Mitre Square in all it gory glory.

[Phil Carter]

It was in the interests of the police to keep the square as quiet as they could for as long as possible. They would have their hands full with crowd control as daylight came and word of the murder spread.

Hello Scott,

Funny you should say that. Thank you for reminding me. I quote from "Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow, 2006, page 124.

"An ambulance arrived to take the body to Golden Lane mortuary. Collard ordred the neighbourhood searched. (I seem to remember Halse ordering the same thing earlier, but I digress..)
Detective Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City detectives, arrived shortly afterwards with a number of men who were detailed to search streets and lodging houses. (yet another order given... but I digress..)
Several people were stopped and searched but without result. Later, many people flocked to Mitre Square to satisfy their curiosity. Inspector Izzard, and Sergeants Phillips and Dudman were there to keep the crowds in order."

(my emphasis and my italics)

If one looks at the italics.. 3 men, were detailed to keep the crowds at bay. Now thats a clever one. How many entrances are there to Mitre Square again? Oh yes, three. One man for each entrance...to keep the "crowds" at bay?

So now we have 3 more people holding back the crowds... and Mr George Clapp, Mrs George Clapp and Mrs Tew?...not ONE policeman, not one, having recieved orders left right and centre, knocked on George Clapp's door a few yards away from the murder, to talk to him, question him, search him or the house he lived in, ascertain who was there present at that location.... and all this was happening..the Square being so full of so many people coming and going, horse cab, ambulance wheels, hob-nailed boots and all... the noise and the echo must have been (periodically) quite loud.
Not to mention Halse, who went to Mitre Square twice...but that's another story.

Funny you should mention that Scott. Thank you for reminding me.

I am reminded of the line "...and the band played on...."

And all the while, George Clapp, Mrs Clapp, and Nursie Mrs Tew counted sheep jumping fences... no doubt in time with the clip-clop of hob-nailed boots, a whistle, an ambulance cart with wheels, a cab with a horse, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all (various private individuals and constables, quote Harvey, inquest) popping in and out of the Square. All on top of the talking, and the echo THAT caused. Then there are the gathering crowds, whose voices would resound INTO the Square...

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It would appear a wall of silence, went up surrounding events in Mitre Square, indeed it was felt at the time that there was a lot of tight lipping going on, indeed the press were slow getting all the facts.
I have for many years, held the view that a huge mistake occured that night, that resulted in [a] the killing of Eddowes, [b] the escape of the killer.
If one looks at the possibility that Edddowes was followed after she left the cells, or was inded spotted e-route by a plain clothes officer, and followed, then we could have the case of a dreadful mistake being made, ie whilst Eddowes, and accoster, were at the entrance to Church passage, the officer lost sight, and he infact, was the man Bleinkensop saw, who asked the apt question'Have you seen a man and woman pass'?
So if that was the case , no wonder, no one 'saw or heard'.
Regards Richard,

[Scott Nelson]

Funny you should mention that Scott. Thank you for reminding me.

Why are you trying to second-guess the events? There wasn't a lot of noise until later. Stop trying to rewrite history. Clapp didn't lie. Pearce didn't lie. Morris didn't lie. They didn't hear anything.

[Monty]

Phil.

I know that you look at inquest testimony more than newspapers. I understand that. I look at everything. John Kelly's inquest testimony and the testimony of the lodging house gentleman, Frederick William Wilkinson, are not to be taken lightly. John Kelly is lying. At the inquest.

As far as newspapers go, this is a direct interview with a policeman giving his own words. Watkins is quoted. It is Watkins talking. It makes no difference Neil, if anyone is lying in a newspaper or an inquest...they lie anyway. (see..John Kelly)

This is a dangerous game you play. Passing off your opinion that Kelly is lying as fact. It misleads.

P.C. Watkins came on duty at 9.45p.m. His beat took 12-14 minutes, which he did continually.That means he did the same beat 4 times per hour. That means from 10p.m. to 1.30 a.m. he had patrolled 14 times around the same area. 14 times.

Was that taken from Jake and my article?

He next entered the square at 1.44. He says further that he stayed with the body until P.C.Holland arrived.(echo) Sequeira followed him.(echo) (He testifies he was called on at 1.55 and was the first medical man to arrive). Inspector Collard arrived about 2.03a.m.(echo) (who testifies he arrived to find several police officers there, along with Sequira) According to Watkins, Morris used his whistle as he went up the street. (echo). Frederick Gordon Brown arrived at 2.18a.m

Echo? And this is proven by?

