What's your profile for Jack?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Observer]

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.

Hi cd

Quite incorrectly. They can not get it into their heads that it's entirely possible that even though Stride may not have been soliciting, she could still have been a victim of JTR. Whether this is through ignorance, or the desire to preserve a personal theory, I don't know. I know which option my money is on though.

Regards

Observer

[Tom_Wescott]

Words like "conclusive evidence" are often thrown around. But what do they mean? We'd all like to have evidence that is conclusive on something, and oft times we do, but sometimes we simply can't. But that doesn't mean we don't have enough evidence to reach a logical conclusion. However, those who are supporting the weaker argument and KNOW that their argument is weak will inevitably tell the other side "you don't have conclusive evidence." You see it on the Lechmere threads and from others who for reasons beyond my understanding have married themselves to the most unlikely of hypotheses.

Having said that, it works both ways. I've seen plenty of people who are so married to old school Ripper dogma that getting a new perspective across to them is like trying to push a feather through a brick wall. I don't get that either. One sides really no different from the other. It all equals to an unwillingness to change one's mind once its settled.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hello Observer,

Maybe we should just call them women who were available for whatever reason.
And we could also point out that they do not appear to have been married women who were dragged out of their homes in order to be killed on the street.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Tom,

You make a very valid point. As you know, here in the U.S., the standard for determining guilt in a court of law varies depending on whether it is a criminal trial or a civil trial. A guilty verdict in a criminal case requires that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil trial only requires a determination of what is more likely so.

Now it is certainly laudable that some posters want absolute metaphysical proof of something before they will accept it. But since we are dealing with a limited amount of evidence and are unlikely to get additional evidence, I think it is much more reasonable to say well what is more likely so.

Just my take on things.

c.d.

[Boggles]

those who are supporting the weaker argument and KNOW that their argument is weak will inevitably tell the other side "you don't have conclusive evidence."

This happened in my town in Leicester - we all pretty convinced Richard III was a hunchback. Then suddenly a bunch of richard III society people came along and challenged the current belief. No evidence they said, all Tudor propaganda. People debated for hours on internet forums about the scraps of contemporary evidence was not sufficient to prove it either way.

It was fashionable for a while, so in the end they dug him up and sure enough hunchback he was - may have not been Quasimodo but certainly structural scoliosis he did have. It is rare when this happens but very pleasurable to see their faces when they see that all that time they were wrong.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

You make a very valid point. As you know, here in the U.S., the standard for determining guilt in a court of law varies depending on whether it is a criminal trial or a civil trial. A guilty verdict in a criminal case requires that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil trial only requires a determination of what is more likely so.

Now it is certainly laudable that some posters want absolute metaphysical proof of something before they will accept it. But since we are dealing with a limited amount of evidence and are unlikely to get additional evidence, I think it is much more reasonable to say well what is more likely so.

Just my take on things.

c.d.

I agree. And it's unfortunate we have to make the concessions we have to make. But all the more reason for there not to be debate where there is so little cause for it. We don't have "conclusive evidence" that Stride was even murdered. Suicide by throat cutting was all too common and one of the club men could have concealed the knife for fear it would lead the police to them, versus a killer who fled. Do I think this happened? Absolutely not. But I don't have conclusive evidence to prove it didn't. And neither does Michael Richards. But we both agree - based on inconclusive evidence - that she was murdered. And maybe that's only because we've only been TOLD she was murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

conflation

Hello CD. Thanks.

Why do you conflate posters? Mike has his theories, I have mine. I presume we all do.

Please don't lump me with anyone else. I am not opposed to anyone, but it is not correct to put people under the same umbrella.

Now, if I may be permitted a Littlechild quip, "It is finished." I am off this thread and I return you to your rumination. We have long since exhausted the evidence and are now merely into the psychological.

Cheers.
LC