Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Your not getting off the hook that easy Ike , you havent address that point at all , you avoided it . Im not talking about other suspects am i? ,just Maybrick the cotton merchant with no medical background or knowledge thats been produced .Yet was able to remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdominal cavity in around 7 mins when he could easily have taken any number of other organs

    Ill say this much, youve put all your eggs into one basket with the Watch and Diary and totally ignored this mystery .
    I'm pretty sure I've answered it, Fishy.

    Either Jack was a skilled urologist or else he wasn't. If he wasn't, he still presumably extracted that kidney, yes?

    Of the countless candidates who have no urological experience (of which James Maybrick is just one), I can only suggest that the killer felt his way to her kidney by chance. Now, if you want to argue (as you have implied above) that there was nothing random about his choice of the kidney ("when he could easily have taken any number of other organs") then I would have to suggest that most people do know roughly where the kidneys are and also most people who were motivated to find out could consult a medical book in the days before setting out that night to gain a better idea of what the obstacles might be and might therefore be reasonably expected to overcome them.

    As I've said before, this is not my area of expertise. Unusually, I swim with the majority here who seem to have accepted the general belief that Jack did not have any particular surgical skill. I don't know either way whether what Jack did in the dark and at speed in Mitre Square is something that is literally impossible without extensive urological surgical knowledge, but pretty much everyone else who has commented and does comment on this subject appear to have no problem with it.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 05-13-2022, 02:14 PM.
    Iconoclast
    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
    Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Your not getting off the hook that easy Ike , you havent address that point at all , you avoided it . Im not talking about other suspects am i? ,just Maybrick the cotton merchant with no medical background or knowledge thats been produced .Yet was able to remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdominal cavity in around 7 mins when he could easily have taken any number of other organs

      Ill say this much, youve put all your eggs into one basket with the Watch and Diary and totally ignored this mystery .
      I'll try this a different way (still not my area of expertise, note).

      Where is the difficulty, after pulling the entrails out of a person's abdomen and the abdominal cavity is empty, to go into the abdominal cavity with your hand, sever the barrier you spoke of, pull out the kidney (or indeed kidneys) and cut the artery? The doctors were not at all in agreement about the killer's medical skills, and I think that was right. After all it’s not open heart surgery!

      Click image for larger version

Name:	2022-04-24 Kidneys.jpg
Views:	246
Size:	36.9 KB
ID:	785842

      Ike
      Iconoclast
      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
      Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
        Well I happen to love the Maybrick Diary. I think it's the greatest thing to ever smack Ripperology in the face.
        ...with egg.

        Comment


        • Still no idea whose hand held the pen, RJ?

          You seem to have all the answers except the most important one of all. If the diary really was handwritten over the first few days of April 1992, who or where was your hoaxer with inky fingers?

          Is this why Ike's thread still exists? Is this why all the blame gets projected onto the Barrett sceptics? Because the Barrett believers don't really have the flimsiest clue who their hoaxer was?

          What I struggle with is why you and others are sooooooo resistant to the possibility of the diary being created by someone who began with an interest in both cases, but always intended to remain anonymous. Why would that person not think the best possible provenance for it would be Battlecrease House, where Maybrick lived from February 1888 to May 1889, which is the same period covered by the diary?

          So on Monday 9th March 1992, it is found there and shown to the impetuous chancer who was Mike Barrett. He gets on to a London literary agency saying he has Jack the Ripper's diary. He doesn't have the flimsiest clue who wrote it, or how old the writing is, but he is going to get the help he needs to find out. This could be huge. Or not. How will Mike know unless he takes a punt?

          I am curious to know how long the diary might have been in the house before it was found. Three months? Three years? Three decades? Possibly longer?

          My curiosity is based on the fact that I don't accept for a single second that either Anne or Mike created 'Sir Jim', so someone else must have done.

          Last edited by caz; 05-17-2022, 03:35 PM.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            I'll try this a different way (still not my area of expertise, note).

            Where is the difficulty, after pulling the entrails out of a person's abdomen and the abdominal cavity is empty, to go into the abdominal cavity with your hand, sever the barrier you spoke of, pull out the kidney (or indeed kidneys) and cut the artery? The doctors were not at all in agreement about the killer's medical skills, and I think that was right. After all it’s not open heart surgery!

            Click image for larger version

Name:	2022-04-24 Kidneys.jpg
Views:	246
Size:	36.9 KB
ID:	785842

            Ike

            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''.

            Where is the difficulty ? Right there if your a Cotton Merchant or a Painter like me .


            Dont forget it was Dr Brown who did the post mortem not Dr Sequeira.
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • Hi FISHY,

              You say you're a painter?

              Could you knock me up a Picasso over the weekend, so everyone can bitch for the next thirty years over how I made millions while you avoided exposing yourself?

              Thanks ever so.

              Love,

              Mrs FISHY to be
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                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''.

                Where is the difficulty ? Right there if your a Cotton Merchant or a Painter like me .


                Dont forget it was Dr Brown who did the post mortem not Dr Sequeira.
                I am drawn to the thoughts of Wilson & Odell (1987, p128), by chance one of the two books Mike Barrett had seen on the shelf of his local WH Smith and had thus recommended to Doreen Montgomery when he first introduced her to the Victorian scrapbook he had 'borrowed' (permanently) from Eddie Lyons:

                Dr Brown said the act of mutilation would have taken at least five minutes, but then he was an advocate of a skilled murderer. Of course, if the removal of the kidney was not a deliberate act but simply a chance occurrence, the theories become idle speculation. But if the murderer had the intention to secure the organ there can be little doubt that he had sufficient knowledge of human anatomy to find it and remove it with great speed.

