'it was nice' Observation

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Maria.

But I still have a question, to all, but predominantly to Mr. Vanderlinden and to Tom: Pertaining to the kidney, if it was another one (as in, not from Eddowes), would you rather say grave-robbing, or contacts to a hospital/morgue? (The contacts to a morgue unpleasantly reminds me too much of an old theory by Trevor Marriott.)
I for myself would rather imagine grave-robbing or even (drum-roll) the possibility that the kidney came indeed from Eddowes, which in this instance would solve the case, but this is totally a premature thought and not to be discussed presently.

In Chief Inspector Swanson’s report on the kidney, 6 November, 1888, he had this to say:

“…it is the kidney of a human adult; not charged with fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for purposes of dissection to an hospital, but rather as it would be in the case where it was taken from the body not so destined. In other words similar kidneys might and could be obtained from any dead person upon whom a post mortem had been made from any cause by students or dissecting room porter.”

This indicates that the kidney was taken from a body that was not embalmed so it didn’t come from a robbed grave.

As for it coming from Eddowes Dr. Gordon Brown stated that the kidney showed no signs of decomposition so it must have been placed in the spirits of wine almost immediately after it was removed. As Dr. Brown gave the opinion, on 20th of October, that the kidney had not been in the preservative for more than a week while, Dr. Openshaw stated, on the 19th, that the kidney had not been in spirits for more than ten days, it seems impossible to have belonged to Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

[mariab]

Hi Mr. Vanderlinden.
I totally didn't think about embalming. And I haven't yet read the entire Ultimate, particularly for the Eddowes case. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
Plus now I'm more or less convinced that the Lusk kidney was not from Eddowes, esp. since 3 weeks in alcohol vs. 1 week alone would have made a real difference, detectable even in the Victorian era.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

For thrillers, surely Frederick Forsyth is the way to go?

Adam, we aren't talking about a hoax organized by the entire WVC collectively, but just by 2 leaders.

I'm aware of that, but where do they get the half a human kidney from? Does the medical student theory fit in here, or some crazy mortician or doctor? They also have to post the parcel, perhaps a postal service workers recognises them and/or the parcel?

The point is Maria that you can't say that only a couple of people were involved, because if it really was from the MEVC, more than that would have had to be involved or at least have knowledge of it, and that opens the door for an ugly can of worms being opened down the track - maybe not in 1888 but it would have had serious consequences even years later.

It's like the primary school class who all know who stuck the drawing pin in the teacher's chair....

Am I hallucinating?! First of all, you haven't proved your point about a 20' min. gap, Adam, and second of all, weren't you asking around for a source mentioning a 10'min. gap for the better part of a year, and when Chris Phillips provided that source a couple months ago, it turned out that the report in question was published TOGETHER in the same newspaper with one of the sources you were quoting? Which makes this either a real hilarious story, or an hypocritical approach by yourself...

I'm so glad to hear that I didn't prove my point about a 20 minute gap, as I don't recall ever even mentioning a 20 minute gap.

Judging by your recent performances on the Berner Street related threads, which in itself is quite "hilarious", i'd suggest you be piping down and keeping what shards of dignity you may still have left.

Tom:

No clue what you mean, unless you'r suggesting that I refuse to acknowledge that Fanny Mortimer is a likely Ripper suspect? I do refuse to acknowledge that. If you mean your strange unsupported notion that she stood at her door for 30 minutes, I've proven time and again with evidence and a simple application of logic that she did not, nor did she say she had. How would you like to do a point/counterpoint article with me on this and then put it up to an anonymous vote with a poll here on the boards? That could be fun.

Is that a challenge, Tom? I like challenges.
Well....I don't think that a forum poll would be the way to do it though. Too many people would vote who either haven't read all of the article or haven't read it at all. Besides, you'd get people who would agree with a certain number of each of our points - the smaller points are just as important as the broader picture, so I don't think a poll is the way to sort anything out.

However! I will confess that I messaged Chris George not so long ago and informed him that in the future I would be working on a new Berner Street piece, focusing specifically on Fanny Mortimer, for Ripperologist.

So I would love to have you join me for a debate on that, Tom, and we could turn it into a point-for-point debate in the pages of Ripperologist, and then welcome discussion from members afterwards. If I remember correctly something along this line was mooted a while back.....so, are you in?

Let me know when you're ready to get started. I think I just might enjoy this.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

For thrillers, surely Frederick Forsyth is the way to go?

Actually from that era I prefer noir.

Judging by your recent performances on the Berner Street related threads, which in itself is quite "hilarious", i'd suggest you be piping down and keeping what shards of dignity you may still have left.

Sounds like you're talking in front of a mirror. :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Is that a challenge, Tom? I like challenges.

Nobody likes challenges against me, because they never win. But actually, it was more like an offer to write an essay together, and I thought a poll would make it more fun.

Well....I don't think that a forum poll would be the way to do it though. Too many people would vote who either haven't read all of the article or haven't read it at all. Besides, you'd get people who would agree with a certain number of each of our points - the smaller points are just as important as the broader picture, so I don't think a poll is the way to sort anything out.

Your low opinion of Ripperologist subscribers aside, I think it would be fun for us and the readers, and knowing ahead of time that there would be a poll might encourage readers to actually READ what we write before they tell us how wrong we both are. Plus, sharing a byline with me would increase your credibility dramatically.

Or are you concerned I’d win by a landslide? Speaking of polls, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not at the top of the popularity polls at the moment. Given the high level of politics that dominates online Ripperology, if ever there was a time to ‘challenge’ and ‘beat’ me, this would be it, but it’s a narrow window, me lad.

So I would love to have you join me for a debate on that, Tom, and we could turn it into a point-for-point debate in the pages of Ripperologist, and then welcome discussion from members afterwards. If I remember correctly something along this line was mooted a while back.....so, are you in?

It wouldn’t be a ‘debate’, it would be a point/counter-point, like Howard and Monty did in Rip a number of years ago on the graffiti. Essentially, we would pick a single question, in this case – how long did Mortimer stand at her door? We would then retire to our corners to write our differing arguments, and we would turn them into our editor, and since your editor is Chris George, I would imagine he’d be mine as well. And for the first time! Maybe we’d get to read each other’s essay before publication, or maybe not. A poll would be set up at the Casebook (do they have polls at the forums?) as the new issue came out and would run for 30 days. And yes, I would vote for myself, as is my right.

How does this sound to you? And why aren’t we having this discussion via e-mail or something?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott


P.S. If Maria 'pipes' down, should we call her Pipewoman?

[mariab]

Incidentally, both Chris Phillips and Jeff Leahy have expressed plausible ideas pertaining to a 10'min. gap for Mortimer.

It wouldn’t be a ‘debate’, it would be a point/counter-point, like Howard and Monty did in Rip a number of years ago on the graffiti.

Wow, really? Which Rip issue, if anyone recalls? I gotta read this.

If Maria 'pipes' down, should we call her Pipewoman?

Then I can nail Pipeman. :-) (Meaning, his identity.)

[Adam Went]

Maria:

You still haven't explained where my argument over a 20 minute gap is.

Tom:

Nobody likes challenges against me, because they never win.

Well then I shall enjoy it all the more for setting a precadent, Tom!

Your low opinion of Ripperologist subscribers aside,

Care to explain this comment? Yet another one which has me lost. I have nothing but respect for Ripperologist and its subscribers as well - it was, after all, the periodical which got me started in article writing 6 years ago...

Or are you concerned I’d win by a landslide? Speaking of polls, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not at the top of the popularity polls at the moment. Given the high level of politics that dominates online Ripperology, if ever there was a time to ‘challenge’ and ‘beat’ me, this would be it, but it’s a narrow window, me lad.

I couldn't care less how popular on unpopular you are, Tom - and I certainly won't be having any part of your cocky attitude towards this whole thing - what I care about is getting to the truth about this whole Mortimer saga and putting our constant debates into the pages of a periodical and opening it right up for discussion and, hopefully, a solution once and for all. I only look forward to seeing your list of excuses if things don't go your way - it seems you've already started.

Basically I think what we need to do is discuss - in private of course - and agree upon a list of questions we want to address in the piece, then as you say write our bit for each of them, and perhaps even exchange them and offer the chance for a second reply. That's up to you, obviously we don't want it dragging on forever and ever - although I know you have a penchant for writing boringly, sleep-inducingly long articles, which I also won't be part of.

As I said, PM me or e-mail me when you're ready to get started.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Adam, most obviously I referred to your 30´min. gap. You'll hopefully excuse the typo/lapsus, I'm extremely busy, single-handedly organizing an international conference in Paris for next summer with minimal sponsoring plus taking care of some additional bureaucracy pertaining to 2 different sponsorships, and I'm already pretty beat after some intense travelling. Beat enough to not require Tom's allegedely “boringly, sleep-inducingly long articles“ to collapse in bed. While I'm not convinced that a 5 pages long article with a conflicting quoting of sources is the adequate approach to Berner Street. But the best of lucks for you future article and/or double feature endeavor/duel on Ms. Mortimer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Adam,

One of the great joys in exchanging with you is how you take me so literally on everything, especially my 'cockiness'. You can't seem to tell when I'm just having fun with you. Anyway, what do YOU think the question is that we should try to answer in our write-ups?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. If Maria is Pipewoman, then who would be the unfortunate girl who would be the Broad-shouldered Broad?

[mariab]

Anyway, what do YOU think the question is that we should try to answer in our write-ups?

I think an excellent, excruciatingly important question for the future of Ripperology you two could try to resolve in your adversarial write-ups is: Should we be allowed to call Ms. Mortimer by her first name (Fanny) without blushing? I'm sure Adam would have an interesting take on this.

If Maria is Pipewoman, then who would be the unfortunate girl who would be the Broad-shouldered Broad?

I'd rather be called “the Broadshouldered Broad“ than “Pipewoman“ (yikes). The former totally fits my physical description anyway – kinda like Pipeman's physical description fits Le Grand, so maybe I was on Berner Street on the night of September 29 too after all.
To people who don't like broadshouldered broads, I'd say, if they have an hourglass figure, it looks hot. Look at the swimmwear models in the 1980s, Raquel Welch in 1 million years B.C., even Lucy Lawless. I was visiting my mom last week and she kept naggin' that I got too much arms for a chick, but that's what moms traditionally do, nag, plus truth of the matter's I was getting chubby, but since I came back home I accidentally lost 7 pounds by working all day and forgetting to eat, and I'll lose even more, as I'm going to the hills soon. Besides, I'd rather be able to carry luggage like it's nothing and paddle into a wave by a couple strokes than be a size 4 twig, 70 pounds soaking wet.
Still, I bet Tom Wescott wouldn't enjoy being in 1 million years B.C. with a Raquel Welch look-alike, cuz in that case he'd really have to re-invent Jesus Christ.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

It is one of the great mysteries of nature that your mistakes, without fail, seem to coincide with the release of an essay or the pressure of a build up to a conference. Perhaps I might suggest that if this weighs so heavily on your mind, you avoid actually posting on threads such as this until you have the time to contribute properly? After all, it's not like you're contributing anything of use at this point.

Tom:

One of the great joys in exchanging with you is how you take me so literally on everything, especially my 'cockiness'. You can't seem to tell when I'm just having fun with you. Anyway, what do YOU think the question is that we should try to answer in our write-ups?

Well, I think there's a few different questions we should be trying to answer, and not all of them necessarily related to FANNY (there you are, Maria) - again we should discuss these in private, although I wouldn't mind doing a bit more on the Pipeman theory which we've also discussed.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh Lord, let us not toture readers with more circular debates on Pipeman. Too many variables. I like the Fanny Mortimer business, cuz you think she was hanging loose in her doorway for 30 minutes, whereas I KNOW otherwise, so it's a question I feel readers will be able to walk away from satisfied that it has been answered. Besides, it's pretty obvious to most that Pipeman was Charles Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

It is one of the great mysteries of nature that your mistakes, without fail, seem to coincide with the release of an essay or the pressure of a build up to a conference. Perhaps I might suggest that if this weighs so heavily on your mind, you avoid actually posting on threads such as this until you have the time to contribute properly? After all, it's not like you're contributing anything of use at this point.

Perhaps you're not wrong.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Fair enough about Pipeman - Le Grand aside, I think you and I are in relative agreement on that topic anyway.

The main thing from my point of view, Tom - and I said this to Chris George - is that I don't want this to be virtually "A Matter Of Time: Part 2" - I want it to have as much fresh information and deal with as many new and varied issues as possible, rather than treading over the same old ground. Obviously the main focus of the work will be on Fanny Mortimer but it may be wise to slip one or two other Berner Street related topics in there.

I like the Fanny Mortimer business, cuz you think she was hanging loose in her doorway for 30 minutes

I would have thought the best starting point for a debate would be to get what your opponent is saying right first, but hey, as Fleetwood Mac once said, "you can go your own way..."

For god's sake just PM me when you're ready to get started and we can come up with some clear ideas from there.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

A comparison of the handwriting in the letter with that of a known individual might have been revealing not only in terms of letter and word formations but also with regard to spelling. Of course, I am aware that the mis-spollings could have been deliberate but if not, their duplication by a suspect would be good circumstancial evidence. (Remember Michael Caine gently persuading George Sweeny to write "The Jews" on the wall of his cell. He wrote, "The Juwes").

With the kidney, there is a third (albeit unlikely) explanation is there not? The Lusk kidney could have belonged to Eddowes and still have been a hoax perpetrated by someone who had access to the body after the killing.

Maria: the "proper red stuff", I think, was supposed to have been kept in a ginger beer bottle, not actually in ginger beer.

Best wishes all,
Steve.