As inquiries have been recently made regarding these statistics, …

[Colin Roberts]

The complimentary feedback is appreciated. Thanks, you all!

Would it be too much of an ask to compile a graph showing which murders were actually solved?

I'm afraid I don't have the necessary solved/unsolved data.

Are there separate stats on "manslaughter", Colin? They'd be a useful comparator.

Yes, … and no.

I'll clarify later this week.

[Colin Roberts]

Are there separate stats on "manslaughter", Colin? They'd be a useful comparator.

Yes, … and no.

I'll clarify later this week.

We have the following, which is unfortunately of little benefit, as the data is quite clearly corrupt.

In accordance with the Reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1883-1893:


Cases of 'Manslaughter': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Perhaps the criteria for Manslaughter was abruptly changed in 1889?

There is also Manslaughter data in the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England. For 1888, we have:

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
[size=1]Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

But at the moment, I have neither the time nor the inclination to tabulate the data for the years 1883-1893, or for any other period.

[Colin Roberts]

A quick comment regarding the frequency of 'cut-throat' murder in England, in the late nineteenth century, and then I will leave it to those that don't mind spinning their wheels in perpetuity to decide whether Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were felled by the same hand:

The 'cut-throat' murder of Sarah Brown, in London's West End¹, just hours before the occurrence of the so-called 'Double Event', is often used to trivialize the occurrence of such homicides in London's Metropolis, in 1888.

The argument is typically based upon the notion that if there were two 'cut-throat' murderers in action on that fateful evening, then there just as easily could have been three.

This is an utterly facile argument!

If there just as easily could have been three, then it would logically follow that there just as easily could have been four. And if there just as easily could have been four, then it would logically follow that there just as easily could have been five. Etc.

If we know that only fifteen registered deaths of female adults, throughout England, were classified as 'Murder' by way of 'Cut Throat', in 1888; then we must perceive the occurrence of three of those deaths on a single evening, in a single metropolis, as being nothing less than ... extraordinary.

If, however, we assume that two of those 'cut-throat' murders may have been connected, then we are able to temper the extraordinary nature of the occurrence.

The bottom line:

Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were either murdered by different perpetrators, or they were not. The murder of Sarah Brown, therefore, should have NO bearing on our perceptions of the probability of a multi-perpetrator (vs single-perpetrator) 'Double Event'.

What it should do, however, is serve to make the prospect of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event' seemingly MORE extraordinary than the prospect of one, in which a single perpetrator was involved.

~~~

I have recently seen the argument made that if the murder of Sarah Brown had never been pinned upon her husband, John; we would have Casebook threads entitled 'The Ripper's connection to Westminster' and 'The Triple Event'.

So what?

Hindsight is 20/20!

If the outcome of a single roll of two dice proved to be 'eight', would I have been wrong to have predicted 'seven'?

NO! I would not have been!

~~~

¹ If I had a dollar for each occasion on which Michael Richards has categorized this murder as an 'East End' murder, I would be living in a much larger house.

[GUT]

G'Day Colin

Thanks again for some very thought provoking statistics, and like you I see a third death strongly indicative that Stride and Eddowes were both killed by the one hand, or at least two of the three were and I've seen no one try to maintain that John Brown killed one of them.

[Colin Roberts]

... I see a third death strongly indicative that Stride and Eddowes were both killed by the one hand, ...

Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were either murdered by different perpetrators, or they were not. The murder of Sarah Brown, therefore, should have NO bearing on our perceptions of the probability of a multi-perpetrator (vs single-perpetrator) 'Double Event'.

What it should do, however, is serve to make the prospect of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event' seemingly MORE extraordinary than the prospect of one, in which a single perpetrator was involved.

A point of clarification:

The murder of Sarah Brown has no bearing on whether Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered by a single-perpetrator. None!

It does however have a strong bearing upon the extent to which we should perceive a multi-perpetrator (vs single-perpetrator) 'Double Event' as being extraordinary.

What some don't seem to understand is that the bearing is toward a greater degree of extraordinariness.

The murder of Sarah Brown does not rationalize the prospect of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event'. It makes the prospect less rational.

If while driving in the great state of Florida, I notice two cars in front of me that are both from Alaska, then I can logically assume that the respective drivers may be travelling together.

The fact that I saw another car from Alaska six hours earlier, three or four miles across town, does not serve to rationalize the prospect that these two drivers are travelling separately: not in any way, shape or form. In fact it serves to do just the opposite.

[GUT]

G'Day

What some don't seem to understand is that the bearing is toward a greater degree of extraordinariness.

The murder of Sarah Brown does not rationalize the prospect of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event'. It makes the prospect less rational

But that is exactly my point, if it would be extraordinary, and less rational that the "Double Event" was perpetrated by multiple killers it is sound reasoning to to accept that both were indeed killed by the one killer.

[GUT]

To elaborate on your example:

If while driving in the great state of Florida, I notice two cars in front of me that are both from Alaska, then I can logically assume that the respective drivers may be travelling together.

If I saw three Alaska cars in succession from Alaska and found that they were not traveling together, it would be extraordinary, thus if we have nothing to prove to the contrary it is reasonable to assume they are.


And my submission is that absent proof that the double event was committed be separate killers it is reasonable to infer they were be the one hand.

[Colin Roberts]

The murder of Sarah Brown should incline each of us to perceive the prospect of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event' as being even more coincidental - and yes, even less believable - than it otherwise would be.

But that is where it must stop.

We must not allow ourselves to draw any conclusions on the basis of her murder, as it was not connected to either of the two 'Double Event' murders.

[lynn cates]

perception

Hello Colin. The Brown event is adduced MERELY to speak to the notion of coincidence. She is an independent event.

But so, too, was Liz--in my estimation.

However, your word "perceive" is most appropriate.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

The Brown event is adduced MERELY to speak to the notion of coincidence.

I understand, Lynn.

But it challenges the palatability of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event', in as much as two coincidences are more coincidental than just one.

[lynn cates]

Giving a hand.

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Very well.

And I DO agree with your bottom line: either it was the same hand or not.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

G'Day Colin

Thanks for that. So the jump in cut throats, between 87 and 88 exactly equals the canonical 5. INTERSTING [but not funny].

GUT

Hi GUT,

I suspect you were looking at the graph for male and female cut throats (showing a jump from 10 to 15).

The relevant graph - showing female adults only (pink for cut throats) - is the final one in Colin's post #15 on page 2.

This shows a jump from 9 to 15, ie six more in 1888: C5 + 1.

Bottom line for me is the relative rarity of cut throat murders across the whole of England, when one considers all the nonsense posted over the years (almost exclusively by those with a specific agenda) that female corpses with 'pretty necklaces' were ten a penny on a Saturday night on the East End streets.

Colin is spot on when he picks up Mike Richards for the absurd notion that the West End domestic murder on the same night as Stride and Eddowes would somehow lessen the coincidence if three separate cut throats were active, as opposed to one murderous spouse and one repeat offender.

I have no doubt that while any serial killer is active, there will be cases of domestic murder on or close to the dates of his own crimes, and not too far away. But none of them can be used to argue for the likelihood that two attacks on one night, extremely close in time and space (among other similarities gone into many times before), are entirely unrelated.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

c5 + Tabram

[GUT]

G'Day Caz

Yeah I'll accept 6 and I think we could well be singing the same sone to different tunes.

Love back to ya xxx

[GUT]

Just had a thought.

Wonder if anyone can tell me where the Torso Murders would fit into these stats?