was due? The Post Office Tavern, as it was called by 1888, was not only situated close to Central Station, but also to the real JM's childhood home, and to Whitechapel, where Florie had supposedly arranged to meet her lover. After all, that was uppermost in the mind of 'Sir Jim' when he was taking his refreshment.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    The early passage in the Diary doesn't indicate he's having the "bevvie" in the pub, which again he expressly says was "the Poste House," just before he hops on the train to Aigburth. It's the same sentence in which he says "it was there I finally decided London it shall be" to take his revenge on his unfaithful wife. And that's where the ridiculousness of the Diary storyline exists. The hoaxer of the Diary has to get Maybrick to London to make him Jack the Ripper, despite the fact that as a world class seaport Liverpool was crammed with prostitutes, so the journey wasn't needed. The scenario is entirely contrived.

    Cheers

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    The trouble with Caz's argument is that the Diarist meant the Old Post Office pub and not the Poste House pub in Cumberland Street is that the Diarist expressly writes on the first page of the Diary, "I took refreshment at the Poste House. . ." And while it is true that the existing Poste House pub on Cumberland Street was not known by that name in 1888, it's just one of the many problems with the Diary. Whomever hoaxed up the Diary didn't know that it was known as "The Muck Midden" in 1888. That along with the problem that the writing in the Diary doesn't match James Maybrick's known handwriting (the argument of Shirley Harrison in 1993's The Diary of Jack the Ripper which published a facsimile and transcript of the Diary is that the handwriting discrepancy is due to the Ripper's psychological derangement). Caz's attempt to say that the Diarist really means the Old Post Office pub is weak on a number of bases. While it's true that School Lane was an area with links to the Maybrick family, Cumberland Street was closer to the Cotton Exchange where Maybrick worked, so it's a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" rather than to trek over to the School Lane area.
    Hi Chris,

    How is it a more logical place for Maybrick to "take refreshment" if it wasn't called the Poste House until long after his death?

    Sorry, Chris, I knew what you meant. But the real JM would have had to 'trek over' to the School Lane area at the end of the working day anyway, to take the train back to Aigburth from Central Station. So what could be more logical than to imagine 'Sir Jim' having a swift one after work, if he reached the old posthouse before his train was due? The Post Office Tavern, as it was called by 1888, was not only situated close to Central Station, but also to the real JM's childhood home, and to Whitechapel, where Florie had supposedly arranged to meet her lover. After all, that was uppermost in the mind of 'Sir Jim' when he was taking his refreshment.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X