Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[perrymason]

-----and this time will Kosminski be dug up maybe for a bone scan and Robert Anderson be due for canonisation:hiya: ?

Just what we need, another "Canonization". Geez. :laugh4: Im still trying to get Liz and Marys admission to the CG1888 revoked, ...please, no more "Canons" Nats...

All the best Natalie, as always.:pleased:

[caz]

What did Liz or Mary ever do to you, Perry?

You do realise that if the active serial killer got them, it was bad luck, pure and simple, while you are hell-bent on prolonging the agony by painting them as women who caused two different men, who may never have killed anyone before or since, to become so motivated that they snuffed them out in most brutal fashion.

Isn't it high time you put up or shut up? I for one am heartily sick of this totally unsupported speculation popping up on dozens of assorted threads, which does nothing constructive and can lead nowhere without any further evidence, and is akin to poking the victims where they lie with a shi**y stick.

As I think another poster said quite a while ago now, enough already. :shakehead:

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

You do realise that if the active serial killer got them, it was bad luck, pure and simple, while you are hell-bent on prolonging the agony by painting them as women who caused two different men, who may never have killed anyone before or since, to become so motivated that they snuffed them out in most brutal fashion.

You can't really be suggesting that if a woman is murdered by a man who has never killed anyone else, then that says something bad about her. Can you?

[caz]

No Chris. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm merely saying that without any evidence Perry wants to 'revoke' Liz and Mary's 'admission' so he can put them in the club where men with personal and conventional motives get their women off their backs and out of their lives, when there was a perfectly good (bad!) serial killer going round that same tiny area of the world during the same brief period of time, picking on the nearest total stranger and whacking her for absolutely no reason at all.

It says nothing at all about any of the women involved, but quite a lot about men. I'm not surprised you got confused on that point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

It says nothing at all about any of the women involved, but quite a lot about men. I'm not surprised you got confused on that point.

Sorry, but you're being far too cryptic for me. What is "it"? Which men, exactly, does it say a lot about? And what precisely does it say about them?

Are you taking exception to something specific perrymason has said, or to the questioning of the "canon" in general?

[caz]

Chris,

If you had ever given me a reason to think you might actually be genuinely interested in my opinions (of men in general, Perry Mason's posting history or murdering scumbags in particular - or any other subject for that matter), or that you might be seeking clarification, not just to be critical but so you can actually get to understand my position a little better, I might be willing to answer your questions in more depth.

In short, I don't care to see anyone (man or woman) treating others (men or women) like chess pieces on a board, for their own self-serving whims. None of the Whitechapel victims deserved to be murdered by whoever murdered them, for whatever reason. Nor do they deserve to have anyone come along 120 years later and manhandle them, with no new supporting evidence, into a different category, belonging to another unknown murdering scumbag, just to suit some pet theory that has no legs of its own.

I can't help it that the chess pieces in this case all happen to be women, and I certainly didn't determine how many of the self-serving 'movers and shakers' would be men.

If we happened to be discussing female theorists like Cornwell or Harrison, manipulating male suspects to fit their theories, or male theorists doing the same, my position would be the same: evidence please - or shut up already!

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Actually, I'm not that interested in your opinions.

I just thought the accusations you made against perrymason - that he was "hell-bent on prolonging the agony" of the victims, and that what he was doing was "akin to poking the victims where they lie with a shi**y stick" - were so offensive that I couldn't resist asking whether that was really your opinion of anyone who questioned the "canon".

Of course, I can't make you explain what you mean. But you might want to think twice before you next order someone else to "put up or shut up"!

[Tom_Wescott]

Obviously there's some bad blood here, and poor ol' Michael once again got caught in the middle. :) I think it comes down to the fact that - like it or not - Jack the Ripper is a super villain of history, and the women he allegedly killed are only known today because of him. To "remove them from the canon", so to speak, would be to erase them from history. They would no longer be relevant. I don't think this has anything to do with men or women, because we all realize this on one level or another. If they weren't killed by Jack, they were killed by a 'nobody', so they in turn become nobodies themselves (ironically, with Kate Eddowes - who gave her name to the police as 'Nobody' - being an exception). I also believe that on some level we all know the five canonical victims were felled by the same man, but in a race to be different or original, we argue underdog theories without thinking them through objectively first.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Actually, I'm not that interested in your opinions.

Don't give me a shock like that, Chris. You could have given me a heart attack. :lol:


Of course, I can't make you explain what you mean. But you might want to think twice before you next order someone else to "put up or shut up"!

Nope. You can't make me do either.

Put up or shut up, Perry. If you have nothing to back up your strange desire to 'revoke' Liz and Mary's 'admission', I'm not overly keen on reading the next thousand posts about it from you - especially not on this thread!

I don't know if Chris genuinely can't wait for more of the same from you these days. But you may have to brace yourself for the possibility that he is only waiting for his next chance to be offended by me and to reach for the smelling salts. Meanwhile, I'll carry on being offended by writers who manipulate the murder victims for no apparent reason other than to stroke their own egos.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Nope. You can't make me do either.

?

I said you might want to think twice before ordering other people to "put up or shut up", as you so often post these rather pathetic bits of cryptic innuendo, and then refuse to explain them.

But I didn't think for a moment that you would.

[harry]

Mike I'll take the heat off you and have it slung my way.I have no sympathy for those victims in the way they lived,it was their choice,but I do not in any way condone the manner of their deaths.

[Pirate Jack]

Mike I'll take the heat off you and have it slung my way.I have no sympathy for those victims in the way they lived,it was their choice,but I do not in any way condone the manner of their deaths.

Are you suggesting that poverty is a life style choice?

Pirate

[Victor]

Are you suggesting that poverty is a life style choice?

Are you suggesting that most of the victims didn't chose to drink themselves stupid? Fire-engine impersonations and all.

[The Good Michael]

Victor,

It isn't always as simple as this choice or that choice. Poverty and poor social conditions make for fewer choices, and often things like drinking are the only solace one can take.

Mike

[Ally]

Oh what total bleeding heart balls. The "only solace" they could take... Yeah because you know...drinking, which leads to penury and having to whore yourself to keep your "solace" is really the only outlet for being poor. If you are poor, heroin is the only solace one can take. If you are poor, shooting a whole bunch of rich people is the only solace you could take.

Most of these woman started out in much better circumstances than they ended up in, and they ended up there by their own choice: to drain the bottle.

[babybird67]

but if we could only feel empathy for people who always made 100% the right choices in life, there wouldnt be many people who we could feel empathy for.

[Rob Clack]

Annie Chapman had a good life in Windsor and she through it all away because she liked a drink. Mary Ann NIchols had a good life until she stole from her employers. While they don't deserve to have died the way they did. These women weren't angels.

Rob

[The Good Michael]

Ally,

so it's always as easy as that, eh? Black and white. That means everyone has the same intellectual capacity to make good choices. I don't think so. Some folks aren't equipped for that, for whatever reasons.

Mike

[halomanuk]

We will never know what went on throughout any of these women's lives so it's pointless attributing any judgement on them...and this is heading off topic.

[Pirate Jack]

To place them all in the same category is simply ignorance of the historical facts. I can strongly recommend, “The Victims of Jack the Ripper” by Neal Stubbings Sheldon.

I noted while Ally dragged their characters through the mire without sympathy, that she failed to recognize their broken marriages, the stillborn children or the social realities of the life for women in 1888. But then the queen of mean was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has no comprehension of the hardship and brutality that these women went through.

No doubt we will hear the usual voices saying that you cannot romanticize these women’s lives, which is true to some extent. But we can seek to find out more about the world they lived in and have some historical understanding of the way they lived then instead of trying to compare it with our own cushtie lives we live today, as Ally always does.

Pirate

[Ally]

You mean their broken marriages that ended because they drank themselves stupid? Every one of these women started in much better circumstances and it was their drinking that brought them down. There aren't a whole lot of choices for addicts these days either.

And yes, the social realities of women in the 1800's were limited: but the fact remains these women had better options and they pissed them away. Stillborn children happen to millions upon millions of women. They don't all choose to throw themselves in the gutter as a result.

[Victor]

...she failed to recognize their broken marriages, the stillborn children or the social realities of the life for women in 1888.

Broken marriages because they chose to drink.

And the chance of stillborn children increases the more that's drunk.

I'm not judging them for chosing to drink, I like an odd tipple myself, but I chose not to drink to excess, and make myself vulnerable.

[Tom_Wescott]

The author of the book NOT currently being discussed in this thread happens to own a pub.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[halomanuk]

I tried to point out the 'off topic 'ramblings earlier Tom,
All the best,
Chuck

[Pirate Jack]

Broken marriages because they chose to drink.

You dont know that as fact. Its only speculation. While its probable in Annie Chapmans case, there is some potential evidence that Poly Nichols husband was having an affair while she was pregnant. It's most probable that Kelly's husband was killed in a mining accident. We dont actually know when or why exactly these women turned to drink and to what extent.

And the chance of stillborn children increases the more that's drunk.

While this is true, alcohol is also a good sterilizer and may have reduced the chance of infection to some level. Water from the pumps was not clean. Of course as tea became cheaper boiling the water also worked.

I'm not judging them for chosing to drink, I like an odd tipple myself, but I chose not to drink to excess, and make myself vulnerable.

For what ever reason they all drank, at what point one becomes an alcoholic I'm not certain?

However this was an age when women had no vote, no rights and no income if they left their husbands, there was no social security or free money. You got money in whatever way was possible. And for these women that meant prostituting themselves, cleaning, selling nick nacks, hop picking. Whatever turned up. They lived from day to day and often went hungry.

To try and moralize about the way they lived is ridiculous, sat in your soft centrally heated houses. They didn't choose their poverty they slipped into it over a number of years as did thousands of women in similar positions of that period.

I'm not making out these women were saints, but they were ordinary people who for differing reasons found themselves on the streets and Vulnerable to a brutal serial killer. To try and claim in any form that “they had it coming to them’ or ‘they bought it on themselves’ is just ignorance of the facts.

They were victims.

Pirate

PS Yes 'the old Plantation inn'

[babybird67]

to Ally, it's not about excusing personal responsibility. It's about understanding that not all choices are freely available to all, that human actions do not exist in an existential vacuum, but are situation and context-specific.

Think of any decision you have made in your own life...was there one motivating factor for and one against (the black/white theory), or were there a myriad of possibilities all competing for your attention, and seeking for you to weave from their interaction a suitable choice?

And what constitutes a suitable choice? From whose perspective? If i make a choice that would make me happy, should i still choose it if it makes somebody else unhappy? What if there are a myriad of people affected by my choice? That too impacts on how one lives one's life, for good or bad...etc

People who have made bad choices are not necessarily bad people.

People who have made bad choices need support around them, to encourage them to learn how to make better choices in life. Nobody learns from being written off. Nobody benefits.

Human beings and the lives we live are far too complex for a black and white attitude towards human choice...novelists would be out of work if this were not so.

[Pirate Jack]

Thomas Hardy would certainly be out of a job :laugh4:

http://www.pubutopia.com/pubs/M/Maidstone/Bearsted/Old%20Plantation%20Inn/

contains photo of said pub

[Tom_Wescott]

However this was an age when women had no vote, no rights and no income if they left their husbands

Cue the song 'Those Were The Days'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

And all that's really nice and fluffy and cute. And completely irrelevant. There is a bottom line. A choice is made. All the other stuff is actually irrelevant:

You do something or you don't. You choose to do A or you choose not do A. A is A. Period. A choice, at some point, regardless of all the external influence and internal wrangling is made. And forever after that, you and you alone bear the responsibility for your choice.

Whether they were "bad" people or not is irrelevant. Whether you believe in judging them for their status in life, or exonerating them or take the middle ground that their lives were their lives to be led as they saw fit and their choices were their choices is all irrelevant.

The bottom line is this: they made their choice in life and who are you to deny them that? People constantly want to reduce these women and all other people like them to the status of perpetual victims. That's all they are to you. They aren't people who have brains, lives or ability. They are just poor, pathetic endless victims who can't be expected to make good decisions for themselves because they were poor, or their mommy didn't love them or they were abused. All of that is irrelevant. They were people who had choices that they had to make. No one on this planet has a unique experience. Everyone is victimized to one degree or another. Everyone has to make choices of what they are going to do with their lives. And everyone is responsible for the choices that they make regardless of any external factors.

Not every poor woman became an alcoholic. Not every poor woman became a whore. Not every poor woman became an alcoholic whore. Those that did, made choices. And they bear the responsibility for those choices and I am not obligated to feel sympathy for the lives of women when they have done nothing to deserve sympathy in their lives. They abandoned children. They had to be PAID to tend to their sick children. The stole. They were NOT sympathetic women. And I am not going to pretend a false sympathy for their lives just because of the tragic circumstances surrounding their death.

[babybird67]

lol!!

[Tom_Wescott]

People constantly want to reduce these women and all other people like them to the status of perpetual victims.

People who view themselves as perpetual victims want to do the same to others. The truth is, our best thinking is what's got us all to where we are at. We always have the choice to improve our thinking and thus our situations. Does that mean we shouldn't feel sympathy for those on the outs? Of course not. But we shouldn't make excuses for them either. Excuses are a roadblock to improvement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

you speak about things that are irrelevant...and you misunderstand once again what i am trying to say.

I am not making excuses for anyone. I am stating that one can have empathy for people, even people who have demonstrably made the wrong choices. Nobody gets to become a better person from outright condemnation. People know when they have been given up on...that's when they give up on themselves.

I am not saying people should not be personally responsible for the choices they make either. I am saying that in order to get them to the point where they UNDERSTAND that there are other choices and that they CAN make alternative choices, you need to understand and empathise, not condemn.

I say again...choices are not made in an existential vacuum; they are context-specific. The context of someone who is poor will not throw up as many, or the same, choices as someone who is more well off.

How do we help anyone make better choices if we just write them off?

There is a difference between EMPATHY and SYMPATHY, by the way.

But we differ fundamentally on this issue...and we digress...

[Ally]

Yes empathy and sympathy are completely different and you can't possibly have empathy for these women as empathy is something that none of us are remotely capable of feeling since their life circumstances are vastly alien to any of ours.

And if you can feel sympathy for women who abandon their children and have to be paid in order to take care of them when they are sick, then you certainly do expect less of people than I do.

[babybird67]

i can empathise with people whether i share their experiences or not. As i said in chat, i had an impoverished childhood, with an abusive step-father...i can see how easy it would be for anyone to make a few wrong choices and not see a way back. And, like i said, without empathy, without being able to arouse empathy, very few novelists would be in work...nobody would care.

I can feel sympathy for the way they died without morally approving of all the life choices they made.

