How to make Ripperology better?

[caz]

Now, does that make the James Maybrick as Jack the Spratt McVitie story believable? Well, that's one where only personal opinion really has any place. I'm willing to grant it, though I agree that there is no serial killer pre-behaviours on the record (not to say he wasn't a deviant and we just don't have the evidence) and it does seem a stretch to trundle down to Whitechapel, London, every time he wanted to rip like a ripe peach, et cetera, when he could have just nipped on an omni and done the same in Whitechapel, Liverpool. I'm willing to accept that that's what he chose to do and - I have no doubt - if my knowledge of serial killers was any better than it is, I'd probably be able to list a number of them who hopped in the old charabanc and motored through the mud of the old Roman roads to kill a long way from home for whatever reason suited them. Where is MrB when you need him?

Will Mrs B do, Ike? As in Mrs Brown?

I always think of Colin Ireland in this context, because he did the Barretts rather a large favour by getting himself caught, thus proving such killers do exist, in the year following their alleged creation of 'Sir Jim', who chose a very specific hunting ground far from his home comforts of Bunny and Piggy.

In 1993, before the diary was published to give anyone ideas, Ireland took the train from the Essex coast to London, where he picked up each of his five male victims from one particular pub. He went back to their place, where he murdered them and stayed the night, before returning home by train the following morning. When the police failed to link the deaths, Ireland kindly gave them an anonymous tip over Catweazle's telling bone, evidently seeking the infamy attached to being a serial killer. "Infamy, infamy, you should all have it in-for-me by now."

I wonder if Anne Barrett patted herself on the back for her insight, when she read all about Colin Ireland's double life unwittingly imitating her art - and so soon after she had tried her hand at it too.

Or would she giggle nervously at the thought of anyone actually believing she possessed any such insight - or indeed foresight?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

So why are you still commenting on the subject and asking ero for more evidence of Maybrick's bad behaviour?

This isn't about the Maybrick Hoax. If you want to keep slow-walking the Barretts' fraud as an important and mysterious document, don't let me stop you, but you and Ike might take it up on the appropriate thread.

Meanwhile, Jay Hartley claimed that the historical figure James Maybrick physically abused his wife on "numerous occasions." He then repeated this claim twice. He also claimed Maybrick dragged his wife around the room by her hair on April 5, 1889--which is a very specific claim.

I've merely asked for proof of these assertions, and he hasn't supplied any.

Do you have any idea why that might be?

[Iconoclast]

Will Mrs B do, Ike? As in Mrs Brown?

Ah, you'll do fine, Mrs B..

As ever, you provide the insight we need. Colin Ireland was indeed a great example of the travelling murderer, though I didn't know he led to his own downfall by advertising his crimes to the Peelers. I thought murderers didn't leave clues and what have you? Or have I been reading too many posts on here?

But there'll be someone somewhere about to post something along the lines of "Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that someone travelled to London to commit murder and then went home again? Ridiculous." Even though it happened, it can't have happened, I suspect, in the rather one-dimensional world of the scrapbook critic.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

If you want to keep slow-walking the Barretts' fraud as an important and mysterious document, don't let me stop you, but you and Ike might take it up on the appropriate thread.

Feel free to post on the you-know-where, RJ. As you know, I'm ever vigilant, and you're generally top of my watch list.

Constable Ike of the Yard

[Wickerman]

Just by way of a highly illuminating example, I remember Sam Flynn once admitting to only ever having read an online transcript of the text and that was enough to make him an expert on its authenticity. That's right, just the text in the cold light of the digital age. No Harrison I or II, no Feldman. Alas no Smith and Jones. No Morris, Linder, or Skinner. Not even a Lord Orsam. Not even an O'Clast! But armed with the arrogance only a schoolteacher could muster, he had decided he was right and scrapbook 'supporters' were told that they were wrong. And if you're told you're wrong, that must be you wrong then. When I read that, I remember thinking how challenging the task had become during those halcyon days of the Casebook long before I started posting.

Don't waste your time trying to sell this bull$hit as some deep scholarly mystery, it isn't.
If people like Sam can smell a rat long before a few others, that is a credit to Sam. A suggestion for you might be to educate yourself on scamming, and just how gullible seemingly educated people can be.
Who would have thought Conan Doyle would believe in the Cottingley Fairies and Spiritualism, yet would write books where deductions are based on practical logic.
Anyone can be duped so there's no need to be defensive, fakers & fraudsters have been fooling professionals for centuries. You might be surprised how easy it is, some of the most prestigious auction houses, art collectors & museums around the world have been fooled (involving professionals more qualified than the names you provide here), so don't feel bad.

