Best solution?

[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

[lynn cates]

hear, hear

Hello Colin. Well spoke, mate.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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

[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 Roy,

I'm far more interested in who might have dictated the letter.

Regards,

Simon

Well Simon, I think we'd all be interested to know who composed it, considering the accurate warning it contained about "Jack" soon being on the job again. With no lone predator existing outside of the public's highly excited and manipulated imagination, are you implying that the author of Dear Boss committed at least one of the double event murders to keep the kettle boiling and ensure his prediction would appear to have come true? Or did two killers, acting independently and by complete coincidence, go out with their sharp knives on the very night that letter arrived on the police desk, knowing nothing about the "trade name" they were promoting, or the prediction they were fulfilling?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

I was talking about the spike in unsolved murders of adult women by knife in 1888, that appears to have some sort of connection with Whitechapel's unfortunates, unless I'm going completely mad.

Could you explain precisely what you mean by 'minimal' compared to the percentage spike of 1887? Are you really comparing like for like?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Was the 1887 spike down to unsolved murders, as in 1888?

[lynn cates]

numbers game

Hello Caroline. There was indeed a spike in 1888--but it was minimal compared to the percentage spike of the previous year.

How account for that?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Your lovingly condescending tone tells me that you believe the Jack the Ripper mythos to be sacrosanct and not to be meddled with.

That's cool with me. So let's make a deal. You keep the faith whilst I look for the truth.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I merely believe that one killer can account for the 'spike', that is there for all with eyes to see, in the murder statistics for 1888. If that is keeping the faith, then yes, I'm happy with that. I wish you luck in your search for a truth you can believe in.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

No tienen dinero.

Hello Paddy. Thanks.

Possibly. Of course, being broke might have caused a problem there.

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy Goose]

why were they in Houndsditch?

Lynn, perhaps Kate & John went to Phil's Buildings, Houndsditch, The Old Clothes Exchange. Because their clothes were worn out from hopping.

[lynn cates]

ditch it

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I should have said Houndsditch, not Shoreditch.

To be fair, at inquest, John indicated that he left Kate at Houndsditch. In the "Echo" interview, he indicated that they last met at Cooney's on Flower and Dean.

So the question becomes, "If John were telling the truth at inquest, why were they in Houndsditch?" After all, Houndsditch st is not far from where Kate most likely got snoggered. Who lived there and why did he buy the drinks for Kate? Why was she there in the first place?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Any solution to Kate's murder must begin with what she and John were doing in Shoreditch on Saturday afternoon.

I didn`t know they`d been to Shoreditch that afternoon, where have you seen that?