Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    That must be the son of Samuel Kosminsky, one of the West End furriers. His uncle Martin has been mentioned a fair amount.

    One of Scott Nelson's articles mentions Samuel and Martin.

    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - The Polish Jew Suspect - Jewish Witness Connection: Some Further Speculations
    Righto, Mr Palmer thanks for that

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Indeed it could be. And it looks like someone is sleeping there.

      Here's another sleeper:

      Click image for larger version Name:	sleeping three.JPG Views:	0 Size:	37.6 KB ID:	751855

      I am not defending Rubenhold per se, but my worry is that, in their zeal to dismiss her thesis as garbage, her critics are overstating their own assumptions as certainties.

      Personally, although I don't accept many of her arguments, I think she is in the right ballpark psychologically.

      I don't think the murderer is victimizing "prostitutes." He is victimizing middle-aged alcoholics who are out on the street at night. I doubt it mattered one iota to him if they were soliciting or merely wandering the streets.

      We can’t see what surrounds the woman in your photo. She’s lying between a bin (?) and a tree and has filled that spot with bedding.

      Show me a woman lying supine on a hard surface. And if you find one, make a mental note of how many others you saw tucked into a corner or against a wall.

      I’m not sure where your rough sleeper was located, but I would imagine that the local police force has a more relaxed attitude to rough sleeping than did the Victorian City of London force.



      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


        I don't think the murderer is victimizing "prostitutes." He is victimizing middle-aged alcoholics who are out on the street at night. I doubt it mattered one iota to him if they were soliciting or merely wandering the streets.

        Of course, for the likes of Nichols and Chapman, prostitution wasn't the only method of earning a few pennies street begging was also another way

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          We can’t see what surrounds the woman in your photo. She’s lying between a bin (?) and a tree and has filled that spot with bedding.

          Show me a woman lying supine on a hard surface. And if you find one, make a mental note of how many others you saw tucked into a corner or against a wall.

          I’m not sure where your rough sleeper was located, but I would imagine that the local police force has a more relaxed attitude to rough sleeping than did the Victorian City of London force.

          Stride as a victim is a subject of debate of course but if she was a victim there could hardly have been a worse spot to have bed down for the night. An open gateway, a club with lights on and singing coming from inside and right next to a door.

          Polly too. Why lie down in front of some gates that for all she’d known might have opened up for work 2 hours later?

          Then Annie. Apart from the millions to one chances of the ripper just finding her there why sleep in someone’s yard with an outside loo? She might have got turfed out at any time.

          Sadly these women would have experienced rough sleepers. They would have known ‘better’ spots. At least spots where they would have been less likely to have been disturbed or moved on (which probably wouldn’t have been in the form of a polite request.)
          Regards

          Herlock



          Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Stride as a victim is a subject of debate of course but if she was a victim there could hardly have been a worse spot to have bed down for the night. An open gateway, a club with lights on and singing coming from inside and right next to a door.

            Polly too. Why lie down in front of some gates that for all she’d known might have opened up for work 2 hours later?

            Then Annie. Apart from the millions to one chances of the ripper just finding her there why sleep in someone’s yard with an outside loo? She might have got turfed out at any time.

            Sadly these women would have experienced rough sleepers. They would have known ‘better’ spots. At least spots where they would have been less likely to have been disturbed or moved on (which probably wouldn’t have been in the form of a polite request.)
            Clearly common sense does not hold much sway in academic circles these days!
            Best Regards,

            Tristan

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              Show me a woman lying supine on a hard surface. And if you find one, make a mental note of how many others you saw tucked into a corner or against a wall.
              Hi Gary.

              For the sake of clarity, why on earth does the rough sleeper have to be supine? Did Rubenold make that argument? That's rather a strange requirement, isn't it?

              Can't a murderer roll a woman onto her back?

              The final position of the corpse doesn't tell you how the woman was positioned when attacked, regardless of whether she was sitting, standing, soliciting, walking, or slumped against a gate.

              Obviously, I agree that the 'beat' system is a major problem for Rubenhold's theory.

