Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

I wonder if Lawson Tait or the journalist was actually just pulling someone's leg?
It was around the time of the Pinchin Street torso inquest there were the rumours printed in the press that the 'features and peculiarities' of the work of a well known and highly regarded surgeon had been recognised by a doctor involved in the case. Perhaps this was a joke counter to that idea?

[Abby Normal]

What is mind-boggling is the hypocrisy of this post and the extent to which you misrepresent Gareth's position.

Elsewhere you described those who opposed Gareth's views as 'buffoons' and 'clowns'. Over here in your little comfort bubble you are gleefully throwing around words like 'absurd' 'ridiculous' and 'mind-boggling' while, presumably deliberately, misquoting him.

Gareth did not say or imply that Tait had ' to see the wounds on the bodies to be able to make any kind of statement on there (sic) nature and similarities'. What he asked was how, not having seen the wounds himself he 'could have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters.'

You do see the difference, don't you? I'll leave it to your obviously well-developed sense of fair play to decide whether you retract your comments and issue an apology to Gareth.

Personally, I would find it ridiculous, absurd and mind-boggling for anyone to deny that a physician who had personally examined the injuries would be in a far better position to draw conclusions about their origins than someone who had merely read a report.

Hi Muppet

What is mind-boggling is the hypocrisy of this post and the extent to which you misrepresent Gareth's position.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Only a muppet would think that.

Elsewhere you described those who opposed Gareth's views as 'buffoons' and 'clowns'. Over here in your little comfort bubble you are gleefully throwing around words like 'absurd' 'ridiculous' and 'mind-boggling' while, presumably deliberately, misquoting him.

I haven't misquoted him at all. whenever I quote someone I use the quote function(like above) or put there exact quotation in quotation marks Like "this". But being a muppet, I can see how you are confused.

Gareth did not say or imply that Tait had ' to see the wounds on the bodies to be able to make any kind of statement on there (sic) nature and similarities'. What he asked was how, not having seen the wounds himself he 'could have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters.'

You do see the difference, don't you? I'll leave it to your obviously well-developed sense of fair play to decide whether you retract your comments and issue an apology to Gareth.

No your right- I do owe Sam and apology. Sam. I am sorry you are being defended by a muppet.

Personally, I would find it ridiculous, absurd and mind-boggling for anyone to deny that a physician who had personally examined the injuries would be in a far better position to draw conclusions about their origins than someone who had merely read a report.

so would I-thus I never said that.LOL. talk about about misrepresenting (and hypocrisy).

Now do you want to discuss the topic of this thread, or as David so aptly said when you cowardly refuse to engage him in debate on his Maybrick article-
"rather than amusing yourself with daft comments about me."

if not then its off to your little Muppet Hole with you, theres a good muppet.

[Abby Normal]

I wonder if Lawson Tait or the journalist was actually just pulling someone's leg?
It was around the time of the Pinchin Street torso inquest there were the rumours printed in the press that the 'features and peculiarities' of the work of a well known and highly regarded surgeon had been recognised by a doctor involved in the case. Perhaps this was a joke counter to that idea?

Hi Debs
You know now that I think of it is that a possibility? But would a Dr or a paper/reporter risk there reputation by doing something like this?

But I see where your coming from with his saying he can tell the difference between butchers where theyre from and that the killer was a female.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
You know now that I think of it is that a possibility? But would a Dr or a paper/reporter risk there reputation by doing something like this?

But I see where your coming from with his saying he can tell the difference between butchers where theyre from and that the killer was a female.

I'm not sure, Abby. Just thought I'd toss it in but I do know that Lawson Tait sometimes came in for criticism over his radical female surgeries and although I don't have a reference, at the back of my mind I seem to recall an instance where Tait's work was likened to that of the Ripper as part of that criticism. Perhaps the surgeon who was the subject of the rumours was Lawson Tait? Or maybe he thought he was the subject? Perhaps he was getting his own back? Good point about the journalist though. Journalists often used satire, perhaps it fell in to that category?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Muppet


I haven't misrepresented anything. Only a muppet would think that.



I haven't misquoted him at all. whenever I quote someone I use the quote function(like above) or put there exact quotation in quotation marks Like "this". But being a muppet, I can see how you are confused.



No your right- I do owe Sam and apology. Sam. I am sorry you are being defended by a muppet.



so would I-thus I never said that.LOL. talk about about misrepresenting (and hypocrisy).

Now do you want to discuss the topic of this thread, or as David so aptly said when you cowardly refuse to engage him in debate on his Maybrick article-
"rather than amusing yourself with daft comments about me."

if not then its off to your little Muppet Hole with you, theres a good muppet.

