Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

I should clarify here for the benefit of those who just 'pop by' occasionally that one of the central tenets of anti-Maybrickianism was always that the scrapbook was a 'shoddy' hoax. Like the ever-present 'enterprising' journalist (never knowingly undersold, that one), one could not refer to the scrapbook without the clinging epithet 'shoddy'. It was de rigueur. And - hey - possibly just one of those stereotypes and cliches that are repeated so often that people don't even realise they are falling for it!

[Iconoclast]

To be fair to PI Ike, there was also the Manchester Times and the New York Herald that mentioned an organ missing.

Of course when the hoaxer was doing his research he didn’t have the internet and there were no books yet that mentioned no heart. I believe actually Keith Skinner and Paul Begg had published Bond’s report in 1991, maybe that was the inspiration?

That Victorian scrapbook hoaxer certainly sounds like a 'shoddy' worker to me, ero b!

[erobitha]

He just had to read the Dundee Evening Telegraph from November 17, 1888. I see that now.

And they called this a 'shoddy' hoax!

To be fair to PI Ike, there was also the Manchester Times and the New York Herald that mentioned an organ missing.

Of course when the hoaxer was doing his research he didn’t have the internet and there were no books yet that mentioned no heart. I believe actually Keith Skinner and Paul Begg had published Bond’s report in 1991, maybe that was the inspiration?

[Iconoclast]

You are completely out of order.

You are accusing me of being one of the 'bandwagoners [who] leap onto any trendy new style' because I dare to say that the Dear Boss letter was not written by the Whitechapel Murderer?!

You claim that I 'just toady to the fashionistas masturbating in the corner.'

What kind of person would make such offensive remarks?

This kind.

The one whose mission in life is to defend the Maybrick scrapbook (and the Maybrick watch) against all stupidities, ill-thought out 'arguments', and fashionable misunderstandings.

[Iconoclast]

Kindly do not refer to me as 'him or her'.

I don't do that to you.

Fair point. I'm a bloke, if you're wondering. Happy to be called 'he/him' but genuinely couldn't give a **** what you choose to call me. Obviously, I don't know your gender so I (stupidly I now realise) fell back on years of saying 'him or her' when one is unsure. Could you do us all favour and just tell us how you would like to be addressed and I'll be happy to try to remember (like Maybrick, I can't promise I won't quickly forget what to me would be a very minor detail).

[Iconoclast]

No ike i just want someone to show evidence where Maybrick fits in where Dr Browns testimony states

[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

So to you also the same question applies.

Your yet to show evidence a ''Cotton Merchant'' knew how ,or learned this skill as Dr Frederick Browns expert medical opinon given under oath alludes too . So were back to speculation and conjecture and guesswork where Maybricks is concerned.

Where is the evidence James Maybrick had aquired this ''''Good Deal ''of knowledge ?

Good God, man, Fishy - here's me thinking that Dr. Brown had said that the incisions had shown clear evidence of extensive surgical knowledge and experience (to operate that quickly in the dark and what have you)!

I see now that actually we have one medic suggesting that Jack needed 'a good deal of knowledge'. Not quite the same, I think!

Three points we need you to clarify please:

1) What would Dr. Brown have said if he had been asked, "Do you mean that the killer would have needed 'a good deal of knowledge' if they were specifically targeting the kidney?".
2) Why did other medics disagree with Dr. Brown regarding the degree of 'knowledge' (skills and experience) Jack needed? Was it because he got lucky with the kidney and Dr. Brown therefore assumed he was aiming for it whilst completely arsing-up all the other mutiliations during his short criminal career?
3) Can we all go back to supporting our favourite candidates now that we've realised we aren't necessarily looking for a highly experienced surgeon?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not a problem. Job done there, I think.

By the way, on what grounds have you bought into the fashionable tendency to state that the 'Dear Boss' letter was a hoax? Maybe written by the obligatorily 'enterprising' journalist?

I do so love it when the bandwagoners leap onto any trendy new style and think they're where-it's-at-cat.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that shows 'Dear Boss' to be not written by the killer. But that's just me, you see. I stand on my own two feet and don't just toady to the fashionistas masturbating in the corner.

Oh and while I'm at it, I believe that the suggestion that Jack could have put Kelly's breast both on the table and then where he ultimately left them came from me not ero b so you're accusing me of being 'farfetched'. Now, let me politely suggest that you revise your view of Jack the Ripper. Strip away all the fashionable thoughts and the rigid orthodoxies that we've all grown up with, and just look at him as a human being. Here's what could happen:

Jack removes Kelly's breasts first. With me so far? Not too far-fetched for you yet?
He puts them on the table. He later writes "I kissed them, I kissed them, They tasted so sweet, I thought of leaving them by the whores feet, but the table it was bear [sic] so I went and left them there".
So the table quickly fills up and he thinks to put her breasts by her feet.
In reality, he puts one at her foot and one at her head.
He later reads in the newspapers that he left her breasts on the table and he forgets that he had actually moved them again.

Now, is any of this genuinely farfetched or are you just guilty of seeing him as this Madame Tussauds waxwork, one-dimensional character not the human being he actually was?

This is what I do, you see. I challenge the dumb thinking of the followers of fashion. I make you stop and think differently. I'm not a slave to all of the rock-solid assumptions that have built up over the years about Jack.

Doesn't make me popular but it undoubtedly makes me right.

You are completely out of order.

