Who were they?

[erobitha]

Your first point is silly, re read Dr Frederick Brown expert medical opinion under oath and his post mortem report .

Your speculating again that Maybrick somehow educated himself in the art of organ removal and where to find and remove organs from the human body .

Can you show me some evidence of the above

Can you also show evidence that a physician or surgeon who removed Eddowes kidney in 7/ 8 minutes did so under very little light available , knowing the possibility of been seen, would in fact take his time and remove an organ the same way as he would in our under controlled conditions ?

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.

[erobitha]

The police considered the possibility that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man, but dismissed it on the basis of evidence.

That's the evidence you asked for.

Where did they dismiss it?

[FISHY1118]

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.

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..

[erobitha]

Of that I am supremely confident.

There is a rather long thread going on for a very long time that actually deals with the majority of your points. Your confidence in your arguments is misguided.

You mistake me for someone who believes the diary is 100% genuine. I am a believer in the watch and agnostic on the diary being genuine. However, I do not rule it out, as the evidence is not as cut and dry as you and others believe.

Why does the writer care about what future researchers know or don't know? He writes what he wants for his own benefit. If some smart-arse poster 150 years later says he didn't tell us that Polly Nichols tripped over before she was killed, and that was never public knowledge, how would you even know it was true? Also, we do have the tin matchbox conundrum from Catherine Eddowes list of possessions. This was not publicly available information until 1987. So either the writer was a modern hoaxer who had access to such information, or it was indeed the killer.

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. Also, the reference to "no heart" was also another fact a modern hoaxer or the killer himself would know. The detail of the heart possibly being removed was in the post-mortem report, which was missing for almost 100 years before it was returned to Scotland Yard anonymously in 1987. You are bright enough to see 1987 as a common theme here. This has always led me to believe that if it was not the killer himself who wrote the diary, it is someone who knew how and where to obtain this information. That was not Mike Barrett. It also means we cannot rule it out as being genuine.

I'm not certain of the year, but we also have the fact that initials were spotted on the bedroom wall of the MJK crime scene by Simon Wood (who quickly dismissed it) but shared that initial finding with Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner. I believe in the early research for Shirley Harrison's book Martin Fido claimed he saw the M now at least, and he was a very vocal opponent of the diary. So the question is, how did the diarist know about this discovery of potential initials from this group of researchers when no mention of any such observation was ever made in any book, documentary or anything to do with the Ripper crimes? Either the hoaxer was completely lucky to just happen to discover initials independently of Simon Wood. Or one of those researchers is the hoaxer. Or that fact was known by the killer as he put the initials there. Could the hoaxer have been one of the researchers? I can't rule anything out, but I highly doubt it.

So, be as smarmy as you want, but you are not up on all the facts. Like so many, you scan the superficial and are happy to claim it as evidence.

That's your prerogative.

[erobitha]

Your first point is silly, re read Dr Frederick Brown expert medical opinion under oath and his post mortem report .

Your speculating again that Maybrick somehow educated himself in the art of organ removal and where to find and remove organs from the human body .

Can you show me some evidence of the above

Can you also show evidence that a physician or surgeon who removed Eddowes kidney in 7/ 8 minutes did so under very little light available , knowing the possibility of been seen, would in fact take his time and remove an organ the same way as he would in our under controlled conditions ?

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Conveniently missing out the blindingly obvious bit where he showed how little he cared about the chronological relevance of what he would get! How very honest of you, RJ! You must be so gutted that he was very clear in specifying 1890 - because it shows that (as you argue yourself) he wanted a genuine Victorian document but it is clear that this was to have a convincing artefact on prima facile evidence which is why he allowed an impossible year to slip in. He didn’t care. He wasn’t seeking to write a Jack the Ripper diary - he was simply seeing a Victorian book and an actual date on it would serve his purpose should the rightful owner or the polis come knocking.

I had to laugh. I just asked Mrs I to describe a blank diary and she said a book with no lines and no writing, just dates, to which I asked, “It would need dates?” to which she replied (and I kid ye not), “Well yes, otherwise it would be a notebook”!!!!!

By the way, evidence (if you really needed it) of how desperate RJ is to defend his impossible position - a diary doesn’t have dates in, that’s what’s known as a memo book!!!!

You literally couldn’t make such a facile argument up if you tried.

Hi Ike,

A quick thought on the 1890 issue.

Would a diary for the year 1890, with printed dates, have been available to James Maybrick in 1889? I'm not an expert in the history of Victorian era stationary, but diary's for the following year are available early on, particularly useful to businesses that need to plan well in advance and allow for the fact that the fiscal year runs into the following calender year. Was this the case in early 1889?

If, a theoretical question for you, the existing Maybrick diary was in a diary with 1890 on its cover would it rule out it's contents automatically, or would you be inclined to argue that an 1890 diary was available to Maybrick?

