Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

2) Maybrick's lack of surgical prowess (as if it were an established fact that Jack had surgical expertise)

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - ''He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them''.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? -'' It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane''.

This has been addressed many times over the last 134 years, Fishy. The Ripper's surgical knowledge has been disputed many times by other notable authorities than simply Dr. Brown.

Dr. Brown's answers were pre-determined by the implication that Jack was intentionally seeking Eddowes' kidney. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jack was seeking any specific organ but the coroner assumed it so his questions were leading Dr. Brown's answers. I wonder what his response would have been had he simply been asked, "If the perpetrator was seeking any organ at all and was eviscerating her as quickly as he could to find one, is it possible that an unskilled hand could have located by chance and then swiftly removed the kidney?".

I suspect Dr. Brown would have said, "Well, if you phrase it like that, of course he could have grabbed at any available organ and removed it, yes".

[StevenOwl]

The Barretts are the obvious and logical writers of the diary. If this is not your stand point then please provide credible evidence of an alternative writer.

Where's your credible evidence that the Barretts wrote it? Oh yeah, you have none. Maybe Fishy does? Good luck with that one.

As I've said before, I don't know who wrote it, because there's no hard evidence against anyone. I'm here in the hope that someday, somebody unearths some and we can put this to bed.

[Iconoclast]

Where's your credible evidence that the Barretts wrote it? Oh yeah, you have none. Maybe Fishy does? Good luck with that one.

As I've said before, I don't know who wrote it, because there's no hard evidence against anyone. I'm here in the hope that someday, somebody unearths some and we can put this to bed.

Honestly, Owly, don't put yourself through it. It was James Maybrick.

[John Wheat]

Where's your credible evidence that the Barretts wrote it? Oh yeah, you have none. Maybe Fishy does? Good luck with that one.

As I've said before, I don't know who wrote it, because there's no hard evidence against anyone. I'm here in the hope that someday, somebody unearths some and we can put this to bed.

But in all likelihood the Barretts did write the diary. What's so unbelievable that someone who claimed to have written the diary with the level of literary skill to have written it, wrote the diary?

[FISHY1118]

Where's your credible evidence that the Barretts wrote it? Oh yeah, you have none. Maybe Fishy does? Good luck with that one.

As I've said before, I don't know who wrote it, because there's no hard evidence against anyone. I'm here in the hope that someday, somebody unearths some and we can put this to bed.

I know one thing for sure ,it wasnt James Maybrick. There is no evidence that links him to the murders that has been shown so far that one would claim his guilt with such vigor .

[John Wheat]

Honestly, Owly, don't put yourself through it. It was James Maybrick.

Is this a joke because it sounds like it?

[FISHY1118]

This has been addressed many times over the last 134 years, Fishy. The Ripper's surgical knowledge has been disputed many times by other notable authorities than simply Dr. Brown.

Dr. Brown's answers were pre-determined by the implication that Jack was intentionally seeking Eddowes' kidney. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jack was seeking any specific organ but the coroner assumed it so his questions were leading Dr. Brown's answers. I wonder what his response would have been had he simply been asked, "If the perpetrator was seeking any organ at all and was eviscerating her as quickly as he could to find one, is it possible that an unskilled hand could have located by chance and then swiftly removed the kidney?".

I suspect Dr. Brown would have said, "Well, if you phrase it like that, of course he could have grabbed at any available organ and removed it, yes".

Which notable authority stood next to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown during the post mortem that disputed his findings ?



Heres another DR who was at the murder scene, and wait for it ...... look what he had to say .Under oath mind you .


Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. ''I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.''

Its easy to see that when the topic moves away from the dairy and watch nonsense ,and focuses on the evidence and the facts of what we know about the murders, it become increasingly obvious to most that James Maybrick wasnt JTR .

[Iconoclast]

"I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.''

Do you have anything more damning than that?

I'm struggling to see where this implies the same as, "Like Dr. Brown, I believe that it is unequivocal that the murderer was actively seeking to remove a kidney which he then did and with what Dr. Brown and I agree was the skill only a trained surgeon could have accomplished".

According to you, he said, "I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect".

Are we to shiver with a frisson of recognition that here was the evidence which finally contradicted the previous medical opinion and proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jack the Ripper was an experienced surgeon?

I'm not quite seeing how I am supposed to come to that conclusion, I'm really not.

It was dark, granted, but in rummaging around inside her stomach, Jack found an organ which he removed with a single slice of his knife. I very much doubt that required six years at medical school and what have you and I seriously doubt that he knew in that moment that he'd removed a kidney with brilliant surgical skill.