Regardless of your Harrison, Feldman all the way through to Orsam & O'Clast, nothing has changed. Like the poem shows, the adherents had moved from trying to prove it was fact (Harrison), to claiming others can't prove it was fraud.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

First and foremost, do us all a favour and learn how to edit so that we can more easily understand your posts. If you wish to quote someone's post, you need to start the quotation with the instruction ["quote"] or ["QUOTE"] (like email addresses, lowercase serves the same purpose as uppercase). When you have finished quoting them, you need to type [/"QUOTE"] or [/"quote"]. You would not use the speechmarks ("") - I have used them to prevent the editor from interpreting my text as an instruction right now to start and end a quote.



I'll grant you that it is open to interpretation (for those who are desperate to not see Florie's initials), but let's not kid ourselves that we can't see two shapes on her wall, one of which is an 'F' and the other an 'M'. Also, let's not kid ourselves we can't see the clear shape of a letter 'F' carved into her arm.



I very naively assumed your hyperlink at the end there would take me to where Michael Barrett claimed that Tony Devereux gave him the Victorian scrapbook in a pub. Instead, and quite wibble wibble irrelevantly, it took me to a Wiki page on the subject of pubs. Ridiculous.

Please provide us all with the citation you used. From where did you source Barrett claiming he got the Victorian scrapbook from Devereux in a pub. This does matter because your 'in a pub' was deliberately intended to compromise Barrett's claim and indeed to juvenilise it. It is precisely this sort of misrepresentation which is designed to both mock and denigrate the scrapbook.



Why ever would I not remember Mike Barrett?



Would that police report not actually state "Yes, sergeant, for all I know I may have been robbed and they may have taken a diary that contains the identity of Jack the Ripper - I can't be certain, however, as I have no idea what was or even is underneath my floorboards, but I thought I'd mention it anyway just in case, you know, for insurance purposes. I did the same last year when I crashed my car."?



Well you might want to learn to type, Fishy, but I won't hold my breath. I know it won't matter to you, but the evidence that we have shows that Maybrick's floorboards came up on the record for the first time in 103 years on March 9, 1992, the same day a guy who lived eight miles away from Battlecrease House (but conveniently drank in the same pub as Eddie Lyons, one of the team of electricians) was ringing a literary agent offering them the diary of Jack the Ripper. We also then have statements form reliable witnesses (Tim Martin-Wright) that a diary of Jack the Ripper was being hawked around Liverpool in 1992 and that Eddie Lyons had claimed to find something important at Battlecrease House (Brian Rawes, inter alia).

Is this all certain proof? No, of course it isn't, but we will never establish a perfect truth where Jack the Ripper is concerned. The Maybrick version works at all turns and is therefore the very best we have got.



Which initials did you think I was referring to? Obviously, I was referring to the initials of the canonical five contained within the inside back casing of the watch along with "I am Jack" and an extremely felicitous facsimile of James Maybrick's known signature. If anyone else (other than Fishy) can explain to me how I misunderstood him or her, please please let me know as I'm genuinely fascinated to know how a second interpretation is possible from what he typed so badly.



I will do, thank you, Fishy.

Ike

I can see this is getting nowhere, your in the same boat as the Mystery Organ Removalist author and the 'There was no Jack the Ripper ''author. Malarkey!!!! Anything to sell a book i guess, The problem is, all three actually believe this nosense.When in fact time after time and post after post from many people that have shown all the shortcomings and pitfalls regarding these 3 ludricious theorys and suspects .

I hope and continue to hope they come under the same ridicule as the people who at one stage subscribed to the royal consprisory theory.


Im done discussing Phony Diarys and Silly Watches with Mystery Carvings, 3d eye visions of Blood Splattered Walls, But mostly, Cotton Merchants who with no medical experience can remove kidneys and Organs faster than the speed of light. Who some think was Jack the Ripper !!!!!


Top of my RSL list,

1 .Maybrick /Druitt

2 .Lechmere

3 .Feigenbaum

[Iconoclast]

Im done discussing Phony Diarys and Silly Watches with Mystery Carvings, 3d eye visions of Blood Splattered Walls, But mostly, Cotton Merchants who with no medical experience can remove kidneys and Organs faster than the speed of light. Who some think was Jack the Ripper !!!!!

Well that's your right, Fishy. You'll be in considerable (not necessarily good) company, that's for sure.

But - before you depart the theme - I'm taking it as read that you are convinced (by your own argument) that Jacky was a deranged urologist who specifically wanted a kidney and no other?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

If people like Sam can smell a rat long before a few others, that is a credit to Sam. A suggestion for you might be to educate yourself on scamming, and just how gullible seemingly educated people can be.

I don't work to the same mental patterns that you work to, clearly. Discovering - as I no doubt could - that there were 99 frauds and hoaxes perpetrated in 1992 would not in any way imply that the 100th case also must be a fraud or a hoax. Where Sam Flynn failed so stupendously was in making a 'case' for fraud by citing only those things he personally found incredulous rather than arsing himself to develop threads of evidence which, when combined, formed a useful weave.

