Previous Assaults on Liz

[The Good Michael]

I just wanted to defend CD's opinion here, though he doesn't need it. As Stewart's post points out, the most probable answer is that BS killed Stride, but it isn't a given (actually, some of the BS around here is killing me, let alone Stride).

I don't imagine, as Fisherman claims, that CD is doing his utmost to insert JTR into the scene. He is looking at possibilities. People get their pet ideas about Stride and become closed to those of others, and that is harmful to constructive discussion.

I slightly believe that Stride was a Ripper victim and I almost completely believe that BS was the killer. I'm not sure about either thing, however, and I waffle a bit back and forth as people present arguments. I kind of feel that's what learning is all about; taking information and changing and growing from its acquisition. I get so tired of seeing people teaming up on others because their opinions are different. Those same people who team up will turn on each other another time with the same vehemence. By all means, refute others' opinions, but use rationale without smugness. Think, "In what fashion would I speak if we were face to face?" and my guess is there would be much less hostility. Am I guilty? You bet, but it sickens me when I drop to that level.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Knows Better

Because it entails a ridiculous and unlikely degree of "coindicence" to swallow, Claire. On the basis of overwhelming probability, the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. I won't pretend that I don't find it utterly astonishing that people are seriously arguing otherwise.
Cheers,
Ben

Obviously Ben knows better than the contemporary police as even Swanson made allowance for the fact that the observed attacker may not have been one and the same as the killer. Certainly it is very likely but by no means the 'ridiculous and unlikely degree of "coincidence"' that Ben would have us believe.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"There's no doubting the difference in approach here, agreed"

Then again, the two elements mentioned as odd may, taken together, explain the outcome. If Jack was normally not intoxicated when killing, and if that helped him to stay out of peoples attention, then the sudden drunkenness may be the explanation to why this failed in the Stride case.

Not my scenario, admittedly, but since it gives me a chance to prove my open-mindedness to c.d....

Mitch writes:

"unless some-one can tell me Lizs habits that night we dont really know if Liz used the yard frequently"

Those who had something to say in the matter, Mitch, say that they did not recognize Liz as someone who frequented the area. And Pipeman got out of there alongside Schwartz. The only man we can put on that spot afterwards with anything resembling certainty is B S man.

C d writes:

"Yes, I was offended".

I realize that by now, c.d., and I´m sorry for it. I hold strong convictions here, I have often been challenged on them in a less than mild manner, and thus it is not always easy to pull the punches.
If it is any comfort to you, I will say that though I am very much on the "No"-side of the fence when it comes to the question "Was Stride a Ripper victim", I am not daft enough to say that I am a hundred percent sure that I am right. There is no way to do that, given the meagre material we´we got.

All the best, guys!
Fisherman

[Mitch Rowe]

Because it entails a ridiculous and unlikely degree of "coindicence" to swallow, Claire. On the basis of overwhelming probability, the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. I won't pretend that I don't find it utterly astonishing that people are seriously arguing otherwise.

Cheers,
Ben

Except that unless some-one can tell me Lizs habits that night we dont really know if Liz used the yard frequently. Liz may have had easy pickings of customers from having frequented the area for many years.

Its possible Liz picked up BS Man and when that deal went sour she picked up JTR to bring him back to the yard wich she may have used frequently.
Heck.. Its even possible Liz picked up PipeMan after BS Man left. PipeMan then being JTR and not even knowing BS Man.

EDIT..Its even possible another Woman was assualted and not Liz.

[Ben]

As for the two separate attackers--why not?

Because it entails a ridiculous and unlikely degree of "coindicence" to swallow, Claire. On the basis of overwhelming probability, the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. I won't pretend that I don't find it utterly astonishing that people are seriously arguing otherwise.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi GM,

I have two difficulties with that, Ben. First, according to Schwartz, BS man appeared to be at least partially intoxicated. Second, BS man continued his assault on Stride in full view of Schwartz and Pipeman. Neither sounds like JtR to me.

