where's Liz?

[lynn cates]

onus

Hello Caz. Your observation is fair. Yes, they found no evidence of another man in Liz's life.

Logically, the onus of proof is ALWAYS on the asserter of the positive statement. The opponent need merely say nay. So the onus is on my side.

(Of course, once the other makes a positive assertion, it all changes. Perhaps, then, to avoid any burden of proof, one could, in the fashion of Mr. Norman St. John Polevaulter, merely contradict whatever is claimed rather than asserting the positive side, "Liz was a prostitute AND soliciting when she was killed.")

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"it can safely be said that the police did find nothing to suggest that Liz and her killer had met before the night of her murder"

Considering that we have no conclusive proof of who killed her I would say that it would be very hard to come up with any suggestion along those lines. It stands to reason, wouldn´t you agree with that, Caz?

Then again, if BS man actually was her killer - and that is our safest bet by far - it would seem obvious that she met the very same man - or his spitting image - one hour before that. A sturdy looking man of the same height as BS, clad in a peaked cap and a black jacket, like BS, giving the impression of being quite a respectable, clerk-like guy - like BS. And there is every chance that he was the same man spotted by PC Smith fifty minutes later too. The descriptions of these men have so much in common that it would be professional harakiri for any police force not to work from the assumption that they could be one and the same. And the conduct of Stride in company with Marshall´s man does not reek of soliciting and quick sex at all; it´s all about mild manners and affectionate behavior and evening strolls with the man´s arm on Strides shoulders.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

...Perhaps, then, to avoid any burden of proof, one could, in the fashion of Mr. Norman St. John Polevaulter, merely contradict whatever is claimed rather than asserting the positive side, "Liz was a prostitute AND soliciting when she was killed.")

Hi Lynn,

I'm not sure anyone needs to assert "AND soliciting when she was killed". We all know she HAD earned money as a prostitute and WAS killed while hanging about a club on her own in the wee small hours.

All that matters is that her killer could reasonably have assumed she was soliciting, and that would apply whether he was the ripper or a male associate of hers - or both. Even then, he may not have cared what she was up to. She was there and she was killed there by a man who was up to no good and had a sharp knife to prove it.

The biggest assertion one could make here, IMHO, would be the one that would introduce - with no evidence whatsoever against any individual - a character who had never used a sharp knife on a woman before and would never do so again. To me, that's almost perverse. What on EARTH was poor Liz supposed to have done to make a man flip once, and once only, in such an awfully final fashion?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

But this is not about the man, or men, Liz may have been seen with in the hours and minutes leading up to her final seconds; this is about evidence that she and her killer had met before that night. Since nobody saw her throat being cut, we can only guess whether one of the men seen was responsible, or whether, for example, someone may have crept out of the shadows at the sight of a woman in distress and taken advantage of an all too familiar situation, whereby unaccompanied women just like Liz would be vulnerable to rough treatment.

We cannot know beyond reasonable doubt, from Schwartz or an army of other witnesses, that any of them actually saw the one man who was armed and prepared to commit murder in Berner Street that night.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

sundry

Hello Caz. That Liz was a "prostitute" follows from her Swedish registration. I was not aware that there is evidence that she was paid for that (but, of course, if she were a prostitute, the remuneration is a fair enough assumption).

I think your emendation is MUCH better than the standard saw that she WAS soliciting.

"What on EARTH was poor Liz supposed to have done to make a man flip once, and once only, in such an awfully final fashion?"

What indeed! Although I'm not certain that it was a case of "flipping," I am, nevertheless, doing research to ascertain precisely this. Wish me luck?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

I think your emendation is MUCH better than the standard saw that she WAS soliciting.

What's your Paypal account, Lynn? I'm gonna start fining you a quarter for every word I have to google the definition to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

the dictionary--your friend

Hello Tom. Did you say a fine or this is fine?

As I constantly tell my students who make similar complaints, the dictionary is your friend.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

PC or not PC? The choice is yours

Hello Caz. That Liz was a "prostitute" follows from her Swedish registration. I was not aware that there is evidence that she was paid for that (but, of course, if she were a prostitute, the remuneration is a fair enough assumption).

Er, okay Lynn.

I was trying to avoid saying that Liz was, or had been, 'a prostitute', as if that was how I was defining her. So I said she had earned money 'as' a prostitute, to suggest it was merely one of the (documented) ways she had made ends meet in the past.

