How to make Ripperology better?

[caz]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;n785499]

Good post Fishy.

Jesus.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

[QUOTE=caz;n785690]

Jesus.

What a totally ridiculous comment.

[John Wheat]

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.

I'm just pointing out how ridiculous the idea that the diary is written by Maybrick when it was clearly written by Mike Barrett is.

[jmenges]

Please keep Maybrick debates on Maybrick threads.
God knows there’s plenty of them to choose from.

JM

[C. F. Leon]

... Can we return to the question at hand? ...

The "question at hand" as I recall it, is "How to make Ripperology better?", not yet ANOTHER argument about the Maybrick Diary, which already has PLENTY of threads and even a separate section of its own that you can post all you want on.

Please keep to stated topic.

[C. F. Leon]

Sorry, Jonathan. I didn't notice that you had already posted something similar until after I had sent mine.

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;n785706]

What a totally ridiculous comment.

What a totally ridiculous comment.