Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emma Smith In The People

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Good going, Alan....
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #17
      Thanks, Alan.

      Good to see a possible spot where some seclusion could support the long time reported to have elapsed between the assault and arrival back at the lodging house.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Keith Murray View Post
        Good to see a possible spot where some seclusion could support the long time reported to have elapsed between the assault and arrival back at the lodging house.
        Thanks for posting that, Alan. I agree with Keith. IF Emma were actually attacked, this would have to be the spot as it fits the location and is the only place that does where a woman could lay for two hours without discovery. However, that doesn't explain the complete lack of blood which must have been present if a woman with a bleeding head and nether regions laid there. But it was an arched passageway, similar to Miller's Court. It was used for storage.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Keith Murray View Post
          Well, Tom, I'm coming into the field as a Wescottian. Now you know. Try not to blush. I'm an older-generation person new to the field, so I come without being connected to any established hypotheses. I only have gratitude to the great work of the people who developed the data sets and have done the legwork.
          Thank you for that, Keith, and I share your gratitude. I might have written the Bank Holiday Murders but I'm not responsible for most of the leg work. Debra Arif discovered Emily Horsnell, and in doing so discovered the actual first of the Whitechapel murders and probably the key element in the 'Fairy Fay' myth.

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          Obviously no "conclusion" at this point is satisfactory, because of missing data. But that doesn't mean the existing data do not align in other ways, and that the possibility of additional evidence doesn't exist. I very much appreciate your reminding people of that.
          I'm glad you said that, because I've seen people say they like or don't like my 'solution', which I'm always struck by because I don't recall offering one! What I did do was build what I think is a rather convincing argument founded in the best evidence we have that certain individuals were either involved with or had knowledge regarding the commission of the first three Whitechapel murders and possibly those of Nichols and on as well. Howard Brown our illustrious host here at the forums, has been quite outspoken on the fact that new information is constantly turning up. His opinion is that writers are nuts to put out suspect or solution books because a new discovery could render their argument moot in a moment. I agree with him when it comes to silly books. But I tested my evidence as best I could and I believe it's important to collate this stuff into something like a book for easy reference and to get out to more people. My hope is precisely that it will spur research and new discoveries. I couldn't care less whether I'm proved right or wrong as long as people keep looking and finding stuff.

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          I haven't bumped into anything in "Bank Holiday Murders" that doesn't connect. Admittedly I know only what I have picked up so far from about nine of the core books on the subject, "Ripperologist," the boards and the podcast (wonderful stuff all). And anything I've presumed to say I find later in the day elsewhere, so I understand my place.
          You're more well-read on the Ripper than most, that's for sure!

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          My background includes research in psychiatric epidemiology and social psychiatry, with some experience in delinquency, gangs, immigration issues, prostitution, social networks and a dab of criminology. That's why rediscovering the Whitechapel complex of cases has been so interesting to me. Not that my background is important; it just helps to explain my approach.
          I'm surprised you like my stuff then, since I eschew all the profiling stuff. That's no black mark against psychiatry, but thus far profiling has been useless in catching living, breathing serial killers, let along long dead ones.

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          I suppose the obvious point then is that if one person could have done the damage to Emma Smith, more than one could have, too. And one person could have. It comes down to the veracity of Smith and the lodging house commentators on location as being what is critical.
          It comes down to many pieces of circumstancial evidence. Individually, they mean little (except the missing blood, that's a whopper), but collectively it rather makes the story stink a bit.

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          I don't presume that, whatever the possible conspiracies of cover-up and misdirection are in these earlier cases, it naturally ties to the later Ripper killings. But in terms of seeing a trend in the nature and increase of intensity of an extended set of homicides in a small geographical area, it is reasonable to note the obvious, consistent (less Stride) development allied with an emerging case of lust-murder sexual sadism with associated paraphilias (using some aging terminology).
          It's a shame that the word 'conspiracy' carries with it such a negative connotation. It makes writers, including myself, want to steer far away from it. However, in the criminal world, conspiracies are and were a reality. And there's strong evidence of it in these early murders with the lodging house keepers and the police. Also Pearly Poll, William Thick, etc.

          Originally posted by Keith Murray
          People generally talk about the "he got more brutal" aspect of the cases. I see this trend as representing piquerism, as is generally acknowledged, with a compulsion to "get at and get into" the woman's sexual organs. (Again, I'm saying nothing new being said here.) The facial attacks are persistent but secondary - identity removal as seen with Eddowes and Kelly can represent several things.
          But in both cases - Eddowes and Kelly - he was very rough, brutal, and totally unsophisticated...and yet he made careful effort not to injure their eyes. Someone motivated by 'identity removal' would first strike for the eyes.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #20
            Agreed on all points, Tom, thanks. Yes, you were careful about discriminating between suggestive avenues for further investigation and a "ta da" proclamation. And your point about keeping the attention on the work is the foundation of research.

