Author: Boris
Sunday, 19 December 1999 - 01:40 am |        |
OH LEANNE!!!
I can hardly wait. My heart is just racing with breathless anticipation!! Did you know that I'm just BURSTING with desire for you? Can I be your boyfriend? |
Author: Caz
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 09:58 am | |
Hi Diana,
Your post about 'carefully laid out items' anticipated exactly where my own thoughts were leading. Would JtR have sorted through his victims' possessions between the actual killing and the mutilations, to avoid staining their few bits and pieces with his gory fingers? In which case he exercised a good deal of control before letting himself go on the dead bodies. The alternative was that he got the mutilations over and done with first, wiped his hands, then spent risky extra time he could probably ill-afford to complete his rituals. And I wonder if anyone knows what happened to MJK's 'bits and pieces' in No.13. Was Joe Barnett (or any of Mary's female companions) asked if any of her possessions seemed to be missing?
Dear Leanne, if you want anyone 'laid out' I would be more than happy to oblige, though I can't promise it would be done 'carefully'. ;-) ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana Comer
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 11:13 am | |
| I can recall my high school Biology teacher telling us we were going to cut up frogs because their anatomy was so similar to humans (I assume he meant internally -- no offense Kermit) I know nothing about the innards of a fish. Maybe a fisherman who is in the habit of dressing them out is among us? |
Author: Obvious
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 04:51 pm | |
| Ya, you cut them down the middle and pull their guts out. |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 06:22 am | |
G'day all,
If you are wondering whether fish have kidneys or not, YES they do! I looked it up in 'Encarta Encyclopedia! It's only tiny, and someone who has to rip the guts out of a fish, would have to make sure he didn't miss it!
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 07:16 am | |
| Did Encarta say where the fish's kidneys are located? Its that tricky business with the membrane that we're trying to find out about. As to reproductive organs, I would think that fish and frogs would be no help to Jack as both animals fertilize their eggs outside the body (I hope I remembered that correctly) and so the plumbing would be different (I wonder how different.) |
Author: JackisBack
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 02:56 pm | |
I wonder if this article is well known and if any of the information included has been researched and documented.
http://members.tripod.com/Magpie_IX/ripper/LANCET/lance03.html |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 08:55 pm | |
Hi, Prince Jack:
Indeed the Lancet article of 29 September 1888 that is quoted on Magpie's site is well known. The announcement of coroner Wynne Baxter caused a ruffle in the medical community of the day and has been discussed before on these boards. As quoted in the Lancet article, Baxter said: ". . . .I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was informed by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased [i.e., the victim was missing her uterus]. He stated his willingness to give £20 apiece for each specimen."
This story is used by Evans and Gainey in "Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer" to support the notion that Irish-American quack doctor Dr. Tumblety could have been the Ripper-- and it is also known that back in the States the good doctor had an anatomical collection that included a collection of uteri. However, further investigation failed to bear out the story, and that the man enquiring after the specimens was a "foreigner" rather than an American.
Best regards, P.J.,
Chris George (H.R.H.) |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 02:52 am | |
Hi, All, Diana, Leanne
Yep, fish have kidney's, but they look different (like a long red water sack) and the anatomical lay-out is different too: squashed in the broadth.
As a reminder you can click on the fish image on this site: and you can see the insides (included the kidney) without the smell.
http://courses.ncsu.edu/classes/zo442001/int_anat.html
About the mammal-animal confusion in the coroner's question. In the Lusk kidney discussion it was mentioned that they had to investigate the Lusk kidney for some detail, a particular number of pyramids, the only thing that distinguishes it from other mammals (for each species a different number). That is, the only way to distinguish if 'unpacked'. Then we are left with the need of kowledge of position, and if the difference is big enough to exclude a butcher.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: John
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 03:20 am | |
The story was that an officer at on of the 'great medical schools' had informed Baxter of the story and he attended and saw the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum. He said that 'some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing from the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged...'
Most of the main medical schools stated that no such application had been received. However, there were two important exceptions, the schools at University College and Middlesex Hospitals. Spokesmen at these two hospitals refused to elucidate the matter but it would appear that some of the details of Baxter's theory may have been correct as they 'indignantly repudiate the suggestion that it was a hoax or that the matter has no importance' and '...talk somewhat mysteriously about "the interests of justice" being imperilled by disclosure' (Daily Telegraph 29 September 1888).
