What's your profile for Jack?

[Boggles]

The anti-Jack crowd believes that the pro-Jack crowd believes that Jack only killed prostitu

thanks that makes it much clearer lol

but do we not know that people like Sutcliffe, Ridgway and many more took whoever was vulnerable and convenient - often prozzies but not strictly?

[c.d.]

I agree. Women who are not prostitutes are generally not found standing alone on streets at 1am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

A woman standing by herself late at night is not necessarily a prostitute but when said woman has been described by police as being a prostitute it is not a real leap of faith to conclude that she is engaging in prostitution.

c.d.

[c.d.]

LC, c.d., observer, Tom anyone! - in layman terms would you be so kind as to give me a summary of the debate, and why it has drifted so far from the original subject!? I dont want to plough through the whole thread.

Hello Boggles,

Can't blame you for that. Our story so far...The anti-Jack crowd believes that the pro-Jack crowd believes that Jack only killed prostitutes. Therefore, if they can show that Liz was not a prostitute or that she was not soliciting that night, then she could not have been killed by Jack.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

"She is standing by herself late at night."

Case closed.

I agree. Women who are not prostitutes are generally not found standing alone on streets at 1am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

LC, c.d., observer, Tom anyone! - in layman terms would you be so kind as to give me a summary of the debate, and why it has drifted so far from the original subject!? I dont want to plough through the whole thread.

Hi Boggles, I don't blame you. Basically, here's the debate...

Lynn & Mike Richards: Stride wasn't prostituting herself that night and was not killed by the man who killed Eddowes.

The Facts: Stride was prostituting herself and was killed by the man who killed Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"How exactly would Jack know whether or not Liz was soliciting unless he approached her? And once approached, what would prevent Liz from accepting Jack's offer? Even if she had been on a date earlier that evening, we have no evidence that the date was still in progress."

1. You will notice this scenario goes beyond the BSM story. Good.

2. Date? You too? Why are we discussing a date? Who believes that?

"Tom provided evidence that the police considered her to be a prostitute."

Yes. It's all in the Ultimate. How do we move from the police thought that X, to it was the case that X?

"She is standing by herself late at night."

Case closed.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

2. Date? Your partner in crime, Michael, is a big believer in the date theory.

You are right, we don't know for a fact that she was soliciting but then either would her killer until he approached her. She would then have the opportunity to accept or reject his offer regardless of whether she was soliciting or not.

A woman standing by herself late at night who was known to solicit from time to time (per the police report) might indicate solicitation to a potential customer.

"Case closed" -- once again you seem to feel the need to include sarcasm in your post. Why I don't know.

c.d.

[Boggles]

LC, c.d., observer, Tom anyone! - in layman terms would you be so kind as to give me a summary of the debate, and why it has drifted so far from the original subject!? I dont want to plough through the whole thread.

[lynn cates]

conclusive evidence

Hello CD. Thanks.

"How exactly would Jack know whether or not Liz was soliciting unless he approached her? And once approached, what would prevent Liz from accepting Jack's offer? Even if she had been on a date earlier that evening, we have no evidence that the date was still in progress."

1. You will notice this scenario goes beyond the BSM story. Good.

2. Date? You too? Why are we discussing a date? Who believes that?

"Tom provided evidence that the police considered her to be a prostitute."

Yes. It's all in the Ultimate. How do we move from the police thought that X, to it was the case that X?

"She is standing by herself late at night."

Case closed.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I don't see why the idea of Liz changing her mind is so difficult to accept. Try this analogy. You have taken the day off from work when you get a call from your boss asking you to come in. You say no, you are off today. He says they really need you and if you come in they will pay you double time. Now the choice is still yours as to whether you go into to work but is the idea of somebody doing so under those circumstances so unthinkable?

c.d.

[Boggles]

what prevents her from accepting an offer from a customer?

Not much, they were in very poor circumstances. She may have had some concern with her suitor, some signal - call it women's intuition, there was a manic on the loose everyone knew this. Something may have made her cautious, something in his behavior, warning signals.

[Observer]

The thing is Tom it's VITAL to their means of creating such fiction that Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly, were not soliciting shortly before they were murdered. Concrete proof that they were, and their theories collapse like a pack of cards. And speaking of cards, they hold all the aces. Definite proof of solicitation immediately prior to their murder, is going to be as elusive a commodity, as the name of Jack The Ripper himself as far as those three are concerned.

Regards

Observer

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

But even if Liz were not actively soliciting that night, for whatever reason, what prevents her from accepting an offer from a customer? You are trying to make it seems like Liz swore a sacred blood oath not to solicit that night and even God couldn't force her to do so. It would simply be a matter of changing her mind. And if her killer were Jack, and he intended to take back all of his money, it would be quite easy for him to invent some story that he just got paid and was really in the mood and therefore he would double the price. Like in the Godfather, an offer she couldn't refuse.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

And by the way, Mike. Yes, there are people who argue that Stride, or Eddowes, were not prostitutes at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, what you've "proven" is that Liz did occasionally prostitute herself, which isnt disputed as I mentioned. Youve provided no proof, nor does the report, that on that night, at that location, she was doing just that.

I can't prove that at the time and on that night the clock in Big Ben was reading the time, but logic and history dictates it was.

Liz Strides murder is duplicated by a Mr Brown on the very same night, a single throat cut with a knife....

Mrs. Brown was killed with a single cut to the throat, was she? Just like Stride and Eddowes you say?

You mentioned "without apparent motive"....precisely the point. We dont know the motives for those murders, and therefore should not just assume they are the same.
Cheers Tom

I'm not assuming anything. I don't pretend to the know the motive behind any of these murders. Except the murder of Mrs. Brown, which had absolutely zero in common with the murders of Stride and Eddowes. Having said that, the lack of known motive in any of these cases IS a common factor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey, don't look at me, Tom. I'm on your side.

c.d.

I know that. I was just venting to you.

And for the many people who read these threads but don't post, I'll point out that I don't paint Lynn Cates with the same bush as some others. He's a bit loopy on some points, but unlike others he does often present valuable and original perspectives on the Ripper case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott