Talk:James Maybrick

Who is Michael Barrett?

In the article, Michael Barrett shows up in the very last paragraph -- who is he, and in what connection is he to Maybrick?

A little introduction would be nice... -- Syzygy 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done some checking up. He is the guy who owns the 'diary'. His first story is that a man gave it to him in a pub.

--Dee-Dee 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnett doesn't own the diary. He sold it (not just the rights to the story but also the physical item) to the publisher. Victrix 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnett alleged at the time that the man who gave him the diary in the pub was an electrician who had carried out work on Battlecrease House and had discovered the diary when he had lifted floorboards to get at some wiring. --User:Snedger 22.59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Barrett (not Barnett) never claimed this. The diary was given to Barrett by Tony Devereux, who was a retired print worker, in their local pub. I wonder why when people cannot even get such basic facts right (such as Barrett's name) that they bother to contribute at all. NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Forgery

the suggestion that it is all a forgery is ridiculous. how could the forger have such great knowlegde of the effect of taking arsenic and the pain from posining. and have the knowledge of how a serial killer thinks to write the darn thing. proposterous to sugegst its a hoax. also about the watch, also proposterous...i cbf going into it any more i just thought it was shambles that after looking it up wikipedia has it all appearing like it must ahve been a hoax. angryness at the patheticness."

The writer would only need to have as much "great knowledge" of the effect of taking arsenic and knowledge of how a serial killer thinks as the reader would have. Really just what they could themselves read in books or off the internet. If a reader has enough knowledge to know how a serial killer thinks, in order to critique that the writer got it wrong, the writer themselves have just as much access to the same knowledge. Unless Jack the Ripper himself reads the forgery and says "that isn't how I think, this is obviously a forgery". 70.179.142.114 (talk)

Current Owner

Is the Robert Smith reffered to in the article as the current owner the same Robert Smith who is lead singer of the Cure? 138.217.179.154 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Guy Hatton 13:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"angryness at the patheticness" Do we really have to have such semi-literate junk on this discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.23.91 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes we have to, because that same semi-literate junk expresses the truth. However, you make myself wonder whether we need such reactionaries and defenders of the blatant lie such as you on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.47.209 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth or theory, it has to be literate. If your command of English is poor, edit entries in your own language. It's pointless theorising now on a murder that occurred so long ago as there is nothing new to be discovered and theories are best left to their owners. Too many Wiki entries are clogged up with garbage which obscures the basic facts. Got a theory? Write a book then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.228.134 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

conflicting information re death

Information in this article referring to the death of James Maybrick conflicts with that in the article on Florence Maybrick - specifically the level of arsenic in the body - lethal or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.59.5 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like Maybrick's death was immediately considered suspicious, which is simply untrue. The death certificate said "gastro-enteritis" and he was buried--it wasn't until much later that suspicions were aroused and the body was exhumed and examined. Also the article is wrong to claim that Maybrick was proven to have high levels of arsenic in his body--exactly the opposite, in fact.Revmagpie (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent tone?

I found this article really confusing, because it goes through the items (journal and watch) and in both cases presents a fairly convincing case for why they may be genuine, but then closes by saying no serious scholars consider James Maybrick a possibility for the Ripper. There's not really any information in the article right now that casts any doubt on it, though--if I was just sitting down to read this, I'd think this James Maybrick fellow must be the Ripper after all. Would be good to have some info on here of why scholars think he's not a serious candidate.76.99.121.174 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comments. Having studied the diary and Paul Feldman's detailed investigation into the Maybrick family and their descendants (Jack the Ripper - the Final Chapter), it seems to me extremely likely that the diary is genuine. The forger would have to have too much knowledge of ink, paper, penmanship, history, medicine and psychopathology to have forged this. Also, the correct spelling of 'truly' (as in 'yours truly') rather than the widespread erroneous 'truely' of the late 20th century, along with other Victorian stylistic features, indicate genuineness. The Maybrick watch has also never been proved, even remotely, to be a fake - and it has scratched upon it the words, "I am Jack". Verdict: the diary is genuine. Anoot7 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and supposition

History has not recorded whether or not Maybrick enjoyed Christmas, whether he ever carved a turkey or whether he was particularly proficient with a carving knife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.85.221 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)