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

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Motive - what motive? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Maybrick, James » The Diary Controversy » Motive - what motive? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Penelope Brewster.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Something has always rubbed me the wrong way about this motive of Mr Maybrick. It reeks of hypocracy and does not make sence at all.

He refers to Flo as the whore, and her lover as the whore master. It was this affair that triggered him to go and murder some prostitutes in Whitechapel.These are my problems.

A. He has been getting his piece of crumpet on the side for 20 years, and a few offspring as well. Flo found out one day and all was sweet.She opts for a bit of retaliation and James finds out. Given what he has done, I think it would be hypocritical for him to accuse her of being a whore - AS THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS.

B. For 3 days I have been reading of jealousy related murders.Thousands of them. In all cases where violence resulted, the violence was directed toward the lover, or the lovers partener, such as the OJ Simpson affair, when he found out.I could not find an instance where the killer found out of a partners affair and istead of attacking them, they opted to attack completely inocent people in retaliation. This is like O.J. saying - well I found out about my wifes affair - I think I shall go to L.A. and kill some innocent hookers. IT DONT MAKE SENCE.
This was of thousands of examples of domestic violence - I COULD NOT FIND ONE LIKE JAMES MAYBRICKS.If Maybrick decided to take to violence, it would naturally have been directed towards the whore or the whore master.

C. I am not from England, but have looked at a map of the country. If Maybrick needed to vent his frustrations, why did he not do it in Liverpool, or a nearby area.Why did he go to East London - whats with his choice there?
Most people seem to think the ripper was a local who new the area well. Why didnt Maybrick attack Liverpool hookers?

I dont know of the validity of the diary, but the motive for James Maybrick is rubbish. It makes no sense in relation to other domestic violence.It has led me to conclude the he was NOT JACK THE RIPPER.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1792
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Penelope,

Leaving Maybrick to one side for a moment...

Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, and serial killers nearly always target strangers who have done them no personal harm.

This in itself makes no sense, except to the killers themselves, who justify their actions by blaming individuals who have upset them in some way, certain groups of people, or perhaps just society in general.

I actually think Maybrick was an inspired choice in some ways, if that of a Liverpool hoaxer. He often travelled to London (he also had a brother based near Regent's Park) and his childhood home was very close to Liverpool's own 'Whitechapel'.

Maybrick's own infidelities, which may have sparked Florie's, together with his arsenic habit, and his untimely death in 1889, the circumstances of which were shrouded in mystery and intrigue, gave a hoaxer the perfect recipe for a serial killer - a hypocritical hypochondriac with wander lust, up to his eyes in dodgy substances, mad as all hell with his unfaithful, extravagant missus, and ready to blame anyone but himself for his circumstances.

A secret double life was not just possible to invent for Maybrick; he almost certainly lived one in many ways, and I bet he often told Florie, colleagues and relatives that he was in one place doing one thing, when he was actually in another doing something else entirely.

If you leave no trails behind, you leave no alibis either. A hoaxer may have taken advantage of this by choosing Maybrick. Pity they didn't take advantage of the will and make a stab at the handwriting. Then we'd know a hoaxer was trying to pass it off real.

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul

Post Number: 102
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello Caroline, (and Hello Penelope if youíre still here.)

Iím still catching up on posts I missed during the summer and this interested me.

Context is everything, and Penelope finds that Maybrickís motives as put forward by the diary ď reeks of hypocracy and does not make sence at all.Ē

Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy. Women were still the possession of their husbands and had virtually no rights at all. The class system was at its height and thereís no better example of hypocrisy than the British class system at the end of the nineteenth century. It was a crime for a woman to be unfaithful to her husband, but if it was the other way around it hardly got a mention.

Whether Maybrick is your man for JTR or not, the author of the diary seems to have at least got his context absolutely right.

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1698
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul,

You write:

"Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy."

As opposed to what other time? The 20th century?

Just wondering,

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul

Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John

Victorian Britain only existed a year into the 20th century.

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1703
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul,

You misunderstood the question.

I was asking you what time period you thought was NOT "built on hypocrisy?" The 20th century, for instance?

--John

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul

Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John

No I didn't. I was just wondering what the heck it had to do with anything at all.

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1705
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul,

Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul

Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok John. Go and have a lie down!

P
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul,

Thanks, and enjoy the day,

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 8:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

hello

Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.