[Tom_Wescott]

Babybird,

What's the story behind your tag? Is that a joke or do you sincerely believe yourself as a weak-minded person?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Chumley]

an interesting side debate, i think you all have a point. These ladies chose their lives, they were hard women, who took from life what they wanted. Cicumstance and society had its part to play, as does the roll of the die, sometimes people are plain unlucky. it might be said that these ladies were unlucky to meet their end in they way they did, their choice of work put them in that situation. i do not think an empathy is the correct term as put by Ally previously, but one can feel sympathy for another human being who has lost their life, whatever the circumstances may be

[babybird67]

Babybird,

What's the story behind your tag? Is that a joke or do you sincerely believe yourself as a weak-minded person?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

and a long story...i will PM you with it if you are truly interested...my tag will be changing soon...i've changed it already about six times since i joined.

[Pirate Jack]

You do talk utter tosh Ally…I’m born in Ethiopia during a famine.

Do I

a) Buy a ticket to the USA make a film about poverty and Marry a millionaire.

b) dig a well, irrigate the land, grow a huge crop and feed my fellow man

c) Bake bread from oats and bake them into cakes

d) Die of starvation like everyone else

While your figuring out the potential life style choices I’ll leave you to the romantic notion that everyone has unlimited choice. The fact is they do not.

I think Woody Allan said “people don’t like admitting the existence of LUCK because it means relinquishing control. If I’d been born in Germany I’d be a lamp shade by now.”

The fact is that life on the whole is about luck. And most of us just got lucky. Choice is largely the requisite of the rich. Unless of course you’ve done one of those American life style courses like the Landmark Forum..” I choose Vanilla ice-cream.” anything is possible sought of courses, like a giant sperm whale heading towards the earth trying to contemplate its existence only moments before hitting the earth.:laugh4: ..it's luck.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Babybird,

I figured as much, just had to ask due to the tone of the discussion. :)

Pirate,

Paul Stanley of KISS says, "It's funny how the harder you work, the luckier you get." It's true that some people just don't have a chance, but that's not the case for 95% of us, and certainly was not the case for the Ripper victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

em·pa·thy (mp-th)
n.
1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.

No approval is required to approve ethically of the person one is empathising with.

[Ally]

You do talk utter tosh Ally…I’m born in Ethiopia during a famine.

......

While your figuring out the potential life style choices I’ll leave you to the romantic notion that everyone has unlimited choice. The fact is they do not.



No, you are full of idiocy Leahy and once again, your inability to comprehend what you read makes you look like an idiot.

I never said people have unlimited choices. I said in every circumstance they have * A * choice. A person in Ethiopa still has a choice. They can work hard scrabble and do their best to survive and maybe they make it and maybe they don't, but if they lay down in the gutter and don't even try, they definitely aren't going to make it.

And these woman that we are discussing ALL had better circumstances and ALL had better options that they CHOSE to piss away.

[Tom_Wescott]

Leahy? Is that Pirate's name?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

Babybird,

I figured as much, just had to ask due to the tone of the discussion. :)

no problem Tom. I hope the tone is passionate but respectful. I respect Ally's views and her right to have them, whilst totalling believing she is wrong!:laugh4:

By the way, don't my postings demonstrate i dont have a weak mind? :1tongue:

[Ally]

Jen,

I noticed you searched around till you found the most simplistic and reduced definition of empathy you could find, one that doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of what the word empathy actually means.

Try this one: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner ; also : the capacity for this

[Tom_Wescott]

Babybird,

You don't seem stupid at all, but perhaps a bit naive. I think Ally is offended by naive women with rose-colored glasses. Or at least women she perceives as such. I can understand that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

no, rather lazily i didnt search around at all...i just picked the first one thrown up by my PC as i am multi-tasking talking to Steve in the chatroom!


And i agree - the definition of empathy IS very complex and throws up complex, intricate emotions...reflecting the complexity of the human mind and the complexity of making choices in the random and chaotic world in which we live.

I can empathise with the victims without having moral approval of everything they did. Empathy is not about exoneration or excusing...it is about UNDERSTANDING.

[Pirate Jack]

No, you are full of idiocy Leahy and once again, your inability to comprehend what you read makes you look like an idiot.

I never said people have unlimited choices. I said in every circumstance they have * A * choice. A person in Ethiopa still has a choice. They can work hard scrabble and do their best to survive and maybe they make it and maybe they don't, but if they lay down in the gutter and don't even try, they definitely aren't going to make it.

And these woman that we are discussing ALL had better circumstances and ALL had better options that they CHOSE to piss away.

No Ryder it is you that are missing the point. Are you trying to agrue? that 'luck' is not the intrinsic igreedient of existence?

Because what ever their choices, the percentage odds of bumping into the notorious serial killer of all time at that particular moment in history seems almost infinitively high. And luck surely dictates what choices we will be faced with?

Let go the control freak within you

Pirate

[babybird67]

Babybird,

You don't seem stupid at all, but perhaps a bit naive. I think Ally is offended by naive women with rose-colored glasses. Or at least women she perceives as such. I can understand that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yep, probably guilty as charged. I probably AM naive. But so what? It takes all sorts to make the world go round, doesn't it? I am sure a world full of Allys would be heavenly to some, but maybe hellish for others?

I tend to be idealistic, and optimistic, where others perhaps are more realistic and pessimistic.

I have teaching as my background, hence my belief that learning comes from growing within a supportive atmosphere, not one where the first foot you put wrong brings you unstinting condemnation and a "you deserve what you get" attitude.

A cursory glance at the varied contexts that people around the world grow up in belies the suggestion that good choices are always available to all. They are not. Neither is everyone equipped equally to make those choices.

Choice, or the lack of it, is situation and context-specific. There are no hard and fast rules, absolute truths or moral imperatives in that sense; each person must be judged within their own context and the choices available to them at that time.

And once again, moral approval is not necessary to the experience of empathy.

best wishes

[Ally]

No Ryder it is you that are missing the point. Are you trying to agrue? that 'luck' is not the intrinsic igreedient of existence?

Because what ever their choices, the percentage odds of bumping into the notorious serial killer of all time at that particular moment in history seems almost infinitively high. And luck surely dictates what choices we will be faced with?

Let go the control freak within you

Pirate

I really should stop attempting to have conversations with the mentally defective who can't comprehend simple concepts. No, luck doesn't have anything to do with how a person lives their life. Choice does.

You are talking about random death. A person can get hit by a meteor or struck by lightning or be killed by a serial killer or a mob on the street and that relates to CHANCE, random circumstances beyond control. But chance has nothing ..absolutely NOTHING to do... with the choices they make in how they live their lives.

[Ally]

Tom,

I am just as offended by bleeding heart, excuse for everything, poor victims of the world men as I am women. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to the perpetual cycle of finding excuses for what people choose to do.

[babybird67]

Tom,

I am just as offended by bleeding heart, excuse for everything, poor victims of the world men as I am women. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to the perpetual cycle of finding excuses for what people choose to do.

why do you persist in misrepresenting my opinion?

I have never used the word "excuse" or suggested that excuses should be made for anyone, and i would be grateful if you could stop implying that i have. You do not have to resort to misrepresenting someone to win an argument: your intellect is stronger than that.

What i have said, is that one can have empathy for others, and try to understand how their lives turned out as they did: this does not absolve any of them of the responsibility for their own choices; it does however acknowledge that all choices are not available to all people at all times.

[Ally]

You say tomato, I say tomahto. There is no way I could ever have empathy for anyone who lies, cheats, steals and abandons children as a natural part of their lives.

The absolute only way I can see ANYONE being able to have empathy for a person like that is if they somehow are able to rationalize and excuse the behavior.

We aren't talking about having empathy for children or real victims. We are talking about having empathy for people who made choices, and the only way I can possibly see anyone having empathy under those circumstances is if they have exonerated them for their choices.

Could you feel empathy for a child molester?

[Pirate Jack]

Then I suggest you try reading "Brim stone and treacle' By Dennis Potter

The fact is that from good choices often comes bad, and vice versa.

Our chioces, good or bad, like existance, are all just a question of luck..Unless of course your Obeone Canobe..

I will leave you to your fixed and bleak version of the world Ally

Byee :hiya:

Pirate

[Ally]

I have a much less bleak view of the world than you do. I believe that men and women who encourage their strengths and put down their weaknesses can build a good future. You seem to think that no matter what we do it's all meaningless and random and up to chance, which means nothing that we do matters.

I would say your interpretation of life is much more pessimistic than mine.

[babybird67]

You say tomato, I say tomahto. There is no way I could ever have empathy for anyone who lies, cheats, steals and abandons children as a natural part of their lives.

The absolute only way I can see ANYONE being able to have empathy for a person like that is if they somehow are able to rationalize and excuse the behavior.

We aren't talking about having empathy for children or real victims. We are talking about having empathy for people who made choices, and the only way I can possibly see anyone having empathy under those circumstances is if they have exonerated them for their choices.

Could you feel empathy for a child molester?

The fact remains Ally that never have i used either the word or the concept of excuse in any of my postings in relation to this topic, nor did i used it in the chatroom when we were discussing this earlier.

Why do you keep confusing empathy with moral opprobrium or approval? Ethical considerations are not what empathy is about. Empathy is about seeking to understand the set of circumstances which lead the human beings embroiled in those circumstances to make the choices, good or bad, that they make. Only by seeking an understanding as to how those choices were arrived at, can you seek to help and resolve issues which lead to bad choices being made.

Take people who study serial killers. They are seeking an understanding of what led that person to become a serial killer; all sorts of constants and variables are recognised, and from building up the picture, such commonalities as early childhood abuse and its link with later criminality, can be identified, and then, once identified and understood, tackled by society. One doesnt have to approve of murderers to seek out an understanding of how and why they became what they became.

Once again, i have not, nor do i wish to, exonerate or excuse any of the victim's bad choices; i would like to understand them, however, and it is only by feeling an empathy with what life may have been like for them that this is possible, imo.

Now i am going for a break! Much as i enjoy a philosophical battle, it is still tiring!

see you later

[Mr Chumley]

Bet old Jack would love this debate over his deeds, did he have a choice, was it chance, luck,insecure potty training or random chaos theory that led to him to that eventful juxtaposition in the cosmos...the hang on have i just empathised with him

[Ally]

Because while you keep using the word empathy to describe what you say you are debating, you are in fact not debating empathy, you are debating sympathy. It doesn't matter what word you use in specific, especially as you persist in using the wrong word, it is the nature of the argument is what is being debated.

[Pirate Jack]

I have a much less bleak view of the world than you do. I believe that men and women who encourage their strengths and put down their weaknesses can build a good future. You seem to think that no matter what we do it's all meaningless and random and up to chance, which means nothing that we do matters.

I would say your interpretation of life is much more pessimistic than mine.

Thats because you don't understand LOVE. You can not control LOVE.:love:

[Mr Chumley]

whats love got to do with it

[Ally]

It's got nothing to do with it. It's just leahy's retardation and mental deficits trying to derail the conversation with inanity again.

[Mr Chumley]

dont hold back sister

[Pirate Jack]

touched a nerve there me thinks :laugh4:

[Mr Chumley]

probably, but the vitreol was flowing in bucket loads and there seemed nothing like an inane comment to break the surf so to speak, any way I get much information and thought provoking ideas from you well informed chaps working through a difficult, and obviously empassioned subject..now back to work the lot of you and on with the thoeries..right sailors hats turn up several times in witness accounts anyone else fancy a punt on him being a local who went off to sea and came back for some local carvery

[Pirate Jack]

Are you suggesting that trying to find the identity of Jack the Ripper is more fun than Ally baiting?

Your right about one thing..there is work to get done..its been a long afternoon rendering :reading:

Good luck with your quest Mr Chumley

Pirate

[Mr Chumley]

me thinks Ally baiting is a dangerous game, I will try and get some more research done when i get a week off soon, and may post a little for your crows nest
as always
your obedient servant

[Tom_Wescott]

It's got nothing to do with it. It's just leahy's retardation and mental deficits trying to derail the conversation with inanity again.

Oh, and here I thought it was just a second hand emotion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Leahy,

Ally baiting? is that what's it called when you expose your stupidity for the world to see again, and again and again? I'll go with it. Nothing I can resist more than an idiot attempting to sound intelligent.

Thanks for volunteering to be the moron du jour. Although I hope tomorrow's selection is a slightly higher caliber. Anything with a sub-room temperature IQ isn't as much fun as someone with some slight wits.

[Ally]

Tom,

You should have gone with "sweet old fashioned notion" line. More in line with the schmaltzy sentimentalism that takes the place of reason that's on display.

[Tom_Wescott]

Jeff Leahy. That name rings a bell. Oh well, he's Pirate Jack to me. I'm not surprised he's the 'sensitive' type since he seems to want to find himself on a ship called the Gaylleon with a bunch of sweaty men. I'm afraid I just can't empathise with that. :laugh4:

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

Ally, i am using the word empathy to mean understanding of the context in which someone finds themselves. It has nothing to do with pitying someone or saying, "Oh poor victim." It is less emotional than that.

It has no moral bearing or judgemental bearing on what they have done.

It also has nothing to do with exonerating or excusing behaviours.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a MUCH better and cooler sig, Birdy. Now, enough with the empathy talk. That's getting on my head. You girls need to fight about something new now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pirate Jack]

Hey, she’s called the ‘Black Pearl’ (no seriously my boat is called the Black Pearl) yesterday’s photo’s on facebook..I hope your not being homophobic Tom:scratchchin:

Seriously Ally, you do this all the time. You take the lives of these women and compare them to your own life, I’ve lost count on podcast the amount of times you start…well me and my brother, when I was six..

I doesn’t work. It is the job of a historian to put these women in Historical context. And that simply means by definition that there choices were different and within those afforded them, their class and their time period.

As you point out these women were no angels but to make assumption about them as mothers or wives or as prostitutes and compare them to your own experiences is simply bad Historical analogy. Quite honestly your opinions of them are irrelevant but it is simply not the case that they bought their rendezvous with destiny upon themselves.

Meeting Jack the Ripper was simply bad luck, pure and simple.

And while as you say they had choices there choices were restricted by there moment in history. A good historian therefore has to try and put their lives in historical context.

If you wish to sit in some form of divine judgment that is up to you. I have no interest, however I do believe that there is a responsibility to put there lives in context and for them each to be treated as individuals instead of being lumped into one miss-leading catch phrase…or constantly portrayed as ciphers.

In short these women were real people, we can only try and understand what we can from historical record about them and from what we can glean from the historical record of the period they existed in as a whole.

Pirate

[Ally]

So then you could have empathy for a child molester? Correct?

[babybird67]

<curtsies>

Life would be boring if we all thought the same and there was nothing to argue about! Imagine the threads here.... "I think A..." followed by 300 replies all saying, "So do I."

Room 101 anyone?

have a good evening Tom (I'd put a smiley face here but the laughing ones look like they are mocking and the smile one looks like it is too smug....this is the one that most expresses benevolent wishes i think....:hiya: )

[babybird67]

So then you could have empathy for a child molester? Correct?

how many times? You can have empathy for the situation, without any moral comment at all on the person or their behaviours! Stop trying to make it emotional and ethical...it isn't.

