Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[lynn cates]

creativity

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"If BS-man did not kill her then is it rash to assume someone else did?"

I can live with that.

"The last person Stride was seen with (as you know) is 'Parcel man'. We don't know if he was the hypothetical 'man in the shadows', or at least still hanging around somewhere."

Very well. And, I'll go further--if only one Liz sighting is genuine, this is the one. But why does he not just snit back home leaving Liz all alone?

"No matter how the reader chooses to bridge the gap between her assault on the footway (12:45) and her body being found in the alley (1:00), the solution requires a little creative thinking."

A little perhaps--the less, the better. Prefer the forensics, however. Then it all looks a bit more mundane.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Creative thinking is not what is required here,....logical reconstruction of the physical scene and a logical construction of a series of events leading up to a point of culmination...a murder...is.

Simon Wood said once that these cases are a thousand times more confusing today than they were then...likely as a result of the spurious and "creative" answers people have put forward over the years.

This murder, in my opinion, isnt all that complicated, and its not a "Ripper" case either. Its made complicated by people who see a woman out at night and think "Prostitute", its complicated when physical evidence is ignored, and its complicated when people insist on inserting a ripping phantom menace into this scenario, when there is nothing within any known physical evidence that warrants that inclusion.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Very well. And, I'll go further--if only one Liz sighting is genuine, this is the one. But why does he not just snit back home leaving Liz all alone?

He may well have toddled off home for pie & peas. We don't know he was the killer, only that he is a legitimate suspect. Our question is, what happened to him?

A little perhaps--the less, the better. Prefer the forensics, however. Then it all looks a bit more mundane.

We would ALL prefer the forensic's, but where are they?
What is available to date has not provided a satisfactory solution.

[Wickerman]

Creative thinking is not what is required here,....logical reconstruction of the physical scene and a logical construction of a series of events leading up to a point of culmination...a murder...is.

Simon Wood said once that these cases are a thousand times more confusing today than they were then...likely as a result of the spurious and "creative" answers people have put forward over the years.

This murder, in my opinion, isnt all that complicated, and its not a "Ripper" case either. Its made complicated by people who see a woman out at night and think "Prostitute", its complicated when physical evidence is ignored, and its complicated when people insist on inserting a ripping phantom menace into this scenario, when there is nothing within any known physical evidence that warrants that inclusion.

Cheers

All very well to promote the noble objectives Michael, so why are your theories not more acceptable than anyone elses?

We are all fishing without a hook.

[lynn cates]

broad agreement

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Our question is, what happened to him?"

Perhaps he took his "Arbeter Fraints" home with him?

"We would ALL prefer the forensic's, but where are they?
What is available to date has not provided a satisfactory solution."

Ah, but I think we are converging. Recall how you, I and Christer reached broad agreement on body position?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Simon Wood said once that these cases are a thousand times more confusing today than they were then...likely as a result of the spurious and "creative" answers people have put forward over the years.

There's a a good deal of irony in that.

This murder, in my opinion, isn't all that complicated, and its not a "Ripper" case either. Its made complicated by people who see a woman out at night and think "Prostitute", its complicated when physical evidence is ignored, and its complicated when people insist on inserting a ripping phantom menace into this scenario, when there is nothing within any known physical evidence that warrants that inclusion.

No one knows who killed any of these women or why. The same person who killed another 'unfortunate' on the same night by apparently the same method is just as good a possibility as anyone. There is no certainty either way and its just as presumptuous to say that Strides' murder is definitely not a "Ripper" case as it is to say it definitely was.

[harry]

There is a difference in accepting a witness might be a little out in his/her timing or observance,than saying the information is a total fabrication.Pipeman had opportunity,so did the man Brown saw,so did BS.In my opinion they all existed,was where it was reported they were,and it was one of them that killed Stride.The how will not tell which one,even if the how was known.

[Damaso Marte]

If we accept the strict methodology that Michael Richards espouses, the honest thing for us to do would be to declare that we don't actually know anything and all go home.

Nobody who remains and posts on this forum is strictly devoted to what we can say on the basis of the evidence alone. The basic model for virtually everyone here is "make up stories inspired by a mix of evidence and [educated] speculation, debate their relative plausibility". That is what Ripperology is, and always will be unless some new evidence falls out of the sky.

[Wickerman]

Ah, but I think we are converging. Recall how you, I and Christer reached broad agreement on body position?

Indeed I do, but was that more to do with forensics, or mutual cooperation?

[lynn cates]

sound

Hello Cris.

"There is no certainty either way and its just as presumptuous to say that Strides' murder is definitely not a "Ripper" case as it is to say it definitely was."

Sound epistemology. Certainty is a VERY involved concept.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Brush Off Man

Hello Harry. Don't forget "Brush Off Man."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

model

Hello Damaso.

"The basic model for virtually everyone here is "make up stories inspired by a mix of evidence and [educated] speculation, debate their relative plausibility". That is what Ripperology is, and always will be unless some new evidence falls out of the sky."

Certainly mine.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

both

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Indeed I do, but was that more to do with forensics, or mutual cooperation?"

Both, I should think.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Damaso.

"The basic model for virtually everyone here is "make up stories inspired by a mix of evidence and [educated] speculation, debate their relative plausibility". That is what Ripperology is, and always will be unless some new evidence falls out of the sky."

Certainly mine.

And perfectly acceptable, this is "synthesis". Putting the pieces together to form a more complete yet, hypothetical picture.
Still hypothetical because we know flexibility is required due to missing info.

I'm not sure that everyone agrees on this as a suitable definition of Ripperology though

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Damaso

Nobody who remains and posts on this forum is strictly devoted to what we can say on the basis of the evidence alone. The basic model for virtually everyone here is "make up stories inspired by a mix of evidence and [educated] speculation, debate their relative plausibility". That is what Ripperology is, and always will be unless some new evidence falls out of the sky.

One of the best postings on the thread mate.

I for one certainly don't pretend to have been doing any different...I've been, initially, seeking confirmation that all the pieces we have MIGHT logically fit together, then latterly been exploring/evolving /refining by debate, (argument if you like), various fancies (and I won't put them any stronger than that) to explain/understand any awkward bits...we can't afford to be firmly wedded to certainties...as Stewart says, there aren't any...

I'm honestly no more firmly wedded to any theory than I was when this thread began but I do believe I've learned something from both it and the Mrs Mortimer one - that may well be because I'm a newbie and have a lot to learn...but I've enjoyed it though and hopefully will continue to do so...

Just my two-pennorth

All the best

Dave