And so it continues. "Modern cars run on petrol". The statement is no less valid becuase I didnt mention a negative instance. "Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy" is a valid statement too, whether I agree with it or not. But this isnt the first time (nor the last) where a fairly normal statement couched in normal language and in a perfectly understandable way has been jumped upon to propagate a fairly pointless "you said, he said" type of thread. It doesnt matter if the entire course of humanity has been built on hypocrisy. We all know what PB was trying to get across. Using the sort of inane arguments that keep most English/philosophy academics/depts. in bread and butter to attack a sentence whose meaning is obvious is only making these threads hard to read.

And I wholeheartedly reccomend "How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions" by Francis Wheen as a useful insight into how this sort of (and I use the word loosely) "analysis" serves no useful purpose at all.


Thanks, and enjoy the day,
Which day would that be? What do mean by day? Or enjoy?

Mr P.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1708
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lars,

Do I really have to do the logic for you?

My objection was not to the statement that Victorian England was built on hypocrisy. My objection was to the claim that therefore the diarist got his context "absolutely right." This claim is meaningless if the claimant cannot name a case where the situation would be different, where the society at the time of writing was not built on hypocrisy. For instance, if 20th century England was also a time and place built on hypocrisy, then the same claim could be made if the diary was written then, regardless of it being set in another place or time that was similar in this regard. Consequently, without a proper negative instance, the conclusion of the ARGUMENT (not the "statement" you cite, which was one of its premises) is rendered invalid, or, more properly, simply meaningless. It tells us nothing at all about when the book was written or even likely to have been written.

Sorry you find this simple point confusing and that you find my short little post above "difficult to read," but that's the nature of debates -- arguments and then analysis of arguments.

You participate in the same thing yourself around here, so I don't feel alone in any case.

All the best,

--John

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello John

By your own admission, you have gone on dates, have friends and drink Guinness (strangley enough, the drink of quiet contemplation and polite conversation). This would imply to me that you are capable of a normal conversation which by necessity accepts a certain laxity in grammar, expression and so on so the meaning is clear whether or not it is expressed according to the rigours of critical thinking or philosophical logic or whatever.

So why do you consider it necessary to apply such rules to posts on these threads that I assume you do not apply to your own day to day conversations? These threads are after all just conversations. The forum is not a lecture hall and the posters are not students to be brow beaten.

Og course maybe you do apply these rules to your conversations in which case, God help you. Oh no wait a minute, God help whoever you are talking to.

We know what was meant. Your critique added nothing, made us think no less of the post, made us think no more of you and ultimately can only contribute to the sort of row that you had with Caroline Morris on another thread recently after a similar critique of one sentence.

Enjoying myself to the nth degree

mr P.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lars,

The conclusion Paul offered about the diarist and context was demonstrably irrelevant and meaningless. I simply used basic logic to show everyone this.

I do not see that as in any way impolite.

Thanks for your opinion, though,

-- John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1628
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

Coming late to this thread and am not sure exactly what is being discussed. However if the idea is that the Diary has to be the real McCoy because the Diarist "got it right" about the hypocrisy in Victorian England, I should think it is more likely that the penman got it right because they gave us a text narrative featuring a stereotypical Victorian gentleman after reading a few books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases.

All my best

Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl

Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Surely what your all really arguing about is how clever who ever wrote the diary actually was.

Was Maybrick a good chioce? Which I beleive he was for a number of reasons stated by Caz.

John's real objection to anybody sujesting the author of the diary was clever is because he likes to portray the diary is a misserable fake rag that any
Tom Dick or Harry could have produced.

My guess would be that this fits the likely 'MO' of Mike Barrett as the author but only a guess.

So this arguement is actually about the sophistication of the Diary and who could have been that sophisticated or not to write it.

Does that make sence Chris?

Not that much ever does in Maybrick land.

I thought you lot had a truce going?

Hi Postie hope your well. John hope the hands better.

better get back to the Gun powder plot, dark deeds afoot...

Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Howdy John V.

here was the statement which I found odd:

Paul,

You misunderstood the question.

I was asking you what time period you thought was NOT "built on hypocrisy?" The 20th century, for instance?

--John


Then heres Pauls reply:

John

No I didn't. I was just wondering what the heck it had to do with anything at all.

Paul


And then your reply :

Paul,

Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.

--John


And thats where I came in. Then you said:

My objection was not to the statement that Victorian England was built on hypocrisy.

Well it sure read like that to me. But I am very sure there is an alternative meaning to the text. Isnt there always?

Celebrating my mortality,

Mr P.

Theres your wuestion
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 2128
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Paul,

Just catching up - great to see you back on board.

You wrote:

It was a crime for a woman to be unfaithful to her husband, but if it was the other way around it hardly got a mention.

