The Home Office annotations - do they rule out a bayonet?

[DVV]

Hello David. If you have seen it, by all means . . .

Always open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

Not really my impression in that discussion. But my Bowmore is as tasty as ever. Tout va bien.

[lynn cates]

OK

Hello David. If you have seen it, by all means . . .

Always open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

But I have seen no such articulation of (V).

Cheers.
LC

What you have seen or not, read or not, hardly concerns my good self, my dear.

[Sally]

Let's try again...

No.

What I said was this.

Can a bayonet be excluded? Can two weapons be excluded? I don't know that I'd go that far. But I don't think that means much. 'Cannot be excluded' is not equal to 'Probably' 'Almost certainly' or 'Was'. It implies nothing except that it isn't impossible.

I stand corrected, I should have ensured I said, 'absolutely' or 'definitely beyond doubt' excluded just to be sure.

As I say, it's meaningless. It's not impossible that Pearly Poll did the job herself, but I bet we won't find many subscribing to that view.

Most people are apparently content to go with a common sense view.

[lynn cates]

Closer?

Hello David.

"Why being so candid, Lynn?'

Because I'm the very essence of it. No axe to grind.

"You trust Emma but you doubt everything else in the case. Amazing."

Trust? I have no reason not to. As I said to Simon, I NEVER rethink any part of this or any other case--UNTIL something does not add up.

"No my dear, not as I wish."

Very well, then as you DON'T wish.

"She lied for understandable reasons. Her story doesn't stand scrutiny, not at all. And the Wilson case helps us understand that of Emma, I believe."

Very well. But it would help me immensely if I knew what that lie was. I don't.

"What is easier to confess, Lynn ?

1- I was passing Whitechapel church as any Lady does, and boom! three bastards assaulted me, robbed and raped me.

2- I'm a drunk, a whore, I've gone there, in that dark alley to get ****ed for two pence with a micheton and he....etc"

Are you perhaps suggesting that she claimed:

(V) "I was not soliciting and was attacked"?

If she made that claim, and the truth value of (V) mapped to (F), then OF COURSE she lied. But I have seen no such articulation of (V).

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

David:

" I said "tried to demonstrate" not "I've demonstrated", Fish - if you want to split hair."

... which was why I reacted. Thing is, David, that you CAN NOT demonstrate it, so "trying" is moot. One may try to demonstrate that she COULD have been lying, and one may even try to demonstrate that she WOULD have been lying.

It may seem a wafer-thin difference to you, but it is wafers like this that spill annoying crumbs in Ripperology.

Just saying,

Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

All Quiet on the Western Front.

Hello Simon. Hmm, that's what I thought. When the pieces don't fit, I'm the first to make a noise. But I see no anomaly.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

David:

" I've just honestly tried to demonstrate that she lied."

Tio be perfectly honest, David, what you did was to SUGGEST that she lied. You PROPOSED it, OPINED it, Voiced it and a whole lot of other things.
What you did NOT do was to demonstrate it. That is another thing altogether.

The best,
Fisherman

Aaaarff, I said "tried to demonstrate" not "I've demonstrated", Fish - if you want to split hair.
I have Mr West to back up my view. I have the Wilson example. I have that long hours between the time of the attack and her return to her lodgings. I have also good common sense - no other street robbery has ended up like that, with such terrible violence, at the time.

So all in all, I believe you have sometimes tried to demonstrate this or that with far less evidence than I have in the Smith case.

[Fisherman]

David:

" I've just honestly tried to demonstrate that she lied."

Tio be perfectly honest, David, what you did was to SUGGEST that she lied. You PROPOSED it, OPINED it, Voiced it and a whole lot of other things.
What you did NOT do was to demonstrate it. That is another thing altogether.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Can two weapons be excluded? I don't know that I'd go that far."

Let me get this right, here; you are not one hundred per cent sure that we may exclude Killeens ruling that two weapons had been used, but we are ALMOST there, right?

Sweet Jesus...!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Are you trying to open the door to the idea of her attacker being Jack the Blunt Instrument?
Simon

No Simon, because that door has already been opened by Reid, Dew, contemporary papers...

[DVV]

Hi David,

Are you trying to open the door to the idea of her attacker being Jack the Blunt Instrument?

Regards,

Simon

For the time being, Simon, I've just honestly tried to demonstrate that she lied.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Are you trying to open the door to the idea of her attacker being Jack the Blunt Instrument?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Emma Smith told the truth.
Simon

Simon, why would Emma tell the truth more than Wilson, please ?
We know Wilson lied, right ?
Emma's story is even harder to swallow than Ada's.
The police looked for evidence of that attack and found none.
The way she was killed has nothing to do with a street robbery.

[Sally]

Of what?

Hello Sally, so you don't consider "knife or dagger" as an evidence ?
I do.

Yes, it is evidence, it's evidence of a knife or dagger in Killeen's opinion ( Not, as we can see, a knife and a dagger) That's probably quite right, so far as it goes. It doesn't go very far in terms of weapon precision though does it? And that is surely because it was not tenable for him to be any more precise than that.

The trouble with the bayonet affair is it's entanglement with Pearly Poll and the soldiers.

Soldier/Bayonet = Chicken/Egg.