One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Thanks RJ. I've got Martin's Murder Guide to London somewhere. It's probably somewhere in there.

I'm sure Martin will have mentioned the Krays at very least in passing - not least because Mad Ronnie's murder of George Cornell in The Blind Beggar on the Whitechapel Road in March 1966 was just a hop, skip, and a jump from where - in 1888 - James Maybrick had shot Polly Nichols dead in the early hours of the morning in Bucks Row with a double-tap to the brain - coincidentally prompting everyone in America to go out and buy a gun in case they or their descendants ever get into an argument at the supermarket check-out over the price of a tin of beans.

The real coincidence, of course, is that Cornell was a member of the Richardson gang who acted under the cover of being scrap metal dealers.

You couldn't make this stuff up ...

[erobitha]

I already theorized that Lyons came from Battlecrease on that day with the story from a fellow worker that a book had been found there some years before, clinching the provenance of a document Mike already had. Mike just telephoned Crew on that day because that's when he heard the story from Eddie and realized what he had. So no real coincidence; no diary was found in Battlecrease on March 9, 1992.

What may have been a coincidence is that Mike knew the guy whose hands the diary ended up in.

No? Oh well.....

Hi Scott,

I genuinely believe you believe this theory. I do not wish to stifle those who are genuinely captivated by the mysterious nature of events surrounding both the watch and scrapbook. I think theories are important.

However, as for all the reasons which Ike outlined, this concept of Mike being handed a golden provenance does not make any logical sense. It only makes sense if Mike planned on using it.

That or he wanted something so ambiguously close to a provenance that it would be enough to muddy waters with people like me thirty years down the line. Again, for what purpose that would have suited him I have no idea. The second Mike indicated the Battlecrease provenance his claim on it would be null and void. If it came out of Battlecrease then legally it is Paul Dodd’s property.

Why would Mike even want to risk that in the slightest?

[FISHY1118]

Oh dear, Fishy, this one is bad news for you, mate!

13.38: Dr. Iain West, Forensic Pathologist, Guy's Hospital. "He certainly appears to have had some basic anatomical knowledge. In other words, where he can find a kidney [Ed: assuming he was looking for a kidney in the first place, of course], erm, and to remove the uterus [Ed: assuming he was looking for the uterus in the first place, of course]. It's unlikely that he would have not known roughly where the organs were in the body [Ed: assuming he was looking for specific organs in the first place, of course] but certainly from the passion of cutting, there was no sign that he was used to handling a knife, erm, perhaps on the fringes of the medical world, perhaps somebody who was trying to disguise, maybe more than on the fringes of the medical world".

I thought this was supposed to be the end of James Maybrick's candidature not further potential support for it!

Anyway, let that be the last time Fishy bores us with his unsubstantiated 8-Minute Miracle tale. Unless Fishy knows more than a forensic pathologist, of course!

Your absolutely dreaming mate , if you think that a modern day patholigists opinion somehow trumps the medical experts opinion regarding the whitechaple murders ,your even further down the rabbit hole that i thought . Dream on. Doctors who were there and saw the boby , perform the post mortem, gave thier sworn testimony an the offical inquest !!! . A desperate post that achieved nothing ,your still left with your theory which you havent been able to come close to showing any proof that James Maybrick was infact JtR.

So just how did Maybrick remove a kidney in 8 minutes in Mitre Square with only the skills of a cotton merchant ? Fishy knows enough to know your ignoring the expert medical evidence given under oath to prop up an imaginary theory .

Back to the drawing board Ike

[Iconoclast]

Your absolutely dreaming mate , if you think that a modern day patholigists opinion somehow trumps the medical experts opinion regarding the whitechaple murders ,your even further down the rabbit hole that i thought . Dream on. Doctors who were there and saw the boby , perform the post mortem, gave thier sworn testimony an the offical inquest !!! . A desperate post that achieved nothing ,your still left with your theory which you havent been able to come close to showing any proof that James Maybrick was infact JtR.

So just how did Maybrick remove a kidney in 8 minutes in Mitre Square with only the skills of a cotton merchant ? Fishy knows enough to know your ignoring the expert medical evidence given under oath to prop up an imaginary theory .

