What are the chances of….?

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Wulf,

I find myself using “what are the chances of..” regularly too and it got me thinking about how it could possibly lead any of us to eliminated something that’s possible. I’d say that it’s about keeping the options open.

i suppose there is the chance that eddowes and killer were already in the square at the time of the lawende sighting - do the timings allow for that?

Against that I would say medium-short fair mustache man crops up three separate occasions in the suspiciuos circumstances: 1-close to Eddowes ToD; 2-man that attacked wilson; 3-man that attacked farmer. Are there any others?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There are no other statements specifically mentioning a couple comprising a male and a female ...

In the end, we have to take the evidence we have, and see where it leads us. My own view is that it suggests that the Church Passage Couple has the most evidence to support the suggestion that was indeed Eddowes and JtR, but at the same time it is not conclusive.

It has been suggested to me - not always politely - that the couple seen by Lawende were unconnected with the murder and that Eddowes and the murderer approached Mitre Square from elsewhere or even met in Mitre Square (maybe they had a rendezvous).

Such suggestions are designed to get round my argument that there was obviously insufficient time for another man to approach Eddowes in the event that the man she was seen with walked away - the first line of argument used by sceptics - and then to do what the murderer did.

My rejoinder is: if the couple seen by Lawende were not Eddowes and her murderer, then what became of them?

Someone suggested they were a boyfriend and girlfriend out on a date.

It is remarkable how some people writing 135 years after the event can see more clearly than an eyewitness who obviously knew how to recognise a prostitute with a prospective client and said so at the time.

The fleeting glimpse which such critics dismiss as inadequate to make a proper judgment is somehow inferior to their judgement, even though they did not see anything at all.

If, as seems obvious, the woman with her hand on a 'sailor''s chest at 1.35 a.m. in a London street, was a prostitute, what became of her and her prospective client?

The fact that she had her hand on his chest and that he showed not the slightest unwillingness to have her hand on his chest does not suggest that he was in any hurry to get away.

Pc Harvey was at the other end of Church Passage at about 1.40 a.m.

I suggest that he might have seen the couple as he approached at about 1.38 a.m. had they still been where they had been seen standing.

But he did not.

Nor did anyone else, it seems.

Had they walked in his direction, for example, he would have seen them while on his way.

Where would the couple - if they were not Eddowes and her client - have gone, if not Mitre Square?

Why would they have gone looking for some other secluded place?

Did the woman not know of the Square as a suitable place?

What was she doing looking for a customer in proximity to Mitre Square?

Suffice it to say that two couples were not in Mitre Square at the same time.

Or is someone going to claim that I am presenting my opinion as fact?

[JeffHamm]

It has been suggested to me - not always politely - that the couple seen by Lawende were unconnected with the murder and that Eddowes and the murderer approached Mitre Square from elsewhere or even met in Mitre Square (maybe they had a rendezvous).

Such suggestions are designed to get round my argument that there was obviously insufficient time for another man to approach Eddowes in the event that the man she was seen with walked away - the first line of argument used by sceptics - and then to do what the murderer did.

My rejoinder is: if the couple seen by Lawende were not Eddowes and her murderer, then what became of them?

Someone suggested they were a boyfriend and girlfriend out on a date.

It is remarkable how some people writing 135 years after the event can see more clearly than an eyewitness who obviously knew how to recognise a prostitute with a prospective client and said so at the time.

The fleeting glimpse which such critics dismiss as inadequate to make a proper judgment is somehow inferior to their judgement, even though they did not see anything at all.

If, as seems obvious, the woman with her hand on a 'sailor''s chest at 1.35 a.m. in a London street, was a prostitute, what became of her and her prospective client?

The fact that she had her hand on his chest and that he showed not the slightest unwillingness to have her hand on his chest does not suggest that he was in any hurry to get away.

Pc Harvey was at the other end of Church Passage at about 1.40 a.m.

I suggest that he might have seen the couple as he approached at about 1.38 a.m. had they still been where they had been seen standing.

But he did not.

Nor did anyone else, it seems.

Had they walked in his direction, for example, he would have seen them while on his way.

Where would the couple - if they were not Eddowes and her client - have gone, if not Mitre Square?

Why would they have gone looking for some other secluded place?

Did the woman not know of the Square as a suitable place?

What was she doing looking for a customer in proximity to Mitre Square?

Suffice it to say that two couples were not in Mitre Square at the same time.

Or is someone going to claim that I am presenting my opinion as fact?

Hi PI,

The basis for believing the Church Passage Couple (CPC) were Eddowes and JtR is the tentative identification of the clothes by Lawende as being similar to the ones he recalls the woman wearing. This is not normally considered a definitive identification, and in comparison is less solid than Long's identification of Chapman which is based upon seeing her face; an identification of which she was confident in. Given many are inclined to hold Long's identification of Chapman in doubt, the same standard must be applied to Lawende's.

