A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

Your wish is my command Harry.



It really couldn’t be clearer Harry. You’ll do yourself no favours by continuing to deny your own words.

Im waiting Harry.

Ten to one Harry ignores you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ten to one Harry ignores you.

I expect so Paul. It appears that The Baron is no longer willing to respond either.

[PaulB]

He ignored my post 381 and his response to you (post 385) completely ignored everything that's been said to him (which is actually par for the course) and returned to his original argument (or almost his original argument). Either he can't understand what has been said to him, or he doesn't want to understand what has been said to him. Or he's deliberately wasting our time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He ignored my post 381 and his response to you (post 385) completely ignored everything that's been said to him (which is actually par for the course) and returned to his original argument (or almost his original argument). Either he can't understand what has been said to him, or he doesn't want to understand what has been said to him. Or he's deliberately wasting our time.

I’ve made the point previously Paul that I’ve certainly made errors on here but when they’ve been pointed out to me I’ve held my hands up. Some posters just go completely silent though and have a tendency to ‘disappear’ for a while hoping that the issue will be forgotten.

[harry]

You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.I do not need to repeat myself.
I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.
You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.
'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes
Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.
I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.
So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.

[PaulB]

You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.I do not need to repeat myself.
I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.
You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.
'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes
Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.
I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.
So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.

And what claim by Herlock would that be, Harry? You demanded he shows you where you'd said 'unfortunate' didn't mean prostitute. Herlock showed you, and awaited your reply. I said you'd ignore what he said. You have ignored it.

'I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation'

'I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,'

Talk about mixed messages.

And Herlock doesn't have to 'display evidence', Harry. He's done it. We all have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.I do not need to repeat myself.
I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.
You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.
'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes
Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.
I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.
So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.

This is pretty brazen Harry. You blatantly have not responded. You posted this….

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 you, in black and white, accusing me of being a liar and of spreading misinformation. Please re-read it Harry. You end the quote by challenging me to produce that evidence that you had indeed claimed that the term ‘Unfortunate’ didn’t specifically mean Prostitute.

I responded to the challenge by producing this quote.

,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.

Proving in black and white that you categorically did claim that the term ‘Unfortunate’ didn’t specifically mean prostitution.

This was in post # 389. A post that you have, as Paul predicted, completely ignored and failed to respond to. Now when someone is accused of being a liar and unassailable evidence is produced to prove the contrary then the usual thing is for that person (in this case you) to first acknowledge it and second to make an apology. But you’ve elected to ignore it and hope that no one notices. Nice one Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.

I refer you to the above post which you have indeed ignored as Paul predicted.

I do not need to repeat myself.

Although apparently I need to until you decide to address a point.

I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.

Paul’s post # 396 shows that you said this

. 'I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,'

I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.

What you mean Harry is that you can’t be bothered to do the same reading that the rest of us appear to have done.

You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.

The evidence has been provided time and time again Harry so why do you keep asking for it?

When Trevor, a man you appear to have respect for, posts this:

“Polly Nichols
There is still in existence in the official police files contained in The National Archives a police descriptive file on Nichols from 1888, this clearly shows her being recorded as a prostitute.”

Are you saying that you don’t believe him until he produces a copy of the actual file itself? I’ve had many disagreements with Trevor but if he tells me that this file exists then I believe him. Why wouldn’t I? Why wouldn’t you?

'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes.

I’ve also accused John Richardson of working in a market despite being unable to produce evidence for it. Why doesn’t this annoy you and have you calling for proof? Why do you use the word ‘accused’ Harry? I find that a very informative word. Like The Baron I can only conclude that you are making some kind of moral judgment. I’m not ‘accusing.’ I am suggesting that the evidence that we have strongly points to the victims engaging in prostitution. I’d say ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ although others might disagree. You on the other hand persist in making impossible demands for proof. Why is the document that Trevor mentioned not good enough?

Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.

I though that it would have been an obvious point Harry. Historians everywhere assume that the 2 Princes were murdered. There’s no medical evidence for it. There’s no accepted confession. There’s no diary that says “Tuesday the first….murdered the Princes then did a bit of jousting.” So there’s none of the kind of evidence that you persist in demanding for the victims being prostitutes. There’s even an alternative explanation in that they might have caught a disease and died. And yet it’s still assumed that they were murdered. Are all of those historians dishonest? Are they idiots? Or are they, like us, making a reasonable assessment of the available evidence. As opposed to being bloody-minded of course.

