What's your profile for Jack?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

It was you who said "possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen"
I`ve quoted you below (using the quote facility) just in case you`ve forgotten.

So possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen? Very well, I have said Liz was possibly soliciting. So let's rule that out.

But, it`s good to know you haven`t ruled out Stride soliciting.

[lynn cates]

"?"

Hello Jon. Thanks for quoting--it preserved my question mark.

Query: in general, why would one wish to use a question mark rather than a full stop? (Need a hint?)

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

The inclusion of the question mark is irrelevant as I never said "possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen". You did, with the added question mark for some reason

When did I say it ?

[lynn cates]

thread

Hello Jon. Thanks.

It was my inference given what you had said.

If you like, I will permit you to set up a thread and I can give you a logic tutorial. Might benefit you.

Game?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all!!!

This recent exchange has been hilarious. Not meaning to offend anyone here. Oh, and Lynn, I'm very interested in a logic tutorial. In all seriousness. Or you can send me lessons via PM???

[lynn cates]

email

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Delighted. Maybe email?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

It was my inference given what you had said.

If you like, I will permit you to set up a thread and I can give you a logic tutorial. Might benefit you.

A bit nasty. While you may present your arguments in a logical way, you often, sarcastically, reduce others' arguments to the absurd through a process of oversimplification. The use of simplification only benefits your arguments while frustrating others. Why do you do this? Is it a form of enjoyment? If so it is quite mean-spirited and something I wouldn't expect of a professor (which I believe you are). Is it simply the product of frustration over so many battles against what you (perhaps) see as a bastion of old school ignorance? If that is the case, regardless of your adherence to classical forms of argument, you are hardly doing your own causes any good. We absolutely all know you're a good guy. No doubt on my end for sure. I just scratch my head regarding what seems to have been coming off your fingertips as of late.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Michael. Thanks about the questions concerning motivation.

In my humble estimate, a discussion is legitimate ONLY when it concerns evidence or scenarios which may motivate a certain avenue of research.

When, however, one tries to be coy or bait me, I frequently weaken and respond in kind. Hopefully, that will emphasise the importance of staying with the point and not the personality.

I don't know what you mean by oversimplification. 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. For some odd reason, this provokes an analogy that has NOTHING to do with my opinion. The analogy is fallacious to a thinking person--trolls excepted (not directed at you).

Hopefully, this will give you an understanding of what impels me. You will note further that I have given you a SERIOUS reply. A disagreement is a trivial thing and, all things being equal, I MUCH prefer that to uncritical acceptance. We disagree. But we have ALWAYS (so far as I know) been cordial.

But you are probably right. Those who try to be cute and clever should be ignored, not made recipients of the lex talionis.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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'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