Or even that he'd removed a kidney, come to that ...

[caz]

Ridiculous post. The Barretts are the obvious writers of the diary. It's for those to prove Maybrick wrote the diary not the other way round. Also I take it you have no evidence whatsoever that someone else wrote the diary. You've wasted years denying the obvious Caz.

Of course it's for anyone accusing Maybrick to prove it.

So of course it's for anyone accusing the Barretts to prove it.

I'm not accusing anyone of writing the diary, because I have no proof against anyone - nor even the ghost of a clue whose handwriting is in it.

It may be 'obvious' to you, but since when did an opinion equal proof?

It may be 'obvious' to Ike that Maybrick was responsible, but you've just stated the obvious: it's for him to prove it.

Why is my position 'ridiculous'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What an arsey post.

Thank you, John. That's a compliment, coming from you. You are the master debater when it comes to talking arse.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caroline, what if Mike (who may have already had the Diary in his possession before March 9th) didn't know the Diary was supposed to be written by Maybrick before someone told him, or he figured it out for himself on that March date?

Hi Scotty,

I'm not sure I understand what that would imply about where Mike obtained it? Certainly it would knock out the 31st March auction theory if he had the scrapbook by 9th March, and if he had even the smallest part in the diary's creation he would surely have had to know who JtR was meant to be, and would have had Maybrick firmly in mind when requesting a Victorian diary around 9th or 10th March.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Do you have anything more damning than that?

I'm struggling to see where this implies the same as, "Like Dr. Brown, I believe that it is unequivocal that the murderer was actively seeking to remove a kidney which he then did and with what Dr. Brown and I agree was the skill only a trained surgeon could have accomplished".

According to you, he said, "I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect".

Are we to shiver with a frisson of recognition that here was the evidence which finally contradicted the previous medical opinion and proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jack the Ripper was an experienced surgeon?

I'm not quite seeing how I am supposed to come to that conclusion, I'm really not.

It was dark, granted, but in rummaging around inside her stomach, Jack found an organ which he removed with a single slice of his knife. I very much doubt that required six years at medical school and what have you and I seriously doubt that he knew in that moment that he'd removed a kidney with brilliant surgical skill.

Or even that he'd removed a kidney, come to that ...

You must be replying to another post because you havent read or answered to what was posted in the previous ones.

''Which notable authority stood next to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown during the post mortem that disputed his findings ?'' ill wait

So again Its easy to see that when the topic moves away from the dairy and watch nonsense ,and focuses on the evidence and the facts of what we know about the murders, it become increasingly obvious to most that James Maybrick wasnt JTR .

[erobitha]

Which notable authority stood next to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown during the post mortem that disputed his findings ?



Heres another DR who was at the murder scene, and wait for it ...... look what he had to say .Under oath mind you .


Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. ''I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.''

Its easy to see that when the topic moves away from the dairy and watch nonsense ,and focuses on the evidence and the facts of what we know about the murders, it become increasingly obvious to most that James Maybrick wasnt JTR .

An obsession with internal organs would suffice as enough motive to study things like, I don’t know, anatomical venuses. So knowing where the organs are is one thing.

The knife used to extract them was not exactly fit for purpose for the task. The cuts were not exactly surgeon standard. He knew what he wanted and he had a knife to get them.

Why does that rule Maybrick out exactly?

[erobitha]

But in all likelihood the Barretts did write the diary. What's so unbelievable that someone who claimed to have written the diary with the level of literary skill to have written it, wrote the diary?

So why was Eddie trying to flog it to a local businessman and also asking Feldman “what it’s worth” for information on the diary? Why did Eddie go with Mike to meet Robert Smith? Why did Mike need Eddie at all? He never played that card of provenance.

You are awfully convinced for a theory not all that convincing.

[erobitha]

You must be replying to another post because you havent read or answered to what was posted in the previous ones.

''Which notable authority stood next to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown during the post mortem that disputed his findings ?'' ill wait

So again Its easy to see that when the topic moves away from the dairy and watch nonsense ,and focuses on the evidence and the facts of what we know about the murders, it become increasingly obvious to most that James Maybrick wasnt JTR .

The only nonsense is by people with no ability to look beyond the superficial and make their own judgements based on actual evidence and not the opinions of others.

As much as Orsam and RJ are wrong on some rather key fundamentals, they at least try and argue with some form of evidence based debate.

Too many on here baa like sheep with no research or do any discovery themselves.

Keep on being a sheep.