​​​​​​

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I just particularly want to address the point of “for own use”.

Denis Rader kept a coded journal of his crimes for his own use.

Leonard Lake did the same with his diary that he called ‘The Miranda Project’....



It is completely feasible the journal was written for the writer’s own posterity.

In your long reply, you managed somehow not to address my central point, namely that the Maybrick diary contains no inside information which would have been known only to the murderer and instead contains incorrect information which the murderer would have known to be incorrect.


The Maybrick diary took more than a century after its alleged author's death to see the light of day.

That takes some explaining.

How long did it take for the two diaries to which you compared it to turn up?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I won’t unpack every point you make

Of that I am supremely confident.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hence why the police were interested in Jewish butchers... So it was either a Jewish Cattle butcher or someone who had been taught or learned this technique.

Show me evidence that contradicts with any of the above.

The police considered the possibility that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man, but dismissed it on the basis of evidence.

That's the evidence you asked for.

[rjpalmer]

Ike, Old Man. One question that I forgot to pose. Do you think that someone involved in a nefarious activity might wish to disguise their request?

I mean, you don't really expect Bongo Barrett to have asked Marty Earl to find him an 1888 diary, with the insistence that the pages between August 31st and November 9th inclusive needing to be blank? You really don't expect a conman to telegraph his punch that much, even in far-off Oxford, do you?

We don't really know what Barrett discussed with Earl. We can only judge what he wanted from the advertisement Earl placed as a result of their unknown conversation.

The jury is going to see that advertisement and know that Barrett wanted a minimum of twenty piece of blank paper that would pass the forensics for the 1880s. The jury isn't going to be as starry-eyed as you, Old Man.

[rjpalmer]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, RJ. That will simply not do. I haven't even read any further in your post because I just have to stop you right there in your tracks. No-one on this planet would refer to a blank notebook as a blank diary. No-one. Not one.

You are literally defending THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER -- a blank book without dates -- and yet saying that such things are not referred to as diaries.

Use more water in your scotch, Ike, or more ice.

What is happening here is you are avoiding the fact that your 'doppelganger' theory has imploded on its first trial run. It has burst spectacularly and almost instantaneously into flames like one of Elon Musk's overpriced experimental rockets.

If the rumor got out that Eddie found an 'old book' at Battlecrease, neither the cops, nor Dodd, would have had an inkling of its contents, having not seen it.

So, your barmy idea that Mike needed to specifically request a BLANK diary falls at the first hurdle. He could have substituted any old book, filled or unfilled. He could have substituted Zane Gray's Riders of the Purple Sage.

Special pleading indeed.

Do better. Be better.

Anyway, I've said my two-bits. Enjoy your weekend. I've had enough of this circus for the month.

[Iconoclast]

I'll leave you with this, Ike: My favorite line from Mike Barrett.

"I need to go to York."

"No, really, I need to go to York, Doreen. I know I promised to deliver the diary this week, but something's come up, and I can't find...er...I'm having trouble...I... er...I really need to go to York."

Classic Barrett.

My favourite:

”The diary is genuine”.

I could have sworn he said he hoaxed it? Surely he wasn’t lying?

[Iconoclast]

What damns him is Martin Earl's advertisement. It shows what Mike wanted. It is impossible to misread it except willfully. He wanted a blank diary from the 1880s.

Conveniently missing out the blindingly obvious bit where he showed how little he cared about the chronological relevance of what he would get! How very honest of you, RJ! You must be so gutted that he was very clear in specifying 1890 - because it shows that (as you argue yourself) he wanted a genuine Victorian document but it is clear that this was to have a convincing artefact on prima facile evidence which is why he allowed an impossible year to slip in. He didn’t care. He wasn’t seeking to write a Jack the Ripper diary - he was simply seeing a Victorian book and an actual date on it would serve his purpose should the rightful owner or the polis come knocking.

I had to laugh. I just asked Mrs I to describe a blank diary and she said a book with no lines and no writing, just dates, to which I asked, “It would need dates?” to which she replied (and I kid ye not), “Well yes, otherwise it would be a notebook”!!!!!

By the way, evidence (if you really needed it) of how desperate RJ is to defend his impossible position - a diary doesn’t have dates in, that’s what’s known as a memo book!!!!

You literally couldn’t make such a facile argument up if you tried.

[Abby Normal]

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here

[FISHY1118]

No. Your arguments are based on your interpretation of statements. That is not evidence. You accuse others of being easily fooled when you can't distinguish facts from opinions.

I have case evidence that I base my opinions on . Your average Maybrician plucks things up out of thin air !!!!

Which is probably why you gave up on facts ,evidence and opinions as they don't fit the Maybrician narrative.