probability

[lynn cates]

area

Hello Rob. Thanks.

Different area? Indeed. Rather like Aldgate and St. George in the East, what?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi c.d.,

It never ceases to amaze me how desperately Ripperologists need to believe—on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever—that the Berner Street killer was the Mitre Square killer.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello CD. Thanks.

"I see you are still heavily into being condescending in your posts. Is that really necessary?"

Oh, I beg pardon. I was going to write out a nice post, but, unfortunately, I was interrupted.

"You are still leaving out a salient fact in your argument. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mrs. Brown was a prostitute or ever engaged in soliciting."

Ah, but perhaps her husband saw her out at night and THOUGHT she was soliciting. That's all it would take, right?

You'll forgive me, but the rest of your argument is so weak that I will be nice and not comment.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

It never ceases to amaze me how desperately Ripperologists need to believe—on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever—that the Berner Street killer was the Mitre Square killer.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Well I can only speak for myself but I am not desperate at all. My life will pretty much go on the same one way or another. And no one has put a gun to my head to put me in the traditional camp.

As for evidence or what we have to form a belief, I believe the Jack evidence is stronger than the non-Jack evidence. It is as simple as that.

And I never cease to be amazed at how the non-Jack crowd comes across with an air of superiority which is especially amusing seeing how they are posting on a site dedicated to Jack the Ripper.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

It would seem that your sarcasm is ESCALATING. How ironic.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Opinion is very obviously divided over Stride as a JTR victim-that's why there are so many threads and polls about it. The police in 1888 linked her-that's the starting point we are given,we can't re-write that as it can never be proven if she was or wasn't can it?

You are right it can never be conclusively proven but when you look at Strides murder there are so many significant factors, which when put together clearly suggest she wasn't killed by the same hand as Eddowes.

But of course its like other contentious issues surrounding this mystery there are those who want to believe she was, simply because the police suggested she was back in 1888 and the killer killed 5 and 5 only. That is another accepted theory that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny in the 21st century.

[Simon Wood]

Hi c.d.,

Sorry, I didn't realise Casebook was a Jack the Ripper fan site.

But never mind.

Regarding the double-event, exactly what strong Jack evidence is as simple as that?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

posing

Hello CD. Thanks.

Hmm, I must be tired. Think I'll go over to the sofa and POSE my arms and legs comfortably and watch Kolchak on DVD.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Yeah.
We are better placed to determine the forensics now from the scant reports available to us than the doctors were then. And the consensus of opinion of the doctors then was that the two victims were related.
The five victims and five victims only was just the opinion of one senior policeman, who of course wasn't even in position when those five murders took place. Other policemen who were more intimately involved in the case gave different totals.
I personally tend to think there were more victims to the single culprit, not less.
But as no one was caught clearly it is open to doubt.

[Colin Roberts]

Some seem challenged when it comes to understanding probabilities and the significance thereof.

Indeed they do, Lynn. But I must respectfully assert that it is you!

I would never consider buying a lottery ticket because I cannot justify a willingness to risk money on a near impossibility.

But let's say that my wife decided to tease my obsessive compulsive type 'A' personality by surprising me on my birthday with … a lottery ticket; one for a particular lottery in which the chance of winning was stated as being 1-in-25,000,000, i.e. odds of 24,999,999-to-1 against. And let's say that she happened to purchase the winning ticket, and I was consequently $10,000,000 the richer.

Now, even though a "near impossibility" had just occurred, I would still never go on to buy a lottery ticket myself, and I would scold my wife in the event that she were to do so again.

Why? Because any subsequent lottery would be independent of the one that I had just had the miraculous fortune of winning, and the chances of winning again would be totally unaffected by my remarkable luck in the first instance.

You once cited an incident in which a symphonic musician was killed by a bale of hay whist driving his car, in order to make the point that extraordinary things do occur. Have you since added 'flying hay bale' coverage to your automobile insurance policy? I doubt you have, because even though the aforementioned tragedy did occur, you have the good sense to realize that a reoccurrence would be a near impossibility.