Back to the drawing board Ike

Two minutes, dear readers. That's all it would have taken for an unskilled man slashing wildly around Eddowes' stomach to have come across one of her kidneys. Call me crazy, but hasn't medicine advanced rather than fallen-back in the last 130 years? Apparently not in Fishy's world where knowledge was greater then and has now been lost to us!

Two minutes, that's all it would have taken Jack the Ripper. Maybe three at most.

For the record, though - and I keep saying this but he ignores it each time - if we exclude skilled surgeons, who are we left with?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So just how did Maybrick remove a kidney in 8 minutes in Mitre Square with only the skills of a cotton merchant ?

I think you are understating your case, Fishy.

The best evidence we have is that nine minutes passed between the sighting of the murderer with the victim and the finding of the victim, dead.

The murderer would have had only a fraction of that time in which to perform the mutilations.

There does seem to be a remarkable reluctance on the part of those who claim to know the identity of the murderer to explain where he would have acquired the skills required to perform those mutilations.

There does not seem to be anything to suggest that Maybrick acquired such skills any more than anything to suggest that Kosminski acquired them.

[Iconoclast]

I think you are understating your case, Fishy.
The best evidence we have is that nine minutes passed between the sighting of the murderer with the victim and the finding of the victim, dead.
The murderer would have had only a fraction of that time in which to perform the mutilations.
There does seem to be a remarkable reluctance on the part of those who claim to know the identity of the murderer to explain where he would have acquired the skills required to perform those mutilations.
There does not seem to be anything to suggest that Maybrick acquired such skills any more than anything to suggest that Kosminski acquired them.

I think you missed the bit where the modern forensic pathologist is clear that the damage committed to Eddowes would have taken no more than 2-3 minutes so here it is again:

13.38: Dr. Iain West, Forensic Pathologist, Guy's Hospital. "He certainly appears to have had some basic anatomical knowledge. In other words, where he can find a kidney [Ed: assuming he was looking for a kidney in the first place, of course], erm, and to remove the uterus [Ed: assuming he was looking for the uterus in the first place, of course]. It's unlikely that he would have not known roughly where the organs were in the body [Ed: assuming he was looking for specific organs in the first place, of course] but certainly from the passion of cutting, there was no sign that he was used to handling a knife, erm, perhaps on the fringes of the medical world, perhaps somebody who was trying to disguise, maybe more than on the fringes of the medical world".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think you missed the bit where the modern forensic pathologist is clear that the damage committed to Eddowes would have taken no more than 2-3 minutes so here it is again:

I think you have completely missed the point I was making, so here it is again:


The best evidence we have is that nine minutes passed between the sighting of the murderer with the victim and the finding of the victim, dead.

The murderer would have had only a fraction of that time in which to perform the mutilations.

[Iconoclast]

I think you have completely missed the point I was making, so here it is again:
The best evidence we have is that nine minutes passed between the sighting of the murderer with the victim and the finding of the victim, dead.
The murderer would have had only a fraction of that time in which to perform the mutilations.

Goodness me - now I see what you mean. It's suddenly so utterly clear. Two and three are not fractions of nine. Gotcha!

By the way, and you and I both know this has been pointed-out to you before so here it is again: how can we be certain that the 'sighting' of which you speak was the murderer and not some other man she was propositioning?

And how certain can we be that - even if it was Jack - that the timings reported were accurate?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Goodness me - now I see what you mean. It's suddenly so utterly clear. Two and three are not fractions of nine. Gotcha!


I have no idea what you mean.

I have argued consistently that the murder took place about 3 minutes after the sighting and that the murderer left about 3 or 4 minutes later.

What I wrote in my previous post is entirely consistent with that.



By the way, and you and I both know this has been pointed-out to you before so here it is again: how can we be certain that the 'sighting' of which you speak was the murderer and not some other man she was propositioning?


I have never claimed that it is certain.

I have argued that it is almost certain.

The police evidently took the same view:


It is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he [Lawende] saw was the murderer

(SWANSON)


That is obviously why Lawende was asked to try to identify the murderer.



And how certain can we be that - even if it was Jack - that the timings reported were accurate?


The timings we have - and there are many - are the best evidence.

There are absolutely no conflicts among them and no reason to doubt their reliability.

I set out all the timings in an earlier post and they make perfect sense.