              I don't care much for Bleakley's essay, but he does link 3 modern cases of people attacked while sleeping rough. A young woman found dead while presumably sleeping rough in a park in Melbourne; a Chinese man beaten to death in New York while sleeping on the sidewalk at night; an Irishman beaten and burned to death while sleeping in a homeless camp near Cork.

              People out after dark in slummy areas are at risk of being victimized whether they are soliciting or not.

              Click image for larger version  Name:	crashed two.JPG Views:	0 Size:	50.3 KB ID:	752048


              Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-01-2021, 04:09 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Then Annie. Apart from the millions to one chances of the ripper just finding her there why sleep in someone’s yard with an outside loo? She might have got turfed out at any time.
                Hi Michael.

                I posted an article on Howard Brown's site of a Victorian era woman, described as an 'unfortunate,' attacked while sleeping in an outhouse, so I'm not as certain as you are that it would be a million to one. If the Ripper was himself a derelict out at night, he had to take a piss as much as the next man.

                I can appreciate people being skeptical about the Ripper finding a woman sleeping rough in the backyard of Hanbury Street; on the other hand, I've never been too keen on the idea of a middle-aged woman with one foot in the grave soliciting at 5.25 a.m. in the morning, ie., several hours after the pubs have closed down.

                The evidence that she was soliciting comes from Elizabeth Long. If you are willing to ignore that evidence as dubious, Annie could just as easily have been followed by someone who watched her enter the passage.

                I'm fine with accepting Long's evidence, but bear in mind that means the suspect was a foreigner over the age of 40.

                How many people in these parts are willing to throw their preferred suspect in the rubbish bin on the strength of that evidence?

                Cheers.

                Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-01-2021, 04:10 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                  I hear what you are saying but I think it is more than just getting 'wound up'. Yes, for a lot of people, including myself, this is an occasional hobby thing but there are a lot of people, who have worked really hard on research, writing books etc. Why is it that their opinions and research can either be dismissed or frowned upon because they are not an academic? It could apply to a whole range of other areas as well, not just this one. And for me, that's the point here I don't like some getting all snobby about history, its the kind of thing that can put people off.

                  Of course it is not life and death for you or me but it may feel like it a bit to someone, who is really passionate about a subject or has put in a hell of a lot of work into something to then have it disparaged, simply because they didn't have the right letters after their name.
                  There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

                  Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

                  Completely standard human behavior.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    Hi Michael.

                    I posted an article on Howard Brown's site of a Victorian era woman, described as an 'unfortunate,' attacked while sleeping in an outhouse, so I'm not as certain as you are that it would be a million to one. If the Ripper was himself a derelict out at night, he had to take a piss as much as the next man.

                    I can appreciate people being skeptical about the Ripper finding a woman sleeping rough in the backyard of Hanbury Street; on the other hand, I've never been too keen on the idea of a middle-aged woman with one foot in the grave soliciting at 5.25 a.m. in the morning, ie., several hours after the pubs have closed down.

                    The evidence that she was soliciting comes from Elizabeth Long. If you are willing to ignore that evidence as dubious, Annie could just as easily have been followed by someone who watched her enter the passage.

                    I'm fine with accepting Long's evidence, but bear in mind that means the suspect was a foreigner over the age of 40.

                    How many people in these parts are willing to throw their preferred suspect in the rubbish bin on the strength of that evidence?

                    Cheers.

                    Wasn’t Chapman described as an ‘unfortunate’ by Tim Donovan?



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post

                      There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

                      Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

                      Completely standard human behavior.
                      Remember it wasn’t law enforcement individuals who cracked the 50 year old Zodiac cypher, but keen amateurs with skills that the FBI didn’t have.

                      Don’t f**k with Cats on Netflix is a real-life example of how keen amateurs managed to be two steps ahead of the police in tracking down a murderer.

                      I never dismiss ‘amateurs’ as some actually may have the key to unlock the secrets others have struggled with for years.
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post

                        There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

                        Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

                        Completely standard human behavior.
                        So very true. Sadly. Its a real disservice for both the academics and the people they are critical of. Can't really see this changing anytime soon, will probably get worse especially if the amateurs are starting to step on even more toes. The academics will feel even more threatened.
                        Best Regards,

                        Tristan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          Hi Michael.