Sarah Brown's murder was independent of those of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. That much we know! It does not therefore have any bearing on dependence or independence of the latter two. Period!

What the Brown murder does tend to do, each time that it is championed as a reason to believe in an independent (i.e. multi-perpetrator) 'Double Event' by the likes of Messrs. Richards, Carter, Wood and Marriott (and of course, yourself), is make the whole idea seemingly more extraordinary than even probability theory would dictate.

Two extraordinary occurrences would be more extraordinary than just one; and three extraordinary occurrences would be more extraordinary than just two; and four extraordinary occurrences …

"Wonder if we can learn a lesson from this? Nah?

Thought so."

---

For the record:

My position on this issue notwithstanding, I perceive a chance of as much as 1-in-3, i.e. a probability of as much as 33.33% that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were felled by different hands. I think I would be foolish not to do so.

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

Sorry, I didn't realise Casebook was a Jack the Ripper fan site.

But never mind.

Regarding the double-event, exactly what strong Jack evidence is as simple as that?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

You might want to go back and reread my previous post. I did not say the Jack evidence is strong. What I did say was that in my opinion the Jack evidence was stronger than the non-Jack evidence and since those are our only two options for me it is a simple choice, go with the option that has more evidence in its favor.

As an example, here in the U.S., in civil lawsuits the standard for deciding whether to side with the plaintiff or the defendant is simple. It is simply what is more likely. It is often explained that if you have a scale and the arguments for the plaintiff and the defendant are exactly equal and you put a feather on one side that is how you should vote.

The evidence for Jack as the killer of Liz and Kate is not strong or there would not be any need for all this argument. I simply think it is stronger than the non-Jack argument and for me it is about 70-30 in favor of Jack.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Colin,

That reminds me of the old joke about the actuary who was afraid to fly because he knew the odds of a bomb being on board were 50,000 to 1. He decided to bring his own bomb on board because he knew the odds of two bombs being on board were a million to 1.

Food for thought.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

haggling

Hello Colin. Thanks.

My position is that two unrelated events, with a low order of probability, OCCURRED. Therefore, it is a mistake to believe something did not happen SIMPLY because it has a low probability.

Yes, THREE unrelated events in one night is what I am referring to.

To paraphrase an old joke, (and this pertains to one allowing one in a million but not one in a billion) we have already established what kind of girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price.

ALL will admit that the odds are low that Kate and Brown both died that night. But now add Stride and suddenly many of us balk.

Whether or not there was a "Double Event" it was--or was not--irrespective of the probability.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good point

Hello CD. Thanks. Your joke about the actuary has made my point much better than I ever could.

The bomb is on the plane or it is not. And that is COMPLETELY unrelated to whether or not the actuary brings a bomb.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil. You should be a logician my friend.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thank you. I believe we have talked before about the difference between logical positivism and positive logicalism vis a vis Whitechapel 1888. Not that some around here would ever have read up on it- and used it for thinking out the why's and wherefores of the subject at hand!
However that is by the by. You cant lead a dog to a lampost if he doesnt want to pee. It is also noticed that same dog will foul the footpath leaving a trail behind him to be avoided. The 'dogs' of 1888 did....It amazes me how today those walking in the footsteps of the dogs step into the same mucky mistakes time and time again. Must be going by smell not sight. Logical to me.
But then I dont play follow the leaders from 1888.

Logic. How can we trust the word of the very people who promoted the 2 in 3 chance of a double event when the same band of people willfully stole papers from the files relating to 1888? Logic- we cannot.

Wonder what the percentage probability is on those self same thieves having told us the truth?

We get a positive probability that means that the logical answer is that they didnt- because the common denominator is trust.

You cant trust a thief to tell you the truth.
Ask a policeman- or maybe not.

You cant trust tie words of the keeper of records if they are then shown to both take themselves or allow other keepers of records to take said records from safe keeping.

Probability is that the words written are untrustworthy to start with.

there you go- positive logicalism in action. :-)

best wishes

Phil