No, Holland went to the Square with Morris and Harvey - see Harveys testimony.

George Morris went on duty at 7p.m. (So he was at work all through Watkins beat. All 14 times Watkins passed through Mitre Square) Morris testifies he was sweeping down the steps towards the door when Watkins knocked at the door which was slightly ajar, the door then being knocked or pushed. He was about 2 yards from the door. (6 feet., or two paces)
Morris then said... and this is crucial...(Watkins said Morris blew his whistle "as he went up the street" )that he blew his whistle immediately having "shewd my light on the body" and ran up Mitre Street into Aldgate. About then says Morris, two constables came up, I told them to go down Mitre Square, there was another terrible murder..I then followed the constables down and took charge of my own premises again.

Again, there is no need to remind me the course of events, I am familar.

Neil, it also means that according to Morris, Holland went with him to Mitre Square, NOT directly to Sequeira. P.C.Harvey told a "P.C. on the other side of the street" to "come with me" and "we went to Mitre Square" and P.C.Holland then went to Sequeira. He then says something I haven't noticed before..

No, again, Holland went to the Square first.

"Private individuals were sent for other constables, arriving almost immediately".

What private individuals? What other constables?

This has been debated elsewhere here. Yes, Private individuals confuses me. As for other constables, these arrived from the station for, as Scott states, the security of the Square.

George Clapp, the caretaker at No.5 Mitre Square testified..The back of the house looks onto Mitre Square...I was sleeping in a back room on the 2nd floor. During the night I heard no sound or any noise of any kind. Between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning was the first I heard of the murder. The only other person in the house was Mrs Tew, a nurse in attendance on my wife. She sleeps on the 3rd floor.

So Mrs Tew was not was not the only person living there. Mrs George Clapp did too.

P.C.Richard Pearse testified I live at No.3 Mitre Square. I went to bed at 12.30a.m. on Sunday morning. I heard no noise or disturbance of any sort. At 20 past 2 I was called by a Constable and first heard of the murder. From my window I could see the spot where the deceased was found. I am the only tenant in the Square.

This is not true. He isn't. George Clapp, Mrs George Clapp and Mrs Tew the nurse are also tenants in the Square.

Where do you get 5 Mitre Square from? This is an error. Inquest clearly states 5 Mitre Street. His room overlooked the square however the building was situated in Mitre Street.

This is not true. He isn't. George Clapp, Mrs George Clapp and Mrs Tew the nurse are also tenants in the Square.

Yes, it is true, see above.

Dectective Daniel Halse testified.. At about 2 minutes to 2 I was at the corner of Hounsditch by Aldgate Church in Company with Detectives Outram and Marriot of the City Police. We all three went to Mitre Square. I gave intructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man examined.

Hang on. He must have got to Mitre Square about 2a.m. He gave instructions to whom?

As the Senior DC, Halse gave instruction to Marriott and Outram.

And Pearse was only woken up at 2.20 a.m. George Clapp wasn't even woken up, nor his wife, nor Mrs Tew. So much for all to be examined. They didn't even apparently bang on the door of and wake up a man a few yards from the murder! Good grief.. for all they knew, George Clapp could have murdered Eddowes.

Again, the Clapps lived in Mitre Street, not Mitre Square. There room merely overlook Haydemanns yard and the Square. They had NO access to the Square other than via Mitre Street.

As far as using newspapers to make my point, the canard that one can pick and choose which newspapers are and are not useful to make a point is used up, because The Times, of all newspapers, is unreliable. I maintain there is much to be gained from individual newspapers, especially a direct quote. If we cannot believe a direct quote Neil, then half the stuff by any policeman isn't to be believed in this case. Who draws the line on direct newspaper quotes?

As you well know, I have masses of respect for you Neil. Great stuff you have unearthed. But this scenario screams out...and nobody thinks there is anything at all untoward. Nobody questions it. Well I do.

Newspapers are useful, however not to be relied on. They merely support at best.

The scenario is as was. Nothing sinister nor unusual.

Exactly how many people gathered, or ran into, or drove into, or wandered into Mitre Square from 1.15 a.m. until 2.20 a.m.?

