How to make Ripperology better?

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[caz]

At this remove, even CCTV footage of the Barretts creating the diary in their Goldie Street home could not shake the faith of the believer.

Oh the irony.

It takes a queer sort of faith to imagine that scene ever happened, or could be created out of anything more solid than fairy dust.

The solid rock of Diary belief cannot and will not be shaken. Not ever.

You do seem unduly concerned about the one and a half posters who appear to have this solid rock of Diary belief.

I would be more worried about the solid rock of belief in the tales of Mike Barrett if the believers were not so damned condescending, while failing to acknowledge the gaps in their own knowledge and understanding of the man and all the events.

The Sunday Times couldn't do it. Kenneth Rendell's team couldn't do it. Harris couldn't do it. Nor Evans nor Sugden nor Omlor nor Phillips nor Hacker nor anyone else. Lord Orsam, too, has failed.

I wonder why? All they had to do was hunt the hoaxer(s) and expose them, and Ike would have disappeared in a puff of smoke and given you some peace. But we got excuses every time for their own abject failure to do so.

Really, the only suitable reaction to such savants is to roll down the window shade when you see them coming up the walk.

Unfortunately, it took me many years to realize this.

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

[caz]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

Should it not be the obligation of the lawyer presenting the Maybrick scrapbook as genuine to prove his case?

"It's all been proven to be a genuine, Your Honour! Proven!"
"Proven? What is your definition of 'proven' here, counsellor?"
"Well, the one we all use, Your Honour - it means that's your opinion about something"
"Can you give me an example of a 'proven' argument in favour of the scrapbook being genuine?"
"Easily, Your Honour. The presenter of the scrapbook said he got it from this guy in a pub. While it's true that he later confessed to forging it, the only debatable matter seems to be why he said that, not whether the scrapbook is genuine - that ship has already sailed.'. So there you have it, Judge"
"And has that ship already sailed, counsellor? Does the data incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably show that the scrapbook was genuine?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

Hi George,

If only the presenter of the scrapbook had said he got it from 'this guy in a pub', but alas he never did say that. It's not even strictly accurate to say he 'confessed to forging it'. He merely claimed to have done so, without providing any proof, and without apparently understanding what 'forging' entails. There was no attempt to 'forge' Maybrick's handwriting, so no proof it wasn't someone's literary exercise, never intended for publication.

How many men would you have happily seen hanged as Jack the Ripper on the strength of their unsupportable 'confessions', made when they were clearly not firing on all cylinders? I believe there were quite a few hopeless liars around at the time, who made false confessions to some of the worst crimes ever committed. To their credit, the police didn't see them as an easy nick.

To anyone who actually knew Mike Barrett, his claims to have forged the diary were extraordinary, and as such they will require extraordinary evidence before anyone can finally lock him up and throw away the key. He was no forger, but he was a very naughty boy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Isn't this, in fact, the same incident?

Christie, Colquhoun, Harrison, Feldman, etc. only describe one fight, and, infamously, even the diarist refers to his violence as a "one off instance."

At trial, it was stated that James and Florrie had been married for eight years and had not quarreled or fought before the incident with Brierley.

The way it is usually described, the quarrel over the Grand National occurred on 29 March, at which time Maybrick did indeed blacken his wife's eye.

She then took to her bed for a week.

On 6th April, she met Brierley again and told him of being beaten and dragged around the room--but this wasn't the day before--she was referring to the same incident on 29 March.

But perhaps you have a source that shows otherwise?

I wouldn't expect every episode of domestic violence, abuse or control to be witnessed and fully documented, but perhaps you are right, and this really was a once only failing on Maybrick's part, despite the fact that the law turned a blind eye to how a man chose to discipline his wife if she displeased him in any way. If you want to argue that this was the first and only instance, because there were no others witnessed, fair enough, but one black eye is one too many to make a saint out of a devil.

My first husband gave me a black eye once. This really was a one off, when we were playing bridge with friends and I should have played a different card. I literally told people at work the next day that I had walked into a door! I didn't leave him over it because he was mortified and never did it again, but it taught me something new about his nature. It was only when he later threatened to hide my rail season ticket, so I couldn't get to my job in London, because he wanted me to stay home, keep house and have his kids, that I finally saw the light and escaped the tightening noose.

[caz]

Witt lived in Camberwell, 5 miles from Whitechapel. The letter I refer to indicates Maybrick was there in September 1888 complaining of eye issues.

Your point of Mortgenstern is a valid one, I was not commenting on him specifically. I am commenting on the plethora of other 'candidates' who seem to get much higher billing than Maybrick based on nothing more than being the first to one scene for example. Or a mentally ill jew. Or slightly odd local mortuary attendant. These candidates have no evidence of violence against women.

Kosminski once attacked his sister with scissors and people accuse him of being violent towards women. Yet, when Maybrick attacks his wife (multiple times) that is dismissed as "well things were different back then, a bit of domestic violence was accepted."

Hi ero,

IIRC, the real James Maybrick threatened to "break every bone" in the body of the children's nurse, when he caught her scolding his young daughter Gladys.

If that was the norm for 'Victorian Dad', I'm jolly glad I wasn't around back then.

I don't think there is much doubt that the real James could be a nasty piece of work at times. Doesn't make him a murderer of course, but it would give a hoaxer one of several reasons to think he could be turned into the ripper, despite his Liverpool home.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

You shouldn't criticize that which happened long before you joined Casebook.

I wasn't aware that I had. So you researched the Maybrick scrapbook in depth twenty years ago. Two questions:

1) Did you keep your research up or did you close your mind around 2002?
2) Do you honestly think many (or any) of the other dissenters who post on here have actually read anything about the scrapbook?

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.

Nothing has changed since I wrote this some 20+ years ago.

And with heads held up high, we then published our word.
And stated quite firmly, ....”no one could prove fraud”[/I]

Jon S.

And thats pretty much the same position today, it's still a load of bull$hit, m'lord!

Shame about the **** rhyme at the end, Jon, but actually perfectly encouraging in tone and content. Although you feel that the proof would elude us and it always fell short, one might argue that the lack of a definitive disproof is an astonishing situation to find ourselves in.

What happened before I joined Casebook, by the way? Did stuff get resolved and the killer unmasked or was there just more hot air exchanged digitally?

Should I assume that my thoughts acquire greater weight as they age?

And did I become more insightful when I started to post rather than the many years when I simply read Casebook posts?

Ike