[Tom_Wescott]

I hope your not being homophobic Tom

Scared of a little ol' fag? Perish the thought! As for Ally, when did she 'pass judgement'? She just disagreed with the idea that these women had no control over their destinies. I completely agree, particularly in the case of THESE women who all came from better circumstances.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

[QUOTE]
Seriously Ally, you do this all the time. You take the lives of these women and compare them to your own life, I’ve lost count on podcast the amount of times you start…well me and my brother, when I was six..


Uh wrong. I have mentioned my brother ONCE when discussing waving a knife at someone. I have never attempted to compare my life with theirs. So don't exaggerate and don't make up crap that isn't supported by fact.

As you point out these women were no angels but to make assumption about them as mothers or wives or as prostitutes and compare them to your own experiences is simply bad Historical analogy.

I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions.

Quite honestly your opinions of them are irrelevant but it is simply not the case that they bought their rendezvous with destiny upon themselves.


And once again you completely misrepresent the argument as being one that is limited to the causation of their death. No one has said that the way they lived their lives meant they deserved to die. WE are not talking about their deaths. WE are talking about their lives. I realize for people like you, who see them as nothing more than victims and only worthy of note because of how they died, this is a hard distinction for you to make, but we are not talking about their manner of death. Once again, for hopefully that last time and with the fervent hope that repetition can penetrate even the thickest and most obtuse skulls: We. Are. NOT. Talking. About. Their. Deaths.

Got it now? Can you try to keep up?



If you wish to sit in some form of divine judgment that is up to you. I have no interest, however I do believe that there is a responsibility to put there lives in context and for them each to be treated as individuals instead of being lumped into one miss-leading catch phrase…or constantly portrayed as ciphers.


You are the one who is lumping together in the perpetual victim category. YOu are the one who refuses to see them as individuals. So this is a really feeble argument you are trying to make here, considering it is what you are doing and saying shouldn't be done.

[Ally]

how many times? You can have empathy for the situation, without any moral comment at all on the person or their behaviours! Stop trying to make it emotional and ethical...it isn't.


You didn't actually answer the question. SO you could have empathy for a child molester? Yes or no?

And no, you can't have empathy with a situation, it has to be with a person.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Whats this the slagging off thread?,
What is the motive?
I dare say it started of with good intentions, but i hate all this bickering, its so off putting especially for perspective newcomers, that have just joined, or considering becoming members.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's the $39,000 question, Richard. It might be offputting to newcomers but it's the main reason a lot of us old hands stick around. :scratchchin:

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Richard,

I think pointing out that certain posters are morons can only help guide newcomers. However, if this thread is so off-putting, I heartily endorse your decision not to participate in it.

[John Bennett]

If I was a newcomer to these boards and saw this thread (and several others recently), I think I'd give 'Ripperology' a wide berth.

[Ally]

Good, sort the wheat from the chaff. Timid people never make for interesting debate.

[richardnunweek]

Hi John,
That is a echo of my thoughts, this is not a difference of a opinion thread, it is a free for all, that should be continued in chat.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, to anyone thinking like that, I have only one thing to say...

www.zodiackiller.com.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

It's just turning into mud-slinging. The boards are getting more clogged with never-ending circular arguments and insults.

[Ally]

Actually it should be continued wherever the participants wish to continue it and if you want to be hall monitor be prepared to get trampled. We are all adults here, of our own volition, choosing to participate and we don't need someone wagging their finger at us and telling us how we ought to be behaving.

If you don't like it, don't post here. But you aren't exactly adding anything constructive or changing the tone by picking another fight.

[Pirate Jack]

I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions.

Yes this is my whole piont. They abandoned their children? who is they? there marrages broke up because of alcohol abuse?

Who is this they? News flash..they were all different.

And once again you completely misrepresent the argument as being one that is limited to the causation of their death. No one has said that the way they lived their lives meant they deserved to die. WE are not talking about their deaths. WE are talking about their lives. I realize for people like you, who see them as nothing more than victims and only worthy of note because of how they died, this is a hard distinction for you to make, but we are not talking about their manner of death. Once again, for hopefully that last time and with the fervent hope that repetition can penetrate even the thickest and most obtuse skulls: We. Are. NOT. Talking. About. Their. Deaths.

Got it now? Can you try to keep up?

Again Ally you are running your own agenda without listening to what people are saying..you assume that because another poster has said one thing I am saying the same..I am not. I certainly don't only see these women as victims..I seek to view them as they deserve, as individuals. So perhaps you should..."try and keep up"

You are the one who is lumping together in the perpetual victim category. YOu are the one who refuses to see them as individuals. So this is a really feeble argument you are trying to make here, considering it is what you are doing and saying shouldn't be done.

No Ally I see these women as people, warts and all. The difference between you and I is that I seek to view them in their Historical context not because of something that happened in my childhood.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

It's just turning into mud-slinging. The boards are getting more clogged with never-ending circular arguments and insults.

Have you applied to Stephen to be Admin? If this particular issue is that important to you, then perhaps that's what you should do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions. '

But surely, Ally, that was the norm?
Being murdered for it was not.
So are you not judging the usual by the unusual?
I remember one case I found last year from the LVP where a French maid in a respectable household was impregnated by the wealthy owner, and rather than suffer the shame of childbirth outside of marriage she took that freshly born child and cleaved it neatly in two from head to groin then shoved it in the drain.
So is murder a better option than social stigma?
I get the impression this is what you are trying to say.

[John Bennett]

Have you applied to Stephen to be Admin? If this particular issue is that important to you, then perhaps that's what you should do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, I wouldn't be so bold.

[Tom_Wescott]

John, what do you mean?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

John, what do you mean?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I was merely (but rather forthrightly for me) stating an opinion about the aggro, as many have done over time. However, I would not presume to push myself upon Stephen's long-standing setup.

I guess I just felt that I wished folk would know when to lay off each other. Agree to disagree, etc, but perhaps that's being 'timid' as Ally mentioned earlier.

I'm not good with conflict, so it's surprising I've lasted this long!

JB

[Pirate Jack]

'I have not made a single assumption about them as wives or mothers. I have listed facts: that they abandanoned their children, that they had to be paid to take care of their sick children and their marriages broke up because of their alcohol use. That is making statement of historical facts, not assumptions. '

But surely, Ally, that was the norm?
Being murdered for it was not.
So are you not judging the usual by the unusual?
I remember one case I found last year from the LVP where a French maid in a respectable household was impregnated by the wealthy owner, and rather than suffer the shame of childbirth outside of marriage she took that freshly born child and cleaved it neatly in two from head to groin then shoved it in the drain.
So is murder a better option than social stigma?
I get the impression this is what you are trying to say.

As always it takes the Captain to see Ally's non defenseable position.

Ally, you seek to condem these women by your own standards and your own twenty first century view point. They lived in a different world. They all got to that world in different circumstance. Yet you seek to pool them together as one.

These women were tough in the way that the name 'queen of Mean' means nothing. Emma Smith's struggle for life was a physical acomplishment that we can only all imagine. They deserve respect. because you and I can not begin to imagine what the lives of these women was actually like..

I thank you again Captain for your usual common sense and historical perspective on such matters.

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

If you feel your ass getting sore, it's not hemmorhoids, it's Pirate Jack's nose. Simply stand up from your bar stool and brush his face away. It's not a permanent cure, but it should get you through another Fine Spanish Brandy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

[Ally]

'
But surely, Ally, that was the norm?
Being murdered for it was not.
So are you not judging the usual by the unusual?

No. I am judging them the same as I would judge any woman who did that. It is you all who are attempting to exonerate their actions simply because they were murdered. You are viewing them by the non-norm and excusing them for the responsibility of their actions because of the manner of their death.

And glad to see some new blood. I've gotten tired of arguing with Paul via Jeff.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

You should consider adding sincerity to that list. I feel you and Pirate lack in this and you often take stances for the sake of drama and controversy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pirate Jack]

Tom, many words, honour, dignity, respect, courage, bon chance, empathy, sympathy, love and peace in the community... things that that the crass community you have created will never enjoy.
Look to your master.

What we seek is the truth.

What Tom seeks is a ruck for its own sake..

What Ally seeks is to rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in he wrong place and the wrong time..

The captain, as always, seeks to let these women rest in peace..

For that, he has my respect

Whats the matter Ally the kitchen getting to hot?

Pirate

[Pirate Jack]

No. I am judging them the same as I would judge any woman who did that. It is you all who are attempting to exonerate their actions simply because they were murdered. You are viewing them by the non-norm and excusing them for the responsibility of their actions because of the manner of their death.

And glad to see some new blood. I've gotten tired of arguing with Paul via Jeff.

No you are not...you are judging them by any women who did that in 2009 not any woman that did that in 1888..

You simply do not understand the role of the historian..

Pirate

PS I just phoned Paul for permission to post, but frackly he has better things to discuss :lol:

[Ally]

What Ally seeks is to rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in he wrong place and the wrong time..

Rubbish the names of women who did nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time? What a crock. I am rubbishing the names of women who were thieves, adulterers, child abandoners who had to be paid to take care of their sick children, and bottom feeding alcoholics. The fact that they died in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't at all ameliorate or change the circumstances of their lives.

[Supe]

Sometimes assertions are made in the midst of debates that need to be questionesd, especially by A.P. who has a tendency to speak seemingly ex cathedra. He asserts that mothers abandoning husbands and children because of an addiction to alcohol was the norm, but was it and where? Was it the norm for all of society, just for London, just for the East End, just within common lodging houses, or for just a smaller segment of those clustering nightly in the houses? Without data to back up the claim it is simply meaningless bombast.

Don.

[babybird67]

this will probably be a long posting, as i am a bit of a reflector and a bit of a serial chatterer, so fasten your seatbelts or skip this post now!

Firstly, to make it clear, i'm not here harbouring any vitriol, acrimony or, indeed, antimony, for anybody (except maybe Klosowski, who deserves a taste of his own medicine!). I accept happily that the world is made up of many different people, who have many different views...as i said earlier, messageboards would be pretty boring if we all agreed with eachother all the time. So, there are no axes grinding or agendas being followed. These are just my own thoughts, subject to change as always, as i take on board new information and other people's opinions.

John...i hate conflict too, but don't be put off posting. Your views are as valid as anyone else's.

Ally, you've asked some good questions and made me think a lot. I'm going to try to express my current position as well as i can in response.

You ask, can i have empathy for a child molester?

Firstly, this hypothetical child molester was not always a child molester. One is not born a child molester. One is born a baby, innocent, free from sin.

Something happens to this baby to change it into a child molester. Usually, nasty things. Usually, i believe, children who are abused as kids, go on to adopt those behaviours themselves. Presumably you could empathise with a child being abused? But your empathy would stop once they had made the decision to become an abuser themselves?

So, already, to ask, can you empathise with a child molester, is a complex question and not as cut and dried as it would seem; as it depends on which part of the molester's personal history you are looking at.

I think we part company on the definition of empathy when it appears you see within it an ethical component that i dont see in it: i'm using the concept of empathy much more dispassionately and unemotionally. I'm not saying, "Ahhh poor child molester, but he was molested himself so we can excuse/exonerate his crimes." I'll remind you again, i have not used either those terms or concepts - excuses or exoneration - in my postings, because they are not part of the concept of empathy i am employing in my mind.

Now we can debate about genetics vs environment for a very long time. I fully accept there are some human beings who perhaps have the genetic make-up of a child molester or a murderer, and no matter what environment they grew up in, it would be difficult to forsee them having become anything other than murderers or child molesters. The public needs protection from this sort of person, and this is where i think life should mean life.

However, i also believe there are some criminals, drug addicts, thieves etc, who, with the right kind of environment, can unlearn their negative behaviours, can be taught how to make better choices if you like. I also believe that if we as a society can understand better what particular environments and contexts give rise to people making bad choices (bad for them personally and bad for society as a whole), we can adopt measures in an attempt to change things both for the person and the rest of us for the better.

I believe if we can exercise empathy in seeking to understand the context of a person's choices, we can help to reduce crime, and in reducing crime, we naturally reduce the victims of crime. In this sense, there is a selfish aspect of empathy...it is for my good, your good, everyone's good, if we reduce victims of crime, isn't it?

Only by seeking to understand the contexts which give rise to negative behaviours, can we seek to understand the behaviours themselves and how to address them. Thus, if we put ourselves into a situation theoretically, to experience vicariously what someone else has experienced actually, to attempt the understanding necessary of someone else's mind and motives, this can bring positive benefits, without it being necessary to either excuse or condone bad behaviour or choices.

Empathy is not an all or nothing term. One can have empathy for a person at one stage of their life, but not at another. It's not a magic wand either. Some behaviours remain inexplicable, no matter how hard you try to understand what gave cause to them. Child molesting is one; murdering is another. My empathy cannot reach into the mind that is capable of doing either of these things...i cannot understand...at all...no matter what someone's background...the choice to do such harm to another person.

So, in answer to your question, yes and no; yes, i can empathise with someone who later becomes a child molester, whilst he or she has not yet taken that last step to molest. Once over the line, and molesting someone else, the person has gone from victim to criminal, and is one of those cases that - try as i might my whole lifetime - i doubt i will ever attain anything nearing a comprehension of. This doesnt mean though that the empathy exercised whilst this person is still occupying the status of victim, cannot help us to comprehend what influences a person to do the unthinkable, and perhaps prevent some people taking that step over that horrible line.

Choices are context and situation-specific. We don't choose in a vacuum. The more we can understand what type of environment engenders bad choices, the more hope we can have that these can be influenced and changed for the better.

This is quite clearly not something to be used to exonerate or excuse bad behaviour: it is a tool with which we can attempt to educate people about the importance of choosing well, doing the right thing, and taking responsibility for their actions. Social structure has a big part to play...in the LVP, nobody cared about the unfortunates, so how could the unfortunates learn to care about anybody else, let alone themselves?

They were wrong: wrong to steal, wrong to abandon their children, wrong to cheat. Can i empathise with them? Yes, i can attain some kind of understanding of how these behaviours came about in the context of their lives at that time. Do i exonerate or excuse them, because i can empathise with them? No, i don't. They still did wrong. They still made bad choices. They still should have behaved better.

But my empathy teaches me not to be so quick to judge them too harshly. They didnt molest children. They didnt murder anybody. Those avenues are where my empathy cannot possibly reach. The worst thing they did was abandon their children, and that's a difficult one....being a mother...i could never understand a mother leaving her children; i would rather die first. Yet in their own times, there was a much harder attitude to life and to children, perhaps because of infant mortality. Parents were harsher. Life was harsher.
So, even though i cannot personally understand the abandoning of children, when i contextualise their choices, it is easier to try to come to a comprehension of what they did, without ever approving of it ethically, or justifying the choices.

Empathy contextualises choices, in an aid to promote understanding of how those choices came about. It's important to do so, in my opinion, and to try to empathise where we can, and to learn from doing so. Although, i concede, i am unable to do it in all cases.

I hope this answers your questions Ally. Sorry for the essay! One of my many faults i'm afraid...never use one word where twenty will do.

[Ally]

You say that empathy has nothing to do with ethics and condoning yet you then say that you cannot empathize with a child molester who has crossed that line. Why not?