Between 1.15am and 1.45am we know of only Watkins and Eddowes as well as her killer. However, Watkins was not present in the Square all the time, nor was he omnipresent on all his beat which seems to make you suspicious. Watkins could not account for all about him, its impossible. Its also unlikely.

The time line is thus:-

1.44 a.m. P.C. Watkins entered the Square. He immediately summoned Morris upon finding the body. Morris, running out(re echo) into Aldgate, found P.C.'s Harvey and Holland. Holland ran to Dr. Sequeira from Jewry Street.

By 2.20 am. Police surgeon F. Gordon Brown had arrived, followed by SuperIntendant McWilliam and Sergeant Foster. Sergeant Jones had arrived, as had P.C.Harvey.
Later Major Henry Smith arrived.


So, by 2.18a.m., we have had there or going in and out of the Square the following...
Morris and Watkins, Halse, Marriot and Outram, Harvey and Holland, Sequeira and Brown, McWilliam and Foster, Jones, the cab that transferred Brown (a horse and cart, and it's driver), various "private persons" and "other constables".. and a whistle outside the Pearse window blown in an echo'ed area, and he only wakes up at 2.20 a.m?

13 people, all making a racket and Pearse hears nothing. George Clapp, his wife and the nurse Mrs Tew, doesn't hear that and more...the hearse arriving, another cart with wheels, and the persons to push it. The person who drew the sketch of the body in situ, (Foster), was also in the Square.
Lord knows who else turned up between 2.20am and 5 a.m. And George Clapp sleeps sound as anything.

Not only Pearce (correct spelling) but his wife and children. The Clapps, again, were in Mitre Street sleeping at the back of the house.

I appreciate your advice Neil, and I know it is always well meant. I wouldn't dream of offering advice to you. But respectfully, it should be noted that details reveal the wood, not just the trees. In inquest testimony or newspaper testimony. It makes no difference.

This whole scenario stinks to high heaven. The contradictions in testimony of serving policemen, an ex policeman and others is highly questionable. Inquest testimony Neil, before we look at newspapers to help advance an idea or that are pertinent to my point..

Acoustics, timing and light. Make of it what you will. I already have.

Stink to high heaven? Come now Phil, that is over dramatic. The inquest statements do not contradict at all. The interpretation you give obviously differs from mine. You are, as is your want on a few things Ripper related, looking for conspiracy instead of approaching with an open mind. View the statements as they are, understand them then question....not the other way around.

Regards
Monty


PS Izzard and co were incharge of the constables who kept the crowds at bay.

[Phil Carter]

Clapp didn't lie. Pearce didn't lie. Morris didn't lie. They didn't hear anything.

Hello Scott,

I question this (the above) by producing facts, Scott. There were 13 people coming in and going out of Mitre Square by 2.18 a.m., that had an echo. Long before 5 a.m. when Clapp woke up, much much more noise occured by way of many more people, wheels, boots voices etc. Those are facts.
I am not re-writing history. It happened. But the fact is that nobody questioned it then, and others are reluctant to do it today.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Thanks for the posting, the comments and the opinions, which I will reply to in a while. I am a little busy just now.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Someone like the Clapps and the nurse, who have absolutely no reason not the tell the truth, said they heard nothing and you assert they are lying on no other evidence than a walk-round the square in 2010. Yet a politician makes a CYA statement in Parliament and you accept it as gospel.

Vingle,

Anecdotal evidence is generally questionable, but I must say I had an experience much like yours just last week. A near neighbor was involved in a standoff with a SWAT team: bullhorns blathering back and forth, searchlights, police cars and vans coming and going, media teams on the ground and their helicopters overhead. And most slept right through it. This has never happened before in our quiet village, so it wasn't normal clatter at all. But most didn't hear it.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil, Don, Richard,

Thank you for your patience Neil. I will come to your points in a sec. Firstly,

Don,

Thank you for your eloquent reply. The prose you use was impressive in it's characteristic achievement of over-simplification. Therefore a finely tuned answer to your attempt to peruse my observations and comments..

No.

Therefore you do not understand me correctly. It is not based on "a walk-around the square in 2010." Sad perhaps, but true.

Now, Neil,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to address each point. It is most appreciated. In response, I will say that I firstly will respond to the easiest point. The last one. Your opinion of me.

For the umpteenth time, and said with a happy, kind and calm attitude, and as repeatedly said before, I am not a promoter of, nor am I suggesting, nor do I use, ever, the word "conspiracy". That old mis-labelled chestnut is worn out. There are three terminologies in Ripperology that get MIS-used. Conspiracy, cover-up and smokescreen.

