Best solution?

[lynn cates]

statistics

Hello Jon, Caroline. Thanks.

I was referring to Colin's statistical print out. The spike of knife murders of adult women from 1886 to 1887, was well above a 100% increase. Much less from 1887 to 1888.

But now we have an added parameter--they must be unsolved.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

But weren't Colin's numbers for the whole of England?

In 1888, he found (if I recall correctly) 6 more murders of adult women by knife than the 11 in the previous year and the 11 in the following year. That is the spike to which I refer, because clearly the 6 Whitechapel murders of Tabram through Kelly in the second half of 1888 are included in the 17 for the whole of England that year.

I'm not sure it can be called a 'spike' in 1887 if the number increased again in 1888. But in any case, what makes you think this percentage increase from 1886 to 1887 is relevant or comparable to the spike of 1888 - which would have been no spike at all if not for our imaginary fiend, or assortment of real bogeymen, picking off Spitalfields prossies that autumn (and only that autumn unless you can provide similar numbers for other years) like they were going out of fashion?

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Statistical Spikes

I think we can read too much into statistics, especially when the numbers involved are relatively small. My old force (Nottinghamshire) used to experience (& budget for) around 12 murders per annum. Then one year, in the 1980's, the figure leapt to 20. No common killer, no causal link. In that particular year, for no accountable reason, there were significantly more murders than usual.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

I wasn't going to say anything, but . . .

Hello Caroline. Thanks. To be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine ANY statistics--spike or otherwise; 1886, 1887 or 1888--being relevant to the case.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hear, hear

Hello Colin. Well spoke, mate.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I think we can read too much into statistics, especially when the numbers involved are relatively small. My old force (Nottinghamshire) used to experience (& budget for) around 12 murders per annum. Then one year, in the 1980's, the figure leapt to 20. No common killer, no causal link. In that particular year, for no accountable reason, there were significantly more murders than usual.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

I agree, and of course the numbers are going to be relatively small, because murder is, and always has been, relatively rare.

But really, isn't this more about common sense than statistics? Your year in the 1980s produced the kind of spike that happens by chance from time to time, and with nothing obvious to account for this one it means little.

By stark contrast, when 1888 produced six more murders in England of adult women by knife than in 1887 and 1889, this could be accounted for all too easily by what had happened - uniquely it appears - to six Spitalfields unfortunates between August and November. An active serial killer, in my view, can so much more easily account for most if not all of the six, than one knifeman for each victim.

Love,

Caz
X