Where is Liz Stride?

[lynn cates]

argumentum ad populam

Hello David. Thanks.

"By the way, even those who don't make her a ripper-victim can assume she was soliciting that night."

Ah, a different logical fallacy. If I can collect just a few more samples, I can write my own text.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

But why accept Schwartz or the existing report as being accurate?

Why not?

Why would Schwartz still be important if BS Man didn't kill Liz?

Because BS man may have been the cause of the killer's intervention. But we don't actually know that BS man didn't kill her, so naturally Schwartz is important until there is good reason to think otherwise.

Funny thing is, Schwartz appears to be a lot more important to those who want to take his account right out of the equation for absolutely no good reason at all.

I don't get it. Why don't they just get rid of all the witness testimony throughout the murders, start from scratch and make it up as they go along?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

zero risk

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Silly? The whole discussion has become silly.

Desperate? You forget that my theory flows much more smoothly if BS is real.

You had argued that Schwartz would not have risked telling a tale had he been unsure of the environment at 12.45. My reply was (and is still) that club people were out at 12.40. If they saw a clear street, then all they needed do was concoct a story about a Gentile bully who roughed up Stride, hurled a racial slur, and put the story in a poor immigrant's mouth.

Should the situation have changed drastically between 12.40 and 12.45, the translator need only have tweaked Schwartz to say, "Perhaps it was 12.40 after all." There was ZERO risk from the story.

Of course, that does not make the story true or false.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

real B S M

Hello Caroline.

"I do believe it's possible, however, for BS man to have gone on to kill Stride."

Absolutely. If BSM is real, he is your killer. It is, as you might say, bleedin' obvious.

"There was plenty of time for him to walk off after the witnessed altercation, then turn round and walk back when Schwartz and Pipeman had cleared off. Stride would have been collecting herself, unaware that he had unfinished business with her if he was seriously pissed off by then."

Out of curiosity, is this interlude in place to allow Liz to get into the yard and have a cachous break? Would his going in through the side door of the club, staying for a minute or two, then re-emerging, work as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

You had argued that Schwartz would not have risked telling a tale had he been unsure of the environment at 12.45. My reply was (and is still) that club people were out at 12.40. If they saw a clear street, then all they needed do was concoct a story about a Gentile bully who roughed up Stride, hurled a racial slur, and put the story in a poor immigrant's mouth.

Should the situation have changed drastically between 12.40 and 12.45, the translator need only have tweaked Schwartz to say, "Perhaps it was 12.40 after all." There was ZERO risk from the story.

Of course, that does not make the story true or false.

Oh, it`s the ole conspiracy thing. Right okay, sorry, carry on ..

[caz]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"For that matter, why does everyone assume that crack dealers out on the street in Miami are there to sell crack."

For a crack dealer to be a crack dealer, crack must be dealt.

So your argument is:

"Well, Liz must have been soliciting, after all, that's what prostitutes do."

I leave it to you to name that logical fallacy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

May I turn the question round and ask you why must Stride not have been in the market to earn a few pence in whatever way the buyer at that hour requested? She was completely without funds when found dead. Why must this be interpreted to mean she already had her bed and breakfast sorted (feather pillows, scrambled eggs and smoked salmon, no doubt) courtesy of the new beau who so discourteously left her standing outside the club to become just 'another' murdered woman?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You had argued that Schwartz would not have risked telling a tale had he been unsure of the environment at 12.45. My reply was (and is still) that club people were out at 12.40. If they saw a clear street, then all they needed do was concoct a story about a Gentile bully who roughed up Stride, hurled a racial slur, and put the story in a poor immigrant's mouth.

Should the situation have changed drastically between 12.40 and 12.45, the translator need only have tweaked Schwartz to say, "Perhaps it was 12.40 after all." There was ZERO risk from the story.

Of course, that does not make the story true or false.

Cheers.
LC

You reckon?

So they knew Schwartz inside out? Knew he would do a decent job of it for them? Knew he would sound convincing? Knew he wouldn't get flustered, forget his lines, break down halfway through or confess that it was all a lie and he was put up to it? Trust him not to reveal who was behind the scam, not even if he was offered good money and a promise that he wouldn't get into trouble?

You reckon if it had all gone tits up, the people behind it wouldn't have faced charges of perverting the course of justice at best and murder at worst?

This is why conspiracy theories tend to fall down: the conspiracy itself would tend to do the same.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"For that matter, why does everyone assume that crack dealers out on the street in Miami are there to sell crack."

For a crack dealer to be a crack dealer, crack must be dealt.

So your argument is:

"Well, Liz must have been soliciting, after all, that's what prostitutes do."