I didn't expect anyone to come up with a definition of "prostitute" that involved our Liz merrily "making ends meet" without expecting the gentleman's end to cough up the necessary. Wouldn't that just make her a slapper?

Slapper = a promiscuous woman (sl)

Prostitute = a person (usu a woman) who accepts money in return for sexual intercourse

The Chambers Dictionary is my friend.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

defining moment

Hello Caz. I am delighted that you are providing definitions. I find that quite helpful. I wonder if the definition of prostitute you adduced precludes other sexual acts? (I am thinking about the massage parlour worker who provides manual stimulation, say.)

That aside, I was (in my previous post) wondering if her designation stemmed from her having a child out of wedlock rather than a pursued vocation.

So, tying it all together, I wonder whether being a "slapper" would not imply "prostitute" in the LVP imagination and, whether having a baby outside marriage would not imply (again, to the LVP thinker) being a slapper?

My point is, could Liz have been subjected to an opprobrium which was much ado about nothing?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"But this is not about the man, or men, Liz may have been seen with in the hours and minutes leading up to her final seconds; this is about evidence that she and her killer had met before that night."

Absolutely, Caz. Which is why I remark that, given these circs, one would be hard pressed to find such evidence. A note left at the scene would have been helpful: "In case you did not know, I actually knew this woman". But alas, it would seem that such a thing would be asking too much for some reason.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I was trying to avoid saying that Liz was, or had been, 'a prostitute', as if that was how I was defining her.

Yeah, I would say prostitute, lush and liar would better define her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I happen to TOTALLY agree with all what Caz posted here – and very nicely, literary stated!
Lynn,
“Modus ponens“ I remember from my (miserable) 2 years of having taken latin, but what's “opprobrium“? No latin dictionary available in my room in Stellenbosch, South Africa (in this place operated by Africaans), instead of this they had not one, but TWO bibles on the bedstand. (Which I immediately put away, horrified!) Am I right to assume that you teach latin?

[caz]

Hello Caz. I am delighted that you are providing definitions. I find that quite helpful. I wonder if the definition of prostitute you adduced precludes other sexual acts? (I am thinking about the massage parlour worker who provides manual stimulation, say.)

That aside, I was (in my previous post) wondering if her designation stemmed from her having a child out of wedlock rather than a pursued vocation.

So, tying it all together, I wonder whether being a "slapper" would not imply "prostitute" in the LVP imagination and, whether having a baby outside marriage would not imply (again, to the LVP thinker) being a slapper?

My point is, could Liz have been subjected to an opprobrium which was much ado about nothing?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Well, do you seriously think the 'prostitute' definition precludes any sexual act other than vaginal intercourse?

Isn't this getting a bit away from your own argument that Liz may have prostituted herself for no monetary gain?

Maybe, as you now suggest, she never did anything to fit a definition of prostitute that we would recognise today - not even a quick wank for her supper. Maybe she was raped - once - and went down on record as a prostitute because she became a single mum as a result and got the clap. But then maybe she was raped when she was hanging around a club by herself after midnight. (And no, I'm not saying she would have deserved it.)

Which brings us back to what a ferocious prostitute killer might have made of Liz doing this on the night it cost her most dear.

We can throttle the dictionary definitions to within an inch of their lives, but it won't help Liz reassure her killer that she was a good, wholesome girl, selling prayer books.

Thank you Maria, for your kind comments. I thought for a moment there I was being sent on the funny bus to consult perrymason.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I think the more important question is could she have been taken for a prostitute that evening?

As they say in New Jersey, "I got your opprobrium right here, pal !!!"

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:

"I think the more important question is could she have been taken for a prostitute that evening?"

I´ve got two answers for you, c.d:

1/ Of course she could - we know that people who took a look at her appearance concluded that she seemingly belonged to the "unfortunate" class, and she was standing about all alone in the middle of the night. So the answer is inevitably yes.

2/ Then again, although it was said that there were numerous "couples" (and in this context, hookers and johns were being referred to) in adjoining streets such as Commercial St, it was actually stated that it was a very uncommon sight in Berner Street. Meaning that those who went looking for prostitutes, went looking elsewhere. Normally, at least.

The best,
Fisherman