Who is the most Canonial non-Canonical? POLL

[DVV]

Wow...yet another liar is unmasked by Ripperologists

Emma Smith had no reason to lie about prostituting herself, because it was not a crime in 1888....soliciting was. And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

Hi Sox,

incredible post...
No reason to lie ?
I suppose you think women have no pride, no dignity at all.
I suppose your are of opinion that Bierman lied to the press, while Wilson was telling the truth.
As to what happened to Margaret Hayes in 1887, it has little in common with the awful rape of April 1888.

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi All,

Regarding Emma lying, I personally find it unlikely that she would feel the need of lying to people at the place where she had lived for 1 ½ years. I find it hard to believe that they didn't know she was a prostitude. I might be wrong of course, but it is currently my beliefe that she didn't.

From my understanding the statement to George Haslip was given while she was on the border of coma, hence I give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the time of the attack + we don't know the length of the attack. I don't think they would have done 'it' in the steets but have taken her to one of the nearby alleys e.g. behinds the Chocolate factory. Even if they didn't history has show again and again that people don't want to get involved and does notthing to help victims in even deadly attacks.

I don't find it hard to believe that these kind of attacks would happen then, they do today, and I think Whitechapel ano 1888 was a worse place than many of the places these kind of attacks has happened today.

I also don't find it hard to believe that the police hadn't heard of these kind of attacks before. Emma protested herself about going to the hospital and hadn't she been mortally wounded I don't think we would have know about the attack at all.

@DVV : Regarding your 2 questions from yesterday, I really don't know..

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

Hi Ditlew,

one thing I want to add: "doubts" about Emma's story are nothing new. Just check Begg and Sugden. You can also go back to Dew.

And once again, no : what happened to Emma was extraordinary. Even for Whitechapel 1888.

Indeed, she's the first case in the WM file for that very reason.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

DVV : Regarding your 2 questions from yesterday, I really don't know..

Ditlew

Hi again Ditlew,

Hhhhmmmm...at least the first question is easy to answer, isn't it ?
Wilson hided the fact that she brang the guy home, and Bierman revealed it.

Amitiés,
David

[Uncle Jack]

Regarding Emma lying, I personally find it unlikely that she would feel the need of lying to people

Good day Ditlew,

It is commonly known that when prostitutes got themselves into a situation such as this; ie they are attacked by a client, they would often find themselves sent to the workhouse for weeks, if not months. That in itself would be enough reason for Smith to create the story of the gang attack, in my opinion, which would have been in her mind after seeing Hayes that day who had been punched by a gang.

[DVV]

Emma Smith had no reason to lie about prostituting herself, because it was not a crime in 1888....soliciting was.

"Emma Smith was entered in the hospital records as married and a charwoman. In reality she was a friendless widow who supported herself at least partly by prostitution."
Philip Sugden (not me, nor Stan...)

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

1. There will always be people that doubt, both then and now. The moon landing, the death of Elvis, the Earth flatness .. sometimes they are right sometimes they are not.

2. As I stated in my previos post I not sure that we really can conclude that what happend to Emma was that extraordinary at all.

But really .. I hear you and I know and respect that you have studied these cases alot, but I don't agree with some of your conclusions as you know, no disrespect intended at all.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[ditlew]

Hi Uncle Jack,

Please quote the rest of the sentence or it gets a totally different meaning. I can see why she would want to lie to a complete stranger as George Haslip, but not the women at 18 George Street where she had lived for 1½ year.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

I can see why she would want to lie to a complete stranger as George Haslip, but not the women at 18 George Street where she had lived for 1½ year.
Ditlew

Could be a good point, Ditlew, but we know she lied to Mary Russell and Annie Lee by omission.

Amitiés,
David

ps : sorry to insist...I admit I have a soft spot for pre-canonical cases.

[Uncle Jack]

Hi Uncle Jack,

Please quote the rest of the sentence or it gets a totally different meaning. I can see why she would want to lie to a complete stranger as George Haslip, but not the women at 18 George Street where she had lived for 1½ year.

I have to admit you have a good point there.

All the best Ditlew

[DVV]

Hi Adam,

Not sure it's a good point...See the post above yours...
Indeed, the noted "reluctance" of Emma to describe the assault comes from Annie and Mary.
Another objection is that once she would have decided to lie, she would understandably serve the same story to everybody - at least on that night.

Amitiés,
David

[Septic Blue]

It is commonly known that when prostitutes got themselves into a situation such as this; ie they are attacked by a client, they would often find themselves sent to the workhouse for weeks, if not months.

The extent, to which Parish/Union Workhouses might have been used as surrogate prisons for those who had committed petty crimes, is quite likely 'overblown'. After all; there was no interconnection between England's so-called 'Poor Law', and its multi-faceted criminal law.