And yes, the diarist appears to have picked up this typically Victorian mindset, as it applied to the Maybricks' situation, and run with it to the finishing post (or poste ).

Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century, for example, and would be less likely to form the basis of a modern drama, based on (unlikely) fact or fiction.

So I think you hit the nail on the head with:

The class system was at its height and thereís no better example of hypocrisy than the British class system at the end of the nineteenth century.

No further explanation required.

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul

Post Number: 111
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Howdy Caroline.

It never ceases to amaze me. I know it should but it doesn't!

I'm glad my very basic point was understood by all except one to whom it wouldn't have made a jot of difference anyway.

Chris. If you read my last sentence you will know that I was certainly not inferring anything other than that the diarist, to me at least, got his context for Maybrick's behaviour absolutely right, as opposed to Penelope who felt it was strong evidence of a fake!

warmest regards to all.

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1719
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Caroline writes about the double standard concerning men and women cheating,

"Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century, for example, and would be less likely to form the basis of a modern drama, based on (unlikely) fact or fiction. "

Anyone want a list of titles? Novels, movies, plays... Even nonfiction...

No, it's too obvious even for this place.

She's just wrong.

And besides, if someone faking a Victorian diary in the late 20th century did NOT know this was the case back then as well, they should be ashamed of themselves. It would be like not knowing what the handwriting of your alleged author looked like.

Oh...

wait a minute....

Never mind.

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty

Post Number: 1885
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Guys,

Ive been off this thread for such a while now but its comforting to know that somethings just dont change.

Thanks for being such old familiar friends !

Monty
:-)
x
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen

Post Number: 266
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Didn't Keith Skinner find some letters written by Sir Jim in the USA , wonder what happened to those ?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1721
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You know what, Monty?

Youíre right.

I apologize to everyone for my last two daysí worth of posts. Especially the two this morning.

I got suckered in by my own stupidity and by the willingness of others to say just anything around here for the sake of pointless argument. Sometimes, both still amaze me.

And I wrote stupid and obvious posts, neither of which were necessary since one (on this thread) was trivial and self-evident and the other (on another thread) repeated a simple fact that I had already demonstrated in detail before (concerning the multiple adjacent items on the police list being also adjacent in the diary).

But I just went back and re-read them and the discussion on the watch thread as well and I regret posting on any of those threads these past two days.

The discussions there, including my contributions, are sad and meaningless.

And they add nothing new -- my posts especially.

I think sometimes I just canít believe that people are so willing and even eager to be suckered by these cheap and obvious modern hoaxes, and I stop behaving rationally.

To Paul and Caroline and Lars and company -- Iím sorry. I should not have responded to any of what you wrote. If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.

To other readers -- these items are fakes, they were created in the second half of the 20th century using modern sources which have already been documented; they were brought forward by liars; and theyíve been sold to the public despite being obviously phoney. Itís all been an unethical business from start to finish and it demonstrates only how quickly some people put aside the truth and their own self-respect when opportunities arise.

I should not have responded to anything the past two days. Perhaps I was just using this nonsense to escape the work I should be doing but donít want to face.

Iím sorry.

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 1430
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John

If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.

I must admit, that's just about the point I've got to now.

And though I used to worry a bit about newcomers being taken in by what was posted here, now I tend to think there's so much information available in the dissertation section that people deserve what they get if they can't be bothered to read it.

Chris Phillips

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj

Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John V. Omlor
The standards that Caz referred to with respect to women cheating as opposed to men, still exists today.
There are countries eg: East India, Pakastan just to name a couple where if the male beats the living daylights out of his wife it is accepted!!
In some far eastern countries he can kill his wife for infidality and it is an accepted defense,for the male only not the female. Caz is not wrong, not just with respect to Victorian times but today in what is supposed to be a civilized world. It isn't. Women are still treated as inferior, as slaves, walk behind the man etc, have kids (male only please).Even in the workplace of these modern times we get screwed paywise, regardless of our education or superior skills.
You must be living a sheltered life if you are not aware of these circumstances.
regards
Julie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1722
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Julie,

You have it backwards. I was saying that the hypocrisy and double standard DOES still exist today -- and that there are plenty of examples both in modern life and modern lit. Caz was claiming these things are significantly different nowadays than they were back in the old days and that "Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century."

The quote is from her. I was disagreeing with it. You are agreeing with my position, not hers.

I agree with everything you've said and that's why I disagreed with Caroline.

If you go back and read the exchange, you'll see where you got mixed up.