Lawende and company indicate that it was raining, and they waited at the club for it to ease up before leaving, which is when they spot the CPC. The CPC could very well be a "boyfriend and girlfriend", who took shelter next to a building to also wait out the rain. Lawende and company move on, indicating that the rain has let up, and the CPC could also have moved on at that time, which was between 1:33 and 1:35 based upon the times given by Levy and Lawende. Lawende and company also state they did not look back at the couple after that, so it is entirely possible that the CPC also headed south, keeping behind the 3 men, or headed north (while PC Havey is patrolling elsewhere, hence not seeing them). Either way, if this happened, then Eddowes and JtR must enter Mitre Square from some other direction because in order for there to be sufficient time for the murder and mutilations (between 3 and 5 or so minutes), Eddowes and JtR have to be at the murder location no later than 1:36ish (PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage appears to be around 1:41ish), which is just after Lawende's time of the sighting of 1:35 (obviously, if Levey is closer to the truth, then that adds 2 additional minutes to consider). It would take only in the vincinity of 20-30 seconds for the CPC to walk to the murder location, so their location "works", but many things work and only one of them happened.

So, if the CPC are not Eddowes and JTR, then they both still have to get to that location. Since we have no other information about male and female couples in the vicinity recorded, we have to consider the possibility that JtR and Eddowes entered independently and through random fate JtR attacks her then and there (as per Stride's sudden assault). Or they were together when they entered via one of the other routes (the other passage was covered, so maybe they were sheltering from the rain in that location).

Of course, if the CPC was actually Eddowes and JtR, which is also entirely possible, then clearly they headed into Mitre Square just after Lawende and company moved on.

When one looks at things, the evidence seems to point to the CPC being Eddowes and JtR, but it's an illusion, and here's why. It only may look that way because the CPC is the only location for which we have detailed evidence! We've got Lawende's statement, and all sorts of information about the activity around Church Passage. We have next to nothing about the activity going on in Mitre Street, and that's a far cry from having evidence that specifically tells us it was empty. We have a bit of information about the activity in St. James Square from the Blenkinsop press report, but that information is vague and we just know there were people about, but nothing more. Basically, for all the other possible entry points to Mitre Square we have an absence of evidence, which is not the same thing as evidence of absence (i.e. if someone testified there were no people in Mitre Street at that time then we would have evidence of absence; with no information we have an absence of evidence so Mitre Street could have been full of people for all we know).

Because the only location we have detailed information on is Church Passage, that means the evidence can only fit the CPC, so unless Lawende and company had testified that the woman was definitely not Eddowes, then the evidence is biased to create that sense of "it must be them".

We do not know enough about the alternative locations to make a definite call.

That being said, I do tend to lean in the direction of the CPC being Eddowes and JtR because their location works timing wise, Lawende and company do not remove them from consideration, it fits with PC Harvey not seeing them, and finally, at the moment we have nothing more to work with. However, I also accept that it is not case closed, and there are other possibilities that need to be ruled out, but which would require new information to do so.

In the end, with JtR, almost every time one thinks "this must be the case" you can be sure they have promoted an assumption to the level of fact. We do not have enough information to be sure of anything in my view. I think we can order alternatives based upon how much information supports them, and in this case that favours the CPC as the preferred working hypothesis, but that is very different from saying the CPC has to be Eddowes and JtR. The former indicates the information is not definitive, the latter indicates one thinks it is somehow impossible for two people to enter Mitre Square from a different direction (because remember, we don't know much about those other directions so we cannot say there was nobody there).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

When you call the man ‘a sailor’ then you’re most definitely presenting your opinion as a fact.

The next point is that when I began this thread I was only expressing the opinion that we might all be guilty of making assumptions at times and that those assumptions might lead us to dismiss alternatives. I see no need for anyone to feel the need to try and disprove something that’s a fairly obvious suggestion. Things happen that some might consider ‘unlikely.’ This is just a fact of life.

The final point is that I haven’t suggested that the two people weren’t Eddowes or her killer. The possibility I suggested is that it could have been Eddowes with another man. And I’m just talking possibilities here, I’m not stating what I think occurred, only what could possibly have occurred. If Eddowes was looking for cash she might have stopped a man and tried to talk him into doing business. The three witness see this and pass by without looking back. The man tells Eddowes that he’s not interested or that he hadn’t any money. The man walks away and Eddowes heads down Church Passage. The ripper is either crossing Mitre Square from Mitre Street or she sees him enter from Mitre Street. In this scenario Eddowes could have met her death at the same time that she would have if she’d entered the square with the first man.

I’ll repeat that I’m not saying that I particularly favour this scenario but I see nothing particularly unlikely about it. Woman stops and talks to man - they go their separate ways - woman bumps into another man. It’s hardly the stuff of fantasy is it?

I just suggested a possibility. It can’t be proven or disproven and obviously it’s down to individual judgement on the likelihood or otherwise. I see absolutely nothing far-fetched about it though. It doesn’t mean that Lawende’s man wasn’t the ripper though but I’d suggest that the chance at least exists that it wasn’t. Let’s face it, the description of the man is quite general and would have described thousands of men.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When you call the man ‘a sailor’ then you’re most definitely presenting your opinion as a fact.

That is not true.

Anyone reading paragraph 7 of my # 17 can see that I did nothing of the kind.

I put the word 'sailor' in inverted commas.

