What's your profile for Jack?

[The Good Michael]

". . . though the joke is really on the one who doesn't reveal his/her cards."

Why?

Why might one think so?

Mike

[lynn cates]

right

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Indeed. Yet I have no overweening reason to rule her in.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'Day Lynn

Here's my dilemma.

Poster: "Stride was a prostitute."

Me: "Well, she was so considered. But what of the night she died?"

Poster: "Makes no difference. Jack THOUGHT she was soliciting."

Me: "Jack?"

Poster: "Yes, you fool."

Me: "Why Jack?"

Poster: "Because, you dolt, he was the only one who killed prostitutes. And Liz WAS a prostitute."

That argument makes sense.

But it doesn't rule out her being a prostitue.

[lynn cates]

On prostitution

Hello Tom. Thanks.

Here's my dilemma.

Poster: "Stride was a prostitute."

Me: "Well, she was so considered. But what of the night she died?"

Poster: "Makes no difference. Jack THOUGHT she was soliciting."

Me: "Jack?"

Poster: "Yes, you fool."

Me: "Why Jack?"

Poster: "Because, you dolt, he was the only one who killed prostitutes. And Liz WAS a prostitute."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

simple

Hello Michael.

". . . the resulting answers are simplified. . ."

Thanks. I certainly hope so.

"This may make people feel foolish . . ."

Hopefully not.

". . . though the joke is really on the one who doesn't reveal his/her cards."

Why?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

up to you

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

As I've stated in most of my essays, I leave it for the reader to decide.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hi Lynn, Good Michael, Bad Michael, et al...I hope this clears it up.

Tom,

Clears it up? It will take a case of Clearasil and laser surgery, and still this acne won't go away. Thanks for trying.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Was Stride a prostitute?

I'm not fully convinced Liz Stride was soliciting the night she died...where is the evidence she was even an occasional?

I'll quote from one of my Stride essays that's published here and everyone is welcome to read...

In Chief Inspector Donald Swanson’s lengthy report of Oct. 19th, he states, ‘The body was identified as that of Elizabeth Stride, a prostitute, & it may be shortly stated that the enquiry into her history did not disclose the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anybody who had known her.’

The above is from a summary report prepared from police reports after more than two weeks of investigation. Basically, after all of her associates were spoken to it was concluded that Stride was a prostitute. She was seen with multiple men on the night of her death, usually around establishments that serve alcohol. Let's put the pieces together.

Also, in the Daily News, a friend of Stride's indicated she was a prostitute.

I have argued that evidence is lacking regarding Liz and her purported solicitation. I have subsequently suggested that it be suspended until we get a clearer picture.

Hi Lynn, Good Michael, Bad Michael, et al...I hope this clears it up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

I'll say that I always enjoy new posters encountering Lynn Cates for the first time. He does this thing where he does not outright state his (very heterodox) views - he instead uses the Socratic method to attempt to goad the poster into figuring out his views. Many people never make it there and a great confusion of arguments follows.

Except the majority of us understand the Socratic method, and this always comes off as a mentor/teacher thing, and then the resulting answers are simplified, de-contextualized (man, I love English), and made ludicrous by Lynn. This may make people feel foolish, though the joke is really on the one who doesn't reveal his/her cards.

Mike

[Damaso Marte]

I'll say that I always enjoy new posters encountering Lynn Cates for the first time. He does this thing where he does not outright state his (very heterodox) views - he instead uses the Socratic method to attempt to goad the poster into figuring out his views. Many people never make it there and a great confusion of arguments follows.

[The Good Michael]

I'm not fully convinced Liz Stride was soliciting the night she died...where is the evidence she was even an occasional? But is what I think really relevant? There is a lot of evidence she was breaking up with Kidney...similarly there is a lot of evidence she'd done this before...what the heck does it really matter?

Dave,

I agree with you. Regardless, these details, no matter how unimportant they may be to the murderer(s), are important for alternative ripperology theories. Each weakening of an old argument slowly breaks down traditional thought. The void will be filled (it seems to me) by a whole new story that if sent back to the past, would be unrecognizable by contemporary investigators.

Cheers,

Mike

[Cogidubnus]

I'm not fully convinced Liz Stride was soliciting the night she died...where is the evidence she was even an occasional? But is what I think really relevant? There is a lot of evidence she was breaking up with Kidney...similarly there is a lot of evidence she'd done this before...what the heck does it really matter?

As the Yorkshire Ripper case surely proves, it's what the killer thinks that really counts....

cheers

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Lynn, Michael

Who is the person who gets to decide what is possible and what is probable, seems to be a thin margin between them both due to the difference of opinion of human nature.

