What are the chances of….?

[Losmandris]

Could the murderer have just been lurking in Mitre Square and attacks Eddowes from the shadows as she is passing through it? I am minded to be thinking of his state of mind if he had just killed Stride. May be not in the mood/a state to get involved in small talk?

Waiting with someone until the rain stops, chatting etc. If the case would suggest he was one cool cucumber if he had just had a close call with Stride.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know exactly where you are coming from Herlock. I have stayed away from a few threads myself recently for the same reasons.

When you put a word/words in inverted comma's such as " A Sailor ". You are defining something . Meaning of define - to describe clearly and exactly what something is.

Much easier to have written [ and less open to interpretation ], appearance of a sailor . Which funnily enough is what the witness said. Instead of defining that he was a sailor .

Regards Darryl

Exactly Darryl.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Iconoclast]

Question: Do we sometimes place too much emphasis on the ‘what are the chances of….’ argument leading us to sideline or dismiss other reasonable possibilities? I think that we might all be guilty of this at times.

In this particular instance I’m talking about ‘what are the chances of Eddowes killer being someone other that the man seen by Lawende, Levy and Harris?’ Like most people I think it likeliest that the man in question was her killer but is another killer all that unlikely? Jeff is my usual ‘go to’ man on this kind of stuff so perhaps we might get his opinion on this too?

So can it really be considered particularly unlikely that Eddowes ran into 2 men that night? Things that might, on reflection, appear to be instances of ‘what are the chances of?’ happen regularly and a woman talking to one man, parting then meeting another can hardly be considered a freakish occurrence. The streets weren’t entirely deserted after all.

Perhaps the man was someone that she’d known and she’d tried to borrow some money from him but he was skint and they parted company (like Kelly and Hutchinson)?

Perhaps she just stopped a bloke and tried to ‘interest’ him but he was having none of it?

Remember, we don’t know how long they’d been talking when they were seen and when Lawende, Levy and Harris passed none of them looked back, so Eddowes and the man could have gone there separate ways straight away or after a few seconds with Eddowes heading down Church Passage to run into her killer? We know that timings are disputed but Eddowes could still have met her death at the hands of a second man at the same time that we assume that she met it at the hands of Lawende’s man.

So are we too quick to assume that the man seen by Lawende, Levy and Harris with Eddowes must have been her killer and why would it be particularly surprising if it wasn’t? Are we too easily dismissing a reasonable possibility?

Back to the start, Sir H.!

The principle behind this thread is an excellent one. It basically says, "Stop chucking in uncertain details as proofs and open your minds to other possibilities other than that which Ripperology has allowed to grow tightly around it like strangling vines". Couldn't have agreed with you more, Herls.

On the specific subject of the man seen with the lady who was very probably Eddowes, I have often wondered if he could have been just another punter leaving the same club that Lawende, Levy, and Harris (I think I've got those three correct - oh, you named them in your OP!) had just left. I assume that everyone does know everyone else so maybe they were all club-goers on their way home and - as you say - minutes later peaked-cap man simply wandered away, Eddowes walked down Church Passage, and thenceforth into history.

What I find particularly galling is when you suggest something like this and some know-it-all who evidently was there at the time of the crimes posts:

"Ridiculous. What a stupid post." et cetera.

[Aethelwulf]

I know exactly where you are coming from Herlock. I have stayed away from a few threads myself recently for the same reasons.

When you put a word/words in inverted comma's such as " A Sailor ". You are defining something . Meaning of define - to describe clearly and exactly what something is.

Much easier to have written [ and less open to interpretation ], appearance of a sailor . Which funnily enough is what the witness said. Instead of defining that he was a sailor .

Regards Darryl

We know though that it is simply impossible to wear clothes what a sailor would wear, and not in fact be a sailor:

[Coroner] What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.
[Coroner] What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.
[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work

[spyglass]

yes but not at two linked crime sites. bruh trust me on this one, theres alot of mysteries abound re the ripper, but this aint one of them.

I think we get the impression that there was literally hundreds of people walking about during the ripper hours....not the case I believe.
I would say there was a chance, but a very slight minimal one to take note of but concentrate clearly on the most likely..

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

I know exactly where you are coming from Herlock. I have stayed away from a few threads myself recently for the same reasons.

When you put a word/words in inverted comma's such as " A Sailor ". You are defining something . Meaning of define - to describe clearly and exactly what something is.

Much easier to have written [ and less open to interpretation ], appearance of a sailor . Which funnily enough is what the witness said. Instead of defining that he was a sailor .

Regards Darryl

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

[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.

[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.