Richard Nunn, who posted a response (thank you Richard) just after myself, has believed in an almighty mistake by the police for many years. His idea reasons the stony silence. The perception I get from his thoughts is not one of a conspiracy, more a cover-up. Should that be the case, and if one wishes to cover-up any police mistake for it not to look like a mistake, then statements to cloud the issue or steer the issue away from the mistake would naturally be used. That is called a smokescreen.

So Neil, No, I do not believe in a "conspiracy", but a smokescreen. I am NOT relating to just Mitre Square, but the Whitechapel Murders in general. Having Special Branch involved, run by Sir Robert Anderson, with his methodology, is an invitation to keep any mistake quiet. I hope that clears up that little matter.

Now, on to your other excellent points.

There is a long thread about John Kelly elsewhere, and was clearly shown, mostly by Simon Wood on a fascinating issue directly with Kelly's testimony, for Kelly to have lied. However, for my own part, the lodging house attendant, Wilkinson, in his testimony, tells us about Kelly coming back to the lodging house at between 7.30 p.m and 8 o'clock and telling him, when paying for a single bed for the night, that he had heard that "Kate had been locked up". Totally impossible of course, as Eddowes had yet to even be arrested.
This has been explained by some as Wilkinson getting the time wrong. Yet the rest of his fairly long, questioned testimony is well detailed and nobody today questions any of his statements to be false..except this one...where "he got the time wrong".

But back to the inquest. Nobody at the inquest questioned Wilkinson about the obvious fact of how Kelly could know that Kate had been locked up BEFORE she was arrested. (It turns out that Kelly heard this from a woman, who he does not name, but who recognises Kate Eddowes well enough for her to identify Kate to Kelly, and further, knew Kelly well enough to tell him- yet her name is not mentioned by Kelly, Kelly's statement is not followed up by the police and the woman is not tracked down by the police to corroberate Kelly's remarkable statement of knowing Kate had been locked up in a police station a way away from Flower and Dean Street, Whitechapel. )
Where was Kelly when this old woman told him? If Wilkinson DID get the time wrong in QUOTING Kelly, then he must have got the time wrong himself about Kelly coming back to the lodging house between 7.30 and 8, which puts Kelly's movements that evening into question, before he apparently went to bed at 10 o'clock. And THAT brings into question his unsubstantiated explanation of the woman that told him about Kate, whom he must have known, to be known by her.
No danger, no game. Just breaking down testimony.

14 times:- No, my erstwhile learned colleague, I counted the number of times about the beat of P.C.Watkins,... should have re-read the article though and saved my brain...

Echo... No, it is not proven, but entirely feasable. It is taken from Watkin's words about his beat, the lay-out of the Square in 1888, the vicinity in 2010, and the obvious enclosure of the Square in general in 1888, the structure of the buildings in 1888, the structure of the road and walls in 1888, and distances between the structures, which are elsewhere on Casebook. (Some of which you have invaluably contributed yourself- thank you!) It is also considered from the viewpoints of many people having worked with the structure of sound and soundwave movements in restricted areas, auditoriums (both indoors and outdoors), the adding and deleting of echo through and without the use of microphones for human voice, music and other variable sounds and the balancing and counter-balancing of sound when considering those structures the sound expands into. Namely-myself, and working with many sound technicians and many sound engineers for over 20 years) I am not, however, technically expert enough to produce any graph or paper on the subject.

Watkins testimony ( The Ultimate, page 245)..- "Witness remained at the side of the body until Police-constable Holland arrived. No-one was there with witness until Holland arrived, and he was followed by Dr. Sequeira."
Watkins does not mention Harvey at all. Harvey, as you correctly state, does mention that he was with Holland.

Whistle:- Watkins says the whistle was blown by Morris as he went up the street, Morris himself says he blew it immediately after viewing the body (in the Square). Therefore, contradiction. This has a bearing on the sounds eminating around in Mitre Square, and who would sleep through them. He wouldn't blow the whistle quietly, would he now?

Your quote:- "This has been debated elsewhere here. Yes, Private individuals confuses me. As for other constables, these arrived from the station for, as Scott states, the security of the Square."