You are accusing me of being one of the 'bandwagoners [who] leap onto any trendy new style' because I dare to say that the Dear Boss letter was not written by the Whitechapel Murderer?!

You claim that I 'just toady to the fashionistas masturbating in the corner.'

What kind of person would make such offensive remarks?

[Iconoclast]

The uterus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is.
(Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888)
There was no need for the author of the diary to read Dr Bond's report in order to know about the heart.

He just had to read the Dundee Evening Telegraph from November 17, 1888. I see that now.

And they called this a 'shoddy' hoax!

[Iconoclast]

[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
Your yet to show evidence a ''Cotton Merchant'' knew how ,or learned this skill as Dr Frederick Browns expert medical opinon given under oath alludes too . So we're back to speculation and conjecture and guesswork where Maybricks is concerned.

Fishy, can you quickly point us to the evidence that shows unequivocally that Jack the Ripper was specifically looking to extract Eddowes' kidney, please, as it seems to have escaped my voluminous records on the case?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That would require someone having the capacity to think for themselves, ero b.

Can anyone help him or her make sense of the conundrum they just wandered into there?

Kindly do not refer to me as 'him or her'.

I don't do that to you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you not see how restricted your vision is? You cannot see Jack the Ripper as a human being. You have to see him as this cardboard criminal from 'Boys Own Stories'. You think we know the man inside out. This causes you to write ridiculous comments such as the above.

Wake up, man - think for yourself!

I am thinking for myself, but evidently you don't like it.

I think most people would agree with what I wrote and would consider your remarks about it and about me to be ridiculous.

[Iconoclast]

Actually, what you have done here is highlight a very good point. Not the one you were making because that's you just having an opinion on my argument.

If the no heart reference was only available in the post-mortem report which was handed back to the yard in 1987, then why did the hoaxer not also incorporate Dr Bond's location reference to the breasts?

Think about that.

That would require someone having the capacity to think for themselves, ero b.

Can anyone help him or her make sense of the conundrum they just wandered into there?

[Iconoclast]

You provided the following:


'As for the MJK crime scene, what if he did get some details wrong? If he was high on drugs, alcohol and mania, he might not remember every detail perfectly. It is very possible. He might have put them on the table, then moved them, and forgot that he did.'


That is what you actually wrote.

According to you, the murderer was so sozzled that he couldn't remember what he did with Mary Kelly's breasts.

He put them on the table and, incredibly, researchers and newspaper reports ever since have somehow divined that the breasts were originally on the table.

You then have the murderer inexplicably moving the breasts from the table and placing them under Kelly's body.

You then have the murderer forgetting that he had done that, but remembering that he had previously put the breasts on the table.


Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

Do you not see how restricted your vision is? You cannot see Jack the Ripper as a human being. You have to see him as this cardboard criminal from 'Boys Own Stories'. You think we know the man inside out. This causes you to write ridiculous comments such as the above.

Wake up, man - think for yourself!

[Iconoclast]

Please see my replies below.

I wonder how many readers would agree with you that my analysis was superficial.

Let me know if you find one.

Not a problem. Job done there, I think.

By the way, on what grounds have you bought into the fashionable tendency to state that the 'Dear Boss' letter was a hoax? Maybe written by the obligatorily 'enterprising' journalist?

I do so love it when the bandwagoners leap onto any trendy new style and think they're where-it's-at-cat.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that shows 'Dear Boss' to be not written by the killer. But that's just me, you see. I stand on my own two feet and don't just toady to the fashionistas masturbating in the corner.

Oh and while I'm at it, I believe that the suggestion that Jack could have put Kelly's breast both on the table and then where he ultimately left them came from me not ero b so you're accusing me of being 'farfetched'. Now, let me politely suggest that you revise your view of Jack the Ripper. Strip away all the fashionable thoughts and the rigid orthodoxies that we've all grown up with, and just look at him as a human being. Here's what could happen:

Jack removes Kelly's breasts first. With me so far? Not too far-fetched for you yet?
He puts them on the table. He later writes "I kissed them, I kissed them, They tasted so sweet, I thought of leaving them by the whores feet, but the table it was bear [sic] so I went and left them there".
So the table quickly fills up and he thinks to put her breasts by her feet.
In reality, he puts one at her foot and one at her head.
He later reads in the newspapers that he left her breasts on the table and he forgets that he had actually moved them again.

Now, is any of this genuinely farfetched or are you just guilty of seeing him as this Madame Tussauds waxwork, one-dimensional character not the human being he actually was?

This is what I do, you see. I challenge the dumb thinking of the followers of fashion. I make you stop and think differently. I'm not a slave to all of the rock-solid assumptions that have built up over the years about Jack.

Doesn't make me popular but it undoubtedly makes me right.

[erobitha]

No ike i just want someone to show evidence where Maybrick fits in where Dr Browns testimony states

[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

So to you also the same question applies.

Your yet to show evidence a ''Cotton Merchant'' knew how ,or learned this skill as Dr Frederick Browns expert medical opinon given under oath alludes too . So were back to speculation and conjecture and guesswork where Maybricks is concerned.

Where is the evidence James Maybrick had aquired this ''''Good Deal ''of knowledge ?

No Fishy your point was he possibly could not have this knowledge. The counterpoint is why could he not?

You proceeded to make a case that surgical knowledge was required. That in turn is required from all candidates, not just Maybrick.

It doesn't mean now we jump through a hoop of fire you made to prove Maybrick did have the knowledge. We just have to argue he might have.