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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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...

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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