Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • People pretend that they knew Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, what they would do and not do, especially when they were broke, we'll they don't. It is up to them to disprove the contemporary reports that at least, especially the first 2, they were part-time unfortunates.
    And that they were where found.
    Last edited by Varqm; 12-05-2021, 05:00 PM.
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
      That's right, Herlock. Has anyone come across the use of the noun 'an unfortunate' in the cases of children or males of the pauper class? We see women listed on census returns as 'unfortunate' in the space where occupation is usually listed, we see women having to swear on oath in court, even when appearing as just a witness, that they are 'an unfortunate,' at the point people usually give their occupation. We see women described as 'married, but an unfortunate.'
      Thanks Debra. When I first read Harry’s point it set me back a little. I thought “hold on, I’ve always thought that ‘Unfortunate’ specifically meant prostitute?” It was a real coincidence that I was reading Jan Bondeson’s book which confirmed what I’d originally assumed. And if you tell me that you’ve seen it on census forms that confirms it. They were hardly going to be commenting on that particular persons lack of luck.

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

      Comment


      • Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
        How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
        I'm waiting Herlock.

        Comment


        • I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?

          Comment


          • Something I should have added above.Let Herlock put the case for guilty.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?
              That's true, Harry, but who is going to decide if the person making the claim has proved it?

              In this case, the claim that the five were prostitutes was made by the police in 1888, but they are all dead and almost all their paperwork has been destroyed. However, they were there, they were professionals, they investigated, they spoke to people who knew the victims. Is there any reason why we should disbelieve them? Is there any evidence that corroborates what they said? Well, yes, there is corroborative evidence, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they were lying. So, why don't you believe them, Harry? By the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you to prove that the conclusion reached by the police in 1888 is wrong.

              So, what is your first piece of evidence?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Something I should have added above.Let Herlock put the case for guilty.
                By the way, Herlock doesn't have to put the case for guilty. That's already been done several times. You don't accept it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
                  How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
                  I'm waiting Herlock.
                  This is rich coming from someone who has consistantly attributed to me things I didn't say.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?
                    I dont think the legal principle you quote is relevant when it come to discussing a persons occupation

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • And you and the others Paul who has constantly attributed to me things I didnt say.
                      What about it Herlock,or are you going to let Paul be your mouthpiece.You be the investigator,or researcher whatever name you choose ,collect all the evidence and proofs that are claimed to exist,and present a summary here.The investigation of course is to show that the five victims were ,in the period leading up to,and on the night of their deaths,prostituting themslves,or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.Lets leave the question of who decides till later. Get whoever you need to help you,but already I see that excuses are being made,so good luck.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        And you and the others Paul who has constantly attributed to me things I didnt say.
                        What about it Herlock,or are you going to let Paul be your mouthpiece.You be the investigator,or researcher whatever name you choose ,collect all the evidence and proofs that are claimed to exist,and present a summary here.The investigation of course is to show that the five victims were ,in the period leading up to,and on the night of their deaths,prostituting themslves,or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.Lets leave the question of who decides till later. Get whoever you need to help you,but already I see that excuses are being made,so good luck.
                        But it is also for you to show that they were not soliciting, if you dispute the facts and evidence put forward to show they were, now from what I have read there are no explantions that can be put forward which have not alreday been dismissed.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          And you and the others Paul who has constantly attributed to me things I didnt say.
                          What about it Herlock,or are you going to let Paul be your mouthpiece.You be the investigator,or researcher whatever name you choose ,collect all the evidence and proofs that are claimed to exist,and present a summary here.The investigation of course is to show that the five victims were ,in the period leading up to,and on the night of their deaths,prostituting themslves,or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.Lets leave the question of who decides till later. Get whoever you need to help you,but already I see that excuses are being made,so good luck.
                          Justify that I "constantly attribute" things to you that you didn't say! Gone on. Do it. Put up or shut up!

                          Herlock doesn't need me to argue for him. Nor does he need to present any evidence to you. It would make no difference to you even if he did.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            No matter what explanations we supply Baron,Alley and others appear fixated with discrediting Rubenhold,and they cannot do it.It is blinding their judgement.You and I have answered Allys quesions,and the one inescapable fact is she will refuse to believe that the victims had other options than prostitution.Sure there is a suspicion that prostitution might have been a factor,I have said that,but the fact is there were thousands of women who were unfortunates and homeless(for those who wish to use statistics) who abstained from prostituting themselves.All or some of the five could have been among them.This obsession unfortuntes had to be prostitutes is akin to those who insisst a person who finds a body is automatically a suspect.Utterly futile reasoning.


                            .'
                            Please ignore, I responded to the wrong quote.
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-06-2021, 11:36 AM.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
                              How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
                              I'm waiting Herlock.
                              Your wish is my command Harry.

                              ,but the fact is there were thousands of women who were unfortunates and homeless(for those who wish to use statistics) who abstained from prostituting themselves.All or some of the five could have been among them.This obsession unfortuntes had to be prostitutes is akin to those who insisst a person who finds a body is automatically a suspect.Utterly futile reasoning.
                              It really couldn’t be clearer Harry. You’ll do yourself no favours by continuing to deny your own words.

                              Im waiting Harry.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-06-2021, 12:06 PM.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                And you and the others Paul who has constantly attributed to me things I didnt say.
                                What about it Herlock,or are you going to let Paul be your mouthpiece.You be the investigator,or researcher whatever name you choose ,collect all the evidence and proofs that are claimed to exist,and present a summary here.The investigation of course is to show that the five victims were ,in the period leading up to,and on the night of their deaths,prostituting themslves,or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.Lets leave the question of who decides till later. Get whoever you need to help you,but already I see that excuses are being made,so good luck.
                                Court proceedings are intended to prove or disprove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is not what we are doing Harry. We are simply establishing one of the ways that these women were forced into by necessity. We are not accusing them of being ‘guilty’ of anything. Would you get so worked up if we were trying to establish whether Fred Smith did a bit of bricklaying on the side or not? So why does the suggestion that these women engaged in prostitution bother you so much. I can’t help wondering if you are making some kind of moral judgment as The Baron appeared to do.

                                You are trying to equate us (basically armchair detectives 133 years after the event) with jurors in trial with an accused facing the rope or twenty years. The circumstances are not the same. Even a Jury, with the huge responsibility that that duty entails, are asked to come to a decision beyond reasonable doubt. So if absolute 100% proof isn’t required in those circumstances why are you demanding it in circumstances infinitely less important or weighted with consequences?

                                The case has been made Harry. Absolute proof does not exist (but only if we accept that the police might have been mistaken when they looked into whether Polly was resorting to prostitution or not) The request for absolute proof is an obvious cop out I’m afraid.

                                Most if not all historians believe (Paul can correct me if I’m wrong here) that the Princes in the Tower were murdered. They only disagree on the guilty party or parties. But there’s no absolute proof left to us that they were murdered. They were there and then they weren’t. So it can’t be impossible that they both became ill and died. So are all of those historians wrong to conclude that they were murdered? Aren’t they maligning the memories of the list of suspects for their murder?

                                …..

                                Basically, the demand for absolute proof is invalid and completely unreasonable. The evidence that we have very strongly points to the fact that these women resorted to prostitution when they were forced into it by circumstances. In my opinion it’s beyond reasonable doubt.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X