How to make Ripperology better?

[rjpalmer]

I can't say that I know with any certainty how many times Maybrick was actually known to have abused Florie.

Here's a philosophical --or psychological-- point to ponder, Ike. Ripperologists are suddenly keen on looking for wife beaters.

But is 'wife beating' a reliable sign that someone might be a secret multicide?

Does our boy Jack go out and treat other women in the street the same way he treats his own wife?

Is it that simplistic?

I think not.

Some will dismiss the following as a psychological cliché, but I think there is something to be said for the ol' 'Whore/Madonna Syndrome.'

Peter Kurten--whose crimes resembled the Ripper's very closely-- worshiped his own wife. He placed her on a pedestal that dripped with sentimentality. Yet this adoration didn't prevent him from going out and cutting other women to pieces.

Andrei Chikatilo, the so-called 'Russian Ripper' was another such case. He spoke of his wife as a living saint.

Wasn't Sutcliffe another example? If I recall correctly, Sonya, or whatever her name is, wore the britches, and Sutcliffe almost cowered before her.

In this regard, your diarist seems to have convinced Dr. Canter, but I'm afraid that he hasn't convinced me all that much. To my mind, the diarist's constant references to his own wife as 'the whore' strike something of a false note. The whole scenario and motivations for his crimes come across as cartoonish, and, with apologies to Dr. Canter, I'm far from convinced that the psychology is as convincing as he claims it is.

In brief, there is an enormous gulf between a run-of-the-mill wife beater and 'Jack the Ripper,' otherwise the UK would have been full of 'Jack the Rippers' because wife beaters were two-a-penny in the Victorian era.

Or, as we say on the Pacific Rim, a 'dime a dozen.'

[rjpalmer]

If it is 'ridiculous' that I live in England rather than Scotland (when I do in fact live in England), could you clarify why it would be 'ridiculous' for me to claim it is so?

Ike - No offense intended, Old Boy--you could be a 6' tall woman living in a nursing home in Montgomery, Alabama, for all I know, but your not infrequent references to haggis, Sir Walter Scott, golf, and freezing your backside off have caused me to forever associate you with Scotland. I doubt this impression is going to go away anytime soon. Anyway, some of my favorite bands are out of Glasgow, so I feel a kinship with that city. It's not an insult.

[Iconoclast]

Ridiculous

If it is 'ridiculous' that I live in England rather than Scotland (when I do in fact live in England), could you clarify why it would be 'ridiculous' for me to claim it is so?

I'm teasing you here: your literally monosyllabic post simply shows us all the value we should place on your attempts at commentary which are consistently ill-structured, illogical, and thoroughly self-serving. This is a good example - literally a post explaining that I live somewhere other than where someone claims I live and you're sitting there tutting in your rocking chair, muttering "ridiculous" to the wind. You probably didn't even read the post I was posting in reference to. Par for the course with your typical posts, I'd say.

[John Wheat]

Ike - I hear there is a rival table somewhere in the Pacific Rim, but I can't verify it.

Ridiculous

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous

[rjpalmer]

Ike - I hear there is a rival table somewhere in the Pacific Rim, but I can't verify it.

[Iconoclast]

Recently spotted in an undisclosed location in Scotland

[rjpalmer]

Recently spotted in an undisclosed location in Scotland

[Iconoclast]

One would think so, but this is not an established rule when dealing with the Diary friendly.

Theirs is a faith-based belief, utterly removed from any need for evidence or proof, and, as they see it, it is the task of the critics to shake their faith.

Although Ike denies it, this is the entire schtick of the 'Incontrovertible' thread.

'Iconoclast' (the use of this name is quite telling) is akin to the lay preacher standing on his soap-box in Hyde Park Corner, mocking the crowd and challenging all-comers to divest him of his faith.

He knows in advance that they will fail to do it.

The crowd faces an impossible task...and he knows it...because his scope for belief in the face of evidence or reason or argument or logic or mere commonsense is infinite.

The fortress of his belief is utterly unassailable.

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

It would simply be argued that there were two guard books and the CCTV footage merely shows the Barretts trying to 'ascertain how a hoaxer might have done it.'

This will be denied, of course, because part of the schtick is to constantly assure everyone that 'we believers' are entirely amendable to logic and proof, etc. etc.--you critics are just failing to convince us and your arguments are faulty and dishonest.

In short, Carl Sagan was unduly optimistic. Reason is a very weak force compared to blind faith.

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

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.

As long as there is a will to believe, Ike will remain untouched and unconcerned and unafraid, laughing at the futility of his critics.

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.

Actually, just some incontrovertible evidence would do it, RJ, but - as well you know - you and your ilk have failed precisely for the lack of any (other than that which once undressed is no more than opinion).

PS I did enjoy your post, however - very poetic ...

Ike
Breaker of Craven Images and Baseless Opinions

[rjpalmer]

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

One would think so, but this is not an established rule when dealing with the Diary friendly.

Theirs is a faith-based belief, utterly removed from any need for evidence or proof, and, as they see it, it is the task of the critics to shake their faith.

