'it was nice' Observation

[Tom_Wescott]

You're right, Adam. Your argument is so compelling that even Chris Phillips doesn't understand it. Okay, go ahead and write your Mortimer piece and let me know when it's done and I'll throw something together. As cute as it is that you think I'd be afraid to debate you publicly (isn't that what I've done on the boards?), you're the one who shies from getting a reader's poll, something I suggested only because many readers refuse to post anything negatively about someone they like, and even sometimes people they DON'T like, but they WOULD participate in an anonymous poll. I see nothing immature about polls at all and have voted in many here. It's a good way to see how educated readers feel about a certain point at a certain time. As far as I'm concerned, it's about the evidence itself, which is right there for all to see, and requires absolutely zero speculation on my part. It's not Tom vs Adam, although I've no doubt we would each receive votes of support from our friends, but I think an anonymous poll would allow for a majority of sincere votage from readers of the articles. If you do not agree, I'll drop the whole poll idea now. I honestly just thought it would be fun. And you've been rather cocky over this Mortimer business so I thought a poll might be a good life lesson and reality check for you. Or for me, should you prevail. I do admire your confidence and the fact that you're no wuss and are willing to stand behind your arguments, most of which are quite sound.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Your argument is so compelling that even Chris Phillips doesn't understand it

That's because Chris, as i've already stated once again, is only speaking about a very small portion of the Mortimer story and evidently isn't aware of, or has forgotten everything else that's been said before. Chris Phillips, or anybody else for that matter, is more than welcome to become my opponent debater in the pages of Ripperologist if you are not willing to commit to the idea. After all, it wouldn't be the first time you've gone silent during our many debates on this very topic.

As cute as it is that you think I'd be afraid to debate you publicly (isn't that what I've done on the boards?), you're the one who shies from getting a reader's poll, something I suggested only because many readers refuse to post anything negatively about someone they like, and even sometimes people they DON'T like, but they WOULD participate in an anonymous poll. I see nothing immature about polls at all and have voted in many here. It's a good way to see how educated readers feel about a certain point at a certain time. As far as I'm concerned, it's about the evidence itself, which is right there for all to see, and requires absolutely zero speculation on my part. It's not Tom vs Adam, although I've no doubt we would each receive votes of support from our friends, but I think an anonymous poll would allow for a majority of sincere votage from readers of the articles. If you do not agree, I'll drop the whole poll idea now.

Tom, you are more than welcome to set up a poll about such a debating piece if you wish, that's up to you, but what I am saying is that I don't believe the results of such a poll, regardless of whose favour it goes in, should be used to determine the "winner" of the debate, political election style. The reason for that is quite simply that you would be bound to get many people voting who vote just for the sake of it and haven't equipped themselves with all the facts and theories put forth in the article, or haven't read it at all, therefore the results would not be reliable. It would be much more accurate to have people naming whose theory they like better "and here are the reasons why, judging by the debate...". I think I can safely speak for both of us when I say we can handle the criticism from those you mention who may be worried about negative commentary.

But, again, feel free to set up a poll of your own accord.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Adam

When we discussed this previously, you took the same line - that I would understand everything if only I read your article.

As I told you before, I did look at it, but the problem is that, for whatever reason, your article doesn't even mention the report that Mortimer said she spent ten minutes at her door. Your comments about that have all come since you wrote the article.

As I've said before, I have no way of knowing why you didn't mention that report. But quite obviously, whatever the other virtues of that article, there can be no discussion whatsoever in it of the conflicting evidence about Mortimer, which is what's in question here.

When it comes down to it, there is conflicting evidence about what happened in Berner Street that night. People can reconstruct different timetables to try to reconcile the differences, and they will all have their virtues and their deficiencies. But unless some new evidence emerges, no one is going to be proved right about this, and no one is going to be proved wrong. It will all remain just a matter of opinion.

[mariab]

I recall pretty vividly that Chris Phillips read A matter of time around March 2011, as we were discussing it in the casebook WVC thread.
It mihght already be a well-known fact that pertaining to the time Mortimer spent at her door I agree with Chris, Tom, and Jeff Leahy. Now, as a British poster (unwarrantedly) suggested on the JTRForums, the implications of our agreement should be that we all marry each other and move to Salt Lake City with the Mormons. Preferably living on Jeff Leahy's boat...

I'll take your word for it, Maria. For god's sake let's not get sidetracked any more than we already have.

On this one I totally agree, Adam, and my most profound apologies if I haven't expressed myself clearly enough earlier.

To be fair, your logic is rather baffling.
You seem to be claiming to have proved that Fanny Mortimer didn't stand at her door for ten minutes.
Your proof appears to consist of choosing to dismiss one press report that she said she stood at her door for ten minutes, and instead to believe another press report that she said she stood there for nearly half an hour. And then you argue that she couldn't really have stood there for nearly half an hour, and so ... ?

Now THIS is exactly my stand too.

No, I wasn't taking a cheap shot at Tom, the way he worded that just struck me as funny.

Never implied that you did, Wickerman, and it's obviously your full prerogastive to do so if inclined! I was just joking, like yourself.

[tji]

[It mihght already be a well-known fact that pertaining to the time Mortimer spent at her door I agree with Chris, Tom, and Jeff Leahy. Now, as a British poster (unwarrantedly) suggested on the JTRForums, the implications of our agreement should be that we all marry each other and move to Salt Lake City with the Mormons. Preferably living on Jeff Leahy's boat...

