Tweet
az writes:
"All posts 'suddenly' surface with no more or less warning than any other."
generally speaking, you are right, Caz. But surely, when you are having a conversation with a friend of yours, asking him how he´s been keeping, surely you are hoping for him to come up with an answer kind of, you know...immediatly?
Anyways, you most certainly are not posting against any rules, and I have not suggested that either. If you feel that answering questions is something that is improved by letting them hang in cyberspace for a few weeks time, who am I to say that it obstructs the flow of the discussion?
"There’s nothing like using real events to show that violent offenders can and do behave in certain ways, despite the most enthusiastic arguments to the contrary"
Mmmm, Caz. Problem is, when it can also be offered that people have lost their lives to others than serial killers, even in areas frequented by such creatures, we are left with pretty little evidencewise. Nothing, to be exact.
"My main objection was to your argument that if only Liz had been killed nobody would imagine a serial killer was at large. It’s circular and meaningless because it relies on Liz not being one of a series. You could say exactly the same about Mary Kelly, or any of the other victims"
Well, Caz, let´s rephrase it then: If Stride had not fallen prey to whomever it was during that special time, her demise would have gone lost in the river of time looong ago, whereas the Kelly case would always attract a long-lasting interest. Stride´s killing was never something that went beyond the business-as-usual-manual, as far as murders go. Kelly belongs to another league, wouldn´t you say. And that is where I end up saying that the one and only reason for the lasting interest in the business-as-usual-murder that Stride represented, lies in the fact that it has been (mis-)attributed to Jack for all these years.
"it’s a fact as plain as the nose on my face"
Could you be more specific, Caz? Can´t recall having seen that nose of yours.
"What are you going to gain from seeking to exclude a crime that he has at least shown himself capable of committing?"
Nothing. Nor have I suggested it. What I dislike is the fact that a murder that has precious little in common with the others of a series goes under the name of "canonical".
And it always must be appreciated that common features are a better way to look for a killer than differences. Chapman could kill, admittedly. That don´t stop me from stating that believing in him as the Ripper sends me into paroxysms of laughter.
"If you think Liz’s knife wound by itself is ‘enough’ for me, or that I have ever claimed it must have been Jack’s work, you have simply not been reading carefully enough to inspire me with great confidence in your ability to weigh up evidence."
..and if you have not noticed that I do not rule Jack out as a possible killer of Stride, you belong to the self same league, Caz. He is, however NOT a very likely killer in the case, and THAT is what I am saying. If I was to speak in percentages, I would say that I weigh it at about 80-20 or 85-15 in favour of Jack NOT being Liz´killer.
On your bit on Kürten, I have been read up on this story and the details you mention for more than twenty years, Caz. Now that you feel the need to use it to prove that Jack chased BS man away and took over, I can only offer this ingenous passage:
"You can introduce as many other potential knife-wielders or trigger-happy gunmen as you like and use them to explain individual unsolved crimes. But it helps if you have a good reason to take the known serial offender who was active at the time out of the equation first. "
Which is exactly what I am doing, Caz: using good reasons to take that serial killer out of the equation, since he does in all probability not belong there in the first place.
The best!
Fisherman
"All posts 'suddenly' surface with no more or less warning than any other."
generally speaking, you are right, Caz. But surely, when you are having a conversation with a friend of yours, asking him how he´s been keeping, surely you are hoping for him to come up with an answer kind of, you know...immediatly?
Anyways, you most certainly are not posting against any rules, and I have not suggested that either. If you feel that answering questions is something that is improved by letting them hang in cyberspace for a few weeks time, who am I to say that it obstructs the flow of the discussion?
"There’s nothing like using real events to show that violent offenders can and do behave in certain ways, despite the most enthusiastic arguments to the contrary"
Mmmm, Caz. Problem is, when it can also be offered that people have lost their lives to others than serial killers, even in areas frequented by such creatures, we are left with pretty little evidencewise. Nothing, to be exact.
"My main objection was to your argument that if only Liz had been killed nobody would imagine a serial killer was at large. It’s circular and meaningless because it relies on Liz not being one of a series. You could say exactly the same about Mary Kelly, or any of the other victims"
Well, Caz, let´s rephrase it then: If Stride had not fallen prey to whomever it was during that special time, her demise would have gone lost in the river of time looong ago, whereas the Kelly case would always attract a long-lasting interest. Stride´s killing was never something that went beyond the business-as-usual-manual, as far as murders go. Kelly belongs to another league, wouldn´t you say. And that is where I end up saying that the one and only reason for the lasting interest in the business-as-usual-murder that Stride represented, lies in the fact that it has been (mis-)attributed to Jack for all these years.
"it’s a fact as plain as the nose on my face"
Could you be more specific, Caz? Can´t recall having seen that nose of yours.
"What are you going to gain from seeking to exclude a crime that he has at least shown himself capable of committing?"
Nothing. Nor have I suggested it. What I dislike is the fact that a murder that has precious little in common with the others of a series goes under the name of "canonical".
And it always must be appreciated that common features are a better way to look for a killer than differences. Chapman could kill, admittedly. That don´t stop me from stating that believing in him as the Ripper sends me into paroxysms of laughter.
"If you think Liz’s knife wound by itself is ‘enough’ for me, or that I have ever claimed it must have been Jack’s work, you have simply not been reading carefully enough to inspire me with great confidence in your ability to weigh up evidence."
..and if you have not noticed that I do not rule Jack out as a possible killer of Stride, you belong to the self same league, Caz. He is, however NOT a very likely killer in the case, and THAT is what I am saying. If I was to speak in percentages, I would say that I weigh it at about 80-20 or 85-15 in favour of Jack NOT being Liz´killer.
On your bit on Kürten, I have been read up on this story and the details you mention for more than twenty years, Caz. Now that you feel the need to use it to prove that Jack chased BS man away and took over, I can only offer this ingenous passage:
"You can introduce as many other potential knife-wielders or trigger-happy gunmen as you like and use them to explain individual unsolved crimes. But it helps if you have a good reason to take the known serial offender who was active at the time out of the equation first. "
Which is exactly what I am doing, Caz: using good reasons to take that serial killer out of the equation, since he does in all probability not belong there in the first place.
The best!
Fisherman
Comment