If the empathy that you are talking about relates not at all to condoning or ethics, then the empathy should extend to past the crime, since all that life experience and what not leading up to it remains the same.

SO it seems, you too are also choosing to apply an ethical and moral cast to where and when you choose to empathize.

[babybird67]

i cannot empathise because the thought processes that must be necessary for choosing those actions are beyond my comprehension.

It's nothing to do with ethics.

[Celesta]

Ally, I'm glad I saw your post #104. By coincidence, I came close to making that kind of judgment, re criminal acts, last night. Fortunately, I reconsidered. Good reminder. Thanks.

[Ally]

So the thought process of child molestation is too alien for you to empathize with, but the process of child abandonment is something you can understand?

[babybird67]

in the context of the victims' lives, yes, without condoning it or agreeing that they made the right choice.

[Ally]

Then why can't you understand child molestation in context without condoning it. After all, you are the one who argues that children follow what they are taught and that they can't be expected to do other than what they've known. So the thought process of a child molester is a very simple one: it was done to me, therefore I will do the same.

So if you can understand one situation without "condoning" it, why not the other? Especially since the argument is one you frequently make.

[babybird67]

i just can't. It's something i've been thinking about since you asked me the question...and if i knew i would tell you! No matter how hard i try, i just cannot get myself into a place where i am able to empathise once that line has been crossed.

I think it may have something to do with active intent. I can see child neglect and abandonment arising out of alcoholism and drug use, almost accidentally; in that, the women at the time maybe didnt think, right i am going to abandon my kids because i'll be better off...i can see them just drifting into it, if that makes sense.

I dont think you drift into child molestation though. I think there has to be an active intent to harm - and i just cannot get my head in that place.

Does that make sense?

[Ally]

What is clear is that despite you saying again and again that your assessment of empathy is a dispassionate one, and has nothing to do with ethical considerations, it in fact does. By the very nature of you trying to say that intent plays a part in whether you are able to empathize with a person, you are in fact making a moral judgment on a persons behavior.


A person fires a gun intending to kill a person and does kill that person.

A person fires a gun, not intending to kill another person, and does kill a person.

The actions are the same and the result is the same, the only thing that differs is the intent. By saying you could empathize with the one but not the other, you are making a moral judgment.

[babybird67]

i can understand child abandonment, whilst morally condeming it. It should theoretically be possible to understand molestation as well, without condoning it, i'm just not that good at empathy!

Oh you just added a bit about the gun situation...well if one is accidental, it is easy to empathise, because we all have accidents. We dont all kill people, so what it takes to kill a person, to be capable of deliberately killing a person, is harder to comprehend, and i cant understand it. It doesnt mean i would condone one killing and not the other though.

[Cap'n Jack]

Don
that's a tad unfair seeing that I live in the LVP whilst you appear to inhabit some strange planet where the dissection of original thought results in meaningless cant.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

You live in the LVP? So you're saying that child abandonment and abuse is the norm for you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Chumley]

still going..contemplation of killing coldly in a detached way is hard to feel comfortable with, but its like taking that first drink of the evening..it just gets easier with practice

[Supe]

A.P.,

Observation confirmed by your reply--your assertion is mere bombast.

Living in the LVP, eh? No wonder you are so dismissive of those who earn a living by writing as even pocket change must allow you to have a comfortable existence. I wonder, though, aren't merchants a bit suspicious of decimal coinage?

Don.

[Brenda]

I'm still not sure "empathy" is being used correctly here. I was always taught that you feel "empathy" for someone when you know EXACTLY how they feel - because you've been there yourself. Example: if you used to weigh a lot but lost weight, you might feel empathy if you encountered a heavy person being harshly criticized for their size. You probably went through the same thing before and you know just how bad the current heavy person is feeling inside. However, if Kate Moss is also standing there hearing the same criticism, she is (maybe) feeling sympathy for the heavy person, but she really doesn't know EXACTLY how the heavy person feels, as she has been thin all of her life. She may not understand the level of self esteem issues involved.

However, if Kate Moss has been severely criticized in her lifetime, she may be feeling the empathy for the person having to endure the emotional pain of the harsh judgment. So, as Babybird pointed out, it DOES depend on the individual circumstance and perspective.

As far as the victims, I HOPE none of us here know exactly what it is like to be in their shoes, but you never know. I think most of us feel sympathy....which is a good thing, by the way. There's a big difference between a sympathetic person and a "bleeding heart". I think Allly is disliking the bleeding heart types that tend to romanticize the victims, and I don't blame her, it kind of gets on my nerves too. But it is possible to care about these women (and others like them) while at the same time realizing they probably wouldn't have been someone we would have necessarily wanted to socialize with.

As far as CHILD MOLESTERS...I sincerely hope nobody here can empathize with a child molester! However, a little sympathy is okay when you realize these people have something seriously wrong and/or missing inside their brains. But that would be another thread.....

[Cap'n Jack]

Don

you cant better than I rant, that's for sure, and I take any coinage, accepting of course the Yankee dollar.
You come from a solid core, that's for sure,
them who profit from deaths of whores.

[Pirate Jack]

I’m sorry but getting back to the core argument (what you do or do not choose to feel about childmollesters in the 21st century is your own business)

However you have no evidence what so ever that all the victims of Jack the Ripper were bad mothers. (Most of you don’t even seem to be able to get the body count correct anyway)

So perhaps one of you would like to explain how you feel Elizabeth Stride was a bad mother?

And lets get to the nitty gritty about Kate Eddowes. Why is she such a bad mother? She may have fallen out with her daughter later in life but I seem to remember that the daughter attended her mother’s funeral and was highly upset about her mother’s death.

On those grounds I say Kate obviously did something right at some point and thus must have been a GOOD mother.

Did she have the same CHIOCE when leaving her sons as she would have had today?…NO

It was a choice based in the reality of 1888. Remember children were still used as cheap labour and left school at 14. You simply can NOT compare these women’s choices with those of a load of Fat Americans sat in luxury, burning up all the worlds resources and slowly destroying, our planet, while pointing their chubby finger at these women.

They were NOT bad mothers; some may have been mothers that did some bad things. But you have NO idea if, on balance, they did more good than bad…

You’re guessing, and that’s bad Ripperology. Either supply proof or shut up.

Pirate

PS and lets get this straight , it is Ally that is doing the romantisizing here, the rest of us are working to the FACTS,

[Ally]

Don

you cant better than I rant, that's for sure, and I take any coinage, accepting of course the Yankee dollar.
You come from a solid core, that's for sure,
them who profit from deaths of whores.
__________________
You mean profit like you did with your published work on the subject of dead whores, titled after their killer, for coinage of all kind including the Yankee dollar? And it's nice to know you are finally admitting your grasping tendencies in accepting the Yankee Dollar.

[Ally]

So perhaps one of you would like to explain how you feel Elizabeth Stride was a bad mother?

You are an idiot aren't you?

And lets get to the nitty gritty about Kate Eddowes. Why is she such a bad mother? She may have fallen out with her daughter later in life but I seem to remember that the daughter attended her mother’s funeral and was highly upset about her mother’s death.

On those grounds I say Kate obviously did something right at some point and thus must have been a GOOD mother.

Well first, let's be clear. Kate had THREE children. What precisely is your evidence that her daughter ONE out of her three children, actually attended her funeral, because the newspaper accounts from that time make no mention of her daughter in the mourner list? And attendance at a funeral isn't really proof of anything. Maybe she was relieved the badgering woman was finally dead, since, there is evidence that her daughter repeatedly moved around so that she could AVOID her mother, who constantly badgered her for money. Children don't generally pick up and move to avoid a GOOD mother.



PS and lets get this straight , it is Ally that is doing the romantisizing here, the rest of us are working to the FACTS,


No. Ally is working with the facts, all the facts, and you are picking and choosing the ones that best represent your opinion. And the facts are you carefully selected the one victim who had no children, and one who the best you could come up with about her is that her daughter MIGHT have attended her funeral. That's really slim arguing there.

[Pirate Jack]

The Victims of Jack the Ripper P22. “She also gave birth to a stillborn girl one month later. (Klas Lithner article about Elizebeth Strides History)

Elizebeth Stride was a mother.

contin:

P28. Little Catherine attended Dowgate Charity School in the City, and also earned herself the affectionate nickname of ‘Chick’. Big sister Emma Eddowes later described the young Catherine as a lively little thing, WARM-HEARTED and ENTERTAINING”

P32. From time to time Emma Jones saw her sister frequently and knew about her alcoholism. Catherine always cried when she met with her and said. “I wish I was like you. She occasionally left home too”

“The last time Emma Jones met with Catherine was in about Christmas time 1877. It was evident from her black eyes that she had suffered from Conway’s brutality. Eleven years later, Elizabeth Fisher also accused Conway of beating their sister.”

“That same year, the inevitable happened and Catherine and Thomas parted, the pensioner took his two sons with him and blamed her drinking habits.”

P35 “ Annie visited her mother around this time at the lodging house in Flower and Dean Street, and Grandmother Kate attended her daughters confinement a year later when Annie lived in Bermondsey.”

“her son William Philips born on the 10th August 1886, was only a week old. Annie said in 1888 that she choose to have nothing further to do with her mother because of her persistence in applying to her for money and that Thomas Conway kept the whereabouts of the two boys from her for the same reason.. However, Annie registered her son on the 26th October, again calling herself Catherine Philips whilst still living at the same address, so obviously she did not feel the need to escape her mothers constant demands until a good two months after the boys birth.”

“In 1887 Conway and one of his sons stayed with Annie for a time when she lived at 15 Anchor Street. Conway left on bad terms with his daughter”

P37 “After a time Annie Philips came forward, and with John Kelly and Eliza Gold, gave evidence at her mothers inquest.” (It was not mentioned that she was five months pregnant) A book called The News from Whitechapel by Di Grazia, Chisholm and Yost mentions that at the end of the inquest the jury presented their fees to Annie Philips. The funeral took place on the 8th October and was attended by members of the family and John Kelly.”

P38. Ref K.E.: “She was hard working and generous to her friends, very jolly often singing”

“Her retired Uncle Thomas eddowes aged 77 who also lived 1123 Moland Street Birminham, was reported in the Midlands Evening News on the 5th October. He had not seen Kate for at least twenty years, when informed of her murder in London. He was greatly affected by the news and died soon afterwards”

Well there it is. Having gone through the chapter with a fine toothcomb I cannot find one reference to Kate Eddowes being a “Bad Mother”

Clearly it is a tail of tradgity and hardship but there is no evidence that Kate Eddowes did not love her children. Indeed quiet the contrary.

If Kate is to be condemned as a bad mother then I say, by the same token, that every mother in the United States of America is A BAD MOTHER…

I see No mention of Kate Eddowes ever stuffing her children with McDonalds Burgers? I see no evidence of Kate Eddowes driving a gas guzzling car and slowly poisoning the planet. I see No evidence that Kate Eddowes encouraged her sons to invade Iraq and shoot innocent people. I have re-read everything I can about Kate Eddowes yet there is no mention that she ever encouraged her children to torture confessions out of people with different religious beliefs to her….

In fact in comparison to the women of the good old US of A Kate Eddowes appears to have been almost a paragon of virtue whose only real crime was to herself through her drinking. Almost every comment I can find suggests that she was a pleasant woman who wont have hurt a fly…while the mother s of America seem intent on nicking everybody else’s share of scarce world resources while not keep to there carbon emission quotas..

So if we put Kate Eddowes in her correct historical perspective

I’d say that was Kate Eddowes 1 Mothers of America 0

Pirate

[Ally]

LOL...You do notice that everything you posted regarding Kate's daughter related to her daughter trying to avoid her and her sons being taken from her because of her drinking right? And her daughter refusing to have anything to do with her because of her scrounging. So because Neal Shelden, who is, let's face it, completely biased on behalf of the victims doesn't actually use the words "bad mother" you assume that she wasn't one.

Her sons were taken from her on excuse of her drinking. Her daughter avoided her because she scrounged for money. But nah, nothing in there at all about her being a bad mother.


As for Elizabeth Stride being a mother, yes, she gave birth to a stillborn daughter and a few months later was treated in the hospital for venereal disease. Hmm...think there was any causal relationship there? I wonder. She was a registered prostitute, who was rife with disease and became pregnant as a result. I can hazard a guess as to what her parenting ability would have been if the daughter had lived.

[Pirate Jack]

LOL...You do notice that everything you posted regarding Kate's daughter related to her daughter trying to avoid her and her sons being taken from her because of her drinking right?

Yes everything that happened to her in the last two years after she had her sons taken away from her a man that clearly beat her black and blue

I see no reference to Kate changing what you call 'Dippers' that apparently appear majically on shelves in what you call 'malls' also poluting the planet.

So because Neal Shelden, who is, let's face it, completely biased on behalf of the victims doesn't actually use the words "bad mother" you assume that she wasn't one.

Would that be the same Neal Sheldon who won the 2007 services to Ripperology award?

Her sons were taken from her on excuse of her drinking. Her daughter avoided her because she scrounged for money. But nah, nothing in there at all about her being a bad mother.

No Ally that is a romantic invention of your sad imagination. We just do not know why the boys were taken away. Unfortunately the social services team must have let it slip through the net :laugh4: (Thats British Sarcasm)

As for Elizabeth Stride being a mother, yes, she gave birth to a stillborn daughter and a few months later was treated in the hospital for venereal disease. Hmm...think there was any causal relationship there? I wonder. She was a registered prostitute, who was rife with disease and became pregnant as a result. I can hazard a guess as to what her parenting ability would have been if the daughter had lived.

Ah right so now we are going to start condemning people for what we think they may have done had their children lived..

Well she may have cut the child into a thousand peices and eaten it..

She might have educated the child, taught it physics, invented the atomic bomb and droped it on Japan...

But that would just be ROMANTISISING wouldnt it Ally?

Pirate

[Ally]

Both Kate's daughter and her sisters said that the boys were kept from her because of her drinking. So I suppose they were all misinformed as well. The daughter, avoided her because of her scrounging. But that's not evidence of anything. Nope.

And it really doesn't matter what awards Neal has won. He's biased on behalf of the victims. His research into them is fantastic, and his devotion to them is commendable. But it doesn't change the fact that he is biased in their regard and he goes out of his way to paint them in a way to garner sympathy for them with things that paint them in a good light being emphasized and things that cast them in a bad given mitigating excuses. Like the idiotic statement that the daughter apparently didn't feel the need to move away from her mothers scrounging until 2 months after she gave birth...like this is indicative of deeper feeling on the daughters part, when in fact, what woman hugely pregnant and having just given birth is going to want to pack up and move right away. Or that it was not just the final straw that her mother was scrounging while she was pregnant. He always attempts to soften the bad, and emphasize the good. That's bias. So your relying on Neal Shelden to tell you what you should think of the victims is as idiotic as your retarded tirade against American mothers and MCDonalds...

But of course, what else can we expect from you but completely irrational statements like that and arguments that aren't even in the same zip code as logic.

[Brenda]

Well, I for one am getting a little offended by all the American mothers talk. Way to lump us all into one big stereotype!