Abby,

Wow! Such eloquence. I can see why you prefer the cut and thrust of debate over here.

But it's a pity that you can't see - or refuse to admit - that you misrepresented Gareth. I accused you of 'misquoting' him - you can't do that via the 'quote function' as far as I'm aware. You took his original words and replaced them with words that had a different meaning, giving the impression that they were his words or at the very least his meaning. But I won't labour the point, endlessly, in the style of your mentor.

I rarely read anything by Kermit or Pierre. I hadn't realised that yet another piss up the wall challenge had been issued. The way Tom was Trolled over the Millows issue by the Orsam One was disgraceful. No doubt you were s******ing up your Abnormal sleeve.

You do remember that Gareth's point was essentially that someone who had carried out an autopsy would be better placed than someone who wasn't there to draw conclusions from it? Do you recall your response to that? Perhaps you should read more slowly.

Congratulations, though, it looks like you're on course for an A* at Troll school. You had a great teacher no doubt.

Kermit


You'll notice I haven't had the confidence to use the word Muppet even once in my response. Can you recommend a course I can take in puerile insults? All the better if it's run by a really Orsam teacher.

[elmore 77]

testing

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

Wow! Such eloquence. I can see why you prefer the cut and thrust of debate over here.

But it's a pity that you can't see - or refuse to admit - that you misrepresented Gareth. I accused you of 'misquoting' him - you can't do that via the 'quote function' as far as I'm aware. You took his original words and replaced them with words that had a different meaning, giving the impression that they were his words or at the very least his meaning. But I won't labour the point, endlessly, in the style of your mentor.

I rarely read anything by Kermit or Pierre. I hadn't realised that yet another piss up the wall challenge had been issued. The way Tom was Trolled over the Millows issue by the Orsam One was disgraceful. No doubt you were s******ing up your Abnormal sleeve.

You do remember that Gareth's point was essentially that someone who had carried out an autopsy would be better placed than someone who wasn't there to draw conclusions from it? Do you recall your response to that? Perhaps you should read more slowly.

Congratulations, though, it looks like you're on course for an A* at Troll school. You had a great teacher no doubt.

Kermit


You'll notice I haven't had the confidence to use the word Muppet even once in my response. Can you recommend a course I can take in puerile insults? All the better if it's run by a really Orsam teacher.

Haha. Angry muppets are funny.
Back to the diary defending Muppet circle jerk for you.

[MrBarnett]

Haha. Angry muppets are funny.
Back to the diary defending Muppet circle jerk for you.

Shakespeare? Obviously not a direct quote - an Abnormal paraphrase, perhaps?

Have you had enough of the puerile insult back and forth started by you and your mentor?

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure, Abby. Just thought I'd toss it in but I do know that Lawson Tait sometimes came in for criticism over his radical female surgeries and although I don't have a reference, at the back of my mind I seem to recall an instance where Tait's work was likened to that of the Ripper as part of that criticism. Perhaps the surgeon who was the subject of the rumours was Lawson Tait? Or maybe he thought he was the subject? Perhaps he was getting his own back? Good point about the journalist though. Journalists often used satire, perhaps it fell in to that category?

Thanks Debs

Interesting ideas. But I guess I’m struggling with the idea that a respected doctor would engage in satire in a paper, and if he didn’t wouldn’t it at least labeled as such or in special section at least??

It is an odd piece though, to say the least.

[Pcdunn]

No more I promise; unless Christer says something I think needs Response.
Too busy writingup. Start on Mizen scam next week I hope, blood evidence to follow soon after.


Steve

Very much looking forward to reading those, Steve. I've spent much time trying to catch up on this thread, and I'm dreaming of random murders. It may be almost refreshing to return to poor Polly.

[Fisherman]

Personally, I would find it ridiculous, absurd and mind-boggling for anyone to deny that a physician who had personally examined the injuries would be in a far better position to draw conclusions about their origins than someone who had merely read a report.

Well, Gary, this is where I will get off the train.

I will not join in the brawl between you and Abby, because I find it disheartening. I was checking a few things on Tait yesterday, and so I have a few more remarks to add to this discussion, and then I will not take part of it anymore. There are also a few things I want to say on account of the developments of the discussion.

For my own part, I have not said that a physician who has personally examined the injuries of a victim will not be in a better position to draw conclusions from them than somebody who has merely read a report. And I don´t think anybody alse has said that either, since it would be a foolish thing to say.

The discussion about this, however, also involved the possibility that the someboy mentioned, in this case Tait, could have actually discussed the cases with one or more of the medicos who wrote the reports.