I leave it to you to name that logical fallacy.

No fallacy because there's no argument. I was simply saying that crack dealers out and about in the evening, are not necessarily selling crack. Yet, "Always be selling" is the salesman's motto...wait a sec! Don't prostitutes sell? Not always mind you.

Mike

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"I do believe it's possible, however, for BS man to have gone on to kill Stride."

Absolutely. If BSM is real, he is your killer. It is, as you might say, bleedin' obvious.

Why so dogmatic?

"There was plenty of time for him to walk off after the witnessed altercation, then turn round and walk back when Schwartz and Pipeman had cleared off. Stride would have been collecting herself, unaware that he had unfinished business with her if he was seriously pissed off by then."

Out of curiosity, is this interlude in place to allow Liz to get into the yard and have a cachous break? Would his going in through the side door of the club, staying for a minute or two, then re-emerging, work as well?

There doesn't need to be much of an interlude, just time for Stride to feel comfortable enough to take out her cachous and be off her guard again. But yes, I'm not fussed about what BS man does, or where he goes after Schwartz legs it and before Stride is actually murdered. However, if you are fine with an interlude of a 'minute or two' while Stride is on her own with her cachous, why are you so not fine with BS man simply walking away, allowing the man with the knife to creep up and take his opportunity?

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Caz,

Scwartz didn't attend the inquest. If you believe him to be such an important witness then why didn't he testify? You have to answer that. Please don't say in order to protect the witness somehow and please don't use the seaside home. If he had something of value, he should have testified. Period. He didn't though so why not?

The same rule could be applied to Mortimer. The problem with her not testifying? What could she actually say other than to discredit Schwartz. She didn't see anything or hear anything. She wouldn't make a good witness at an inquest for that reason. However, her value comes in the form of discrediting Schwartz, hence he didn't testify.

Regarding BS Man, half believe he had to be Liz's killer and the other half say it wasn't him. Some of the biggest names (at least in my opinion some of the biggest names in Ripperology) feel it wasn't BS Man. If it wasn't BS Man then Schwartz's tale doesn't have much value at all other than he apparently would have been the last person to see Liz alive. Since he didn't come forward, we'll never be able to identify him even as a witness.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

c.d.

I have to agree with Lynn. There is no evidence at all that Liz was prostituting herself. She may have been but there is nothing but speculation to say she was.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

DVV,

because she was a prostitute in Berner Street (see the thread "Selling matches and soliciting"). (Of course, you can argue that there is no evidence she was selling matches.)

By the way, even those who don't make her a ripper-victim can assume she was soliciting that night.

Assume because she was a Ripper victim? Not every woman was an unfortunate and not every Ripper victim is necessarily a prostitute. She was at least doing house cleaning.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Jon Guy

Oh, it`s the ole conspiracy thing. Right okay, sorry, carry on ..

Oh, it's the ole follow and believe blindly thing. Right okay, sorry, carry on...

[Jon Guy]

Oh, it's the ole follow and believe blindly thing. Right okay, sorry, carry on...

Nothing blind about it, mate.

Again, why is it you doubt Schwartz ?

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder why some are so critical of people who argue any angle of the Stride murder evidence yet so at ease with their own unsupported and unsubstantiated arguments that inevitably must include this Phantom Killer Jack.

There are many fallacies being bandied about...one concerns the likelihood that Liz was soliciting when she met her killer. Thats pure speculation and it is used in an effort to bolster a theory that she is killed by a "prostitute killer". Another is that a witness missing from the formal Inquest..who provided a story for the time of 12:45 in front of the gates...is a reliable source, discounting the additional 12:45 witness who does appear at the Inquest and says nothing about anything going on just round the corner on Berner Street, nor does he see any fleeing man, or men. Edward Spooner and his date dont see anyone fleeing from Berner either. Fanny Mortimer neither sees or hears anything either, and for all we know 12:45 may well have been one of her "on" moments.

If Louis Diemshitz insistence on 1am means he was approaching from the direction of Commercial for a few minutes...unless some Ripper fan wants to suggest he had a thoroughbred lashed out front...then it follows based on Fanny Mortimers statements that she should have been able to see and/or hear the cart and horse approaching. She was at that door, by her own account, at that time. She didnt. Apparently the young couple who was interviewed had no corroborating evidence to provide, perhaps other than seeing Fanny.

There seems to be lately some suggestion that I, and others, are being too rigid with the timings, and should just accept a possibility that things simply evolved like well tuned clock that last half hour, with figures entering and departing at just the right moments to be unseen by others who were in fact there at the time.

No argument needed other than that statement itself....and Im accused of stretching the boundaries.

Cheers all