Vote Here II

[Roy Corduroy]

You are invited to vote your opinion.

The other poll expired, but this one won't.

[Phil H]

I have voted for "a gang-of men" but was tempted by someone else.

In short, I have nothing but the traditionally accepted story of Emma's fate to go on. But it could, IMHO, equally have een a discontented punter who did for her.

Another alternative is not that "Jack" was part of the gang who attacked her, but as it was on a public street, he might have witnessed the attack and gained a malevolent inspiration from it.

I don't think there is any evidence or logic to an assumption that she was a victim of "Jack".

Phil H

[Sally]

Gang

I voted for a gang, because that is what contemporary testimony suggests was the case. I don't think there is any real doubt about that.

A 'gang' might not have any permanency though - it could represent anything from a self-established group who enjoyed roughing up prostitutes to a few occasional drinking companions who'd had a bit too much on that occasion.

Whether or not 'Jack' was one of them is debatable. There are some good arguments for his inclusion in such a gang if we accept the traditional premise of a single killer.

[DVV]

The way I understand the whole case tells me she was a JtR victim.

@ Phil H : at least, I consider there is enough evidence that she lied. Wrong place, wrong timing, no witness, and her horrible injury has nothing to do with a street attack for some pence.

[DVV]

Hi Roy,
many thanks for opening this new poll. The precanonical cases are SO interesting and important and at the same time SO neglected.
Cos it's SO cooooooool to rave about MJK being alive after her murder, instead.

[Phil H]

@ Phil H : at least, I consider there is enough evidence that she lied.

I agree, Emma was almost certainly covering something up - but there is nothing with which to replace the questionable testimony. So where does that leave us.

I suppose I would, ideally, have liked a "none of the above" option in the poll, but hey-ho. I see absolutely nothing solid to link "Jack" to this crime - apart from the date which might be when whoever killed Polly was beginning to work himself up to the deed.

I don't think that the man who thrust the piece of wood into Emma necessarily intended to kill her. It sounds like warning from a pimp (or alternatively the action of a dissatisfied customer, though I think that less likely. If a pimp - maybe that was what frightened her.

Phil H

[DVV]

I agree, Emma was almost certainly covering something up - but there is nothing with which to replace the questionable testimony. So where does that leave us.

Not exactly, Phil. Inspector West clearly disbelieved Emma, as did the coroner : "The poor woman has been murdered, but by whom there is no evidence to show." Of course we don't know what happened exactly, nor where and when, but that's hardly a reason to step back to Emma's poor little story.
She was a prostitute and must have been murdered in a dark/lonely spot, like others.

I don't think that the man who thrust the piece of wood into Emma necessarily intended to kill her.

"The coroner, in summing up, said that from medical evidence, which must be true, it was perfectly clear that the poor woman had been murdered."
That said, I agree that the deed displays more cruelty than straight desire to kill.

It sounds like warning from a pimp (or alternatively the action of a dissatisfied customer, though I think that less likely. If a pimp - maybe that was what frightened her.

I'm afraid there was no pimp in Emma's life 1888. And no pimp would destroy his (her) very means of existence, would he ? Moreover, if that was what pimps did at the time, we would have other examples. Emma's murder is quite unique. A customer is imo more likely. Not really "dissatisfied" but rather : very special.

[DVV]

But...

Emma's murder is quite unique.

...but reminds me of the Horsenellnail and Millwoodward cases.

[miakaal4]

I do not believe that Smith or Tabram for that matter were JtR vics. However, what is really weird is why in '88 there were suddenly all these attacks on the fallen woman. Could this have inspired the others? Considering the sexual repression of the time, it may have been stimulating to the more depraved to read of something being "thrust" into poor Emma.
sally I think you have a good point regarding the word "gang". It depends on it's use of meaning. They could have been a group of guys who had just met up and got drunk, then gone out to have some fun. Only this "fun" was for Emma Smith, distinctly one way. The thing for me that undermines this is that they would have all have to have been in on it fully. Because when the ballon did go up and things got really serious, I think anyone in the "gang" who did not approve of the attack would have grassed the others to the police. Trouble with that is...I'm wrong a lot!

[DVV]

Hi Miakaal

I do not believe that Smith or Tabram for that matter were JtR vics. However, what is really weird is why in '88 there were suddenly all these attacks on the fallen woman. Could this have inspired the others?

Indeed. But then why not the same man - from Horsnell to Kelly ?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

There was no man in Emma's life, so no one to 'cover' for. She acknowledged to the doctor that she was a prostitute, so had absolutely no reason to lie regarding her attack to cover for her soliciting. As for a 'gang' of men, she saw three men on the street, but could only speak to having been assaulted by two men. The third man may have been present and participated, may have stood watch for the other, or may have had nothing to do with the assault at all. I haven't participated in the poll, because although there's little doubt at all in my mind that she was telling the truth, I can't yet state a firm belief regarding the participation of Jack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

I thought 'a gang of men' to be most likely and voted accordingly. That is, after all, what she claimed and, like Tom, I can't see any reason for Emma to have lied. I just wonder why she was so reluctant to involve the police as, according to Reid:

"She would have passed a number of Pc's en route but none was informed of the incident or asked to render assistance".

It's not a pleasant thought, but perhaps she did approach one or more officers and was taken for just another troublesome drunk. I hope not.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Prior to April 1888 there had been much-discussed accusations of police levying blackmail against prostitutes, so perhaps Emma Smith had been attacked by a group of policemen. This might explain why she couldn't [or wouldn't?] describe her assailants. And perhaps the blunt object which ruptured her peritoneum had been a truncheon. All of which might explain Chief Inspector West reporting that the "whole of the police on duty deny all knowledge of the occurrence."

Who knows? Anything's possible. And it sure beats later efforts to retro-fit Emma Smith's death as the work of the lone maniac who murdered Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols.

Regards,

Simon

[curious]

Hi All,

Prior to April 1888 there had been much-discussed accusations of police levying blackmail against prostitutes, so perhaps Emma Smith had been attacked by a group of policemen. This might explain why she couldn't [or wouldn't?] describe her assailants. And perhaps the blunt object which ruptured her peritoneum had been a truncheon. All of which might explain Chief Inspector West reporting that the "whole of the police on duty deny all knowledge of the occurrence."

Who knows? Anything's possible. And it sure beats later efforts to retro-fit Emma Smith's death as the work of the lone maniac who murdered Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols.

Regards,

Simon

Hi, Simon,
Very interesting.

Any names for the policemen involved?

Thanks,

curious

[Simon Wood]

Hi Curious,

Those PCs I could find were not named or numbered, and, sadly for our purposes, had been dismissed/had resigned/were fined prior to April 1888.

Regards,

Simon