I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.

What are you specifically asking for Harry that hasn’t already been provided? CCTV footage perhaps?

So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.

The evidence has been provided…..you simply ignore it.

I’ll await your apology on the other point.

[Mark J D]

... 'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes ...

Folks, your adversary is absolutely determined not to see what s/he is actually doing mentally, psychologically, with and in statements such as the above. Until s/he actually chooses to see and feel the contortions, anything that you say in rational argument will be just water off a Gordian knot, if i may mix my metaphors for maximum clarity.

M.

[PaulB]

Folks, your adversary is absolutely determined not to see what s/he is actually doing mentally, psychologically, with and in statements such as the above. Until s/he actually chooses to see and feel the contortions, anything that you say in rational argument will be just water off a Gordian knot, if i may mix my metaphors for maximum clarity.

M.

Yes, it has become obvious that rational argument won’t work here. We can only discuss things with people who at least understand the basic arguments. Time to move on.

[Trevor Marriott]

You would lose Paul as i have replied to Herlocks claim.I do not need to repeat myself.
I am not asking you Herlock,to treat it as a court situation,so that get out is void.I am asking for a an investigative search ,by you ,to collect and display evidence and proof the five victims were prostitutes at a time before and on the night they were killed.
You write Herlock the case has been made.On what evidence.Display that evidence if you have it or be honest enough to declare evidence doesn't exist.I am not asking for absolute proof,just the degree of proof that would satisfy a court,so no cop out as you claim.
'We are not accusing them of anything' you write.Bull sh`t. You've accused them of being prostitutes
Whats the Princes in the tower,and Fred Smith to do with it.
I have'nt made a demand for absolute proof,and your continuous claim the evidece we have,only makes you look a fool,when you fail to display evidence.
So it's not a case of me putting up or shutting up,that task is up to you Herlock.

Ok so you dont agree to them being labelled prostitutes lets call them "Ladies in waiting" but that still begs the question what were they waiting for at that time of the night on the streets all alone?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

Yes, it has become obvious that rational argument won’t work here. We can only discuss things with people who at least understand the basic arguments. Time to move on.

Wise words, Paul!

We're all going to remain pretty confident in our assertion that the victims were indeed engaged in prostitution.

Harry isn't going to budge an inch, and The Baron is going to continue to pop up sporadically like some kind of possessed jack in the box to stir the pot!!!

Stalemate!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wise words, Paul!

We're all going to remain pretty confident in our assertion that the victims were indeed engaged in prostitution.

Harry isn't going to budge an inch, and The Baron is going to continue to pop up sporadically like some kind of possessed jack in the box to stir the pot!!!

Stalemate!!

And sadly Ms D it appears that certain posters just won’t hold their hands up and admit when they’ve been categorically proved wrong on a specific issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it has become obvious that rational argument won’t work here. We can only discuss things with people who at least understand the basic arguments. Time to move on.

I’m not usually an optimist Paul but I was hoping from for at least an acknowledgment from Harry that he was wrong. Or an apology for accusing me of lying when I clearly wasn’t.

Sadly I was being too optimistic.

Oh well.

[harry]

Apology for what Herlock? Yes I have respect for Trevor.I beleve his suspect has more merit than Pauls,but both fall short of being convincing.Take Trevor's comment above,what were they waiting for alone on the streets at that time of the night.I do not know.Does anyone?Trevor doesn't say.How should I respond to comments so vague as that.Prostitution took place in daylight hours too.Should I suspect all women alone in the daylight hours to be prostitutes.
You write Herlock,I can't be bothered to do the same reading as the rest of us.What reading and who ,are you referring to?You make a claim,omit any reference to that claim,then accuse me of not answering.How can I answer to things you do not state.Ms Diddles can assert all she wants,and be as confident as she wishes,it means nothing unless it is accmpanied by proof.I'll budge,Ms Diddles when someone gives me cause to.
So Herlock,do you know the victims were prostitutes in the time leading up to their deaths and were soliciting the nights of their deaths,or do you just suspect they were? No long ramblings or references to the princes in the tower needed to answer that question.