Sorry for the confusion,

--John

PS: Chris, I agree. The discussions here about the hoaxes have become like those one is doomed to have with the crop circle and alien abduction crowds. At some point it's best (or necessary for one's sanity) just to let them believe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron

Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2005
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John,

It's like raising pre-teens. You can give them advice, explain your life experiences, give them other places to go for information, and many of them will just ignore what you've said and make their mistakes, and if they have a good foundation (or not), they will come out of it knowing a decent version of the truth (no absolutes). Yet, everyone believes something for a while, sometimes vehemently, then learns something new that changes their minds (leaving out the Christian Right and other extremists, of course). I think folks can write dissertations for people to read or not at their discretion, but to engage in back and forth banter that seems endless may be not worth it.

My thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike,

Yup. I suspect you're right.

Thanks,

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty

Post Number: 1886
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John,

I didnt intend to upset. Im sorry.

Monty
:-)
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1724
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Monty,

It wasn't you. I just re-read my posts and the conversations taking place and realized how dumb they all were.

You said just the right thing,

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty

Post Number: 1887
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John,

I did?

How unlike me !

Sometimes its good to sit back and watch. Ive learnt alot doing that,

Monty
:-)



My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 2936
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes well sometimes when you sit back and watch the tin match box thread stars up again!!

John,
everything in diary world is dumb, esp me!!

Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.


Thanks for the permission John V.

Mr P
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Ho

The discussions there, including my contributions, are sad and meaningless.

And they add nothing new -- my posts especially.


Well this is the most exciting to happen on these threads in a long time.

Well said JVO! BUt I thought you were going away for some weeks?

Mr P.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1727
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks for the demonstration, Lars.

Demonstrations are always useful.

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj

Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John V Omlor
Sorry John for misunderstanding your post.
regards
Julie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No problem, Julie.

All the best,

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

P. Brewster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi again,
I was reading Patricia Cornwell's book and she claimed she had proof that this motive is not possible. She said she had evidence that Maybrick did not even know of the affairs of Flo until after the murders started. If this is the case than I would say it just about wraps it up.

Secondly - "what love can do to a gentile man born - signed Jack the Ripper". People who are in real love( real love enough to cut innocents to pieces) do not seek affairs elsewhere, as James Maybrick did.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 2145
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Penelope,

I was reading Patricia Cornwell's book...

Mistake number one.

...and she claimed she had proof that this motive is not possible.

Mistake number two.

She said she had evidence that Maybrick did not even know...

Mistake number three.

You simply can't have evidence of a negative like that. It's basic stuff and Cornwell should be ashamed. Even if Maybrick himself suddenly wrote, after the murders started, 'Blimey, I've just found out Bunny is two-timing me!' it wouldn't be proof of anything, because he may have had reasons for not admitting he knew previously.

So nothing here 'wraps it up'. Just like with Sickert.

..."what love can do to a gentile man born - signed Jack the Ripper".

That rules out Kosminski then.

So real love, in your view, can make a man cut innocents to pieces, but he'd draw the line at an affair? You don't know men very well, do you?

Do you think Maybrick never really loved Florie at all then, even when they were betrothed? He had at least one mistress on the go at the time, producing love children, and he continued with the affair after he married Florie.

Love,

Caz
X

(Message edited by caz on September 29, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1746
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Of course, since there's no real evidence anywhere that in any way suggests that James Maybrick ever actually cut anyone into pieces, Cornwell's nonsense isn't even necessary.

--John



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MishtRF
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The Maybrick Motive

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/toronto_99/natpost-990429.html

Better late than never....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 2452
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi MishtRF,

Just catching up and saw this.

If these events had happened and been described in the early 1980s, they might well have been blamed for inspiring the 'writings' of a certain modern hoaxer. It would neatly explain why someone with Maybrick's known history was chosen as the author.

Mike Barrett gets more talented by the minute.

No wonder a post like yours is studiously ignored - it has to be. There is no easy answer for it, is there?

Never amazed.

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor

Post Number: 1955
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not ignored.

Read.

Seen as irrelevant.

And, of course, evidence of nothing having to do either with the real James or Mike Barrett.

Consequently, it required no comment.

But it is good to know that Figment is still alive around here.

Still waiting, and in the meantime hoping the appropriate silence lasts.

--John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 3487
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 10:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

hey up,

i've missed you both!!

Jenni

ps what happened to my thread, lol!
"I bid him look into the lives of men as though into a mirror"



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl

Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 12:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Still alive and approaching the VAT man,

Happy new year to you all,

Love jeff.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.