There's no doubting the difference in approach here, agreed, but for those who can't reconcile the behaviour of the broad-shouldered man with that of JTR, it's almost better to argue against Liz Stride being a ripper victim rather than deciding from the outset that Jack was responsible and then ruling out BS on the grounds that his behaviour isn't Jack-ish enough.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Michael,

Even though that sounds a lot like saying "for a fat girl you don't sweat much", I'll let it slide.

The fact remains that we simply don't know who killed Liz. Now that's a fact.

All that being said, my hand as well.

c.d.

I didn't intend for the comment to be backhanded cd, but at least we agree to continue as friends. The rest we'll work out here....with the help of the rest of our gang here.

And Sam.......we never disagree with you because your wrong, only to see how you eloquently deal with adversity, so we can all learn to be a Welsh Lord like you.

Last point.....cd, I do know that I have not been proven correct, and I could well be wrong,....but I can only be who I am, and thats someone who has belief in himself and his convictions. As you do.

Cheers mates.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=perrymason;37523]I can understand that, but I didnt say your comments are inferior, I said your argument for Jack as Liz's killer has virtually no substance, and is inferior to one that has substantive backing in known data.

Hi Michael,

Even though that sounds a lot like saying "for a fat girl you don't sweat much", I'll let it slide.

The fact remains that we simply don't know who killed Liz. Now that's a fact.

All that being said, my hand as well.

c.d.

[c.d.]

No they wouldn't!

I disagree.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

these boards would be damn boring if all we did was agree

No they wouldn't!

Hi Michael,

Yes, I like you too but having my comments called inferior rubs the wrong way and invites a reaction.

c.d.

I can understand that, but I didnt say your comments are inferior, I said your argument for Jack as Liz's killer has virtually no substance, and is inferior to one that has substantive backing in known data.

We know Liz was assaulted by a drunk minutes before she dies, and that the street by the gates, and the yard, were by witness accounts empty at 12:46...excluding only Liz and BSM. When there are two people alone, and one is killed, the logical approach would start with the second person. And there is no evidence that BSM left that scene before Liz was killed, or that anyone arrived.

Im sorry I offended you, and I dont think it was your intention to offend me, So heres my hand.....

Best regards as always cd.

[c.d.]

I like you cd, but your comments on mine, are like poking a stick at a tiger.....expect reaction.

Cheers

Hi Michael,

Yes, I like you too but having my comments called inferior rubs the wrong way and invites a reaction.

c.d.

Hi Michael,

Well I guess I will just have to keep my inferior arguments to myself. Sheesh.
Too bad we don't all have your insight.

c.d.

I like you cd, but your comments on mine, are like poking a stick at a tiger.....expect reaction.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I was offended. All of a sudden the tone of the posts changed. No longer were arguments weighed and counter arguments offered. It became we are right and no one can question us. It was that arrogance (intentional or unintentional) that was so damn annoying. My position is right so therefore yours is wrong. But neither you nor I can change what happened to Liz or change her killer by the weight of our arguments.

As I said, these boards would be damn boring if all we did was agree.

Stay well.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Sorry if you feel offended, c.d! But I really feel that those who cling to religious beliefs here are not the ones who believe in a simple scenario. Moreover, pointing that belief out as the result of not being open-minded becomes somewhat silly, since the orders given from above back in 1888 and all the way up to recent times was that Stride was a canonical: "The Whitechapel killer had five victims, and five victims only..."

To go against the current and challenge such things, c.d, is to be open-minded. If it was not for open-mindedness, Stride would still be an unchallenged Ripper victim.

But I will drink to your suggestion of not taking it all too seriously any day of the week, c.d. Life´s too short for that!
Oh, and the Whitechapel killer did not have five victims, if you ask me (and you do, don´t you?) - he had four and a half.

All the best,
Fisherman