To be honest it comes across to me to be a case of you feel your knowledge is superior, therefore you know best and don't want to deal with the people who aren't as knowledgeable on the matter.

I for one have never found Jon anything but articulate and interesting in his posts (unless you were referring to me in your answer to Good Michael).

As you stated in your reply to GM, you wanted to suspend the discussion of Liz and her prior conviction, I was the one who brought in the point of her prior (I believe) so back to the question, who gets to decide. I don't feel that her priors are irrelevant so I want to discuss/research it.

Hi tji,

I cant answer for Lynn, and I dont speak for him either...(although I felt fairly strongly that he would agree with the principal Im addressing now), ..but I dont feel superior to anyone when I say that many people use Possibilities as Probabilities when assessing holes in the Stride evidence. Your point about prior convictions is historical background, but in terms of determining a likelihood about what Liz Stride was doing at 40 Berner on that night and at that time, the circumstantial evidence that she had been working regularly for weeks up until that day, and her pay that day, seem to set aside any real arguments that she was driven to solicit by her needs. She was sober when murdered, at 1am, when she had been out since around 7-7:30pm, indicating that the lack of money found on her was not a result of booze purchases. And had she been out "earning" she would have had some money on her at the time of her death. Had she been there to earn she must have made a grave error in her timing, because anyone left onsite at the time she is seen near the club was inside, more than 75% of the attendees left, and were on the streets, an hour before she gets there. It was stated by a number of witnesses that she had on respectable clothing, or "good evening wear".

If its your intention to cite prior history as a way to answer the question of her being there at 40 Berner, then you can add that she petitioned the registrar of the Prostitutes List in Goteborg to have her name stricken from that list due to her finding nanny work. She looked for that maid/nanny work while she was a Street prostitute, at that young age, which seems to establish her preference for work...if she could get regular, decent work. She apparently had that for some weeks leading up to her death.

Adding up all the circumstantial evidence and the absence of solicitation evidence on that night, the idea that she was soliciting at the time remains a possibility, but not a probability.

The point in this exercise is the hope that we could assess the evidence and the most probable line of questions that arise from it without having a myriad of less likely "possibilities" clog that process. For example....there is absolutely zero evidence that Liz Strides killer was interrupted, nor is there any evidence of further intent with her. So it would be great if we didnt spend a lot of time addressing posts that claim the lack of mutilations was due to an interruption. Yes... its possible, but using the evidence we have today, its not probable. Unless someone can find a piece of evidence that indicates she was even touched again by her killer after that single cut...lets set that premise aside as Unlikely.

We could walk through many such arguments about Stride theorizing, but im sure the point is made....lets discuss whats actually there and what it may mean, not what an individual believes is the case despite the lack of supporting evidence.

Cheers

[tji]

Lynn, Michael

Who is the person who gets to decide what is possible and what is probable, seems to be a thin margin between them both due to the difference of opinion of human nature.

To be honest it comes across to me to be a case of you feel your knowledge is superior, therefore you know best and don't want to deal with the people who aren't as knowledgeable on the matter.

I for one have never found Jon anything but articulate and interesting in his posts (unless you were referring to me in your answer to Good Michael).

As you stated in your reply to GM, you wanted to suspend the discussion of Liz and her prior conviction, I was the one who brought in the point of her prior (I believe) so back to the question, who gets to decide. I don't feel that her priors are irrelevant so I want to discuss/research it.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that one reason both Lynn and I tend to downplay many of the statements made by posters regarding the Stride investigation specifically is because I would, and I believe Lynn feels the same, be willing to discuss any Probable Solution to the questions, which is to say answers or theories that incorporate the actual evidence placed before us. Judging by the comments posted many seem to feel that Probable and Possible are synonymous....they are not.

Probable: Likely to have happened or to be true, Likely but uncertain; plausible, Relating to opinions and actions in ethics and morals for whose lawfulness intrinsic reasons or extrinsic authority may be adduced.

Possible:Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances, Of uncertain likelihood.

Most of the arguments for Strides inclusion as a Ripper victim fall into the second category, the arguments for Strides exclusion fall into the first. Specifically.......the reason for only one cut, the reason Liz Stride was at that location at that particular time and why she was attired the way she was, or the liklihood of another man assaulting Liz after the BSM incident. We have no evidence that the man who killed Stride wanted to do more than kill her, we have no evidence that he was interrupted and prevented from doing more. We have no evidence that Liz Stride was there soliciting, and we have no evidence that first off confirms Israel Schwartz's story nor do we have evidence that another person attacked her after that alleged assault.

Cheers