This indicates that there was some basis for the coroner's theory despite a report in the British Medical Journal a week later that tried to kill off the whole story by quoting the story that the previous year a foreign physician had made some enquiries at one or two medical schools the year before. That had been eighteen months previously and was used by the BMJ to explain Baxter's theory. But, as the piece in the Daily Telegraph shows, it could not be written off so easily and may have had more to it.
Mr George's words above are a bit misleading as an American was a foreigner to the English rather than being something other than an American. It could mean any nationality, other than British, which included Americans.
So the story may well have been well founded and the British Medical Journal was merely trying to play the story down as it reflected badly on their profession. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 07:11 am | |
| I looked at the fish, Jill. Once you remove the ovaries the kidneys become visible, but they didn't say whether there was a membrane there or not. When I prepare a chicken to cook, I usually find some gloopy purplish things stuck on either side of the backbone. I suppose those must be kidneys. I'm going hunting for a human anatomy website. BTW I'm going to start just calling myself Diana. I'm just too lazy to write out the whole thing anymore. |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 09:04 am | |
Here's an illustration of a human kidney..for our greater edification.
\image
Edana |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 09:09 am | |
Ok..d'uh..it's early in the morning....trying again.
 |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 09:37 am | |
Wow Edana!
Something to wake up to in the morning. I feel like Mishter Lusk must have felt receiving the kidney in the post!!! Thanks for posting the illustration for our further edification, Edana.
Happy holidays
Chris George |
Author: Jule'stide Carol
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 03:08 pm | |
| I had no idea that human kidneys are that big. Damn, there is enough here for several day's meals. |
Author: George Lusk
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 05:42 am | |
| ONLY in cyberspace Jule'stide Carol |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 08:27 am | |
I didn't expect it to be so big.
Edana |
Author: George Lusk
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 11:26 am | |
| And I never expected the Kidney Inquisition :-) |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 24 December 1999 - 12:13 am | |
I see the ren, but where's the stimpy?
David |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 03:54 am | |
Diana,
I remembered again something about the plumbing of reptiles and amfibian, also birds. It is called a cloaca, and the only way to secrete the water, faeces and fertility material (eggs, semen) from the body. Sometimes it can have a protruding form, but everything exits the same drain. A big difference with our anatomy.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 05:55 am | |
Two leads:
1. Ambiguity. Joe Sherlock's 'House of Mirrors'.
2. Exactitude. Ivor Weillmann's 'House of Cards'.
Anyone for hyper-chess?
(I laugh...now I weep.I must try to recompose myself.) |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 09:53 am | |
And, of course,
3. Verisimilitude. A 'House of Cards' in a 'House of Mirrors'...in cyberspace! Its the ONLY game in town, kiddies.
(Jack the Ripper:Cybernaut?) |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 10:46 am | |
House Rules:
I deal!
Stakes are high...no trashy trinkets, please. You know what I want...yer SOUL.
Anyone for Blackjack? |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 01:04 pm | |
| I will give you the Whole World if you win. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 01:33 pm | |
| Did anyone understand any of that ? |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 01:58 pm | |
"They", "understood", Simon.
"They" have always "understood" who Jack IS.But "they" never believe.Never...never...never... |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 06:31 pm | |
| "give the Devil his due..." MacNaughton. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 08:23 pm | |
| If you explained it in nice clear English then we could all understand it ! |
Author: Alan Hunt
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 08:30 pm | |
| does anyone understand any of this? if so please send a stamped addressed envelope care of the Bedlam home for the clinically uninterested |
Author: Judith Stock
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 08:45 pm | |
Simon, dear, I doubt that Davidoz could make himself understood even if he did use "nice, clear English."
Sadly, I think many have refrained from posting because of Davidoz' rambling prattle. It's a shame that the boards have become a forum for him alone; how DOES one reply to what he has posted? In lieu of having more drivel posted, there are those who are waiting for Davidoz to either make himself more clear, or cease altogether.
It appears there is a great deal of thinking going on behind Davidoz' posts; I only wish he didn't try to be more obtuse with each post. A bit of clarity might make his posts worth reading and evaluating as honest opinion, or theory; as things stand now, his posts are well nigh incomprehensible. It is possible that this is his aim.
I think for now, I, and others, will remain on the sidelines watching this game; there is one player using a different rule book. I'm no coward; I just have no desire to participate in a conversation with someone who has shown no desire to communicate, which is, after all, the entire point of these boards.
Regards, Simon, and good luck to all,
Judy |
Author: JosephOz
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 01:02 am | |
Ah clarity. A journey beyond the edge of the nasal barrier.
But for the rows upon rows of numerical soldiers, marching in rank, speaking a language known but to those dedicated souls who abandoned the adventure of life for the banality of pseudo intellect; clarity has left the building Judith, it marches at the head of a vapid legion. Soon the jester's son will bring forth his eggheads tale, only to earn your attention. He is lord savant, the master philosopher, looking down upon you like a scowling father, at his idiot flock; berating you for your ignorance, while begging, no, CRAVING your acceptance. He would search the faces of the mythic gods for ways to please you, to supply a reason to hold him against your breast in approval. One word of praise from any of you is akin to the sun in his heart for a thousand years. But beware; he hears the clock in the croc, the tic, tic tic, of the clock clock clock. It has fled with his comprehension, his character, and left oblivion in its place. |
Author: Judith Stock
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 09:46 am | |
Dear Joseph,
Thanks (?) for the reply; I like your inclusion of Don Maclean and Barrie. Your post resembles the song of the Jabberwock, but I find it COMPLETELY understandable...now THAT'S a scarey thought, isn't it?
Judy |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 10:37 am | |
I find it deplorable that these boards have become Davidoz's private playground. I happen to know that Davidoz has been told by Mr. Ryder to either put up or shut up, or at least restrict his ramblings to one board. Davidoz has done neither of these things but continues to post innane drivel wasting everyone's time. I fear that he will drive away new visitors who come here looking for worthwhile conversation on the case. I would urge Stephen Ryder that if Davidoz cannot behave responsibly he should be prohibited from posting here.
Chris George |
Author: Judith Stock
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 11:53 am | |
AMEN, CG.....but I fear you are only preaching to the choir.
Judy |
Author: JosephOz
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 12:46 pm | |
Hello Ms. Stock,
I am amazed that in this universe, there exists four people who understand my screwy humor, and I am impressed with your ability to still recognize pieces of Barrie, and Maclean after I so horribly butchered their beautiful prose. :-)
Mr. George, I have a question to ask you, may I e-mail you privately?
Best Regards |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 05:06 pm | |
Hi, Joseph:
You are certainly welcome to e-mail me. Contact me at chrisgeorge@my-deja.com
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Judith Stock
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 05:23 pm | |
Rest easily, Joseph......my head is so filled with useless information that I usually do very well at the game of Trivial Pursuit.
You DID choose from one of my favorite lyricist/ songwriters, and again from a favorite author, so I had somewhat of an edge. You also had a point to make, albeit in a roundabout way, while I find Davidoz' posts incomprehensible, pointless, and not just a bit disturbing. A busy mind, going off in many directions, but eventually bringing all the various points into one locus, is one thing; a mind exploding with a big bang and simply dispersing rubbish to any and all is quite another. I found your post was of the first sort; Davidoz' posts fall well and truly into the category of the second. Therefore, I intend to ignore him and his tripe. Possibly he will fade away if no one responds to him.
Regards to all, and have a lovely weekend; we are due for more rain, cold, grey, drizzle and assorted other forms of precipitation. We are tucked up against the Blue Ridge mountains of central Virginia, and the clouds are on the ground, so I can't even SEE the mountains!! Yuck!
Judy |
Author: Diana
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 06:30 pm | |
| He craves attention. Fuss at him and he loves it. Ignore him and he'll fade away. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 06:45 pm | |
| Pull the plug I say. |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 05:03 pm | |
Sorry to say this, but, I looked in here hoping to find some interesting debate & what do I get?
Purile drivel courtesy of Davidoz.
As CG stated it easily puts new visitors off - and as fascinated as I am in the Ripper I feel that until this person is relegated to a comic book page no-one will be able to make any serious points clear.
If Davidoz has no interest in the subject - why waste his time and the message board space?
Hope to revisit soon. |