I am sure that when others do the same, you do not accuse them of 'most definitely presenting your opinion as a fact'.

This accusation has been going on for eight months and it is completely without foundation.

I have never stated that it is a fact that the man was a sailor.

I have always presented it as my opinion, based on evidence.

Similarly, the accusation that I insist that only my opinion can be right is just a gratuitous put-down.

It is, I suggest, the kind of remark that is made by someone who lacks confidence in his own ability to argue on the basis of reason alone.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to # 18:

Thanks for your detailed analysis, Jeff.

I recall an exchange with Christer Holmgren in which he suggested that the 'sailor' left Eddowes, that she then entered Mitre Square alone, and that she there met the murderer.

I agree with you that the couple seen by Lawende most likely were Eddowes and her murderer.

I have never been in any doubt about that.

I do not find plausible any scenario in which Eddowes enters the Square alone and there meets the murderer, any more than I would entertain the possibility that Chapman found the murderer in the yard at the back of 29 Hanbury Street or Stride encountered her murderer in Dutfield's Yard.

It is obvious that Eddowes took the murderer to the darkest part of the Square, as Chapman took him into a dark yard, and Stride took him into another dark yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not true.

Anyone reading paragraph 7 of my # 17 can see that I did nothing of the kind.

I put the word 'sailor' in inverted commas.

I am sure that when others do the same, you do not accuse them of 'most definitely presenting your opinion as a fact'.

This accusation has been going on for eight months and it is completely without foundation.

I have never stated that it is a fact that the man was a sailor.

I have always presented it as my opinion, based on evidence.

Similarly, the accusation that I insist that only my opinion can be right is just a gratuitous put-down.

It is, I suggest, the kind of remark that is made by someone who lacks confidence in his own ability to argue on the basis of reason alone.

You are far too easily offended PI.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to # 18:

I do not find plausible any scenario in which Eddowes enters the Square alone and there meets the murderer, any more than I would entertain the possibility that Chapman found the murderer in the yard at the back of 29 Hanbury Street or Stride encountered her murderer in Dutfield's Yard.

.

This speaks volumes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are far too easily offended PI.

You made an untrue allegation that I presented my opinion as fact.

I refuted it.

All you have to say in response is that I am 'far too easily offended'.

If you do not insult me and make untrue allegations about my writing - including multiple cases of accusing me of 'making things up', all of which are on record - then you will no longer cause me offence.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I do hope that this potentially very interesting discussion doesn't descend into an unnecessary argument as so many others have done!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do hope that this potentially very interesting discussion doesn't descend into an unnecessary argument as so many others have done!

Hello Doc,

Even though I began this thread I’m jumping ship and leaving it to others as it’s simply too much effort discussing the case with someone that disputes every single minute point no matter how obvious or trivial. I’m starting to feel as if I said that Wednesday followed Thursday it would get debated. We have attempts to dismiss a suspects with an imagined alibi, simple and obvious possibilities dismissed as if they’re from the realms of fantasy, bending over backwards to dismiss witnesses, the ignoring of evidence and the refusal to even countenance the possibility of being wrong.

Too much like

[Lewis C]

I do not find plausible any scenario in which Eddowes enters the Square alone and there meets the murderer, any more than I would entertain the possibility that Chapman found the murderer in the yard at the back of 29 Hanbury Street or Stride encountered her murderer in Dutfield's Yard.

It is obvious that Eddowes took the murderer to the darkest part of the Square, as Chapman took him into a dark yard, and Stride took him into another dark yard.

Hi PI,

I'm not sure about Dutfield's Yard, but Mitre Square is a rather different place from the 29 Hanbury Street yard. Mitre Square is a much more public area, and an area that one might go through on the way to going from one place to another. A person would be unlikely to enter the 29 Hanbury Street back yard unless they had a definite reason to go there.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

I'm not sure about Dutfield's Yard, but Mitre Square is a rather different place from the 29 Hanbury Street yard. Mitre Square is a much more public area, and an area that one might go through on the way to going from one place to another. A person would be unlikely to enter the 29 Hanbury Street back yard unless they had a definite reason to go there.

Point taken, LC, but why would Eddowes enter the Square alone, and why would the murderer enter the Square alone, and what are the chances that they would have just happened to bump into each other there?

And why would Eddowes have gone through deserted Mitre Square at about 1.30 a.m. in order to get to another place?

Is she not much more likely to have gone down streets?

[Lewis C]

Point taken, LC, but why would Eddowes enter the Square alone, and why would the murderer enter the Square alone, and what are the chances that they would have just happened to bump into each other there?

And why would Eddowes have gone through deserted Mitre Square at about 1.30 a.m. in order to get to another place?

Is she not much more likely to have gone down streets?

The murderer may have gone there looking for a victim. The chances of bumping into her might be remote, but he might not have been specifically targeting her. For her, it does seem like it would have been safer to have gone down streets, but I don't know that for sure. Maybe prostitutes went there because it was more secluded than the street, and maybe customers looked for them there.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

starting to feel as if I said that Wednesday followed Thursday it would get debated.

Too much like

I'd argue that Wednesday follows Tuesday, and I can back that up with solid evidence.