What are the chances of….?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Welcome back Herlock!

To toast your return, I've had the Scoundrels tobacconist whip up a new recipe, "expelee non grata", a blend of aromatic fire cured Kentucky leaf, Cavendish tobacco and a generous helping of powered blackball. A fine blend of the prosaic with the mellow. Quite.

Cheers Al. Very appropriate.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Welcome back Herlock!

To toast your return, I've had the Scoundrels tobacconist whip up a new recipe, "expelee non grata", a blend of aromatic fire cured Kentucky leaf, Cavendish tobacco and a generous helping of powered blackball. A fine blend of the prosaic with the mellow. Quite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock!

Yes 'we' are, he's the Low-hanging fruit, the only man seen, while there could have been others, it is normal that he will be the one who gets the most attention.
Even McWilliam of the City force was not convinced the woman was even Eddowes.

For my part I give some credit to Blenkingsop on duty in St. James Place, who saw 'some people' pass him at 1:30 am., presumably heading towards Mitre Square.
If these 'people' were not headed for Mitre Square, his statement would have had no value. Likewise if we have 'people' passing through the square right at the time of the murder, then it is more than we have with Lawende's 'couple', who were not moving in any direction whatsoever.

Hi Wick,

Yes it’s an obvious assumption but I thought about it recently and couldn’t help wondering what was so ‘unlikely’ about the possibility of Lawende’s guy not being the killer? Once the three men passed we have no way of knowing what happened next so yes they could have headed down Church Passage together or they could have gone their separate ways.

[Wickerman]

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.
...
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?

Hi Herlock!

Yes 'we' are, he's the Low-hanging fruit, the only man seen, while there could have been others, it is normal that he will be the one who gets the most attention.
Even McWilliam of the City force was not convinced the woman was even Eddowes.

For my part I give some credit to Blenkingsop on duty in St. James Place, who saw 'some people' pass him at 1:30 am., presumably heading towards Mitre Square.
If these 'people' were not headed for Mitre Square, his statement would have had no value. Likewise if we have 'people' passing through the square right at the time of the murder, then it is more than we have with Lawende's 'couple', who were not moving in any direction whatsoever.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes, but not in this case. peaked cap, herlock. peaked cap. and time frames too tight. they undoubtedly saw the ripper with eddowes.

I’m not 100 convinced Abby but the odds certainly favour him. Surely many man would have owned a peaked cap?

[Abby Normal]

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?

yes, but not in this case. peaked cap, herlock. peaked cap. and time frames too tight. they undoubtedly saw the ripper with eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?