[babybird67]

until British mothers get implicated before i get offended! :lol:

[Ally]

Oh Brenda,

You know it's true. You can't be bothered to raise your kid like they do in Britain: on welfare and with full government assistance (there ya go Jen). So all you do is plop them down in front of the idiot box and stuff them with crap food all day. Oh and what was the other thing?..Right while you ride around in your gas guzzling SUV.


But of course, we all know that such generalizations about an entire group of people that aren't even in this discussion are the last resort of the dim when they have no real counter argument.

Like attempting to say that the very logical conclusion: a child born to a diseased prostitute is probably not going to have the best start in life, is comparative to saying that the mother was going to cannibalize the child.

Don't expect logic from Leahy. It's beyond him.

[halomanuk]

Dont get personal Ally,Jen hasn't done anything to you,and neither has anybody else from the UK.
Your fight is with Pirate...

[babybird67]

i wasn't always ill...i did work all the time i was well enough to, so did my other half. We paid NI contributions, so i have no problem claiming benefit now i am not well enough to work.

I'm not a perfect mum by any means; that holds true whether i am working or unemployed.

But i've not abandoned my kids; i've tried to teach them right from wrong' none of them smoke, drink or are on drugs. They are polite and helpful. Quite well-rounded i think.

I've made mistakes, and no doubt will continue to do so. That's the reality of the human condition. I'm happy with that.


Barry...thanks for your defence.

And i'm still not offended!

[Ally]

Barry,

I didn't get personal. I made a generalization about all Britain's mothers like Jen requested. A generalization about a group is by its definition, NOT personal.

[halomanuk]

Mentioning a name makes it personal,not mentioning it generalizes it..

[Ally]

Jen said: I'll wait til someone makes an implication about Britains mothers before she got involved.

I made a generalization and said there ya go, Jen, inviting her to get involved. That's not making it personal.

Editing in: Just read Jen's post and figured out why you are all thinking this was personal: I had no idea that Jen was apparently on welfare, it was not directed at her for that reason, and it was merely a statement of generality. The fact that it is apparently true in this case, is just ironic, not intentional.

[halomanuk]

You and i know what you were implying,and Jenny explaining herself means she does too..

[Ally]

REad the post above that I edited. I had no idea Jen was on Welfare. I have never had a conversation with Jen about her being on welfare. It's not something that I would ask or would come up in regular conversation. So I was not IMPLYING anything.

I don't imply. If I have something to say, I'll just say it.

[halomanuk]

Fine,if that is your genuine feelings and you have explained yourself to me then i accept that.

[Brenda]

I took it as Ally was just being sarcastic, no bad intent.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go stuff my kids with burgers and go cruise aimlessly up and down the highways.

[Ally]

So given the overall irony of this situation, I am guessing it's also true that Brenda is in fact a McDonalds stuffing, gas guzzling, idiot box for a babysitter crap American mother.

Brenda, you should be ashamed.


Editing in again: Dammit Brenda you beat me to it!

[Pirate Jack]

Well yes it is evidence of social justice of the period. But not a lot more. Everything else is your own twisted interpretation. Your romantic notion of what you believe to be the case from a 21st century perspective.

You see Neal Sheldon is a brilliant historian who clearly understands that a good historian does research into people lives and their social history and try’s to give incite from a learn perspective.

Where as you are just a sad old American half wit with an axe to grind.

To accuse Catherine Eddowes of being a ‘bad mother’ based on what little is actually known is just blatant stupidity. Her life must be viewed as a whole and in context.

Yes she was no Angel. But she was no demon either.

Clearly I said if you condemn her in this way (ie with a sweeping brush) then you must condemn everyone in this way, as almost no one (especially the mothers of America) is without guilt of some kind.

So why you choose your negative fantasy of events. I wonder about a women who clearly looked after her children why they grew up with a man who beat her black and blue, and didn’t leave them until they were almost old enough to fend for themselves. Indeed the grown up daughter clearly wanted her at the birth of her first child.

From a perspective what she did may have taken considerable courage..

However I do not know. Nobody knows because there is not enough surviving record to be certain…In the same way there is not enough record to condemn this woman as a BAD MOTHERS. There is NO record of Catherine Eddowes changing metaphorical nappies.

Stating the JtR victims were Bad Mothers is Ally Ryder opinion NOT historical fact.

Clearly my attack on the Mothers of America was meant as an Ironic mirror of your own poorly thought out historical reasoning and historical romanticism.

Pirate

[babybird67]

i saw it in context afterwards and no offence taken, not that i took it (offence)if you HAD meant it personally.

I'm ill...i can't help it. More than anyone can imagine i wish i had my life back and could go to work and do the things healthy people can do. Sadly, one has to play the hand one is dealt, and my hand is made up of a two, a four and a couple of jokers i think! Still, as the Government is spending the grand amount of absolutely nothing on research into my illness, i am sure i can look forward to a cure someday soon...or is that never?

Bloody politicians!

[Ally]

And you know just to clarify, I think disability for people who are genuinely ill is a fine use of the welfare system. It's not these cases I was referring to any way. It was more like these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3885661/Britains-generous-welfare-system-triggered-baby-boom.html

[Pirate Jack]

Stop trying to change the subject. This thread is now about the JtR victims. Stay on topic :reading:

[Ally]

There's no reason to stay on topic until someone worthy of debating comes along. Your illogic and constant tangents into la la land, make you a very boring and irrational debate partner. I'll wait til Paul gives you some better ammo and rational points before continuing further.

[babybird67]

most of my life was a three tier system: working/studying/mothering. Maybe i just burnt out!

washing machine has just arrived, just as the weather has turned bad!

[Pirate Jack]

There's no reason to stay on topic until someone worthy of debating comes along. Your illogic and constant tangents into la la land, make you a very boring and irrational debate partner. I'll wait til Paul gives you some better ammo and rational points before continuing further.

What, like the social attitude to men beating there wives in 1888.

Is this approved or condemned by 'Mothers of America'?

Did kate bring the beatings on herself? was she asking for it?

And what did the neighbours think? were the boys also free from such brutality?

Clearly I know Paul's opinion. I was wondering if you could enlighten us with some period incite on the matter.:anxious:

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

I'm confused. If you're angry at Ally, then why do you keep complimenting her by calling her an 'American'? It's no secret everyone wants to be an American. But just because you feel Americans are superior, doesn't make it so. We're all equal in God's eyes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pirate Jack]

Tom, I am clearly not critisising any group of people. I wish people to be considered as individuals. I am attempting to demonstrate through ironic humour that Ally’s sweeping condemnation of the JtR‘victims’ as ‘Bad Mothers’ is an idiotic statement and gross generalization much as it would be if you condemned all the mothers in American of being bad mothers because one mother chooses to stuff her child with McDonalds burgers…

I also like the comical notion of comparing Kate Eddowes options with twenty first century thinking….Can we condemn kate for driving a gas guzzling car?

No we cant because Kate must be seen in her time and period context…

As must of course the ‘Mothers of America’

My annoyance with Ally’s position is that she is trying to condemn these women through modern spectacles…And now she’s gone off into some bizarre attack on women who draw benefits?

Well there were no benefits or rights for Kate, just a good hiding (ironic intent)

Pirate

[Ally]

Pirate,

You are making a sweeping generalizion about millions of women. I am talking about five women and of these women, everyone who was a mother was a BAD mother. I notice you are completely overlooking the other two mothers in this group Annie and Polly. Want to know why? Because Polly walked out on her family again and again finally abandoning them for good in 81. And Annie dove into the bottle and abandoned her surviving daughter for others to take care of.

Three mothers:

Kate: daughter moves to have nothing to do with her. Sons taken because of her drinking.
Annie: drunk, abandons her children.
Polly: Drunk, abandons her children several times.

Those aren't generalities. Three mothers. Three bad mothers.

[Pirate Jack]

Pirate,
You are making a sweeping generalizion about millions of women.

No I was using ironic humour

I am talking about five women

Yes I guessed you would be using the Andrew Cook counting system.

Emma Smith mother of two grown up children.

Martha Tabram mother of two grown up children

Rose Mylett mother of at least one girl.

and of these women, everyone who was a mother was a BAD mother.

No they were NOT. This is an interpretion from a twenty first century perspective. You have no idea what sort of mothers these women made. For a start they had no epidurrels in 1888.

You are judging them by modern standards and condeming them without any historical source about there abilities as mothers. Where are your pictures of these women failing to change nappies? sorry dippers?

I notice you are completely overlooking the other two mothers in this group Annie and Polly. Want to know why? Because Polly walked out on her family again and again finally abandoning them for good in 81. And Annie dove into the bottle and abandoned her surviving daughter for others to take care of.

Three mothers:

Kate: daughter moves to have nothing to do with her. Sons taken because of her drinking.
Annie: drunk, abandons her children.
Polly: Drunk, abandons her children several times.

Those aren't generalities. Three mothers. Three bad mothers.

Annie Chapman was clearly an alcoholic and from what can be gleaned her old man doesn't seem that bad. But to condemn her out right as a bad mother without more detail information seems unfair. Annie actually had a long period of being sobber and may have had periods of being a very good mother...we just do not know.

Now are you going to answer the question about Kates beatings or are you going to wriggle?

Pirate

[Ally]

Yes I am talking about the canonical five since the topic of conversation is how the canonical five are viewed as saints and not as actual people merely because they were the victims of Jack the Ripper. SO the important factor there would be "victims of jack the Ripper" and the others would not be of importance. But if you want to expand on the topic to every woman in the east end who was murdered, sure let's get to those women that you mentioned:

MArtha Tabram: ""The marriage ended in 1875. Henry left due to Martha's heavy drinking. He gave her an allowance of twelve shillings per week for three years but reduced it to 2s 6d due to her pestering him in the streets for money. She had a warrant taken out against him and had him locked up. He had also learned that she was living with another man. At this time he refused to support her any further.""

So at the time of her marriage dissolving she had children aged 3 and 5 and there is absolutely no mention of these children throughout the rest of the accounts of her life. There were no children living with her in any of the places where she resided or mentioned by any of the men she cohabitated with from then on out. Conclusion? Family abandoned due to her incessant drinking. Yet another mother, choosing the bottle of her babies.

Four for Four at this point.


Emma Smith: ""Emma claimed to have both a son and a daughter living somewhere in the area of Finsbury Park, and was often heard to say that they should do something to help her situation. She had been a prostitute for some time now, at least since she last saw her husband (she claimed to have been a widow, but also claimed she left her husband in 1877). Emma was also somewhat of a belligerent woman, often seen with a black eye and other various cuts and bruises as a result of many a drunken brawl.""

So Emma's only comments about her two grown children was that they should be helping her out of her situation. She was apparently such a wonderful mother that her children would rather leave her to drunken prostitution than help her out. A fabulous example of motherhood, you are right.


Rose Mylett: A woman who was so taken with drink that she was called Drunken Lizzie and who had a daughter who did not live with her and who was 8 years old at the time of her mother's death.

Have you noticed a common thread here? Drunk women, who abandon their families and take to prostitution to support their drinking. You know if you are going to try and put up examples of motherhood to support your argument you really ought to make sure the examples are those of GOOD parents if you are arguing that I am making a generalization that isn't supported by fact, because all you just did, was prove my point. Thanks.

As for whether or not Kate was beaten by her husband or not, what actual relevance does it have to her being a crap mother? She was a crap mother. I don't care if her husband beat her, one has nothing to do with the other.

[Pirate Jack]

Clearly we are discussing the victims of jack the Ripper so the inclusion of all the women would appear relevant..

And yet again you make the same assumptions with no proof to back up your ‘Bad Mother’ character assassinations.

We know nothing about Emma Smiths relationship with her children. When they were born, how long she breast fed them, whether she tucked them in at night. Whether she gave up food so they could eat?

WE JUST DO NOT KNOW.

We don’t know how long Martha was in labor whether she rejected them at birth, suffered from depression, had them adopted. Or if she told them bed time stories?

WE JUST DO NOT KNOW

We do not know why Rose Mylett let her mother bring up her child. We do not know if she ever gave her a hug or just totally ignored her daughter..

In short we don’t know what sort of mothers these women were because there is NO historical record.

Yet you continue with this constant fantasizing, they must have done this, they must have done that…

We don’t know. We are not even certain whether or not Mary Kelly ever had children. Its not known.

So lets get to the chase:

ALLY “As for whether or not Kate was beaten by her husband or not, what actual relevance does it have to her being a crap mother? She was a crap mother. I don't care if her husband beat her, one has nothing to do with the other.”

I don’t know what silver spoon world you evolved from Ally but this is exactly the sort of Mary Antoinette comment that we have come to expect from you. What difference does it make that these women lived in a world where beatings from men were common place? Where there was no health care, no public sanitation. Where you could be thrown in debtors prison and left to rot because of a few shillings. Where life expectancy was low and infant mortality was high. Where these women dreaded being taken to hospital because they new they would probably die there.

You criticize these women as mothers yet they were probably far more familiar with child birth than you in your twenty first century luxury home could ever imagine, there were no maternity units. Try researching some of the squalid conditions that existed in JtR whitchapel. There were no cleaning products or vacuum cleaners. And very little money. Life was very hard.

No one has ever suggested that these women were angels they clearly were NOT. But why it would be historically inaccurate to suggest they were, it is equally ridiculous to pass judgment without considering the time and social conditions in which they lived. They were a product of their age. And however much you spin and vent your poison the FACT remains you have NO idea what these women were actually like as mothers.

We don’t know, so trying to pretend that somehow Ally Ryder has a mystic ball into the past and can witness these women with their kids is about as ridiculous as the latest episode of Most Haunted.

Mystic Ally have you any more predictions? What these woman were like at horse riding? Whether they might have taken to running marathons? Whether they were good cooks?

Yes lets condemn them now…the Victims of Jack the Ripper were all crap in the kitchen:2thumbsup:

Admit it you don't know and you have nothing to back your sweeping claims against these women.

Pirate

[Ally]

Pirate, I realize you are going to try to turn the subject from what these women chose to do, to what was done to ONE woman because you need some desperate hook to hang your hat on, but sorry I am not going to play that game.

How long a woman is in labor, has NOTHING to do with the type of mother she is. I can judge a mother by a very simple standard: Do they abandon their children or not? In the case of all of these women, they abandoned their children, their children wanted NOTHING to do with them and I think their own children are a better judge of their ability as a mother than you or even me. So I am going to go by Kate's children's opinion of her which was: bad mother. I am going to go by the facts: Annie and Polly abandoned their children in favor of the bottle. Bad mother.

Period.

[Pirate Jack]

Your adding two and two together and coming up with four.

Lets try and make this more simple: A man is driving a car and has an accident.

Is he a bad driver?

The answer is obviously: We don’t know. We only know that he can drive and that he had a accident.

To make the conclusion he is a BAD driver is purely guess work. It is making assumption drawn on insufficient evidence.

Pirate

PS and there is no record of any of Kates children saying that Kate was a bad mother. FACT. You are making assumptions.