That said; it is distinctly possible, and perhaps somewhat likely that persons accused of committing petty crimes, while destitute, were sent to the local Parish/Union Workhouse for a period of two-to-three months.

This was perhaps the very thing that Emma Smith may have wished to avoid: A three-month 'sabbatical' in the Whitechapel Union Workhouse. This being regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such concerns, given the circumstances of her particular situation.

Like a child caught 'red-handed' in an act of misbehavior, Smith may have been compelled to lie; even if, for all the wrong reasons.

Had any of the other victims of the so-called 'Whitechapel Murders' lived long enough to recount the circumstances of the assaults, to which they succumbed; I am quite certain that each of them would have been ... 'minding her own business', in an area, in which the reasons for her presence would not have been called into question.

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

… It is therefore quite remarkable that the murder-site 'epicenter', in this case, not only affords both physical possibility and 'Ripperesque' practicality; but actually coincides with a prominent feature in the landscape of the 'Whitechapel Murders': The very spot, on which many surmise that Emma Smith was confronted by her alleged assailants.


Figure 9: Murder-Site Mean-Center (i.e. Murder-Site 'Epicenter') (Click to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Most accounts of the circumstances, in which Emma Smith was allegedly assaulted by a group of ruffians, on the morning of 3 April 1888, include references to 'Osborn Street' and/or the vicinity of a 'cocoa factory', with regard to the location of the attack. The references are generally vague and somewhat difficult to comprehend, as the thoroughfare 'Osborn Street' became 'Brick Lane' as it progressed northward through its intersection with Wentworth Street (west) / Old Montague Street (east), before passing the east side of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory. As the northwestern extremity of Osborn Street, i.e. the southwest corner of its junction with Wentworth Street, was the point at which it was most closely 'connected' to the 'cocoa factory', it has perhaps been deemed to have been the most likely venue for the assault.

However, a very specific reference to the location of the attack was included in a report filed by Inspector Edmund Reid, Metropolitan Police Force, H Division (date unknown): "The offence had been committed on the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane". Ironically, this assertion was contradictory to one made earlier in the same report: "She had been assaulted and robbed in Osborne (sic.) Street". But the specificity of the "opposite No. 10 Brick Lane" reference should not be ignored; especially in light of the distinct possibility that all 'primary' references to 'Osborn Street' were actually intended to describe the point, at which Smith first encountered the alleged group of men, who then followed her north into Brick Lane.

It would seem unlikely therefore, that the murder-site 'epicenter' actually coincides with the spot that Emma Smith identified as being the location, in which she was confronted by her alleged assailants. In fact, if Reid's 'Brick Lane' reference is assumed to be accurate, then the murder-site 'epicenter' lies approximately thirty eight yards southeast of the spot, on which Smith claimed she was attacked.

"the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane"
Northeastern Exterior of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory, West Side of Brick Lane, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 4' 15.15" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 3.02" North

In any case, the murder-site 'epicenter' is in remarkably close proximity to the spot, on which the 'Whitechapel Murders' saga purportedly began. If nothing else; the murder of Emma Smith set the 'stage' for the six murders that followed, within the 'Whitechapel' series. But, the purported location of Smith's encounter with her alleged assailants notwithstanding; the intersection of Wentworth Street / Old Montague Street and Osborn Street / Brick Lane is nonetheless a prominent feature in the landscape of the 'Whitechapel Murders'.

This crossroads of two major thoroughfares (four 'named' streets) was a pivotal point in the boundary that separated the Civil Parishes of Christ Church Spitalfields and St. Mary Whitechapel. The boundary ran easterly along Wentworth Street, from Middlesex Street to Brick Lane; and then northerly along Brick Lane to a point just beyond Chicksand Street; and then easterly again, to its termination as a 'T'-shaped junction with the boundary of The Hamlet of Mile End New Town. As such, the northwestern quadrant of the intersection was situated within the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields; whereas the remaining three quadrants lay within the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel. Hence a subtle, but very significant difference between the aforementioned distinctions of the murder-site 'epicenter' and the 'more likely' purported location of Emma Smith's encounter with her alleged assailants.

Murder-Site Mean-Center (i.e. Murder-Site 'Epicenter')
Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Wentworth Street and Osborn Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, County of Middlesex

"the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane"
Northeastern Exterior of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory, West Side of Brick Lane, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, County of Middlesex

[DVV]

Hi Colin,

I remember your posts on this subject.
If I'm correct, you made a parallel with an American case...
It was a fascinating suggestion, applauded by many posters.

Amitiés,
David

[Septic Blue]

If I'm correct, you made a parallel with an American case...

Yes: One, which occurred in my home town of Tampa, Florida, in 1994.

I'll recount it later, this evening, David.

[cknapp]

what about carrie brown?