                          I posted an article on Howard Brown's site of a Victorian era woman, described as an 'unfortunate,' attacked while sleeping in an outhouse, so I'm not as certain as you are that it would be a million to one. If the Ripper was himself a derelict out at night, he had to take a piss as much as the next man.

                          I can appreciate people being skeptical about the Ripper finding a woman sleeping rough in the backyard of Hanbury Street; on the other hand, I've never been too keen on the idea of a middle-aged woman with one foot in the grave soliciting at 5.25 a.m. in the morning, ie., several hours after the pubs have closed down.

                          The evidence that she was soliciting comes from Elizabeth Long. If you are willing to ignore that evidence as dubious, Annie could just as easily have been followed by someone who watched her enter the passage.

                          I'm fine with accepting Long's evidence, but bear in mind that means the suspect was a foreigner over the age of 40.

                          How many people in these parts are willing to throw their preferred suspect in the rubbish bin on the strength of that evidence?

                          Cheers.
                          You make some very good points here RJ. Does make you wonder who would be a potential client? Someone who has been up all night or someone that has just woken up?

                          On another point from what I can recall from reading in Jack London and George Orwell. Poor people at the time, with no place to sleep tended to wander about all night, because they would often be moved on by the police if they tried to have a kip, then sleep during the day in parks etc, where they were less likely to get hassled or moved on.

                          Off all the places to find to sleep, the backyard of an accessible building would make sense from the perspective that you are less likely to be found by the police but I just don't see it where she was found, I would have thought it more likely she would have slept in the passageway inside. But of course I could be completely wrong and there is simply no way of knowing for sure.
                          Best Regards,

                          Tristan

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            Are these actual quotes?

                            Not really, but they are paraphrased and taken out of context. Maliciously out of context.

                            Screenshots taken from page two of the "Ripper victims were caught sleeping" thread, currently on page two of the General Victims Discussion board.
                            Attached Files
                            " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              I don't care much for Bleakley's essay, but he does link 3 modern cases of people attacked while sleeping rough. A young woman found dead while presumably sleeping rough in a park in Melbourne; a Chinese man beaten to death in New York while sleeping on the sidewalk at night; an Irishman beaten and burned to death while sleeping in a homeless camp near Cork.

                              People out after dark in slummy areas are at risk of being victimized whether they are soliciting or not.
                              I'm not sure those modern cases are particularly useful for comparison purposes, RJ.

                              One young female, no further details but only 'presumably' sleeping rough, and two males who could well have been the victims of bigotry or hate crime.

                              The 'five' we are concerned with here were all female, and when you add in the mutilations and organ removals, these murders - collectively - smack of something beyond prejudice against vagrancy.

                              For my money, part of the deal for the killer would have been in the actual overpowering of his victims. Can't really see him attacking spoilsports who were snoring soundly.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                I'm not sure those modern cases are particularly useful for comparison purposes, RJ.

                                One young female, no further details but only 'presumably' sleeping rough, and two males who could well have been the victims of bigotry or hate crime.

                                The 'five' we are concerned with here were all female, and when you add in the mutilations and organ removals, these murders - collectively - smack of something beyond prejudice against vagrancy.

                                For my money, part of the deal for the killer would have been in the actual overpowering of his victims. Can't really see him attacking spoilsports who were snoring soundly.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Hi Caz, of course these are Bleakley's examples, not mine.

                                Sometime back I did post on Howard site the case of an 'unfortunate' attacked, and I believe raped, while sleeping rough in an outhouse. I also posted a case of a woman sleeping in the countryside in Kent in the early 1890s that was attacked and had her throat slit by a wandering soldier. Women are attacked in their sleep by cowards. Women are also attacked when simply walking down the sidewalk.

                                While I certainly don't deny that the East End victims were humiliated in a sexual way, how does it follow that the murderer saw them as 'prostitutes' rather than vagrants?

                                Haven't mutilating murderers targeted college women? Children? Minorities?

                                The sexual depravity of a crime rests entirely on the murderer's shoulders, not the victim's.

                                All the best,

                                RP



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X