Who is the most Canonial non-Canonical? POLL

[Uncle Jack]

There is much reason to doubt Smith's account. Add to this the fact that Smith says she was attacked at 1:30am and did not return to 18 George Street until around 4:00am and you see something fishy was going on. In my opinion she did lie but whether or not that means she was attacked by the Ripper is debatable. As David says the lack of knife is there but maybe, if the attacker was the Ripper, he did not go out that night with the intention of attacking. Maybe it was a chance encounter and he did not have his knife on him that particular occasion.

[DVV]

Thanks Ditlew,

just for the sake of discussion and with all due respect, let me ask you two questions :

- Do you trust Ada Wilson or Rose Bierman ?

- Had Smith died without saying anything, would you believe she had been robbed at the junction of 4 roads by a gang and then raped with a blunt instrument by these same thieves, or rather killed by a vicious client in a secluded spot used by the prostitutes for their business ?

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

So yes, if I have to bet, I'd say she lied.

I would of course claim that it seems likely that atleast one such rape did occour in Whitechapel and so forth, but no matter how much I may disagree with the rest of what you are saying, I respect the single line that I've quoted!

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

Ditlew,

you should have a little more attention to what I'm saying.
It's in no way about "fact".
No such horrible rape has ever occured in Whitechapel in the circumstances described by Emma Smith.
I'm afraid you'll nothing like this on google.
And once again, yes, I make the assumption that Emma lied, because no woman, even "destitute", would readily admit that all happened in an infamous "secluded" spot.
So yes, if I have to bet, I'd say she lied.
There is a real problem about motive, location and timing, and there is room for doubt.
Once again, that's all I'm saying.

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

Well, we can't disagree, no problem.
No blood: this is no speculation.
No witness at the junction of 4 roads : no speculation again.
Reason for lying: just like Wilson: no speculation.
And do you know of a pitiful robbery (she was so poor) that ends with such an awful deed ?
No you don't.

I see that you like making assumptions and jump to conclutions.

I state nowhere that we can't disagreem, I simply underline that what you present as fact are based on speculation.

Even if evidence isn't found it doesn't mean that a crime didn't take place.

'Wilson lied, hence Emma lied also', likely or not it is called a speculation.

And regarding robberies that ends with rape and or mutilations or vice versa you are again wrong in your assumption that I don't know of any. I'm sure that 5 secs on google will show you multible exambles.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[Hunter]

Although I believe Smith's acount of her attack seems spurious as well, there is much evidence of "High Rip Gangs" attacking "unfortunates" . They may not have known she was broke and could have extracted their vengence on her because of it.

[DVV]

Well, we can't disagree, no problem.
No blood: this is no speculation.
No witness at the junction of 4 roads : no speculation again.
Reason for lying: just like Wilson: no speculation.
And do you know of a pitiful robbery (she was so poor) that ends with such an awful deed ?
No you don't.

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

Speculations! If you state something as solid as: "ohh yes she lied." You must have something to back it up. Such a thing doesn't exists, hence you should instead have said: "I believe that she it lying", which would be by all means fair. Even the author of the dissertation isn't a as rock solid in his statements as that. The dissertation is full of assumtions and speculations to why she might have lied, but there is not a single evidence that she did, hence any conclusion based on and in this dissertation will never become more than mere speculation.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

No Ditlew,

there is a bit more than that. She had a reason to lie. Just like Wilson. Unfortunately, in Smith's case, there was no Bierman to tell the truth.
No witness in Smith's case, which is strange - according to the location.
And Reid was positive that there wasn't blood on the spot. Not a single stain.
That is no speculation.

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

oh yes she lied.

Pure speculation on your behalf, the location being unlikely or not.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

Hi Ditlew

oh yes she lied. The location is clearly unlikely. There is a good dissertation about that.

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi All,

I would vote Martha Tabram if I could.

Btw. I see nothing that suggests Emma should be lying hence a possible JtR victim.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

Hi Stan,

I wouldn't say she was protecting someone. She simply hided the fact that she had been injured by a client, in one of those infamous "secluded spots".

Amitiés,
David

[sdreid]

Yes, Emma's story doesn't wash. She seemed to be protecting someone. Also, the focus of her attack was at the female organs unlike with Tabram and as it was with the canonicals where Jack had the time.

[DVV]

Hi Adam

actually the poll results would have been more significant without Tabram, who is somehow "half canonical" already.
I didn't vote for this (half bad) reason in fact, and the more I think of Emma, the more I find her a possible Jack victim. I don't believe her story, have no doubt she lied...but of course, Jack's knife is missing.

Amitiés,
David