A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[Ally]

Good, it is your turn now!

The Baron

So you've now been reduced to the arguing level of stating "I know you are but what am I?" Or would this be, "I'm rubber, you're glue"? It's been a while since I've argued with a kindergartener so I've forgotten the rules.

[The Baron]

It's been a while since I've argued with a kindergartener so I've forgotten the rules.

I don't know about that, but if you were the one in red in that podcast, then you sure look very young (and beautiful) to my eyes



The Baron

[Mark J D]

... where would the media outlet find "expert reviewers"? Ripperologists are the people best suited to assessing The Five and Rubenhold has done and is doing her very best to denigrate and diminish them. We are the [men?!?] not taken seriously.

Hi Paul. Kind of you to respond. Believe it or not, I actually wrote a version of your added point in my original text, then deleted it for the sake of brevity! From which you can take it that I agree entirely.

Another thing I cut out was a bit about the pre-Rubenhold vapourings of media insider Joan Smith, who has produced more than one piece of insightless anti-Ripperology garbage whose nasty flailings would, in a rational society, have earned serious public criticism. Example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/08/gender.uk. (For the record, I've seen two by her that even misuse the same quotation in the same way: I think it gets to be a habit...)

M.

[Mark J D]

I don't know about that, but if you were the one in red in that podcast, then you sure look very young (and beautiful) to my eyes

This is going from embarrassingly stupid to worryingly creepy.

M.

[harry]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can't, but I can give you this, prostitution is BAD


"Most psychologists believe the long-term psychological harm resulting from prostitution is comparable to that from rape or domestic violence. Beyond the Streets highlights that 76% of those involved in prostitution experience some form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The core experiences of violence and psychological trauma associated with prostitution are disempowerment and disconnection with others. Internally these experiences often cause a ‘split’ between the mind, body and spirit."



"Individuals involved in prostitution often develop complex coping mechanisms and rituals to minimise their pain and brokenness:

• Dissociative disorders (e.g. disconnection, distancing)
• Anxiety disorders (e.g. fixation, memory loss, panic attacks, flashbacks)
• Substance abuse (leading to long term addiction and mental illness).
• Sleeping disorders – oversleeping insomnia
• Depression
• Self harm
• Eating Disorders
• Obsessive compulsive behaviour"

https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/


Read this site Ally, and tell me if you see those envolved in this program have the same sexism that I have.

And we haven't even talked about sexually transmitted diseases, suicide cases or social and religious view of prostitution.

If you could go back in time, and present this information to the five - perhaps with some included - what do you suppose the women might have said back to you? Perhaps they would lecture you on the facts of their lives, or perhaps they would admit that what they were doing was not good. Perhaps both? What do you think, Baron?

At the height of the Ripper murders Barnardo was a recognisable figure in the East End, known for his charity work and preaching. He would visit doss houses and urge prostitutes to place their children into his care, rather than run the risk of them being suddenly orphaned. It was during one of these visits to 32 Flower and Dean Street, that Barnardo, in a letter to the Times newspaper wrote, 'I found the women and girls thoroughly frightened by the recent murders, one poor creature, who had apparently been drinking, cried bitterly, we're all up to no good and no one cares what becomes of us, perhaps some of us will be killed next'. He later viewed the body of Elizabeth Stride at the mortuary and recognised her as one of the women who had stood around him in the kitchen. Prophetic words indeed.
Source

[PaulB]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

Harry,
I have NOT said that the only reason Nichols was in Bucks Row was for prostitution. Nor have I said anything like it. Having failed to understand what I did say, you now fail to understand things I didn't say. You are now being utterly ridiculous.

[harry]

As I have no reputation to protect Paul,I do not appear as ridicullus as you.You have ,as I claimed,suggested the reason Nichols was on the streets that night was for the purpose of prostitution.Suggested was the word I used,so I haven,t failed to understand anything.
You haven't said anything like it?.It,s been the main point of your postings,but if you now want to claim Nichols had another purpose in Bucks Row lets hear it.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can produce copies of those reports Trevor? Quite a deal of correspondence is claimed to have existed,but has never been produced. What you have written would be grounds for suspicion,which I have said,are valid,but proof,and you can refer to your own posts over time,are not so easily come by. In fact ,I could refer you to your posts on Eddowes threads,where your advice regarding proof,mirrors my claims on this thread.Or I cold cite Paul's expressed opinion of you as being disruptive.Which do you prefer?
Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand.I can offer two other possible reasons.One is that she was just passing through,the other that she was taking a tempory rest.

Ok,lets put an end to this fiasco you and Baron have created

What evidence can either of you produce which conclusivley negates what is included in my previous post which clearly shows the victims were engaged in prostitution, and the circumstance of their deaths allows us to draw a proper inference to show that at the time of their deaths that is exatly what they were doing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

As I have no reputation to protect Paul,I do not appear as ridicullus as you.You have ,as I claimed,suggested the reason Nichols was on the streets that night was for the purpose of prostitution.Suggested was the word I used,so I haven,t failed to understand anything.
You haven't said anything like it?.It,s been the main point of your postings,but if you now want to claim Nichols had another purpose in Bucks Row lets hear it.