[Ally]

A better analogy is, a man has had his license revoked. Is he a bad driver? Yep. Or at least we know he committed enough infractions to be on a permanent ban.

When your children move to get away from you, it's pretty much a good indication you committed more than one infraction.

And yes, Leahy, usually when I add two plus two it turns out to be 4. Seeing as how that's rational.

[Cap'n Jack]

I think there are a couple of important points that should be made at this junction of confusion.
Firstly, during the period of the LVP which we discuss, children were forcibly removed from their parents and placed into care if evidence was provided that the mother or father were living on the proceeds of immoral earnings. I know for a fact that this rather unfair and certainly draconian law was used against at least one possible victim of the person we call Jack the Ripper, but I do suspect it was used against most of them.
I have actually followed the future of many such children taken into 'care' - including the children of the woman I mention above - and it was the norm for them to reach a certain age, run away from the 'care' home, and then either resort to prostitution, or as maids - placed there by the 'care' homes - become pregnant from the uninvited attention of their middle class employers.
It was a vicious circle, with the majority of the mothers having no other option than to resort to prostitution to feed their children, resulting in the removal of those children into 'care' homes, where they eventually emerged as either future prostitutes, or unwanted sexual objects in a gravid state whom nobody wanted, or cared for.
I personally would not be willing to pass judgement on a woman exposed to such a narrow choice when it came to providing for her children.
My second point is that I am rather baffled by what appears, on the part of some, to a hardening of attitude towards the victims of these horrendous murders, as if that is some kind of justification or excuse for the murder and mutilation of purely innocent women.
Am I dealing with the ghost of Colin Wilson here or what?

[Ally]

AP,

You are making a case that doesn't exist. None of these women resorted to prostitution to feed their children. They were all drunks who resorted to prostitution to feed their alcohol addiction. Their children were left in the care of others while they went off to booze themselves into oblivion.

[Pirate Jack]

A better analogy is, a man has had his license revoked. Is he a bad driver? Yep. Or at least we know he committed enough infractions to be on a permanent ban.

When your children move to get away from you, it's pretty much a good indication you committed more than one infraction.

No it is NOT. You are continuing to make assumptions.

A man has his licence revoked. What we know is only that. He had his licence revoked..thats all we know...anything else is pure assumption.

We don't know why Kate's daughter refused to see her. There could be a million reasons, and probably were.

To say 'Kate was a bad mother' from this fact is assumption.

All we know is that see did stop seeing her mother and she said because mother was after money. Thats what we know. We dont know per se whether or not Kate was a bad mother. Certainly there is NO evidence on record that her sons ever beleived so..

Your guessing

Pirate

P.S. Thanks for trying to bring some historical perspective AP. Choices have to be seen in there context.

[Cap'n Jack]

So, Ally, if your middle class employer had raped you in the LVP, forcing you into the workhouse infirmary to give birth to a daughter that nobody wanted, what do you believe your level of care would have been for that poor child?
When your child was taken into 'care' shortly after birth, and you were slung out of the workhouse with no income whatsoever, what then would you have done to feed yourself?

[Ally]

AP,

None of the women we are talking about here had children by rape. Except for stride, who got pregnant through prostitution, we are talking about women who were in committed relationships, got pregnant and abandoned their families.

Scenarios that have NOTHING to do with the circumstance that you are describing. You can throw up every what if scenario :what if they were all impregnated by Satan and their children were really devil spawn: but we are actually looking at the FACTS of these particular womens lives. You are attempting to view them as some sort of symbol for all women in the LVP and hold them up as icons ascribing attributes to them that they do not possess.

Deal with the reality of these women and the reality is they had families that they tossed aside to drown themselves in the bottle.

[Pirate Jack]

Ally that is precisely what we are trying to do.

We have already established that you are making assumptions.

Well to some extent that is OK. Its what Historians do, they take the known facts and try and draw a conclusion.

However once you start down the path of ASSUMPTION you are giving OPINION not FACT.

And once you start making ASSUMPTIONS then you need to start considering the context as a WHOLE.

So obviously the social reality of the place, time and period is extremely important to how we draw ASSUMPTION.

If we take what we know about Kate as a whole there is nothing to draw the conclusion that she was a particularly BAD person. In fact quite the opposite, as you can see from my earlier posts she was apparently well liked.

So we have contradiction, some good, some bad. What we do not have is any direct evidence that Kate was a ‘BAD MOTHER’. We must therefore draw on the circumstance of the environment in which she existed to form our conclusion.

AP’s background information gives us a window into the world that we are trying to understand. It was in places a hard and brutal world.

So trying to draw assumption based on 21st century values is pointless, it cant be done.

Pirate

[Ally]

I think attempting to excuse their behavior as typical and the norm for women of that time is insulting and misogynistic. I think it would appall the thousands and thousands of poor women of the LVP who didn't abandon their children and who didn't dive head first into a bottle to know that the standard by which they are judged is measured by the worst of them.

To say that the behavior or a drunken child abandoner is typical and the norm for that time is an insult to all the women who bore up under those hard circumstances and held the line.

And truly it is insight into your MALE disparaging minds, that you would excuse these women of the responsibility to their children because you don't believe that anything else could be expected of them.

[Pirate Jack]

Again Ally you are making wilde accusations and drawing out there conclusions.

I also find it a little rich that you suddenly choose to draw the male misogynist card given that it is you that are destroying these women with sweeping one size fits all accusations. Yes they all drank. But this fact alone does not necessarily make them bad mothers. Yes they were all prostitutes, but are you trying to argue that any woman that becomes a prostitute by its very nature, they become a bad mother?

Pirate

[Ally]

I have said nothing whatsoever about them as prostitutes and mothers except that Stride became a mother via prostitution. Drinking doesn't make you a bad mother. Prostitution doesn' tmake you a bad mother.

Abandoning your children because you'd rather drink makes you a bad mother. And you are the one who insists on seeing these women as part of a collective rather than individuals. Not me. I have looked at each woman and individually found them wanting.

[Tom_Wescott]

Your adding two and two together and coming up with four.

I have not been able to read anything past this line. I'm still cracking up. If the argument wasn't lost long before this, I'd say this is pretty much Pirate's 'Jumping the Shark' moment. It was a good call bringing in the far more eloquent Cap'n Jack when he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Paul Webb saves the day...but in this case no as AP's train derailed worse than Leahys.

I am still trying to figure out what my being raped by a middle class LVPer has to do with anything under discussion.

[c.d.]

Paul Webb saves the day...but in this case no as AP's train derailed worse than Leahys.

I am still trying to figure out what my being raped by a middle class LVPer has to do with anything under discussion.

Well, you are still ahead of me. I'm still trying to figure out this whole discussion, period. 165 posts? I smell dead horses.

c.d.

[Ally]

Yeah I am starting to get the whiff as well. We'll see.

[Cap'n Jack]

Cap'n Jack to you, Ally, as I expect you to accord me good self the same respect you offer to other posters who post under an assumed identity, like SPE. We all like to get away from ourselves.
I'll ask you kindly to permit, and respect, my freedom to do so without let or hinderance. Thank you kindly.
Now to business.

'Would you rather make a match
or sell your snatch?
You'll die if you do one
and you'll die if you do other
support your son
and be a good mother
to give up your daughter
to the man who bought her?'

You are out of whack here, Ally, by a century.
You better bat well.
best wishes, from 'ell.

[Ally]

What a crock of crap,
and rhyming claptrap.
Not a one of these whores
Had a scenario like yours.
They peddled their ass
To put gin in their glass.
Not food on a kid's table.
That's your fairy fable.

[Pirate Jack]

Well that’s good we have now established something on which we are all agreed (apart from the fact that Tom is a D**k Head) namely that women who drink are not necessarily ‘Bad Mothers’ and that women who are prostitutes ‘are not necessarily ‘bad mothers’

So what does Ally turn to? Abandonment as her BAD mother criteria.

OK lets have a better look at Allys claim.

1. Emma Smith – children grown up
2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear.
3. Poly Nichols- Successfully brings up her children for 15 years before her husband has an affair. Forced to leave.
4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away.
7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
8. Mylett- doesn’t abandon children.

So by Ally’s own criteria only around 25% of the Victims actually abandon their children and yet Ally tars and brushes them all as BAD MOTHERS.

Would it surprise anyone that Tom has again chosen the losing side? :pleased:

Pirate

[Ally]

Polly left her husband several times before the final split. It was bullcrap that the husband had an affair and that led to the break up. The fact is, she would go on drinking binges and leave. Not the other way around.

So basically all of the women who were mothers (and Martha's circumstances are fairly clear unless you think five and 3 year olds can be hidden)...all women with living children either abandoned them totally or were such crap that their adult children wanted nothing to do with them.

Those are the actual facts.


1. Emma Smith – Isn't even a Ripper victim so useless for this discussion but...children grown up *and want nothing to do with her*
2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear. Yeah because 3 and five year olds vanish all the time.
3. Poly Nichols- . *actually abandons her family time and time again until she finally ditches them permanently in 81.
4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away. And grown daughter wants nothign to do with her.
7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
8. Mylett- Isn't a ripper victim at all or even possible so useless for this discussion but ...where are her kids?

[Pirate Jack]

Polly left her husband several times before the final split. It was bullcrap that the husband had an affair and that led to the break up. The fact is, she would go on drinking binges and leave. Not the other way around.

So basically all of the women who were mothers (and Martha's circumstances are fairly clear unless you think five and 3 year olds can be hidden)...all women with living children either abandoned them totally or were such crap that their adult children wanted nothing to do with them.

Those are the actual facts.


1. Emma Smith – Isn't even a Ripper victim so useless for this discussion but...children grown up *and want nothing to do with her*
2. Martha Tabram- possibly Abandoned children. Facts unclear. Yeah because 3 and five year olds vanish all the time.
3. Poly Nichols- . *actually abandons her family time and time again until she finally ditches them permanently in 81.
4. Chapman- abandoned her children.
5. Stride- child still born. Doesn’t abandon children.
6. Eddowes- Children grown up. Boys taken away. And grown daughter wants nothign to do with her.
7. Kelly- doesn’t abandon children.
8. Mylett- Isn't a ripper victim at all or even possible so useless for this discussion but ...where are her kids?

Unless my maths is out you still havent made 50%. And by your own admission they did not all abandon their children, which proves me totally vindicated in my claim that they were NOT all bad mothers..

You lost to the Pirate fair and square now eat humble pie :laugh4:

pirate :love:

[Ally]

Your maths are as off as 2 + 2 not equaling four. Out of the women who were mothers with living children so that their motherhood status can actually be judged it's 100% bad mothers.

I realize someone who is confused by the most basic of arithmetic would have a problem with percentages but..100 percent craptastic mothers. 100 percent abandoned or grown children who want nothing to do with them whatsoever.

[Tom_Wescott]

apart from the fact that Tom is a D**k Head

2 + 2 = 4.

Would it surprise anyone that Tom has again chosen the losing side?

It might, since I don't recall having done so before. But then, I don't recall having entered a competition, either. And wasn't this argument between you (2) and Ally (2) with the rest of us (4) just offering our tuppence here and there? When did this become about me? Why is that that all the mouthbreathers feel they have to try and build their self-worth by taking me on?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Unless my maths is out

I just saw this. :lol: :laugh4: :2thumbsup: My God, Ally, how are you keeping a straight face in this discussion?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pirate Jack]

No Ally we only really know as Fact that Chapman Abandoned her children. And there is no evidence that she was a 'Bad Mother' just that she was a sad alcoholic whose life was destroyed by the booze. We know that she came off the bottle for a few years, and its more than possible that her children loved her very much...most children do, its people like you that point the finger..

I must admit that my practical experience for childrens love for there mothers comes through practical experience in the Hammersmith Nude case.

However you clearly lost this argument by your own criteria, Many thanks for the laughter and enjoyment your collapsed reasoning bought me...

I do so enjoy a little heartless gloating following a minor casebook victory

Bye all :hiya:

Lov ya Pirate

[c.d.]

Cause you da man, Tom!!!

"If you want to be the man, you got to beat the man." Woooooooo
Nature Boy Ric Flair

c.d.

[Pirate Jack]

I just saw this. :lol: :laugh4: :2thumbsup: My God, Ally, how are you keeping a straight face in this discussion?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Give up Tom this battle has been won and buried :1tongue:

[Ally]

Hi Tom,

Because there's nothing more entertaining than an idiot crowing his victory when everyone but he is perfectly aware he lost.

But you are right, this is kind of becoming like laughing at the special olympics kids. Bordering on tacky.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Ally;89156]Pirate,

You are making a sweeping generalizion about millions of women. I am talking about five women and of these women, everyone who was a mother was a BAD mother. I notice you are completely overlooking the other two mothers in this group Annie and Polly. Want to know why? Because Polly walked out on her family again and again finally abandoning them for good in 81. And Annie dove into the bottle and abandoned her surviving daughter for others to take care of.

Three mothers:

Kate: daughter moves to have nothing to do with her. Sons taken because of her drinking.
Annie: drunk, abandons her children.
Polly: Drunk, abandons her children several times.




How do you know all this,Ally?
Were you there at the time,did you talk with the women themselves -----or are you simply content to take the word of the biased press,or their menfolk who abandoned THEM?

after

------CHEATING on her [Polly"s husband while putting her in the family way with her FIFTH child was busy putting his next door neighbour up the duff at thevery same time as Polly was giving birth.Most women I know would still break under that kind of treatment by their supposed "bread winner"----[as he was then termed],he being the only form of support often available.

------BEATING her black and blue-----incidently its all very well to be sitting in judgement on Kate and her sisters------Kate"s wife beating husband also had a drink problem by some accounts and sounds almost as monstrous as POlly"s horrible cheat of man who was father. to their five children.
By comparison John Kelly sounds like a decent man and seemed so to the coroner too,best of all he was clearly fond of Kate and I believe she found a modicum of support there.

[Pirate Jack]

Hi Tom,

Because there's nothing more entertaining than an idiot crowing his victory when everyone but he is perfectly aware he lost.

But you are right, this is kind of becoming like laughing at the special olympics kids. Bordering on tacky.

Pirate beat the Ally...Pirate Beat the Ally...who wants to grow-up with so many 'Bad Mothers' about :scratchchin:

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally, you talk of 'abandoned' children all the time.
I believe these children would have been removed by the parish authorities because of the parent's behaviour... and the resentment would have been the same, whether they had been abandoned or removed.
You can't resolve family issues with matters of law.
All of the men we discuss here, in close relationship with the victims, would have denied such a close relationship when questioned by the authorities simply because they would have been prosecuted if they admitted that they were living on the immoral earnings of their partners.
This is absolutely crucial to our meagre understanding of the complicated situation.
But I have to say that your stance and attitude here is not helpful to further study.

[Ally]

Yeah my stance and attitude that requires looking at the actual facts and not making up fantasies is really not conducive to the fantasy world you want to build, I can completely see that.

I could argue further but it's useless to argue with people who live in total la la land and apparently can construct elaborate fantasies where Annie and Polly didn't abandon their children long before they became prostitutes but it's okay that they abandoned their children because the authorities would have taken them anyway...okay. Yeah. Sure. That's an argument dripping with reason.