[FISHY1118]

Two minutes, dear readers. That's all it would have taken for an unskilled man slashing wildly around Eddowes' stomach to have come across one of her kidneys. Call me crazy, but hasn't medicine advanced rather than fallen-back in the last 130 years? Apparently not in Fishy's world where knowledge was greater then and has now been lost to us!

Two minutes, that's all it would have taken Jack the Ripper. Maybe three at most.

For the record, though - and I keep saying this but he ignores it each time - if we exclude skilled surgeons, who are we left with?

Your ignoring expert medical opinion given under oath, by a doctor who performed the post mortem decades and decades before modern day doctors were born .

Your a genius.

Next you'll be telling us the ancient Egyptians didn't know what they were doing because building practices have advanced considerably.

Wheres that 3D magic eye blood splatter pic that miraculously turns into F.M initials when you squint yor eyes?

Keep reminding you , you have a theory ,not a proven fact.

[erobitha]

Your ignoring expert medical opinion given under oath, by a doctor who performed the post mortem decades and decades before modern day doctors were born .

Your a genius.

Next you'll be telling us the ancient Egyptians didn't know what they were doing because building practices have advanced considerably.

Wheres that 3D magic eye blood splatter pic that miraculously turns into F.M initials when you squint yor eyes?

Keep reminding you , you have a theory ,not a proven fact.

You’re ignoring medical opinion of other doctors of the time that also stated the killer was not anatomically aware of what he was doing.

Tell me, from all of those doctors who examined Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - what percentage of them claimed the killer had anatomical knowledge?

[FISHY1118]

You’re ignoring medical opinion of other doctors of the time that also stated the killer was not anatomically aware of what he was doing.

Tell me, from all of those doctors who examined Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - what percentage of them claimed the killer had anatomical knowledge?

Two Jack the Rippers ! . One with anatomical knowledge and James Maybrick with out . Hang on Ike we could be onto something here .

[erobitha]

Two Jack the Rippers ! . One with anatomical knowledge and James Maybrick with out . Hang on Ike we could be onto something here .

I hope you plan on answering my question. It’s nothing to do with there being two killers. It’s very much to do with how even the medical expertise of that time could not agree on what they saw.

You choose the one you like and claim it as fact. The very thing you accuse others of doing. Yet, you don’t even see the irony.

[Iconoclast]

You choose the one you like and claim it as fact. The very thing you accuse others of doing. Yet, you don’t even see the irony.

Ever was it so, ero b. When you consider the power of the two physical proofs - the 'FM' on Kelly's wall and Maybrick's idiosyncratic signature in his watch, and then compare it with the mooted disproofs, then, dear, oh dear, oh dear, how quickly the counter-argument sinks into counter-opinion:

Visitors to Kelly's room would definitely have spotted the vaguer 'F' and the stronger 'M' on her wall
Jack the Ripper definitely was a surgeon to have done that in less than nine minutes
James Maybrick would have mentioned his jury service in December 1888
James Maybrick would have mentioned his walking holiday in Wales in early 1889
'The James are the men ...' doesn't mean anything (as if it needed to!)
James Maybrick could not possibly have lifted up a floorboard
Paul Dodd had scoured underneath every floorboard in the house with minute attention to detail
The events of March 9, 1992, happen pretty much every other day - they're no great shakes
The 'Dear Boss' letter was written by one (or two!) 'enterprising' journalists
Eye witness accounts show he was definitely 20-30
The size of the imprints in the scrapbook would not be common use until the First World War
Michael Maybrick didn't write lyrics
No-one in 1888 or 1889 could possibly use the term 'top myself'
The scrapbook doesn't read like a diary
Mike Barrett confessed that he created the hoax

Where does it all end, this desperate yearning to find anything whatsoever to satisfy the confused brain, to releive the building cognitive dissonance, to smooth the choppy waters with deeply-flawed 'facts'?

[FISHY1118]

I hope you plan on answering my question. It’s nothing to do with there being two killers. It’s very much to do with how even the medical expertise of that time could not agree on what they saw.

You choose the one you like and claim it as fact. The very thing you accuse others of doing. Yet, you don’t even see the irony.

Hold on buddy, your barkin up the wrong tree there.

Go read the inquest testimony again and stop ignoring what was said .
I choose what is evidence and relevant .

So get down off your high horse.

The diary is a fake and James Maybrick isn't ripper . Deal with it