It also applies that Tait was not the everyday "somebody" - he was an expert on surgery of the female abdomen, and so he would be better suited than most to follow a report and/or discussion revolving around this area.

None of all of this would, of course, put him on par with the examining medico. But I was reasoning that it may make him suited enough to draw viable conclusions of his own, if he had had the kind of information I am suggesting.

It must be kept in mind that since we do not know what detail/s it was that made him think that a London butcher was involved, we cannot tell what level of information was required for him to make that call. We cannot even exclude the possibility that there was something in the newspaper articles that lay behind it, although one would think that somebody else would pick up on it in such a case. But the bottom line is that we don´t know.

The details I dug up yesterday were from the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent of September 21:st 1889. It adds a few bits to the interview with Tait:

1. "The cuts are made in a fashion peculiar to the London butcher".

2. "I have not seen the remains in any of the cases, but of this I am certain, the criminal is a butcher, and a London butcher."

So we can now say with certainty that Tait never saw the bodies. And we can say that he is even more adamant here that there was something in the cutting he claimed was peculiar to a London butcher.

And that is all I am going to say about Lawson Tait for now. He either grabbed what he said out of thin air or he did not. For now, that´s end of story for me, and I leave you gentlemen to it.

[Sam Flynn]

So we can now say with certainty that Tait never saw the bodies.

Thanks for confirming that.

And we can say that he is even more adamant here that there was something in the cutting he claimed was peculiar to a London butcher.

I simply think Tait had got it into his bonce that the murderer was a butcher, and tried to bolster the credibility of his theory by making groundless assertions about how the knives/saws were used (how could he possibly have known such low-level details?), and false facts about how the murders reflected "regional" styles of butchery.

Tait was a man of strong opinions, not all of them particularly sensible - for example, he was a vocal critic of antiseptics (preferring simply to use soapy water) and he didn't believe in the germ theory of disease. He thought that spiritualism was a form of mental illness (kudos there ) but, on the other hand, he seems to have been tolerant of such dubious practices as homeopathy and hydrotherapy.

A gifted man certainly, but not a genius, and not infallible.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs

Interesting ideas. But I guess I’m struggling with the idea that a respected doctor would engage in satire in a paper, and if he didn’t wouldn’t it at least labeled as such or in special section at least??

It is an odd piece though, to say the least.

No worries, Abby. Thanks for reading my idea.
It does seem odd to me that Lawson Tait was commenting on the wounds showing a London butcher at exactly (almost to the day?) the same time the press were reporting that a specific surgeon's signature operating style had been recognised on the bodies at the time of Pinchin Street.

[Debra A]

Here's one of the press reports. Tait's observations could almost be a rebuttal of this. Tait sees the work of a London Butcher in the cuts at exactly the same time an unnamed source sees the work of a London Surgeon.


A Clew to Jack the Ripper
By Cable to the News and Observer.
LONDON, Sept. 17
The inquest in the case of the woman whose headless body was discovered in the Whitechapel district recently, was conducted with closed doors, and extraordinary precautionsare taken to prevent the medical testimony in the case being made public. The rumour is afloat, but cannot be traced to an authorative source, that one of the doctors has pointed out that the fiend who committed the murder bears a remarkable resemblance in certain features to peculiarities which have frequently been noted by the profession in the work of a well-known London surgeon, a man of the highest standing in his profession but exceedingly eccentric. The police maintain a discreet silence and refuse to either deny or verify the rumor. They appear to be active, however, and their conduct indicates that they have a clew of some sort.
News and Observer (Raleigh, NC, United States), Wednesday, September 18, 1889

[Abby Normal]

Here's one of the press reports. Tait's observations could almost be a rebuttal of this. Tait sees the work of a London Butcher in the cuts at exactly the same time an unnamed source sees the work of a London Surgeon.


A Clew to Jack the Ripper
By Cable to the News and Observer.
LONDON, Sept. 17
The inquest in the case of the woman whose headless body was discovered in the Whitechapel district recently, was conducted with closed doors, and extraordinary precautionsare taken to prevent the medical testimony in the case being made public. The rumour is afloat, but cannot be traced to an authorative source, that one of the doctors has pointed out that the fiend who committed the murder bears a remarkable resemblance in certain features to peculiarities which have frequently been noted by the profession in the work of a well-known London surgeon, a man of the highest standing in his profession but exceedingly eccentric. The police maintain a discreet silence and refuse to either deny or verify the rumor. They appear to be active, however, and their conduct indicates that they have a clew of some sort.
News and Observer (Raleigh, NC, United States), Wednesday, September 18, 1889

Thanks for posting!!
Was Lawson Tait the Torsoripper!?! ; )