Mr Blotchy

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon. One skin complaint that I'm considering is favus, mostly when I consider Jack being German. The mention of a "removed boil" in the case of John Cleary had me wondering. When I read up on the Coram Street mystery, it described the accused doctor of having "pimples", which weren't evident at his trial. Apparently they can be peeled off, which is what I consider for the bloody handkerchiefs discovered in that case. Dr William Gull treated a 20 year old man for the condition in 62.
pg 275
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...85;skin=mobile

Hi Robert

The man who allegedly attacked Annie Farmer had a visible boil, and John Pizer also recently had a boil of some kind.

[Abby Normal]

It has been moved already, Abby, as stated above. The first post is up. The next one is Gareth´s. I´m waiting.

thank you fish

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam
I disagree with you on the viability of lech and torso ripper, but agree with you 100% on kennedy being a joke-anyone who thinks she is a viable witness (or person for that matter)-is being purposefully obtuse and/or has there own agenda. I also agree that torso/ripper really has no place on this thread. Unless of course its somehow germain to Blotchy.

take it to the torso thread fish. : )

It has been moved already, Abby, as stated above. The first post is up. The next one is Gareth´s. I´m waiting.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Abby

[Abby Normal]

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

Hi Sam
I disagree with you on the viability of lech and torso ripper, but agree with you 100% on kennedy being a joke-anyone who thinks she is a viable witness (or person for that matter)-is being purposefully obtuse and/or has there own agenda. I also agree that torso/ripper really has no place on this thread. Unless of course its somehow germain to Blotchy.

take it to the torso thread fish. : )

[Fisherman]

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

These are discussion boards, Gareth. Discussing is what they are for. This particular thread has expanded well beyond Blotchy, but it was not until you pqinted yourself into a corner that it suddenly became something you took a disliking to. But that is the nature of things; when we are cornered, we sometimes prefer to call it day.

You have implied on this thread that people who have a suspect are not to be trusted, by commenting on my view of the shared identity of the Ripper and the Torso killer by stating "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue."

This is why I wrote: "According to you, it would seem that I cannot entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory. Is that so? The factual value of my argument will always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect, is that it?"

But you have not had the decency to give me an answer to that, claiming that your unwilligness is grounded on how this is the wrong thread for it. So I will start a new thread under Ripper discussions: General discussion: Research related: Not to be trusted, where you will have ample opportunity to clarify yourself and build under your accusations with facts - or be revealed as somebody who will resort to false accusations and who is sadly unable to substatiate them.

I bid you welcome to that thread, specifically designed for this exact discussion.

[Sam Flynn]

So exactly where do you wish to discuss it, then?

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

[Fisherman]

No agenda whatsoever; I have no desire to take this discussion down an off topic rabbit-hole, that's all.

So exactly where do you wish to discuss it, then? No agenda and all?

[Sam Flynn]

Well, you have already shown how you handle it - by asking him to take his business elsewhere. "Best leave it there".

How´s THAT for an agenda?

No agenda whatsoever; I have no desire to take this thread down an off-topic rabbit-hole, that's all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue.

That is the cheap way out, and much as it must be comfortable, it really is not sound. According to you, it would seem that I cannot entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory. Is that so? The factual value of my argument will always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect, is that it?

Then I advice you to instead of trying to get rid of Harry D, you may need to see what it means when somebody who has levelled a lot of criticism against the Lechmere theory over the years, in fact says the exact same thing as I do. And that is in spite of how Harry is quite aware that the 1889 torso victims cannot have been killed by Bury - who Harry likes very much as a suspect.

So how do you handle such a thing? He has a favoured suspect, but he also seems to have the integrity to go against his own "agenda" (for it cannot be a conviction, can it - it must be an agenda, right?) and vote for a combined identity between the Ripper and the torso killer.

Well, you have already shown how you handle it - by asking him to take his business elsewhere. "Best leave it there".

How´s THAT for an agenda?

[Sam Flynn]

That might be the case for Fisherman, but I have no dog in this fight (so to speak) and I recognise the similarities between the two cases.

You're welcome, Harry, but we'd best leave it there or we'll derail this thread, which is about Mr Blotchy after all.

[Harry D]

The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue.

That might be the case for Fisherman, but I have no dog in this fight (so to speak) and I recognise the similarities between the two cases.

[RockySullivan]

Here's a quetion for jerryd, if Arnold had a boil or boils why did the reporter suggest Dennis Lynch as John Leary? Did Dennis Lynch also have boils or a skin condition? Or was Arnold's skin condition perhaps not so prominent or not in the description the newspaper man heard

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;436344]A bit too much? Early press reports were frequently erroneous throughout the Ripper case, so it's quite likely that this is what we're dealing with here.

No, it is not. If "Kennedy" said that she was at the Britannia before 2.30, the papers would not write that she said 3 AM by mishearing or mistake. As I said, facilitating your Ripperology like this makes for a wonderful world of opportunitites, but a bleak reality of having tampered with the evidence. You are probaly going to dislike that wording, but if we say that Kennedy probaly told the press all the things Lewis did, and in the same fasion, then we ARE tampering with the evidence, because it tells another story. If that story should not dovetail with how we want things to be, we are not at liberty to say that this was because the press misreported things, over and over again and in very peculiar fashions.

I'm not in the least "copping out" or "following my own logic" - quite the contrary, I'm applying my experience of the case, and the source materials, to the matter in hand.

You have no experience of the case that tells you that the two killers had different reasons for cutting the uteri out, for example. It has nothing at all to do with experience and everything to do with following your own logic. It´s supposition and conjecture throughout.
The source material tells us that these two killers did many similar things to their victims, some of them extremely rare. When we say that they were nevertheless not just the one killer, we therefore impose upon the laws of logic. Consequently, in my world, you cannot employ one sort of thinking in the Lewis/Kennedy case and a totally opposing methodology in the Ripper/Torso killer matter.

I fully understand that you will do so nevertheless, and you may perhaps want to dub that a prime example of logic and fair source handling. Which is why I take the time and effort to point out that it is anything but, at least in the world I inhabitate. I will therefore stand by what I say and call it a cop-out.
Then again, maybe I do not have as good an "understanding of the case" as you have, and maybe I cannot handle the source material with the same light hand as you.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, the real problem is that you say that two women cannot possibly ("not a chance", is how you word yourself) present that close stories without being the same person, whereas you have no problems at all claiming it as the by far most logical solution that two serial killers may more or less simultaneously and in the same town engage in cutting away abdominal walls, ripping from ribs to pubes, taking out uteri, taking out hearts, stealing rings, targetting prostitutes.

The chances of two independent women doing exactly the same things on the same night (leaving home to stay with relatives in the little room opposite Mary Kelly, for instance) are very small.

The chances of more than one independent killer doing rather different things to women in different circumstances and in entirely separate parts of London is another matter entirely. The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue.

In contrast, I don't have an agenda when it comes to Kennedy; on the contrary, I'd welcome another instance of reliable, independent witness testimony in respect of Kelly. However, it's obvious to me that the "Kennedy" accounts don't fall into that category.