But this is no different to how it has always been with James Maybrick's scrapbook and his watch - so easy to lazily dismiss without any effort whatsoever to construct a helpful analysis to confirm it.

It almost makes me yearn for the days when Lord Orsam would stomp around these boards in his bonnet, barber jacket, wellies and walking stick.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Well that's your right, Fishy. You'll be in considerable (not necessarily good) company, that's for sure.

But - before you depart the theme - I'm taking it as read that you are convinced (by your own argument) that Jacky was a deranged urologist who specifically wanted a kidney and no other?

Ike

You can take that i support the facts of the case ,it not an argument. You probably need to rethink your question .


. Mr. Crawford: ''I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. ''The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.


[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - Dr Brown'' He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.


[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.


Dr. G. W. Sequeira I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.


Fact 1 Both organs were missing and have not been found

Fact 2 Dr Browns very delibrate statement ''And the way to remove them'' [Explain how a Cotton Merchant knows how to do that] .?

Fact 3 Dr Brown goes one step futher with the fact the kidney ''is apt to being overlooked'' , because its covered by a membrane

Fact 4 . Dr Sequiera states ''he was not possessed of any great anatomical skill'' , [could that not mean ''skill'' with a surgical instrument? who knows perhaps that what he ment, his skill at removing them wasnt ''great''

So a ''good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdomial organs and the way to remove them'' isnt a reason for Dr Sequiera words to eliminate Dr Browns testimony altogether! .People often i think get the two doctors statement totally wrong .


So ill ask you the same question, Do you think, based on fact 1 + 3 Was the killer looking for her kidney to extract along with her uterus ?

[Iconoclast]

So ill ask you the same question, Do you think, based on fact 1 + 3 Was the killer looking for her kidney to extract along with her uterus ?

Based solely on your question and how you present the good doctors' comments, I would say that the killer may very well have been seeking both her uterus and her kidney.

But none of this is my speciality so I cannot argue your selective choice of quotation nor of the relative challenge of locating a uterus and a kidney, in the dark, at speed, if they were the specific targets.

What I can imagine is that the killer would be able to feel organs as he was eviscerating Eddowes' corpse and it occurs to me that he could perfectly well sever one organ badly (it sounds like her uterus would fit the bill here) and another organ completely (it would appear that her kidney certainly would fit the bill too).

Dr. Sequeira's comments seem perfectly valid given the evidence if the killer was not seeking a specific organ but settled on whichever he could feel. If he was indeed seeking her kidney, then perhaps only a skilled urologist could perform such a feat in the dark and at speed.

I hope this advances your understanding of the possibilities given the evidence you have cited, Fishy.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Based solely on your question and how you present the good doctors' comments, I would say that the killer may very well have been seeking both her uterus and her kidney.

But none of this is my speciality so I cannot argue your selective choice of quotation nor of the relative challenge of locating a uterus and a kidney, in the dark, at speed, if they were the specific targets.

What I can imagine is that the killer would be able to feel organs as he was eviscerating Eddowes' corpse and it occurs to me that he could perfectly well sever one organ badly (it sounds like her uterus would fit the bill here) and another organ completely (it would appear that her kidney certainly would fit the bill too).

Dr. Sequeira's comments seem perfectly valid given the evidence if the killer was not seeking a specific organ but settled on whichever he could feel. If he was indeed seeking her kidney, then perhaps only a skilled urologist could perform such a feat in the dark and at speed.

I hope this advances your understanding of the possibilities given the evidence you have cited, Fishy.

Ike

''because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane'' Who else other than a skilled uroligist with on 7 or so mins time up his sleeve attempt to remove a kidney when all those other organs were available for the taking with such ease ?

Im pretty sure the evidence speaks for itself, its surely not that difficult to understand dont you think?

[caz]

Ignore the Barrett written Diary and all the buffoons that believe it's written by James Maybrick.

What 'Barrett written Diary' would that be, John? I don't know of one. If you do, it seems that it was ignored until you mentioned it in the above post.

If you meant the disputed Maybrick diary, whose author will almost certainly never be positively identified, what did you mean by 'all the buffoons'? Only one poster to my knowledge believes the pen was held by James Maybrick.

I could call for 'all the buffoons' to be ignored who believe a Barrett held the pen, but where would the fun be in that?

Ignore whatever and whoever you personally want to ignore, but you don't get to dictate to anyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't think anyone is a fan of Mike Barrett but he clearly wrote the diary.

Blind faith is one thing.

Alternative Blind Faith was another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith

One cool line-up.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

While your at it Scotty ask Ike how Maybrick, a mere Cotton Merchant with no Medical Knowledge that we know of ,or has been shown to exist , was able to extract Catherine Eddowes kidney in under 7min in the darkest part of Mitre Square ? !!!!!.