"Private individuals and other constables" is a statement given in the same sentence, and I do not believe it does refer to the business Scott referred to, namely the later time of sealing off of the square because of gathering crowds. I believe this was at an earlier juncture?

Mitre Street/Mitre Square:- My apologies. I mis-wrote the correct address. You are correct. That means he (Pearse) was the only tenant. However, if one looks at those people living with any physical overview of the Square, the Clapp household should have been awoken and summoned for their testimony. No one did it. This is the immediate vicinity of a ghastly murder. The occupant(s) of Clapp's house could have harboured a killer or been the killer themselves for all the police knew. That brings into question the police methods. In any crime, let's take for example burglary, a policeman will immediately question the neighbours to ask if they saw or heard anything. That is normal procedure. But they didnt do it for a brutal and ghastly murder of a woman with half her insides displayed to the night air and the pavement!

Pearse (spelling):- taken from The Ultimate, page 258. However I bow to your reknowned knowledge on City Policemen.

Halse:- Marriot and Outram's statements are where?

Access to the square:- No direct access, no, but that doesn't stop the possibility that someone went from the square back to Mitre Street and went into a house that overlooks and backs onto the square, does it?

Your quote:- "Newspapers are useful, however not to be relied on. They merely support at best. The scenario is as was. Nothing sinister nor unusual. "

I say newspapers can be useful. Its an opinion based on how much we have gleaned from them over the years, not what is discovered to be rubbish and discarded. Little gems have come along from many newspapers, and helped enhance the learning of the case. As regards the scenario not being sinister nor unusual. I disagree. That is your opinion. But I have to say, not unusual? Well.. I disagree a lot there! (obviously)

Over-dramatic:- Well Neil, to some, and I am by far the only one, it does stink of many things. Like I said. Contrary testimony, poor police methodology in questioning the immediate vicinity, statements(Kelly) that are not backed up with corroberation nor investigated thereon, a statement that confuses without explanation (private individuals) and therin raises serious questions as to WHOM exactly was in that Square, plus much more. We haven't even talked of the time frame for how this killer removed the organs he did remove in near total darkness (if you see little light there), the Sequiera/Brown/Doctor testimonies and a whole bunch more.

Like you said earlier and I thank you, I hope I have indeed "raised some good points" and that are worthy of serious consideration.

Thank you for replying Neil, it was most appreciated and valued.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

By your own definitions you are, in the end, a believer in a conspiracy to subvert the truth about the Whitechapel murders of 1888. A smokescreen, in your words, are statements used "to cloud the issue," and that is done to "cover up" what really happened. And for that to involve the entire muders investigation, as you posit, requires more than one person to be involved. And that is a conspiracy, like it or not.

I can understand your not wanting to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist," as in most cases such folk are at best risible. But you are, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Don.

[The Good Michael]

Don,

Well-said. This is my issue as well. People not hearing activity may be as simple as familiarity with nightly noises that not only don't disturb them, but may even act as soporifics, much like I sleep wih music on very often.
That is one of any number of reasons for folks not hearing noises. Conspiracies are at the opposite end of the spectrum and while fun for some, do not carry much weight.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

Thank you for your comments.

Definition of "conspiracy"..

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act or

a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) or

a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

( all wordnetweb, Princeton University)

Definition of "Cover-up":-

concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public (wordnetweb, Princeton University) or

an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. The expression is usually applied to people in authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism....(wordnetweb, Princeton University) or

concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public (wikipedia)

Definition of smokescreen:-

an action intended to conceal or confuse or obscure; "requesting new powers of surveillance is just a smokescreen to hide their failures"
(wordweb, Princeton University) or

Anything used metaphorically to conceal or distract
(wikitionary)


I will state this clearly. Have I mentioned the words "unlawful" or "illegal" at all? No. Have I mentioned a band of "conspirators" coming together for a common purpose? No. Have I mentioned a "plot"? No.

If I had, then all three terms are clearly mentioned by definition of conspiracy.
I do not adhere, as yet, under the present amount of knowledge known, to any of these definitions.

Have I mentioned concealment of something scandelous becoming public, or an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. (The expression is usually applied to people in authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism? )
- Yes, ... in interpreting Richard Nunn's ideas. However, the explanation of a cover-up vis a vis smokescreen was already done in my answer to Neil, and is clear. One could lead to another, in my opinion.

Do I believe in a smokescreen, i.e. an action intended to conceal or confuse or obscure; "requesting new powers of surveillance is just a smokescreen to hide their failures"? Yes.