            I agree on the relative uselessness of profiling except as plot device for television shows - not that I'm an expert. I mentioned my personal experience just for background on my approaches. Anything I hazard about trying to understand the context of what was driving the attacker(s) is, I hope, grounded in a simple tracing of the progression of his actions.

            Also, I accept that "identity removal" was likely too strong a term for the facial work not related to immobilizing the women. It is an open matter, though, to me about the eyes. Messing with eyelids while leaving the orbs suggests something I'm not prepared to get into just yet.

            I use the term "conspiracy" in the manner I think you defined. Anything that triggers a round on the Duke of Clarence isn't wanted; "cover-up" may be better then.

            And I promise not to announce that Queen Victoria was the culprit and actually a man until I'm absolutely sure of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Keith Murray View Post
              Agreed on all points, Tom, thanks. Yes, you were careful about discriminating between suggestive avenues for further investigation and a "ta da" proclamation. And your point about keeping the attention on the work is the foundation of research.

              I agree on the relative uselessness of profiling except as plot device for television shows - not that I'm an expert. I mentioned my personal experience just for background on my approaches. Anything I hazard about trying to understand the context of what was driving the attacker(s) is, I hope, grounded in a simple tracing of the progression of his actions. And I promise not to

              Also, I accept that "identity removal" was too likely strong a term for the facial work not related to immobilizing the women. It is an open matter, though, to me about the eyes. Messing with eyelids while leaving the orbs suggests something I'm not prepared to get into just yet.

              I use the term "conspiracy" in the manner I think you defined.

              And I promise not to announce that Queen Victoria was the culprit and actually a man until I'm absolutely sure of it.
              LOL. Save the Queen Victoria revelation for your book. I was ranting about the conspiracy thing, but it's a personal buggerboo. I'm not a fan of so-called 'conspiracy theories' myself, but if you look at these early murders from a mafia perspective, it makes sense. The mafia is a criminal conspiracy and the set-up that the lodging house owners had was like a crude mafia.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Tom

                I'm glad you said that, because I've seen people say they like or don't like my 'solution', which I'm always struck by because I don't recall offering one! What I did do was build what I think is a rather convincing argument founded in the best evidence we have that certain individuals were either involved with or had knowledge regarding the commission of the first three Whitechapel murders and possibly those of Nichols and on as well. Howard Brown our illustrious host here at the forums, has been quite outspoken on the fact that new information is constantly turning up. His opinion is that writers are nuts to put out suspect or solution books because a new discovery could render their argument moot in a moment. I agree with him when it comes to silly books. But I tested my evidence as best I could and I believe it's important to collate this stuff into something like a book for easy reference and to get out to more people. My hope is precisely that it will spur research and new discoveries. I couldn't care less whether I'm proved right or wrong as long as people keep looking and finding stuff.
                One of the best comments you've posted yet regarding your book, and it echoes strongly with me...even if most of what you've surmised later proves to be mistaken, you've presented us with one of the best demonstrations I've ever seen on how to develop hypotheses from very limited data...and I think you've forced more folk than you'd believe to rethink these early cases...

                (I freely admit, in my own case, before reading your book, I'd have perhaps considered Martha Tabram as an early case...but wouldn't really have gone any further back, despite debates on Casebook...now, well it's a far more open than shut case...)

                All the best

                Dave

                Comment


                • #23
                  One of the best comments you've posted yet regarding your book, and it echoes strongly with me...even if most of what you've surmised later proves to be mistaken, you've presented us with one of the best demonstrations I've ever seen on how to develop hypotheses from very limited data...and I think you've forced more folk than you'd believe to rethink these early cases...

                  Cogidubnus

                  Amen to that Dave....couldn't have said it better.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi Dave, thanks for that, and I hope you're right. The more seasoned and set-in-their-way researchers have been very polite to me, but more or less passed over the research without much real interest, which I suppose is to be expected. So that's why I say that I don't think it will really catch on until the upcoming generation gets more vocal on the scene. At that point, I would expect a number of things in the book will become accepted wisdom, as they should. Others will (and should) remain a matter of debate until more data is acquired.

                    Incidentally, when I speak in term of 'generations' within Ripperology, I'm referring not to the age of the Ripperologist, but the era at which they're entering the scene.

                    Yours truly

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X