Now that post I thought was funny, but before poor Chris has a heart attack I will (yet again) correct Maria's post.
It was suggested that only Maria and Tom marry and share their passions lol, poor Tom.

Chris/Jeff, you have dodged a bullet this time, you may breathe easy


Tj

[caz]

Getting back (well almost) to the topic...

Or did anyone really think that I was picturing the Ripper mixing blood with ginger beer...

Well I'm not sure you can really blame anyone if they did, Maria, considering what you wrote originally in post #40:

I just asked because the “Dear Boss“ letter mentions having kept the “good red stuff in ginger beer“.

As others tried to point out, only to be put in their place by the woman who will not blame herself for nothing, this terribly famous letter mentions keeping the blood (the proper red stuff) in a ginger beer bottle.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

The suggestion was issued upon the fact that Tom and I happened to agree on some things. Since in the Mortimer case Chris Phillips and Jeff Leahy happen to agree with Tom and me, quite consequently I can imagine the suggestions expressed.
I apologize to Chris Phillips for the silly joke, and won't be aknowledging any other silly suggestions or commentaries as recently posted in the JTRForums. Just this once, I couldn't resist making a silly joke (which was even appriopriate, under the circumstances).

[mariab]

To Caz:
I was referring to the Lusk kidney, Caz, but clearly it was very unfortunate of me to refer to it as “the good stuff“, thus quoting “Dear Boss“.
I apologize again, and I'll be more careful about expressing myself more consisely in the future.

[caz]

What kept you?

So where is the Lusk kidney mentioned in the "Dear Boss" letter?

Or are you unable to read your own words in the quote I offered you as a quick reminder?

Unbelievable.

[tji]

The suggestion was issued upon the fact that Tom and I happened to agree on some things.

You and Tom agree on things, really, I thought Tom decided and you agreed!

Since in the Mortimer case Chris Phillips and Jeff Leahy happen to agree with Tom and me, quite consequently I can imagine the suggestions expressed.

Erm, no, I believe you were just trying to name drop...again, have you tried to write a post without adding someone else's name at all?

I apologize to Chris Phillips for the silly joke, and won't be aknowledging any other silly suggestions or commentaries as recently posted.[/QUOTE]

Of course you won't since Caz is right and you can't argue with her. As for silly suggestions/commentaries the only ones made are your own so that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Tj

[tji]

Lol nice edit Maria, have to point out you edited otherwise my post wouldn't make much sense, that wouldn't be the reason at all now would it?

I personally don't think Colin's remark was silly - more funny.

Tracy

[mariab]

So where is the Lusk kidney mentioned in the "Dear Boss" letter? Or are you unable to read your own words in the quote I offered you as a quick reminder?

Caz, for the 4th time already:
I was simply thinking aloud about the Lusk kidney having been possibly “praserved“ in ginger beer too, as I was (marginally) contemplating the possibility of “Dear Boss“/“Saucy Jack“ having been produced by the “From Hell“ author, in a different (as in changed) handwriting. This was just iddle speculation, not a supposition I'm willing to entertain officially. Perhaps it's clear now? And perhaps, just possibly, you've also entertained similar suspicions yourself?
But most obviously (since so many people misunderstood me) the way I expressed myself was unfortunate, and silly, and not consise enough. I'll be more careful in the future. If you wish me to, I'll even consider self-flagellating...

[tji]

Oh wow looks like Mariab is ignoring my posts, how will I ever get over the rejection?




Ok over it

[Bridewell]

Really the only reason that the ‘From Hell’ letter is even considered to be authentic is the inclusion of the kidney. However, given the medical evidence, supplied by the doctors who actually examined it, the kidney was not likely to have come from the body of Catharine Eddowes and was most likely a hoax. No one, besides Major Henry Smith, seems to have taken it seriously. If you are trying to figure out who hoaxed the letter then that’s one thing but if you are suggesting that it can be used as evidence to prove some suspect (presumably Tumblety) was the Ripper then you’re barking up the wrong tree since it can’t be proved to be genuine and there is evidence to prove that it was a fake.



Scotland Yard were not looking for samples of Tumblety’s handwriting. In the case of San Francisco it was Chief of Police Crowley who, after reading about Tumblety’s supposed connection with the Whitechapel Murders, contacted Sir Robert Anderson and told him that he could supply samples if Anderson wanted them. Probably just being polite Anderson asked Crowley to send them. What Anderson was going to do with them is unclear since apparently no one at Scotland Yard considered any of the letters to be genuine. As for Brooklyn, Anderson did contact Police Chief Campbell about Tumblety but there is no mention of any hand writing samples to be sent to London so I don’t know where Mike has got this from.

Wolf.

"it can’t be proved to be genuine and there is evidence to prove that it was a fake".
Sorry, Wolf, but this is illogical. It can't, at this time be proved genuine, but nor can it be "proved" to be a fake. If it had been proved that it was a fake there would no longer be debate as to its authenticity and this forum would not be running. The matter has yet to be proved one way or the other.

[Tom_Wescott]

Random observations

I think I would sooner marry Maria than accuse Wolf Vanderlinden of being illogical. I could survive the marriage for AT LEAST a few years.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott