How to make Ripperology better?

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=caz;n785690]

Jesus.

What a totally ridiculous comment.

[John Wheat]

Blind faith is one thing.

Alternative Blind Faith was another:

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

One cool line-up.

Love,

Caz
X

It's not blind faith when it's true though.

[John Wheat]

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

Yes because the published author and conman who admitted writing the diary couldn't have written it. Get real.

[rjpalmer]

can you all please at least take this nonsense to the maybrick thread and stop clogging up casebook with crap?
Thanks in advance.

Well said! I've done so. Carry on.

[Abby Normal]

off topic
here we go with the diary bs ad nauseum again-case in point re the title of this thread.

can you all please at least take this nonsense to the maybrick thread and stop clogging up casebook with crap?
Thanks in advance.

[rjpalmer]

I still wonder why on earth the real Maybrick's behaviour towards his wife or women in general should concern you, since you know it can have bugger all to do with ripperology if you have proof that 'Sir Jim' was a 1990s Barrett invention.

What a bizarre attitude, Caz. I think you must be sniping for the sake of sniping

You find it strange that someone would ask Ero to provide proof for his claims?

So, if I run around the internet claiming that Walter Sickert ruthlessly beat and sexually abused his female models on "numerous occasions," it would be strange if you asked for my evidence, since you presumably don't believe Cornwell's theory?

What an odd attitude. I find it really quite strange.

I've asked you for proof of your claims, but rest assured I won't be asking Trev or FISHY if they have any idea why you will fail to supply it.

Until you butted-in with your strange commentary, I never asked you to defend Ero, or even mentioned you, but you certainly seemed to have willingly jumped into the fray to run interference for him. It was only then that I responded---but clearly you have no desire to answer and I think the reason is abundantly obvious.

Can we return to the question at hand? What is the source for Maybrick beating his wife on "numerous occasions"?

Would it "improve Ripperology" not to make these wild claims without documentation?

I address this question to Ero. I certainly don't expect you to answer--nor to set the historical record straight even if you do know or suspect the answer.

[caz]

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.

Is there no room in your thinking, Jon, to consider the possibility that Mike Barrett was the first person to wonder if the diary might actually be genuine, prompting him to contact the London literary agency to test the waters? He couldn't have afforded to have the old book examined by professionals, and if he suspected it was nicked he had to tread carefully. He was an opportunist on the make, no doubt about it, but just because the diary wasn't well written it doesn't follow that his were the brains behind it, or that his wife came up with the idea.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

If you'd understood my posting history, you'd realise that the only thing I consider 'important' about the old book is the truth about how Mike Barrett really came to own it. What's the point if the truth can be whatever anyone wants it to be? At least I fully admit that I have no idea who penned the Maybrick Diary, when or why, while you arrogantly claim to know for a fact that it was a fraudulent document created by one or both Barretts, shortly before it was first seen and examined in London. If the day ever dawns when you provide proof that this is indeed a fact, I'm sure a lot of people here will be truly grateful to you for enabling ripperology to move on at long last, without another word uttered on the subject. In any other situation, where there is controversy and discord, it would be logical for the person claiming to know something for a fact, as you do here, to put an end to hostilities by proving it. Why have you not done so, unless you can't, because all you have is your touching faith in a man who couldn't lie straight in bed?

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?

Should I?

I still wonder why on earth the real Maybrick's behaviour towards his wife or women in general should concern you, since you know it can have bugger all to do with ripperology if you have proof that 'Sir Jim' was a 1990s Barrett invention. But since you've asked ero for proof, it's up to ero to provide it.

I've asked you for proof of your claims, but rest assured I won't be asking Trev or FISHY if they have any idea why you will fail to supply it.

[caz]

This is an interesting point. I'll have to give this some thought. Does anyone know the challenges faced in surgically removing a kidney so that we can better understand Dr. Brown's comment?

Ike

If this hasn't already been addressed, Ike, I think today's surgeons would generally remove a kidney via the back of the patient, but I don't know if that applied in Victorian times. The ripper reached in via the front and cut one out of Eddowes. Wasn't Kelly's heart removed in a clumsy way?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;n785499]

Good post Fishy.

Jesus.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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?