                Now, Fishy, which is it to be: Jack found Eddowes' kidney out of 'simply a chance occurrence' as he rummaged around in her stomach which he had emptied of her intestines, or that he intended all along to locate the kidney and thereby severed it with great anatomical skill and knowledge?

                If it is the former, he needed no skill whatsoever. If it was the latter, he needed significant skill (the skill, indeed, of a qualified urologist).

                If you plump for the latter (as you presumably must), the obvious question is how on earth do you know what Jack was intending during those terrifying few minutes in Mitre Square?

                Ike
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  I am drawn to the thoughts of Wilson & Odell (1987, p128), by chance one of the two books Mike Barrett had seen on the shelf of his local WH Smith and had thus recommended to Doreen Montgomery when he first introduced her to the Victorian scrapbook he had 'borrowed' (permanently) from Eddie Lyons:

                  Dr Brown said the act of mutilation would have taken at least five minutes, but then he was an advocate of a skilled murderer. Of course, if the removal of the kidney was not a deliberate act but simply a chance occurrence, the theories become idle speculation. But if the murderer had the intention to secure the organ there can be little doubt that he had sufficient knowledge of human anatomy to find it and remove it with great speed.

                  Now, Fishy, which is it to be: Jack found Eddowes' kidney out of 'simply a chance occurrence' as he rummaged around in her stomach which he had emptied of her intestines, or that he intended all along to locate the kidney and thereby severed it with great anatomical skill and knowledge?

                  If it is the former, he needed no skill whatsoever. If it was the latter, he needed significant skill (the skill, indeed, of a qualified urologist).

                  If you plump for the latter (as you presumably must), the obvious question is how on earth do you know what Jack was intending during those terrifying few minutes in Mitre Square?

                  Ike



                  Wilson & Odell (1987, p128) Screenshot please.

                  Dr Brown said the act of mutilation would have taken at least five minutes, but then he was an advocate of a skilled murderer. Of course, if the removal of the kidney was not a deliberate act but simply a chance occurrence, the theories become idle speculation. But if the murderer had the intention to secure the organ there can be little doubt that he had sufficient knowledge of human anatomy to find it and remove it with great speed.



                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Hi FISHY,

                    You say you're a painter?

                    Could you knock me up a Picasso over the weekend, so everyone can bitch for the next thirty years over how I made millions while you avoided exposing yourself?

                    Thanks ever so.

                    Love,

                    Mrs FISHY to be
                    X


                    Sorry Caz to dissapoint you , im not that kind of painter
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • I rather thought that might be the case, FISHY.

                      Mike Barrett was sorry he was not the right kind of writer either.

                      What a disappointment for a Barrett Hoax conspiracy theorist.

                      If you were to try your hand at that Picasso, take a tip from the expert and add sugar to your paint. Egg wash won't wash.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        I rather thought that might be the case, FISHY.

                        Mike Barrett was sorry he was not the right kind of writer either.

                        What a disappointment for a Barrett Hoax conspiracy theorist.

                        If you were to try your hand at that Picasso, take a tip from the expert and add sugar to your paint. Egg wash won't wash.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Not sure what to make of that but anyway, on we go .
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post




                          Wilson & Odell (1987, p128) Screenshot please.

                          Dr Brown said the act of mutilation would have taken at least five minutes, but then he was an advocate of a skilled murderer. Of course, if the removal of the kidney was not a deliberate act but simply a chance occurrence, the theories become idle speculation. But if the murderer had the intention to secure the organ there can be little doubt that he had sufficient knowledge of human anatomy to find it and remove it with great speed.


                          You'll have to wait, Fishy. I'm watching the Frankfurt-Rangers Europe League Final, then I'm off to bed, then I'm off to Scotland tomorrow without my laptop for a week.

                          PS I didn't make it up, mind!
                          Last edited by Iconoclast; 05-18-2022, 09:31 PM.
                          Iconoclast
                          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                          Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                            You'll have to wait, Fishy. I'm watching the Frankfurt-Rangers Europe League Final, then I'm off to bed, then I'm off to Scotland tomorrow without my laptop for a week.

                            PS I didn't make it up, mind!
                            Well it should have been my Westham v Rangers in the final lol.

                            I see Rangers lost on penalties, tough when that happens ,never a good way to lose .



                            Im sure you didnt make it up , i just wanted to see the reference in the book, as i cant find it myself .

                            Not that it will make a difference, i already have and answer . lol.
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Well it should have been my Westham v Rangers in the final lol.
                              I see Rangers lost on penalties, tough when that happens ,never a good way to lose .
                              Im sure you didnt make it up , i just wanted to see the reference in the book, as i cant find it myself .
                              Not that it will make a difference, i already have and answer . lol.
                              Two rules of penalties:

                              1) If you're going to gamble and go down the middle, make sure it's high enough to miss the goalkeeper's trailing feet (Rangers made two mistakes out of five like this and got away with the first error but not the second);
                              2) Before you take your first penalty check the nationality of the team you're up against. If they are German, just give them the ******* cup and let us all get to bed a bit earlier.
                              Iconoclast
                              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                              Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                              Comment


                              • Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-05-19 084027.jpg
Views:	266
Size:	98.9 KB
ID:	786126
                                Iconoclast
                                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                                Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X