Who were they?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I assume that he or she is confused. When Pizer's alibi checked-out, they stopped looking for 'Leather Apron' (who just happened to be a Jewish butcher, as I recall). At that point, it must have been obvious that there was no evidence that a Jewish butcher was responsible for the crimes. Well over a century later, PI decided this meant that the police had proactively found evidence to rule out Jewish butchers. That's what happens when you don't think things through.

We are authorised by Dr. Gordon Browne, the City Divisional Surgeon, to state, with reference to a suggestion that the City and Whitechapel murders were the work of a Jewish slaughterer, that he has examined the knives used by the Jewish slaughterers, all of which have been submitted to him by the City Detectives, and he is thoroughly satisfied that none of them could have been used.

(London Jewish Chronicle, Friday 12 October 1888)


Maybe you need to think things through.

[erobitha]

We are authorised by Dr. Gordon Browne, the City Divisional Surgeon, to state, with reference to a suggestion that the City and Whitechapel murders were the work of a Jewish slaughterer, that he has examined the knives used by the Jewish slaughterers, all of which have been submitted to him by the City Detectives, and he is thoroughly satisfied that none of them could have been used.

(London Jewish Chronicle, Friday 12 October 1888)

Just in time for Kelly's murder then.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We are authorised by Dr. Gordon Browne, the City Divisional Surgeon, to state, with reference to a suggestion that the City and Whitechapel murders were the work of a Jewish slaughterer, that he has examined the knives used by the Jewish slaughterers, all of which have been submitted to him by the City Detectives, and he is thoroughly satisfied that none of them could have been used.

(London Jewish Chronicle, Friday 12 October 1888)

[FISHY1118]

In Fishy's defence, ero b, he doesn't need to produce an actual candidate who fulfils his own extremely tight criterion (singular) that they have to be an experienced surgeon with significant skills, in particular in working quickly in the dark. Dr. Brown said so so that's good enough for Fishy. Shame others disagreed with the good doctor, but there you are. Fishy doesn't need to name a name - we just need to know that Jack absolutely unequivocally had to be a surgeon of remarkable dexterity and skill. No other candidate for Jack could possibly work.

We all need to go home right now until someone eventually thinks of such a candidate and then we can start the Casebook back up again ...

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 ?

[Iconoclast]

Well there is tons of circumstantial evidence and a watch, which kind of puts him miles ahead of other candidates.

Not so much 'miles ahead', ero b, as simply 'ahead'. No other candidate has any evidence whatsoever pointing towards their guilt. They are all at zero on the Y axis.

[Iconoclast]

Where did they dismiss it?

I assume that he or she is confused. When Pizer's alibi checked-out, they stopped looking for 'Leather Apron' (who just happened to be a Jewish butcher, as I recall). At that point, it must have been obvious that there was no evidence that a Jewish butcher was responsible for the crimes. Well over a century later, PI decided this meant that the police had proactively found evidence to rule out Jewish butchers. That's what happens when you don't think things through.

[erobitha]

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.

Fair enough, they had the Dundee Evening Telegraph to fall back on.

Handy, as it will help Fishy too.

[Iconoclast]

That's like saying its impossible to rule out 100% druitt and Lechmere and any other suspect one might support.

The arguement for defending these so called suspects just so one can keep alive a theory using that type of zany logic doesn't cut the mustard anymore .

Just ask Trevor, his organ harvesting theory and his preferred suspect have been put through the wringer and found wanting, just has Maybrick has .

And his downfall has and will always be in his case and Maybrick is the evidence that which we know and refer to in regards to medical and murder scene and yes even witness testimony keeps biting such theory in the ass..

Druitt and everyone else is ruled-out by Dr. Brown's expertise, Fishy. You have told us this at great length. You can't have it both ways. Either Jack was unequivocally a brilliant surgeon or else all bets are off and we can go back to talking about anyone we want for Jack.

Which is it?

To use the wonderfully constructive expression of a poster I am delighted to no longer suffer, "Put up or shut up".

[FISHY1118]

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?

I do

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What reports between 1987 and 1992? That also did not reference the breasts locations?

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.

[erobitha]

[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 were back to speculation and conjecture and guesswork where Maybricks is concerned.

He never said the extractions were surgeon-standard. Said he knew where the organs were.

It's not impossible for a layman to know where organs are. You think it is.

No thoughts on the other victims?

[erobitha]

The fact that Dr Brown was right is certainly not irrelevant to the point you say I was 'trying' to make.

It IS the point I made!

The police did not merely note his opinion, as you put it, but realised that there was no reason to suppose that the murderer was a shochet.

Your point was that the police used evidence to halt a line of enquiry. A point you failed to show evidence for other than a medic's opinion on the murder weapon.

They interviewed 76 butchers and slaughterers in the area. Are you saying all the enquiries were stopped with immediate effect after Brown made his assessment? Where is the proof of that? That was your point.

It doesn't matter anyway, as it simply serves to back up my view, and seemingly yours, that the killer was not a slaughterman, despite what the police actually thought and did.

[FISHY1118]

Did Brown say he thought the cuts were surgeon-standard?

What about Chapman? Did you think that was surgical too?

What about what was left behind of MJK, where he had plenty of time?

As the murderer showed, there was no art in removing the organs. At best, he knew where they were and how to get to them. Does not make them a surgeon.

[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 were back to speculation and conjecture and guesswork where Maybricks is concerned.

[Iconoclast]

Your point is invalid. Can you provide me with a suspect who fulfils all your own criteria?

I'm simply saying you cannot say it is impossible to be Maybrick. It isn't.

In Fishy's defence, ero b, he doesn't need to produce an actual candidate who fulfils his own extremely tight criterion (singular) that they have to be an experienced surgeon with significant skills, in particular in working quickly in the dark. Dr. Brown said so so that's good enough for Fishy. Shame others disagreed with the good doctor, but there you are. Fishy doesn't need to name a name - we just need to know that Jack absolutely unequivocally had to be a surgeon of remarkable dexterity and skill. No other candidate for Jack could possibly work.

We all need to go home right now until someone eventually thinks of such a candidate and then we can start the Casebook back up again ...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yeah, they gave up looking for butchers.

"Chief Inspector Swanson reported that seventy six butchers and slaughterers had been visited."

Dr. Brown was a doctor. He wasn't a senior detective directing investigations. He gave his medical opinion, which was noted.

He was right, but that's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

If they stopped looking for butchers, it's because they probably ran out.

The fact that Dr Brown was right is certainly not irrelevant to the point you say I was 'trying' to make.

It IS the point I made!

The police did not merely note his opinion, as you put it, but realised that there was no reason to suppose that the murderer was a shochet.