Da Horse is Dead and Done.

[halomanuk]

This whole forum is getting like a kids playground...

[Pirate Jack]

Hi Halomanuk

Behind this playground argument is a very serious argument indeed. Serious allegations were made against one of the worlds most respected Ripperologists.

And another Ripper myth was being sold to the greater public. That the victims of Jack the Ripper were ‘bad mothers’.

As has been demonstrated there is NO evidence for this. What these woman had in common were two things. They were Prostitutes and they drank (to various degrees)

What quite clearly has Not been demonstrated is that these women were in any way bad mothers (and lets face it only the children really have the right to reach that conclusion) and that Neal Sheldons reputation as one of the greatest authorities on the Ripper case is still intact.

It’s been an educating evening all round, nearly as good as last night except in less esteemed company.

Pirate

[halomanuk]

Hi Pirate,
If an allegation against a ripper author is being made then fair enough..

[Cap'n Jack]

Welcome to the world, Ally:

Chapman:

'Known as "Dark Annie," she was a 47-year old destitute prostitute who roamed the streets and moved from one common lodging house to the next when she could afford to pay for a room. In the early a.m. hours of September 8, 1888 she was thrown out of her lodging house to earn money for her bed. Her body was found several hours later in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street disemboweled and mutilated. Her uterus and a portion of the flesh surrounding her belly button were taken from the scene by the killer. She had married John Chapman, a coachman, in 1869. The couple had three children but her firstborn died of meningitis and her youngest son was born crippled. Due probably to the stress caused by the misfortunes of their children, the couple took to heavy drinking and separated. They lived apart for four years during which time Annie received an allowance from her husband until his death in 1886. '

[Tom_Wescott]

Cause you da man, Tom!!!

"If you want to be the man, you got to beat the man." Woooooooo
Nature Boy Ric Flair

c.d.

Wooooo Hooooooooo! You tell 'em, C.D. I guess maybe I should give Pirate Jack some credit for knowing how to pick his sparing partners, then. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Natalie...you're a day late and a dollar short!

[Ally]

"Due Probably". Boy there's facts. So it's wrong to speculate on causation if it paints them in a negative light, but it's okay to speculate on causes if it paints them in a pathetic and sympathetic light.

None of those facts are new to me and the speculation as to why they started drinking doesn't interest me. Frankly, I don't care why people do what they do. What matters is what you do. And there is no excuse on the planet good enough for abandoning your living children. And saying that because one child dies it's an excuse to ditch the living who still need you is warped.

[Natalie Severn]

Pirate Jack,
I would like to know what you mean by saying you are in "less esteemed company"?
Why do you have to constantly rake up some kind of "pecking order"?
Its so uncool that kind of crap hierarchy talk all the time.:scratchchin:

[Ally]

Hi Pirate,
If an allegation against a ripper author is being made then fair enough..

Oh and one more thing to clear up. The idea that there is some scurrilous accusations being made against Neal Shelden is total balls. Neal Shelden will be the first person to tell you that he is 100 percent completely on the side of the victims and biased on their behalf. In fact, I think there is an actual post somewhere on this site where he says almost exactly that. So Leahy trying to make out like there's some evil accusation against him is total crap.

[Natalie Severn]

"Due Probably". Boy there's facts. So it's wrong to speculate on causation if it paints them in a negative light, but it's okay to speculate on causes if it paints them in a pathetic and sympathetic light.

None of those facts are new to me and the speculation as to why they started drinking doesn't interest me. Frankly, I don't care why people do what they do. What matters is what you do. And there is no excuse on the planet good enough for abandoning your living children. And saying that because one child dies it's an excuse to ditch the living who still need you is warped.

What exactly were these menfolk doing?


Did the behaviour of Tom Conway,for example, have anything to do with Kate fleeing the domestic violence she was subjected to which could easily have resulted in an even more premature death?

Might the behaviour of Polly"s unfaithfull husband,when she was giving birth to their fifth child, have contributed to her leaving him?

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate Jack,
I would like to know what you mean by saying you are in "less esteemed company"?
Why do you have to constantly rake up some kind of "pecking order"?
Its so uncool that kind of crap hierarchy talk all the time.:scratchchin:

I don't know what my friend, Pirate, was referring to, but I'd reckon he didn't spend his evening with math students, because his maths is out and 2 + 2 equals something other than 4. But there's pretty much a pecking order to everything, isn't there? The great thing about scholarly persuits is you earn your place in the pecking order. I've worked hard to earn my place near the bottom, but still above the head of PJ. You don't mean to suggest that smart people should dumb themselves down to suit the lowest common denominator, do you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Wooooo Hooooooooo! You tell 'em, C.D. I guess maybe I should give Pirate Jack some credit for knowing how to pick his sparing partners, then. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Natalie...you're a day late and a dollar short!

Yes Tom.I have had a tough day,a very tough day.But I"ve got the gist of this and thats all you need.

[Ally]

Did the behaviour of Tom Conway,for example, have anything to do with Kate fleeing the domestic violence she was subjected to which could easily have resulted in an even more premature death?

Which had what to do with the fact that her daughter refused to have anything to do with her and moved around several times to avoid her mothers scrounging?

Might the behaviour of Polly"s unfaithfull husband,when she was giving birth to their fifth child, have contributed to her leaving him?

Might the fact that she had walked out on the family several times prior to that to go on drunken binges have had something to do with him having an affair (which by the way is something he actually denied doing and which is only an accusation made by her father and is not supported by any fact).

[Natalie Severn]

I don't know what my friend, Pirate, was referring to, but I'd reckon he didn't spend his evening with math students, because his maths is out and 2 + 2 equals something other than 4. But there's pretty much a pecking order to everything, isn't there? The great thing about scholarly persuits is you earn your place in the pecking order. I've worked hard to earn my place near the bottom, but still above the head of PJ. You don't mean to suggest that smart people should dumb themselves down to suit the lowest common denominator, do you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott


I dont think that, no.But its a bit naff to be constantly quoting rank,and stating your place in it and that of others and then placing everyone according to how you,personally and idiosyncratically "rank" people----which is the case with Pirate sometimes.........

[Pirate Jack]

Pirate Jack,
I would like to know what you mean by saying you are in "less esteemed company"?
Why do you have to constantly rake up some kind of "pecking order"?
Its so uncool that kind of crap hierarchy talk all the time.:scratchchin:

Well I certainly wasnt refering to you NAT :love:

I was refering to John Bennett's excellent book launch E1, and its glitter'artie attendence.;..a part from me of course..

Ally I cant beleive you are now trying to make this arguement against Neal Sheldon. Anyone who has ever read his book must surely realize that it is one of the most factual and opinion free books ever written.

Incidently I had the oppotunity of meeting with Kates descendant (at length) and at no piont did she suggest that she was a BAD gt gt gt grandmother :laugh4:

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Which had what to do with the fact that her daughter refused to have anything to do with her and moved around several times to avoid her mothers scrounging?


Maybe the daughter was a selfish little ****, Ally.



Might the fact that she had walked out on the family several times prior to that to go on drunken binges have had something to do with him having an affair (which by the way is something he actually denied doing and which is only an accusation made by her father and is not supported by any fact).


Whose "facts" are these? where did you obtain this information?

[Cap'n Jack]

Each and every case, Ally, does show the victims of these crimes as being almost driven to slaughter by the authorities concerned, but you would have it that they were driven to their slaughter by none other than themselves.
This is pure Colin Wilson.
Shame on you.

[Ally]

So the daughter is so selfish she MOVES several times to avoid her mother? Generally people who are that selfish have no problem just saying no.

I don't know Nats, where are the facts that he had an affair? The police reports show the drunken binges.

[Ally]

Right AP. The authorities forced them to open their mouths and guzzle down gin til they were too drunk to support themselves. They forced them to spend their doss money on gin instead of a bed. It's all the authorities fault and these women, poor retarded females that they are, bear absolutely no responsbility for their lives or their own decisions. They were only women after all,. You can't expect anything from them.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate is superficial. AP Wolf and Paul Begg are nice to him, and they've published books, so they're rock stars in his eyes and can do no wrong. To love AP and Paul is to hate SPE. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be the case, through no fault of SPE's. Ally and I are Americans, and Pirate hates Americans. He however most emphatically DOES NOT hate homosexuals, having from time to time found solace in their sweet, manly embrace. He's really not all that hard to figure out, except for how he can call himself a journalist when he writes and reads at the level of a first grader.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pirate Jack]

Pirate is superficial. AP Wolf and Paul Begg are nice to him, and they've published books, so they're rock stars in his eyes and can do no wrong.

No they simply seem to know what they are talking about

To love AP and Paul is to hate SPE. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be the case, through no fault of SPE's. Actually I am a great admirer of SPE's, he is a gentleman.

I simply do not agree with his, or Norma's views on Anderson, personally I like them both very much.

Ally and I are Americans, and Pirate hates Americans.

There might be some truth in that if it wasnt for the fact that most of my favourite Ripperologists are American, and the only Ripperologist I would call a hero is also American.

He however most emphatically DOES NOT hate homosexuals, having from time to time found solace in their sweet, manly embrace. He's really not all that hard to figure out, except for how he can call himself a journalist when he writes and reads at the level of a first grader. Yours truly, Tom Wescott

You can ride on my boat anytime big boy :laugh4: It is the nature of Pirates to be camp

Pirate

PS Sceptic Blue is also an American and he is cool even if he talks **** about the marginalia

[Sam Flynn]

You can ride on my boat anytime big boy :laugh4: It is the nature of Pirates to be camp
Hoist the Jolly Roger!!

[Natalie Severn]

So the daughter is so selfish she MOVES several times to avoid her mother? Generally people who are that selfish have no problem just saying no.



Ally, it sounds to me like she was a bit of a brat quite frankly.She was glad enough to ask her mother to assist with the childbirth when she needed her,and when she didnt need or want to be bothered,mother could f off.



I don't know Nats, where are the facts that he had an affair? The police reports show the drunken binges.

If thats so Ally,I would like a more specific reference for these reports,so I can read what they say.Who and when----gave the information to the police about the drunken binges?

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, a lesson in reality for you, Nobody hates nobody. It is a discussion board where fair views are exchanged for short change.
SPE is a fair and good man but he has little demons like you rubbing his ego, and he uses you like a rabid dog at a safe garden gate where the only person likely to come by is the local vicar, and he is going to be gay, so you are going to be upset anyway.
I think I know what you want.
William Cody in striped stockings and his pistol in is hand.

[Pirate Jack]

Hoist the Jolly Roger!!

Seaman Stains? Roger the cabin boy!

[Tom_Wescott]

There might be some truth in that if it wasnt for the fact that most of my favourite Ripperologists are American, and the only Ripperologist I would call a hero is also American.

Pretty much all Ripper books by American authors are crap. Essays are a different matter, of course. You have myself, Dan Norder, me, Don Souden, I, Andy Spallek, and of course...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Who's your American Ripperological hero?

[Pirate Jack]

Pretty much all Ripper books by American authors are crap. Essays are a different matter, of course. You have myself, Dan Norder, me, Don Souden, I, Andy Spallek, and of course...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Who's your American Ripperological hero?

I am clearly a massive fan of Don and i met Andy a few weeks ago and I am also a big fan and admirer..

but the book?:love:

Must dash. Good night all :hiya:

Pirate

[Mr Chumley]

I am not sure what the benefit has been, in what started, as debating the various collective emotional responses to these individual's demise.

Humans have a propensity for wishing to categorise and pigeon hole.

Reaction is atypified by
(a) a sense of sympathy or assumed empathy, for what ever reason with a scenario. It would appear from some of the comments that some individuals seek to understand or even profess to have an understanding of living in another period of history, or even country.
(b) an apathetic generallity, "so what", "what ever","never heard of them","not in my backyard-not interested"
(c) a moralising anti position such as "they had it coming", "they were scum"

Whether one falls in any of the categories, does not seem to be a reason for maintaining a "one upmanship" debate on semantics of use of subjects ranging from literal understanding of an adverb to individuals right to an opinion based on their on morality.

It has on occasion painted a colourful picture of some of the lower classes, but does nothing to change the fact that these women, regardless of their social standing and abilities of not being " a good mother", had the unforunate luck to choose a punter/client who had another agenda all together.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah Mr Chumley... shades of grey is it now?
Are you quite sure, sir, that you do not mean a whiter shade of pale?

'And so it was that later
as the miller told his tale
that her face, at first just ghostly,
turned a whiter shade of pale

She said, 'There is no reason
and the truth is plain to see.'

[perrymason]

I appreciate your position Chris, and yes, the emphasis Caz uses about any post I make is inflammatory and a source of aggravation personally...but I think the error she makes is in suggesting my exclusion desires about any Ripper victim needs to have definitive proof attached....which is the exact opposite approach used in prosecutions, whereby the accused is assumed innocent until proven otherwise. In this case, despite the lack of evidence or any reasonably repetitive streak, an unknown man is guilty of 5 murders. And I'm just to respect and accept that remark?

The burden of proof here isnt on the people who would like to dispel the idea of value of any mythical Rippers list based solely on opinion not evidence....its on the people who stand with conviction and claim that Jack the Ripper killed this woman,...or that woman, or both those women.

I suggest proving one individual guilty or reasonably suspected based on incriminating evidence would substantiate Caz's position, and I for one look forward to reviewing that data should it ever come to light.

But unsolved murders are not suddenly solved by support for opinions, and the murders of 5 women were not linked by evidence to one man.

Best regards.

[Mr Chumley]

Ahoy Cap'n, sorry for the delay..I think Black Stone cherry put it more aptly than Procul Harem
You can't judge a book looking at its cover
You can't love someone messing with another
you can't win a war fighting with your brother
you wanna have peace gotta love one another

yo ho ho and a bottle of Rum

[Pirate Jack]

I appreciate your position Chris, and yes, the emphasis Caz uses about any post I make is inflammatory and a source of aggravation personally...but I think the error she makes is in suggesting my exclusion desires about any Ripper victim needs to have definitive proof attached....which is the exact opposite approach used in prosecutions, whereby the accused is assumed innocent until proven otherwise. In this case, despite the lack of evidence or any reasonably repetitive streak, an unknown man is guilty of 5 murders. And I'm just to respect and accept that remark?

The burden of proof here isnt on the people who would like to dispel the idea of value of any mythical Rippers list based solely on opinion not evidence....its on the people who stand with conviction and claim that Jack the Ripper killed this woman,...or that woman, or both those women.

I suggest proving one individual guilty or reasonably suspected based on incriminating evidence would substantiate Caz's position, and I for one look forward to reviewing that data should it ever come to light.

But unsolved murders are not suddenly solved by support for opinions, and the murders of 5 women were not linked by evidence to one man.

Best regards.

Far be it from me to suggest that your operating a bizarre double standard here Mike.

But are you suggesting that we need ‘absolute proof’ to condemn a homicidal maniac of murdering these women but it’s perfectly OK to accuse these women of being ‘bad mothers’ with NO proof what so ever?

