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

[DVV]

Hello David. Um, what possible reason would I have to care about a gang, or lack thereof? If Smith said, "Gang" I would say, OK, gang. If Smith had said, "Doug Piranha" I would have said Doug Piranha.

Why being so candid, Lynn ? You trust Emma but you doubt everything else in the case. Amazing.

"She lied like Wilson."
As you wish.

No my dear, not as I wish. She lied for understanble reasons. Her story doesn't stand scrutiny, not at all. And the Wilson case help us understand that of Emma, I believe.

But what was the lie? What was the false proposition she articulated?

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[DVV]

Seriously, how can we ever know? The evidence just isn't there.

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

[lynn cates]

Huh?

Hello David. Um, what possible reason would I have to care about a gang, or lack thereof? If Smith said, "Gang" I would say, OK, gang. If Smith had said, "Doug Piranha" I would have said Doug Piranha.

I have as little interest in her case as I have in Martha's.

Now, I agree that fabricating of a story not involving a gang would be safe. But so would ANY story that did not require her to confront her assailant/s.

"She lied like Wilson."

As you wish. But what was the lie? What was the false proposition she articulated?

Cheer.
LC

[Sally]

Sally!

Fish.

If I got so angry with you for misunderstanding this business, that I burnt you with a cigarette and a cigar - would you then say that it pointed to uncertainty if somebody said afterwards that "she received a number of burn marks, that were made by either a cigarette or a cigar"?

Would such a thing tell us that

A/ that somebody did not KNOW if it was a cigarette OR a cigar, or
B/ That the marks as such all were made by a cigarette or a cigar?

Well that depends, doesn't it? If you were the person saying this, then presumably you would know that the answer was B/ since you would have been the person doing the burning.

On the other hand, if you were not the person with the cigarettes and cigars, and the person who had used them had not told you, how could you be expected to know whether one, or both had been used? See, you couldn't, the marks would be too similar. You could say it could've been either, but how would you tell? Now, if you'd been using a lighter, that might have been a different matter..

If I go fishing in a lake that holds trout and perch, and after the trip tell you that it was good fishing, since anytime I went out I could be certain to catch a trout or a perch, would that tell you that

A/I could not tell the difference between a trout or a perch, or
B/ That I caught EITHER a trout or a perch on each trip?

You've lost me there - how could you be certain that you'd catch any fish at all? I understand that they tend to be capricious.

How´s your sense for language, Sally? Can you see the flaw in your argument? Let´s test it! Here goes:

I think you made a good or a bad argument!

What do you think I mean? How uncertain am I about which type of argument you made?

In point of fact, Fish, I ddn't make an argument, I posted up evidence from the police report. You can see what it says. I like a simple approach - it seems to me to convey the opinion - Killeen's opiniion - that the wounds on Tabram were caused by the use of a knife or dagger, either or. It doesn't say 'knife and dagger'. It suggests caution on the part of Killeen, and quite rightly so in my view.

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.

Seriously, how can we ever know? The evidence just isn't there.

[DVV]

Need? I need nothing at all.

Except a gang in a case you pretend not to care about ?

The easiest way to feel safe was, "Don't ask; don't tell; don't pursue. Just let me go home."

Please, I was simply commenting on your own suggestion, which was : she feared some revenge from the gang (that never was).
And I quite logically objected that the simplest way to feel safe would have been to fabricate a story that involved no gang.

She lied just like Wilson, for the same reason, exactly.

[lynn cates]

safety

Hello David. Need? I need nothing at all.

The easiest way to feel safe was, "Don't ask; don't tell; don't pursue. Just let me go home."

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

revenge of el trio Los Bastardos

Hello David. No, no. She omitted details, did not identify, etc.

Cheers.
LC

I can see you really need a gang there, don't you ?

The simplest way to feel safe from the gang's revenge was to tell she had been attacked by one man, no ?

[lynn cates]

proposition

Hello David. Agenda? Certainly not. To be honest, I don't care a feather or a fig about the case.

Very well. If she lied, she articulated a false proposition. What was that proposition?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

IF Smith lied
LC

Lynn, unless you have an agenda here, let's put it straight : she did lie.
Could you figure such a scene in Osborn Street with no witness ? And her lying on the ground, there, for HOURS, without witness ?

[lynn cates]

other way

Hello David. No, no. She omitted details, did not identify, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David. IF Smith lied, it was not likely to hide her "vocation."

How about, "She lied because she feared repercussions from the gang which had assaulted her"?

Cheers.
LC

Oh, that's interesting, Lynn.
She was attacked by a gang.
And then she lied saying "I've been attacked by a gang".

[lynn cates]

motivation

Hello David. IF Smith lied, it was not likely to hide her "vocation."

How about, "She lied because she feared repercussions from the gang which had assaulted her"?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Presbyterian prostitutes ?

Lol....Emma Smith was certainly a perfect Christian, just as Wilson. But fact is that Wilson lied (unless Bierman had a better reason to lie in your opinion), and that Smith's account isn't completely convincing.

[lynn cates]

You can tell.

Hello David. Don't mean to butt in, but things of THAT nature are alright to:

1. Tell a doctor.

2. Tell a priest.

Confidentiality, right?

Cheers.
LC