There are subtle differences.

How you, or anyone, wish to interpret another human being based on their written words and expressions, when they are clearly told the contrary, with defined definitions to explain their written words, is of course, completely up to the individual.
However, the differences can clearly be seen not just as I (the accused) see them and interpret them, but how a word dictionary defines them and sees them. With respect, I agree with the learned dictionary definitions of what I say and mean Don, not yours. I say and mean them based on those very definitions. Therefore, you are wrong. Sorry.
However, please do carry on and believe what you want to. That is your right.

This subject is becoming off thread and I have only done this to end the mis-interpretation of my words and meanings. That should suffice. I did not mention the subject in the first place., and see no need to mention it further. Time for bed, said Zebadee...boing!

respectfully,
and with best wishes,

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Therefore, you are wrong. Sorry.

No, you are wrong, as a parsing of your sophistry would demonstrate. Put do, pleae, continue to play at word games to obfuscate your confusion. Only, as Monty said, don't continue to present your opinion as fact.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

1881 census

Hello all,

Extracts for the 1881 census reveal the following:-

No.1 Mitre Square

Name Age
Nathan Abrahams 23 Furrier
Adelaide Abrahams 19
Solomon Abrahams


No.2 Mitre Square

Name Age

Hyam Isaacs 29 General Dealer
Julia Isaacs 30
Michael Isaacs 11
Ada Isaacs 10
John Isaacs 7
Lewis Isaacs 4
Elizabeth Steedman 41

No. 3 Mitre Square

Name Age

John R. Smith 36 Cabinet Maker
Susannah Smith 35
Kate Smith 8
Herbert James Smith 5
Arthur E. Smith 4
Betsy Beaumont 66
Moritz Myer 51 General Agent
Leopold Gicht 74 Cigarette Maker

No.4 Mitre Square

Name Age

Woolf Cohen 38 Tailor
Sarah Cohen 23 Dressmaker
Hyam Lewis Cohen
Sarah Cohen 24
Mary Ann Walker 50 Charwoman
Nora Rourke 17 Servant
Susan Venson 65 Nurse

also listed under No.4 Mtre Square

Elizabeth Abraham 58 widower

No.5 Mitre Square

Name Age

Daniel Whillerage 64 (Whitterage) Annuitant
Mary Whillerage 66
Eliza Whillerage 33 Stamper (Artz)
Edward Outhner 32 Waiter(Inn)
Edward Stanley 23 Clerk
Lewis Myers 32 Confectioner

No.6 Mitre Square is uninhabited

No.7 Mitre Square

Name Age

Emanuel De Haas 50 Book Binder Employing 3 Men & 1 Boy
Bertha De Haas 49
Simon De Haas 18 Book Burden
Betsy De Haas 16 Teacher (SM)
Caroline De Haas 14 Teacher (SM)
Rachael De Haas 11
Harriet De Haas 9
Phoebe Franks 45 Annuitant
Sophia Van Gelder 35 General Servant

The census also lists "4 uninhabited buildings"

best wishes

phil

[kennyo]

Phil,

Therefore, you are wrong. Sorry.

No, you are wrong, as a parsing of your sophistry would demonstrate. Put do, pleae, continue to play at word games to obfuscate your confusion. Only, as Monty said, don't continue to present your opinion as fact.

Don.

What do those words mean??? As the best selling author Joe McGinnis once said, "don't use long words that some readers won't understand, why use a long word when a short one will do?"

[GregBaron]

Language.............

Oh no Kennyo, the English language is a wonder and precise words are always preferred.
Sophists were Greek teachers/philosophers who over the millennia became considered persons who
made specious arguments. Specious, of course, means pleasing but lacking substance, think of
lawyers and politicians. To the laymen or man on the street what Mr. Supe might be saying to
Mr. Carter is something like, "hey, cut all the verbal gyrations and quit blowing smoke up my *##"
or some such vulgarity. Now, further along, Mr. Supe writes "obfuscate your confusion", here he's actually
proferring a redundancy. He should merely have ended his sentence with obfuscate in which case
he's simply saying "do please continue to play word games to confuse".
See, aren't words and language wonderful!


P.S. Apologies to lawyers, politicians, Messrs. Carter and Supe et al...........I'm merely entertaining
myself with silly repartee........now will someone get back to the topic.......



Greg