What 5 Questions Would You Like Answered?

[Wickerman]

There is a regrettable tendency lately by some of the more abusive Canon Cultists to insult the poster who disagrees with that perspective, not that I personally find David to be that way or was posting to take one side or the other. Its just that youre little misunderstanding highlights some rather obnoxious behavior and commentary from individuals who believe their non proven-case is better than any other non-proven case.

I would really rather discuss and debate myself, heated or casual, and I wouldnt like this site to have the negative aggressive edge that it gets from these folks. I know. Ive been one on occasion.

No-one knows diddly really, we are all just poking around to see if anything is under a rock. So perhaps a Code, like an Honor Code....not needed to be enforced or monitored by the busy and generous staff here, but by us all, as individuals. United in the belief that the dialogue should be either informative, witty or constructive...or a combination of them all....but not mean spirited. Its tiresome and juvenile. And it only serves to expose the fact that the individual offering the snide remarks believes in something which 125 years of investigation and far smarter people couldnt prove...that one man killed 5.

All the best Lynn

Well said Michael.

Though perhaps a little unfortunate, that these thoughts (in hi-lite) never occurred to you when you chose to suggest that the discrediting of Hutchinson was a "matter of record".

[Abby Normal]

Shut your pie hole, moron!


; )

Just kidding. Note the winky face.

Totally agree.

[Abby Normal]

There is a regrettable tendency lately by some of the more abusive Canon Cultists to insult the poster who disagrees with that perspective, not that I personally find David to be that way or was posting to take one side or the other. Its just that youre little misunderstanding highlights some rather obnoxious behavior and commentary from individuals who believe their non proven-case is better than any other non-proven case.

I would really rather discuss and debate myself, heated or casual, and I wouldnt like this site to have the negative aggressive edge that it gets from these folks. I know. Ive been one on occasion.

No-one knows diddly really, we are all just poking around to see if anything is under a rock. So perhaps a Code, like an Honor Code....not needed to be enforced or monitored by the busy and generous staff here, but by us all, as individuals. United in the belief that the dialogue should be either informative, witty or constructive...or a combination of them all....but not mean spirited. Its tiresome and juvenile. And it only serves to expose the fact that the individual offering the snide remarks believes in something which 125 years of investigation and far smarter people couldnt prove...that one man killed 5.

All the best Lynn

Shut your pie hole, moron!


; )

[Mr Lucky]

I'd reserve my 6th question to Patrick Mulshaw : "Could you describe Mr Oldmanwatchman, please ?"

He would look like a slaughter man from Barbers yard.

[DVV]

Agreed, however that guy is still bothering me.
We know there were a lot of practical jokers after the Hanbury St murder, and moreso after the double event.
But right after the Nichols murder ?

[Wickerman]

Haha !
Good one, Jon.

But seriously, there would be no guy like that at the time of the Nichols murder.

Hypothetically then, where we have a murderer who returns to the scene of the crime to make suggestive comments, do you think this is part of his personality, or learned behavior?

I only mention it 'tongue-in-cheek', because in all honesty, we cannot rule it out.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello David. Thanks.

"My sincere apologies."

Accepted, of course.

"I do not share your point of view, but really there's nothing personal."

Splendid. We disagree but are not disagreeable.

Cheers.
LC

There is a regrettable tendency lately by some of the more abusive Canon Cultists to insult the poster who disagrees with that perspective, not that I personally find David to be that way or was posting to take one side or the other. Its just that youre little misunderstanding highlights some rather obnoxious behavior and commentary from individuals who believe their non proven-case is better than any other non-proven case.

I would really rather discuss and debate myself, heated or casual, and I wouldnt like this site to have the negative aggressive edge that it gets from these folks. I know. Ive been one on occasion.

No-one knows diddly really, we are all just poking around to see if anything is under a rock. So perhaps a Code, like an Honor Code....not needed to be enforced or monitored by the busy and generous staff here, but by us all, as individuals. United in the belief that the dialogue should be either informative, witty or constructive...or a combination of them all....but not mean spirited. Its tiresome and juvenile. And it only serves to expose the fact that the individual offering the snide remarks believes in something which 125 years of investigation and far smarter people couldnt prove...that one man killed 5.

All the best Lynn

[lynn cates]

of course

Hello David. Thanks.

"My sincere apologies."

Accepted, of course.

"I do not share your point of view, but really there's nothing personal."

Splendid. We disagree but are not disagreeable.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Haha !
Good one, Jon.

But seriously, there would be no guy like that at the time of the Nichols murder.

[Wickerman]

I'd reserve my 6th question to Patrick Mulshaw : "Could you describe Mr Oldmanwatchman, please ?"

Mrs Paumier did describe him.

[DVV]

Hello David. Thanks.

"I'm not being nasty, that's just what you are doing."

Actually, you are. You focus on posters...
LC

Hi Lynn,

I understand. You're right. My sincere apologies.

