Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

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

  • Originally posted by Ally View Post
    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

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I need a better class of flying monkeys.

        Comment


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

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


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

              Comment


              • 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. '

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  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!

                  Comment


                  • "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.

                    Let all Oz be agreed;
                    I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by halomanuk View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by Ally; 06-05-2009, 11:30 PM.

                        Let all Oz be agreed;
                        I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                          "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?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                            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.
                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                                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).

                                Let all Oz be agreed;
                                I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X