Although Ike denies it, this is the entire schtick of the 'Incontrovertible' thread.

'Iconoclast' (the use of this name is quite telling) is akin to the lay preacher standing on his soap-box in Hyde Park Corner, mocking the crowd and challenging all-comers to divest him of his faith.

He knows in advance that they will fail to do it.

The crowd faces an impossible task...and he knows it...because his scope for belief in the face of evidence or reason or argument or logic or mere commonsense is infinite.

The fortress of his belief is utterly unassailable.

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.

It would simply be argued that there were two guard books and the CCTV footage merely shows the Barretts trying to 'ascertain how a hoaxer might have done it.'

This will be denied, of course, because part of the schtick is to constantly assure everyone that 'we believers' are entirely amendable to logic and proof, etc. etc.--you critics are just failing to convince us and your arguments are faulty and dishonest.

In short, Carl Sagan was unduly optimistic. Reason is a very weak force compared to blind faith.

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

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.

As long as there is a will to believe, Ike will remain untouched and unconcerned and unafraid, laughing at the futility of his critics.

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.

[erobitha]

I have to find where I found that source with regards to the second event and come back.

In the meantime we could consider him threatening Nurse Yapp with violence as multiple women? Or is that not satisfactory?

[rjpalmer]

Hello again, Ike.

Thanks for acknowledging that you don't know.

I can't say that I know with any certainty how many times Maybrick was actually known to have abused Florie.

And..

The fact is, I don't know the answer to your question, RJ

Very gentlemanly of you Ike. It certainly looks like we are members of the same club, because I don't know either.

Alas, I suppose this means that Ero will remain 'astounded' by our mutual 'lack of knowledge' because evidently it is a well-known and well-documented fact that Maybrick frequently beat his wife.

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous.

It looks like we have some reading to do, Ike, to get up to speed!

Unless, of course, Mr. H was merely 'gilding the lily.'

RP

[GBinOz]

If you walked into a court of law with a lawyer and this argument, you'd be laughed out of the place or soon doing time for contempt. You don't just get to disparage what you've barely studied and what you definitely don't like. You can make these claims on these 'streets', but steer clear of the legal chambers, that's my advice.



Again, I'd avoid selling the house to fund your court case. You wouldn't get beyond the steps and the metal-detectors. Again, you're out on the 'streets' shouting your mouth off. That's fine. Take it to the judge, however, and you'd quickly find yourself cattle-trucked.

I dare you, though: I dare you here, safe on the 'streets', to give us all your lawyer's opening argument in prosecuting the Maybrick scrapbook and Maybrick watch as hoaxes. I'd love to see what depths of analysis you can actually reach before you start dipping into the cliches and the lies.

"It's all been proven to be a hoax, 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 against the scrapbook and watch?"
"Easily, Your Honour. I got loads of them off 'Casebook: Jack the Ripper' - it's a website full of people carefully reviewing all of the evidence and prudently pronouncing judgements on candidates for the Whitechapel murderer based upon data consensus. Here's a good example for you: 'The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.'"
"Sigh"
"Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another piece of extraordinary insight: 'The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it 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 these artefacts were hoaxes?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

Might be worth making an argument not simply posting unsubstantiated opinions, counsellor.

Ike

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!"

[FISHY1118]

Im curious Ike, how was Maybrick, a cotton farmer no less, was able to remove Eddowes kidney ? One of the most difficult organs to locate let alone remove in less than 7 mins in the darkest corner of Mitre Square . ?


Theres only one way to solve that puzzle .... with experiment .

Fine a cotton farmer say about Maybricks age ,whos has no or little medical experience ,get him to meet you at Mitre Square on a wet Sept evening /morning at 1.30am. Have a pig [dead of course] ready in the corner [ive been told the organs of pigs are very close to humans not only what type of organ but where they are situated in the abdomial cavity ] . Give him a sharp knife and tell him his got 7 mins to remove the kidney , you hold the stop watch .
In fact, that test should be undertaken full stop , just to prove yes /no that the organs could indeed be taken from the murder scene . Otherwise Trevor Marriot could be on to something [dare i say it ]

Now as macabre and gross as that sounds








Better than all those silly test on the ink of a diary or electroplate testing on a phony pocket watch dont you think? Where has that gotton us ?

[Iconoclast]

thats not even debateable. the only real question is why people continue to defend it as if there is still any mystery at all too it.
but i think I know the reason for that too.

the best thing for ripperology would be to denounce it, and those that still defend it (or even still bring it up), forget about it and move on.

Missed this mince.

Go on then, Abby, give us all your lawyer's gambit to the court to demonstrate everything you know which proves conclusively that the only candidate in the history of Ripperology who ever had any actual evidence to evaluate should 'forget about it and move on'.

As long as he's not simply spouting the endless mendacious platitudes we get so frequently with Maybrick then - I'm an honest guy - if your lawyer can construct such a compelling case, I'll definitely forget about it and move on. Until then, I'll just keep working on the 2025 version of my brilliant Society's Pillar; probably the best book on the Ripper ever written. And that's proven!

Ike