Who is the most Canonial non-Canonical? POLL

[DVV]

I'll give you a thought. Did it ever even cross your mind that the reason she did not talk to those who took her to the hospital was because.....she just might have been in quite a lot of pain?

I've already answered this. Sorry.

You also ignore the fact that Hames was attacked again, on the same night as Smith, by two men, a mere thirty minutes or so before the assault on Emma Smith.....and no PC reported that either.

Funny Sox.
YOU ignore the fact that it didn't happen in Whitechapel.
And it was a mere blow in the mouth, then the men ran away.

You claim she's lying because no Police Officer saw or heard anything...umm hello, what are the names of the Policemen who saw Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly killed?

Funny again. The C5 have been killed in spots used by prostitutes.
Emma said she has been attacked at the junction of 4 roads.

Now you ignore ALL of that, and come to the conclusion that Emma Smith lied. Brilliant deductive reasoning, maybe Joe Fleming killed her. :rolleyes2

False again. I simply doubt her story, and many doubt it, including Begg, Sugden, and several posters (Stan, Roy, Colin, etc).
A better company than yours, obviously.

Anderson only thought he knew.

You only think you teach.


Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Emma Smith had no reason to lie about prostituting herself, because it was not a crime in 1888....soliciting was.

You're wrong again.

And that is PROVED by the Hospital records.

And even without that PROOF, such a statement is highly ridiculous.


Amitiés,
David

[Septic Blue]

You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area on December 8th 1887, and that she even lodged in the same place as Smith, and that she was so badly injured she spent over two weeks in hospital. You also ignore the fact that Hames was attacked again, on the same night as Smith, by two men, a mere thirty minutes or so before the assault on Emma Smith.....and no PC reported that either.

"You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area …" (my emphasis)

Again; …

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

"two miles"

As David has just stated …

YOU ignore the fact that it didn't happen in Whitechapel.

"… didn't happen in Whitechapel."

That being the two attacks reported by Margaret Hames.

[Septic Blue]

Emma Smith had no reason to lie about prostituting herself, because it was not a crime in 1888....soliciting was.

You're wrong again.

And that is PROVED by the Hospital records.

Again; …

... it is distinctly possible, and perhaps somewhat likely that persons accused of committing petty crimes, while destitute, were sent to the local Parish/Union Workhouse for a period of two-to-three months.

This was perhaps the very thing that Emma Smith may have wished to avoid: A three-month 'sabbatical' in the Whitechapel Union Workhouse. This being regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such concerns, given the circumstances of her particular situation.

Like a child caught 'red-handed' in an act of misbehavior, Smith may have been compelled to lie; even if, for all the wrong reasons.

Had any of the other victims of the so-called 'Whitechapel Murders' lived long enough to recount the circumstances of the assaults, to which they succumbed; I am quite certain that each of them would have been ... 'minding her own business', in an area, in which the reasons for her presence would not have been called into question.

"Like a child caught 'red-handed' in an act of misbehavior, …"

Whether Smith had good reason (i.e. based on legitimate concerns) to lie, is irrelevant!

Whether she believed she had good reason (i.e. based on legitimate concerns) to do so, on the other hand, is most relevant!

Did Eddowes have good reason to identify herself as "Mary Ann Kelly", to the constabulary in Bishopsgate? No: She did not!

Did she believe she had good reason to do so? Clearly; she did!

[ditlew]

You're wrong again.

And that is PROVED by the Hospital records.

And even without that PROOF, such a statement is highly ridiculous.


Amitiés,
David

Wrong, even by you own words, but we went through all this yesterday.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

I fail to understand why you're chasing me on this subject, Ditlew.
It's so obvious that Smith and / or her friends would have been reluctant to admit Emma was a prostitute when she was still alive...

Once again, Emma's story is dubious - and once again, many doubt it - including far more knowledgeable people than I.

The post you've just quoted was a reply to Sox, and believe it or not, the Hospital records prove him wrong.
Prostitution could be legal or not, but whatever, it wouldn't have prevented a woman to be ashamed or unwilling to admit her being a prostitute.

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

Prostitution in 1888 was not against the law David, seriously, go and do at least a little research on your chosen subject. Soliciting was against the law, keeping a brothel was against the law & living of immoral earnings was against the law. Selling your body for sex, was not an arrestable offence.

[DVV]

Prostitution in 1888 was not against the law David, seriously, go and do at least a little research on your chosen subject. Soliciting was against the law, keeping a brothel was against the law & living of immoral earnings was against the law. Selling your body for sex, was not an arrestable offence.

I have no problem with that, Sox.
But that's not the problem...

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

The post you've just quoted was a reply to Sox, and believe it or not, the Hospital records prove him wrong.
Prostitution could be legal or not, but whatever, it wouldn't have prevented a woman to be ashamed or unwilling to admit her being a prostitute.

You are correct, I was wrong! I read something that wasn't there, and thereby wronged you. I'll try to make sure it don't happen again. Even though we seem to disagree on different matters, I by no means want to accuse you of something you haven't done/said nor want you to feel 'chased', I've seen enough of that around this forum and don't want to commit such 'crime' myself. Please accept my apology.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[DVV]

Hi Ditlew,

no apologies needed. Some of my posts might have been not clear enough, as often. I have always enjoyed our exchanges, and your posts in general.
I have myself changed my mind so many times, thanks to other posters.

Now this thread is about pre- and post-canonical cases. It's no use posting here to say : "this case is so obviously non-canonical that it doesn't deserve a discussion."
It's about discussing all of them.

But since 1 choice was allowed in the poll, a vast majority has logically voted Tabram.
Millwood, so often associated with Martha, is still at 0 percent.

Looks like a non-canonical debate should now exclude Tabram...

Amitiés,
David

[ditlew]

Hi DVV,

Thank you.

I agree, Annie Millwood is certainly a case worth further study.

Best Regards,
Ditlew