Adding to that these words from Dr Brown at Eddowes Inquest

[Coroner] ''Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?'' - Dr Brown ''He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them''.

Maybe , we should be looking at the way the murders were committed and match them to a relevant suspect befor we go searching for some mysterious initals on blood splattered walls and bodies supposedly belonging to the murderers wife.!! . But mostly, believing in a diary that was given to a man at a pub, and a watch that has to be seen to believed how ridiculous that anyone would think contains the carved initals of the five victims is just pure fantasy im afraide. If you believe that then you deserve all the ridicule that comes your way .

Youll no doubt work that out for your self tho Scotty . By the way , welcome to casebook .

Hi FISHY,

I'm not sure I understand what it is that you were disputing here regarding the watch. It's hard enough to understand anything you write, so I concede I may have this all arse about face.

Were you claiming it to be 'pure fantasy' that the watch contains the carved [as in scratched or engraved] initials: MN, AC, ES, CE and MK, representing five of the Whitechapel murder victims?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n785498]

Unfortunately for your argument, you've just picked out the bit you like. Why did you not include the alternative views posited at the other inquests that no medical knowledge was required? I can't tell you exactly how Jack extracted Eddowes' kidney under such conditions, it is true, but he didn't appear to employ his keen medical knowledge during the other murders which might suggest a certain amount of good luck in seeking an organ - any organ - and coming across her kidney (which he would be able to feel even if he couldn't see it). If you're trying to suggest that Jack was intending to cut out her kidney, that's a huge claim to make and really needs to be backed-up with the evidence (of which, as ever, there will be none).

Eddowes inquest is what i was refering too, not the other victims ,[Coroner] ''Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?'' - Dr Brown ''He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them''.

You need to read this bit again ...... ''And the way to remove them'' !!!! Youve missed the point, the fact he took the kidney is the issue. Thats a FACT ,no need to prove he took it. Remember its the ''removal'' of the kidney and its location and the time frame it was done which you cant seem to give evidence that a Cotton Merchant was capable of such a task . Can you ?











Not for me, Fishy. I prefer to look at the available evidence (remember that stuff?) rather than stare at my naval for the next thirty years the way I would need to if I wanted to consider any of the bizarre candidates who get discussed 'round these here parts.

What evidence??!!!!.... you dont have any, you look at blood splatter on the wall and call it evidence ! Thats not evidence, thats interuptation, which your allowed, but please spare us all that its somehow evidence ,.Its not.




How do you know it was given to a man in a pub? Where is your evidence for that? Why would you say such an unsupported comment? Are you just making it up as you go along in order to make it sound as vapid as possible or are you just hopelessly ill-informed (or both)? How do you know that it wasn't stolen from Battlecrease House and sold to someone who subsequently said that he got it from a man he had originally known in a pub (the claim was not that he received it in a pub - you've just made that up using your miniscule rememberings of something you once heard a long time ago)?

The diary was first introduced to the world by Michael Barrett, an unemployed former Liverpool scrap metal dealer, ''who claimed'' at the time that it had been given to him by a friend, Tony Devereux, in a pub

Michael Barrett, you remember him dont you ? he claimed it . ''How do you know that it wasn't stolen from Battlecrease House'' proof please ? That would come in the form of a police report claiming ''yes sergent i was robbed and they took my diary that contains the identity of jack the ripper''

unsupported comment , illinformed , made things up , you might want to rethink that .





You give yourself away with these Wheatesque banal comments. Why did the watch need to be seen to be believed? It was a watch. Have you never seen one before or something (that would explain your surprise, I guess)?

Ill cut you some slack here , as you werent clever enough to realize i was talking about the initals on the back of the watch that had to be seen to be believed how dumb they were, not just the watch itself. [My only suprise is you didnt work that out] .






And yet it does! Does that not make your argument - rather than the assertion you are arguing against - 'ridiculous'? (That's Wheat's word, by the way, according to him, so careful how you use it.)



Honestly, I don't give a **** how much opprobrium comes my way. What bothers me is the impact it has on young, impressionable Ripperologists who read such crass stupidities and think it's therefore okay to iterate them.

I was taking about Scotty, not you, and now ill include all them young , impressionable ripperologist, you also deserve all the ridicule they get if James Maybrick is their choice of jtr.



Scotty Nelson has been on Casebook for years, Fishy. Do try to keep up, son.

Apologies Scotty , your were new to me ,first time ive posted with you .Roll on Ike'y old boy.

Christ on a bike! RJ Palmer must be squirming even more than whenever dear Trev Marriott posts his thoughts on the diary and watch origins.

If this is the calibre of the average Barrett Believer's commentary, I'm jolly pleased to be with Barrett Sceptics Inc, who can at least work out how to use the quote and spellcheck functions effectively [cheers Ozzy].

Love,

Caz
X