How to make Ripperology better?

[John Wheat]

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).



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.



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)?



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)?



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.



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

Ike

Why are you bringing my good name into your reply to Fishy?

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

Get your own phrase.

[Iconoclast]

Let's be honest those that believe the diary was written by Maybrick are not proper Ripperologists.

Ridiculous.

[John Wheat]

Let's be honest those that believe the diary was written by Maybrick are not proper Ripperologists.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

(Mine's at least grammatically correct.)

Get your own phrase.

[Iconoclast]

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 ? !!!!!.

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).

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.!! .

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.

But mostly, believing in a diary that was given to a man at a pub ...

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)?

, and a watch that has to be seen to believed

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)?

how ridiculous that anyone would think contains the carved initals of the five victims is just pure fantasy im afraide.

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.)

If you believe that then you deserve all the ridicule that comes your way .

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.

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

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

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Get your own phrase

Ridiculous.

(Mine's at least grammatically correct.)

[FISHY1118]

Well, Scotty, they were 'F' and 'M' so I'll leave you to work that one out.

By the way, I don't 'believe' it. You look at the picture and you don't say "I believe there's an 'F' and an 'M' there". You just say what you see. Just like Fishy1118.

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 .

[John Wheat]

ridiculous

Get your own phrase

[Iconoclast]

Whatever Ike says it's random blood spatter.

ridiculous

[Iconoclast]

Ike, can you clarify whose initials you believe were in Kelly's room -- Maybrick's or his wife's?

Well, Scotty, they were 'F' and 'M' so I'll leave you to work that one out.

By the way, I don't 'believe' it. You look at the picture and you don't say "I believe there's an 'F' and an 'M' there". You just say what you see. Just like Fishy1118.

[Iconoclast]

Get your own phrase.

ridiculous

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

Get your own phrase.

[erobitha]

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

Ridiculous.

[John Wheat]

Here's one for the Mike Barrett fans...

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