Whether you have a reputation or not has no bearing whatsoever on how ridiculous you look. Yes, you said I have "suggested" that the ONLY REASON - see that word ONLY? - Nichols was in Bucks Row was for prostitution. I haven't said that at all. I said that the best construction that can be placed upon the accumulated evidence is that she was engaged in prostitution. I also stated over and over and over that the definitive proof you demand doesn't exist, which forces us to base our conclusions on the accumulated evidence. You don't understand this, don't want to understand it, and have now resorted to attributing to me things I never said or twisting my words.

And just so you know, you wrote, "Well Paul you have suggested that prostitution was the only reason Nicholls was in Bucks Row.How you come to that judgement I fail to understand." (my italicisation) Now, I have explained that the accumulated evidence is that Nichols was engaged in prostitution, which is how I come to the conclusion that she was in Bucks Row for that purpose. You, however, have stated that you fail to understand that. THAT acknowledgement that you fail to understand is why I said you fail to understand. But you say you "haven't failed to understand anything". There really isn't any point in discussing anything with you.

[Losmandris]

Then why don't you adopt the 100% certainty then?!

What is this if not being pedantic?!

And if you started your post saying we can never be 100% sure, why did you end it disecribing this doubt status as silly and petty?!

You don't see the paradox in your ressoning do you?!

I will not describe those victims as prostitutes based on your fondness of numbers and math.


I will give them the benefit of the doubt.



The Baron

Each to their own I suppose. Getting pedantic about being pedantic is a new one on me though. I don't suppose any reasoning will change your mind, so that is me out on this one!

[Paddy Goose]

Rube's theory sung-

[harry]

Lets look at the evidence,Paul,or lack of it as I see it.What kinds of evidence am I writing about.lets consider Nichols.
First the evidence of confession.None.As the victim Nichols was dead and her killer did not come forward,we have no way of knowing what happened in Bucks Row.So no evidence Nichols was soliciting.
Eye witness evidence.None.Except for the killer who did not come forward,no other person is known to have seen Nicholls after her meeting with Holland.Obviously no evidence there.
Physical evidence of soliciting. None.
Medical evidence of recent sexual activity.None.
So,the accumulated evidence doesn't show she was engaged in prostitution at or before the time she was killed.Now do I look ridiculous? The personal remarks do not impress or worry me,I am just surprised a man of your reputation would resort to them.But then,you have nothing else of value to offer.
Definate proof? I,believe all the victims are entitled to it.Without it,one can never be sure of the truth,and yes there are doubts.
Trevor,
Baron and I have every right to post for as long as is needed.Have we ever told you to cut it short.It's no more a fiasco than any of your claims.But look,you can offer evidence that Nichols solicited in Bucks Row,and I will consider it.You haven't so far.

[PaulB]

Lets look at the evidence,Paul,or lack of it as I see it.What kinds of evidence am I writing about.lets consider Nichols.
First the evidence of confession.None.As the victim Nichols was dead and her killer did not come forward,we have no way of knowing what happened in Bucks Row.So no evidence Nichols was soliciting.
Eye witness evidence.None.Except for the killer who did not come forward,no other person is known to have seen Nicholls after her meeting with Holland.Obviously no evidence there.
Physical evidence of soliciting. None.
Medical evidence of recent sexual activity.None.
So,the accumulated evidence doesn't show she was engaged in prostitution at or before the time she was killed.Now do I look ridiculous? The personal remarks do not impress or worry me,I am just surprised a man of your reputation would resort to them.But then,you have nothing else of value to offer.
Definate proof? I,believe all the victims are entitled to it.Without it,one can never be sure of the truth,and yes there are doubts.
Trevor,
Baron and I have every right to post for as long as is needed.Have we ever told you to cut it short.It's no more a fiasco than any of your claims.But look,you can offer evidence that Nichols solicited in Bucks Row,and I will consider it.You haven't so far.

Harry,
Nobody in their right mind would dispute the sort of evidence you have listed. As you say and has been acknowledged so many times, that sort of evidence does not exist. But despite that, the police at the time, the investigator of any similar event since then, and the historians and armchair detectives of the present, must try to figure out what the victim was doing before they died and what brought them to the place where they were found. That is the purpose. It has repeatedly been explained to you. So have the limitations of the evidence, the evidence we possess, the methodology to be employed, and the conclusions reached. You have not shown that you understand what has been said to you, nor have you shown any signs of wanting to, but instead appear to be a very opinionated man who cannot bear to be challenged. Your reply to Trevor is typical of you. Trevor presented to you the evidence on which he has concluded that Nichols solicited in Bucks Row, and your response is to tell him he hasn't presented any evidence so far but you'll consider it when he does. I mean, what does he have to do before you realise he's given you his evidence? Slap you across the face with it, like it was a large wet fish? Illuminate it with a neon light?

[Varqm]

Yes; of course I could have expressed myself just as succinctly, without the school-teachery verbosity to which I am sometimes susceptible, but I don't. I'm a pillock. What you say is perfectly true. Nichols, like Chapman, did anticipate returning soon with the necessary cash.

Sometimes one hopes verbosity will work better.

The problem with this argument is the stance they were "working" that early morning is
at least based on something, they were going to "be back" (Nichols,Chapman) to the doss
house, practically speaking, they were going to earn money, and newspaper\police reports that they were at least
part-time prostitutes and then you put two and two together. At least there is basis\proof.

The opposite stance is based on nothing, not one report\gossip\interaction on what they were
doing or why they were there were they were found. It is based on "just because", pulled out of the hat.
From memory the only people who give reasons or give as their basis "just because " are 7-10 kids.

It could be that arguing could be futile.