A group of women whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I just don’t get the logic here, not that I’ve seen you comment on the victims, but you didn’t exactly defend them either.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Far be it from me to suggest that your operating a bizarre double standard here Mike.

But are you suggesting that we need ‘absolute proof’ to condemn a homicidal maniac of murdering these women but it’s perfectly OK to accuse these women of being ‘bad mothers’ with NO proof what so ever?

A group of women whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I just don’t get the logic here, not that I’ve seen you comment on the victims, but you didn’t exactly defend them either.

Pirate

I have no idea where you got the idea that I ever said, thought, or posted that any woman was a bad mother. If I mentioned Motherhood it was to demonstrate some kind of connectivity from one woman to the next as far as middle aged Canonicals and a woman half their age.

Please re-read what you thought I said and see who you should be posting this towards.

I said it is the ones who have figuratively convicted one man for the deaths of the Canonical Five that carry the burden of proof here.....because not only are they not solved, they are not linked to one another with anything but guesswork.

Regards.

[Pirate Jack]

Apart from the fact; that they were all committed in close proximity, in a short space of time, in a very similar manor? All the women were prostitutes. They all were murdered with a knife. At least six had slash or Rip wounds. All had had their throats cut or stabbed. All but one (presumed disturbed) had cuts to the lower body. They all happened in sequence of progression…

That’s one big coincidence Mike, but if you and Andrew Cook insist, who am I to argue.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Apart from the fact; that they were all committed in close proximity, in a short space of time, in a very similar manor? All the women were prostitutes. They all were murdered with a knife. At least six had slash or Rip wounds. All had had their throats cut or stabbed. All but one (presumed disturbed) had cuts to the lower body. They all happened in sequence of progression…

That’s one big coincidence Mike, but if you and Andrew Cook insist, who am I to argue.

Pirate

I dont know why you decided to put words in my mouth today Pirate, but Ive only said and only will say until proven otherwise that 2 of the Canonical murders seem identical in the manner of victim acquisition...in the phased approach to their defeat and then murder, and in the post mortem activities which in fact is the only reason anyone made the name Jack the RIPPER up in the first place. A 3rd murder looks very similar in most aspects to those first 2 murders,... but the 3rd in the Canonical Group emphatically does not.

I think you should revist the Dutfields Yard murder....there is zero evidence that any interruption took place and testimony from professionals who portray the murder itself as being uncharacteristic of the previous 2.

Polly and Annie were cut when not resisting and lying down. No knife is used until then. Liz may have been choked with her scarf and cut while falling....meaning the killer had the knife out while she was able to resist, and was being choked while standing up,.. with her scarf.

Regards.

[Pirate Jack]

I think you should revist the Dutfields Yard murder....there is zero evidence that any interruption took place

Regards.

Apart from the statement given by Schwartz you mean. :policeman:

[perrymason]

Apart from the statement given by Schwartz you mean. :policeman:

You mean the witness who gave a statement on Sunday night then was never called or mentioned at any of the 5 day Inquest? The one whose story is remembered by Swanson in a memo, not documented in the Inquest proceeding? The one whose 12:45 account is superseded by James Browns 12:45am sighting of Liz?

That guy?:wink2:

Best regards Pirate.

[Pirate Jack]

You mean the witness who gave a statement on Sunday night then was never called or mentioned at any of the 5 day Inquest? The one whose story is remembered by Swanson in a memo, not documented in the Inquest proceeding? The one whose 12:45 account is superseded by James Browns 12:45am sighting of Liz?
That guy?:wink2:

Best regards Pirate.

Aah! Fantastic you do remember.....I was getting worried there for a minute:scratchchin:

Pirate

[perrymason]

Aah! Fantastic you do remember.....I was getting worried there for a minute:scratchchin:

Pirate

Take one empty yard as stated by the members Lave and Eagle, add Liz Stride seen with someone leaning over her by the school nowhere near the gates at 12:45am, then add Blackwells estimate on the time of her cut, and the arrival time of Diemshutz.

That scenario lends itself to an interrupted mutilation phase?

Oh yeah....add the fact that from the moment she was on the ground, her skirt was down to her boots, she is on her side, and she has a single throat cut nowhere near as deep as any other Canonical.

Cheers for today.....catch you later Pirate.

[caz]

Well, Perry, someone murdered Liz and someone murdered Mary.

We only know of one homicidal maniac going round the area at the time cutting the throats of unfortunates who went out on the streets unaccompanied after dark, and mutilating them if and when the conditions and circumstances allowed.

Arguably they didn't allow in Dutfield's Yard, if Schwartz or Pipeman could have brought a copper back at any second, or a clubman could have emerged for a slash of a different kind at any second, or pony hooves could have come clip-clopping down the road and into the yard at any second.

As I posted elsewhere, earlier today, I can only imagine how I feel about the thought of being remembered, a hundred years from now, as a murder victim - pure and simple.

I don't need to go into the reasons these individual women were in the wrong place at the wrong time, to know that if I have to have my name and slaughtered remains pored over by a million strangers by 2109, I would much sooner be remembered as the impersonal victim of a serial killer who would have done it to someone else had I not been there, and didn't do it because of who I was to him. Who would seriously prefer to be remembered as the victim of someone who knew them personally, really wanted them dead and did it in a cold and brutal fashion, and then let a serial killer who was active at the time take the blame?

Harold Shipman's victims were 'responsible' for nothing more than being old and at home when the devil called to 'check up' on the wellbeing of patients who happened to be on his little list. They did not die because they got themselves addicted to alcohol, in an era when the water could have killed you quicker than the beer; they were not murdered because they abandoned their children. So the behaviour or lifestyle of a serial killer's victims has bugger all to do with my original point.

In short, I would sooner be remembered as the victim of a Harold Shipman any day, than the victim of someone close to me who so badly wanted me snuffed out that they did just that. Call me selfish or unimaginative, but I can only really relate to the victims on that basis: how they might have felt if they knew people would one day be trying to force them into the latter category for no good reason.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr.Hyde]

Overwhelming homocide statistics point to victim knowing murderer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael,

With all due respect, you've been rather obsessed with your anti-C5 theory for some time now, and it seeps into everything you post on all threads. Surely you can understand the frustration this seems to have caused a number of other posters, particularly since your stance isn't exactly a popular one?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Victor]

What about the weekend\ bank holiday timing of the C5 (+ Tabram) murders?

[Fisherman]

"Surely you can understand the frustration this seems to have caused a number of other posters, particularly since your stance isn't exactly a popular one?"

Let´s just hope that that Jack´s identity, when found, is popular enough for everybody...!

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Stop being a bigmouth, Fish. I wasn't insulting Michael. He knows how he posts and what I said is true for others, not just him. In fact, I'm not among those who have been commenting about him lately. I've caught plenty of crap myself for stuff I've posted over the years, so I'm qualified to talk to Mike. Since he has now become frustrated by the situation, I thought I'd point out the root cause.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Michael,

With all due respect, you've been rather obsessed with your anti-C5 theory for some time now, and it seeps into everything you post on all threads. Surely you can understand the frustration this seems to have caused a number of other posters, particularly since your stance isn't exactly a popular one?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I know seem like Im propagating a theory, but in fact what Im reacting to are "stories" about what may have transpired here or there based on the Canonical mentality. People are using the Canonical Group as the "defacto" Ripper tally and then supposing this or that based on the profile of the man that would have killed those 5 women in those varied ways. i.e......3 different ways within the 5 deaths. One with Polly, Annie and Kate, one with Liz, and Mr Playful in room 13.

There is no uninterrupted pattern of behavior that fits all 5 deaths by one man, particularly when anomalies devoid of any traditional Ripper methodologies or traits are included in the group.

There is no proof that the man that killed Polly or Annie changed what he did 1 iota going forward, there are only deaths that have been guessed at as being Ripper murders happening after ones that surely were, using the premise that he changed.

I understand that many people dont like the idea of going back and re-building their theories using a different victim total and a less flexible Ripper profile, but I can say that traditional thinking about the murders based on Canonical lines has in my opinion, been fruitless.

Someone has to pose these questions here, and it seems its a cause that Ive been left to try and move forward pretty well on my own.

There were other men aside from Jack that slit and stabbed women with knives during that same year,(non-Canonicals), there were other serial killers active that same Fall, (one Torso of 2 found in 1888, the second in 89), there were alleged Ripper victims that are Canonicals that were not "ripped" nor nearly "ripped" at all, and there is continuity within the alleged series that can be held up to a critical review....Polly, Annie and likely Kate met their killer, were overpowered by their killer, cut by their killer and opened by their killer in almost identical fashion.

I cant understand why that is illogical analysis to some.

Thanks for the thought Tom, best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael,

Surely you must know that most of us have put a great deal of thought into this case, including into the notion that Jack didn't kill all 5 women. Or that he killed MORE than 5 women. In fact, many of us were perusing this long before you found the Casebook. So none of this is new. The simple truth is that most of us have not found reason to conclude that Jack didn't kill Stride or Kelly. Can we prove it beyond doubt? Of course not and neither can you, since to do so would mean we had our man.
It's perfectly reasonable to say you don't think Jack killed all 5 women. I'm not 100% convinced he did myself. But to assume we haven't given it as much thought as you have is rather condescending, and I think that your blindness on this topic and your passion for it leads to some (perhaps unintentionally) condescending remarks that a lot of the senior posters here feel they don't deserve.
Check me out being mister introspective! :scholar: :rolleyes2:

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Very reasonably stated Tom. Regarding the following statement:

"There is no uninterrupted pattern of behavior that fits all 5 deaths by one man, particularly when anomalies devoid of any traditional Ripper methodologies or traits are included in the group."

I would like to add that the the sample size is too small to draw crtain conclusions as to what you seem to be defining as "traditional Ripper methodologies". You cannot take 5 murders, or 3, or whatever... and then infer what the Ripper always does in every murder. Crimes are opportunistic, and often the characteristics are based as much on environment or other factors outside the control of the killer as they are on the killer's methodologies.

For example.. say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. Then I flip it again and it comes up heads. Is it then appropriate to conclude "Flipping this coin will ALWAYS be heads". No, of course not.

Yet, some ripperologists exclude Stride and Kelly for similar reasons. "Oh, the Ripper ALWAYS kills outdoors." "The Ripper always performs mutilation." "The Ripper was always silent and stealthy and would never attack a woman in the street", etc. We cannot make these assumptions. The sample size is too small. If the Ripper had killed 100 women, and in every case the murder was outdoors, then the argument would be stronger. As it is, we should expect aberrations and differences in each murder.

Foe example, I think you asked "Why" in the Stride murder did the Ripper choose to cut the throat less deeply. The answer is simply... who knows? Who knows what happened? Maybe the Ripper panicked and was rushed, since he had just been caught in the act by Schwartz. Maybe Stride fought back? Maybe he slipped? Who knows? There could be a thousand reasons.

There is absolutely no reason why all the Ripper's murders need to be "nearly identical." They just need to be similar enough that the character of the crimes is essentially consistent. If the Ripper did kill all the 5 canonic victims (as I personally believe) then the differences in the 5 murders must remain (unfortunately) attributed to various unknown factors. We may infer what these factors are (as many have), but they still remain unknown. What actually happened in any murder may be inferred, but such inference is based on the scantest information... the only one who could explain what actually happened is the killer himself. Everything else is speculation.

RH

[Sam Flynn]

There were other men aside from Jack that slit and stabbed women with knives during that same yearWhat happened to Kelly could hardly be reduced to mere "slitting" or "stabbing", Mike - and that's the issue.Polly, Annie and likely Kate met their killer, were overpowered by their killer, cut by their killer and opened by their killer in almost identical fashion.But they weren't - if one wants to be fussy, there were rather different approaches used, and rather different outcomes to the mutilations, in each case. The elephant in the room is that Polly, Annie and Kate each had their bellies cut open, the latter two having internal organs cut out, as did Kelly. This rare and extreme behaviour is one of the main reasons why we cannot "play down" what happened to her.

So, Kelly was killed in a room - but the other three (or four) were each killed in quite different locations, and under different conditions of time, weather, and privacy.

[perrymason]

What happened to Kelly could hardly be reduced to mere "slitting" or "stabbing", Mike - and that's the issue.But they weren't - if one wants to be fussy, there were rather different approaches used, and rather different outcomes to the mutilations, in each case. The elephant in the room is that Polly, Annie and Kate each had their bellies cut open, the latter two having internal organs cut out, as did Kelly. This rare and extreme behaviour is one of the main reasons why we cannot "play down" what happened to her.



I would agree with most of the above Sam, but the differentiators would be that I believe as did the respective attending physicians did, that Polly's killer and Annie's killer were most likely after their uterus, its why he killed them. To what end, I dont have any idea Id be willing to defend to the end, but if that was the case then it could mean that 2 "rare" abdominal mutilators, or more, were operating in that same small theater. I think there are plenty of factors that might explain that phenomenon....including men appearing to have the same blood lust but not with the same objectives. And also a man or men who might want to cover their own acts of violence.

Anarchists of all kinds would have reveled in this I think....and we have all sorts in that square mile, and I think its possible 1 or more deaths may not be randomly acquired victims...and even perhaps commited to capitalize on the atmosphere in the East End.

To Tom and Robhouse, I believe over the years Ive been consistently deffering to much more advanced knowledge than my own here and have referred to members as having sound intellect and illustrious careers with great respect for their work and logical arguments, but that respect doesnt translate to a willingness to suspend my own belief in my interpretive skills and instincts and to just defer to the "experts" opinions.

I know many people here have decades in this, countless hours of research and review, and I have always shown my respect for that, but if you will allow this analogy....

If you are given a picture from a boat in a bay of a tranquil seaside resort in Portugal, with a huge magnificent sailboat in the centre of the frame, tied at the wharf with charming cafes and restaurants set back off the wharf lining a street.....and that is all you are given to rate the quality of the resort in your opinion,... tranquil and lovely might easily be your take on it.

If you knew that on the other side of the boat... and out of your view... there is police tape surrounding the ship's gangplank and bodies strewn all over the wharf, with SWAT on site, and Investigators bagging evidence.....what would your opinion of the resort be then?

How do you know whether that is happening? You look on the other side of the boat and see.

I dont think many even very serious people have truly embraced a Non-Canonical Ripper Tom to any large degree, perhaps partly for fear of reprisals from peers, an ousting from the academic community, a purely scientific review of evidence...I think as a non-professional in the field, less experienced, but also less jaded and not fearful of any rejection or resistance as an "insider" would be, I can ask questions or pose ideas that most of you likely feel you couldnt or wouldnt to your peer group. But in terms of serous researchers putting in print theories that do not include all 5 Canonicals as likely or even probable .....how many books have there been like that?

Well...Im not a peer,....Im a friend to some members as they are to me and I enjoy the discussions and getting to know their experienced views, but Im just a student, ...I can take those stretches.

Best regards and Bon Soir tous mes amis....(if thats correct, apologies to my french speaking friends.)