I do not share your point of view, but really there's nothing personal.

Cheers

[DVV]

I'd reserve my 6th question to Patrick Mulshaw : "Could you describe Mr Oldmanwatchman, please ?"

[curious4]

Casual Ward

I found this on a webside http://www.workhouses.org.uk/vagrants/index.shtml - could this explain how Kate was let out early? Or was the "trouble" that she promised more than she was prepared to give. As far as I can see mainly men picked oakum and broke rocks, women scrubbed floors etc, but there is a photo of a woman picking oakum.

A woman called Mary Higgs, clergyman's daughter went undercover in several casual wards in 1904.. This is her account. (Hope it's not too long)

We arrived, alone, a few minutes before six, at the workhouse lodge, which stood all by itself down a long lane which ended in iron gates. This lodge was very small, and was occupied by a man, the workhouse buildings being a little way off. The man was a male pauper, and no one else was in sight. We had to enter his hut to answer questions, which he recorded in a book, and we were then out of sight of the house. When we first arrived at the gate he told us to wait a few minutes, as we were before time. Some male tramps came up and we saw him send away one poor, utterly ragged man, who begged pitifully to be admitted. The lodge-keeper told him he could not claim because he had been in that workhouse within the month. So he limped away. He could not possibly reach another workhouse that night. The man admitted three others, and sent them on to the male quarters. He let us in at five minutes to six. We thought this was kind, as he might have kept us waiting, and it had begun to rain. He took my friend's name, occupation, age, where she came from, and her destination, and then sent her on, rather imperatively, to the tramp ward. She stood at the door, some way off, waiting for me. Be kept me inside his lodge and began to take the details. He talked to me in what I suppose he thought a very agreeable manner, telling me he wished I had come alone earlier, and he would have given me a cup of tea. I thanked him, wondering if this was usual, and then he took my age, and finding I was a married woman (I must use his exact words), he said, "Just the right age for a bit of funning: come down to me later in the evening." I was too horror-struck to reply: besides I was in his power, with no one within call but my friend, and all the conditions unknown and strange. Probably silence was best; he took it for consent, and, as other tramps were coming, let me pass on. I made a mental vow to expose him before I left the place. He took my bundle, and asked if I had any money. I gave him my last penny. I received a wooden token for the bundle. I then joined my friend, and told her she had better give up her umbrella and her penny. She went to do so after some tramps had passed, and though I stood and waited, and she was only gone a moment, he tried to kiss her as she gave him the things.
...
Put to bed, like babies, at about half-past six, the kind woman in charge brought us our food. Only one thing had exercised my mind—"What did that pauper mean by my going to him later?" However, I told the portress all about what he said. She was very indignant, and said I must tell the superintendent of the tramp ward next morning, that she had to leave us, but would take good care to lock us in, and I need not be afraid, he could not get. at us. We were very hungry, having had nothing to eat since about twelve o'clock. Anything eatable would be welcome, and we were also thirsty. We were given a small lading-can three parts full of hot gruel and a thick crust of bread. The latter we were quite hungry enough to eat, but when we tasted the gruel it was perfectly saltless. A salt-box on the table, into which many fingers had been dipped was brought us; the old woman said we were "lucky to get that." But we had no spoons; it. was impossible to mix the salt properly into the ocean of nauseous food. I am fond of gruel, and in my hunger and thirst could easily have taken it. if fairly palatable. But I could only cast in a few grains of salt and drink a little to moisten the dry bread : my companion could not stomach it at all, and the old woman, being accustomed to workhouse ways, had a little tea in her pocket, and got the kind attendant to pour the gruel down the w.c. and infuse her tea with hot water from the bath tap. We were then left locked in alone, at eight o'clock, when no more tramps would be admitted. The bath-room, containing our clothes, was locked ; the closet was left unlocked : a pail was also given us for sanitary purposes. We had no means of assuaging the thirst which grew upon us as the night went on; for dry bread, even if washed down with thin gruel, is very provocative of thirst. I no longer wonder that tramps beg twopence for a drink and make for the nearest public-house. Left alone, we could hear outside the voice of the porter. I wondered if he expected us to open a window. However we stayed quiet, but had one " scare." Suddenly a door at the end of the room was unlocked, and a man, put his head in. He only asked, "How many? " and when we answered "Three," he locked us in speedily. I could not, however, get to sleep for a long time after finding that a man had the key of our room, especially as our elderly friend had told us of another workhouse where the portress left the care of the female tramps to a man almost entirely, and she added that "he did what he liked with them." I expressed horror at such a state of things, but she assured me it was so, and warned us not on any account to go into that workhouse.

The website is well worth a visit if you haven't seen it..

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

If you want to know the time

Hello all,

You forgot "If you want to know the time, ask a policeman...."

Cheers,
C4

[Observer]

Haha indeed Dave.

Should have been

"Has anybody here seen Kelly, Kelly from the Flower and Dean"

Regards

Observer