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

[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

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

OK

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

Always open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[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]

discussion

Hello David. To be honest, I don't think there was a discussion. I cannot discuss unless I know each claim made and have each term defined.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Police report, written at the time.

Incidently Sally, thankyou for posting it.

When I posted the HO notations I gave the date, "29 Nov" and mentioned the fact that AFAIK it was unsigned.

I think it is important to be as specific as we can, it helps clear misunderstandings.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the reminder, Jon. It shows how uncertain and vague was Killeen.
"The witness did not think..."
"The wounds generally might have been..."
"His opinion was..."
"Some kind of dagger..."

Thats the correct response from a medical professional. Try get a doctor to offer "absolutes", its not easy, due to the nature of their profession.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi David and Lynn,

This is becoming too existential for me.

Emma Smith told the truth. She was attacked by a gang.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

Regards,

Simon

What surprises me the most is that you appear to have not heard about the suggestion, where have you been?

Certainly Ada Wilson lied about her attack. She brought her client into her room, but claimed he attacked her when she opened the front door.

Emma Smith claimed assault by a gang to get treatment for her injuries. Some women were too ashamed to tell the nurses they had been prostituting themselves and the client turned nasty.
Present yourself as an innocent victim where possible.

No, we don't know for sure, but it is a distinct possibility. Gangs were well known to rough-up prostitutes & women walking alone. Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Jon.

"Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true."

Thanks. Now I'm beginning to understand David's posts. Sure, she may not have told the truth. Not sure what is riding on it, except gang involvement?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

What surprises me the most is that you appear to have not heard about the suggestion, where have you been?

Certainly Ada Wilson lied about her attack. She brought her client into her room, but claimed he attacked her when she opened the front door.

Emma Smith claimed assault by a gang to get treatment for her injuries. Some women were too ashamed to tell the nurses they had been prostituting themselves and the client turned nasty.
Present yourself as an innocent victim where possible.

Yes Jon - and that's what I've already told Lynn. But he wouldn't understand my broken English, although it gonna be the lingua franca of the 21st century.

No, we don't know for sure, but it is a distinct possibility. Gangs were well known to rough-up prostitutes & women walking alone. Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true.

There is little we know for sure. But here, we're almost sure she lied about the location. And about the motive. Would you risk to be hanged for the two pence she had in her pocket - if she had any ?
And where have we seen gangs doing THAT in Whitechapel 1888 ?

[lynn cates]

test

Hello David. It's not a matter of "broken English" but of a proposition.

To take an example, if I claim someone lied and were asked, "What was the lie?" I would respond, "He stated X. But it was in fact the case that not X."

Very simple test.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Things are seldom as they seem, and my golden rule is never to rule out any possibilities.

The street attack on Emma Smith, which resulted in her death, came shortly after an official investigation headed by James Monro based on allegations in the press and House of Commons that, across London, the Metropolitan Police were levying blackmail on cabmen, publicans, goods carriers and unfortunates.

Such a scenario could well explain Emma Smith's reticence when it came to identifying her attackers.

Merely food for thought. Check it out in the various newspaper archives.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Ok, I have the date.
This is Swanson's 19th Oct. report, though under the heading we see,"___day of September 1888", unfortunately is not filled out. Or at least was not captured in the transcript I have.

What is important is that after the last three words, "knife or dagger", we then see "a bayonet", but for some reason that was not included in the above photo.

"...Dr. Keeling of 68 Brick Lane was called & examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on body, neck Not apparently with throat cut? GL and private part with a knife or dagger. a bayonet
11 ¾ P.M. 6th Aug Mrs. Tabram was seen alive by Mary Ann Connolly alias Pearly..."

Because this was in Swanson's hand, I would like to see if the "a bayonet" is a notation in the same hand, or in different handwriting.
The "Not apparently with throat cut? GL" is an annotation by Geo. Lushington, so did he also write "a bayonet" ?, or someone else?

Apparently, written so long after the event, officials felt the need to add corrections, or their own observations, to Swanson's report. Which tends to lessen the value.

At this point it might be worth mentioning Philip Sugden, who wrote:

Quote:
The records of the Metropolitan Police still contain a contemporary digest in tabular form of all the official reports made upon the case. In one column, headed 'Nature and description of wounds as given in surgeon's report', is written the comment "twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen apparently inflicted with a penknife". (p.29).

Sugden, an historian, when considering the complete picture accepted the following, which was expressed in a paragraph comparing the murder of Smith with that of Martha Tabram.

"Tabram's murderer used two weapons, a penknife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or bayonet" (p.34).

It is possible to lose sight of the overall situation when superfluous questions are raised as to what was or was not considered a dagger, and what experience was or was not needed, and by whom.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If I am correct, then the Home Office may have made a completely correct description.

Unless you accept - as I do, and believe you ought to - that central message of the Home Office report was that none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been inflicted by a bayonet, then I'm afraid I don't think you are "correct". It's not a question of the police or home office "completely forgetting" how many wounds were initially suspected of being bayonet-authored. It was a casual error, repeated in 1894 by Macnaghten, which did not impact in the slightest on the overriding message that a bayonet was ultimately exonerated of having caused ANY of Tabram's wounds.

So about this lake that stocks perch and trout. Is it day ticket or members only? I've caught lovely three-pound(ish) perch from estate lakes that also stock wild carp and bream, but never a trout, and a trout in a Kent lake is the piscatorial equivalent of a "socket bayonet" being paraded around Whitechapel in terms of the chances of it occurring. But perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

All the best,
Ben