How to make Ripperology better?

[Iconoclast]

Whatever Ike says it's random blood spatter.

ridiculous

[John Wheat]

ridiculous

Get your own phrase

[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 .

[Iconoclast]

Get your own phrase

Ridiculous.

(Mine's at least grammatically correct.)

[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

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

(Mine's at least grammatically correct.)

Get your own phrase.

[John Wheat]

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

[Iconoclast]

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

Ridiculous.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

Get your own phrase.

[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?

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;n785481]

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.

[John Wheat]

[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.

Good post Fishy.

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;n785499]

Good post Fishy.

Ridiculous.

[Iconoclast]

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Michael Barrett, you remember him dont you ?

Why ever would I not remember Mike Barrett?

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''

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."?

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

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.

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] .

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.

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

I will do, thank you, Fishy.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n785498]

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 ?

You miss the point, Fishy. I was not seeking evidence that Jack took Eddowes' kidney. I was seeking the evidence for where you imply that he intended to take specifically her kidney.

And the way to remove them

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