Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Paddy]

I found an Emily Burel in the workhouse records she was said to be living at 52 Flower and Dean Street and the Workhouse dated Dec 1985 . Wife of Nathan..... Have copied details below.
Think this could be her....

Name: Emily Burel
Birth Date: abt 1853
Admission Age: 32
Admission Date: 14 Dec 1885
Discharge Date: 8 Apr 1886
Record Type: Admission and Discharge
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Parish or Poor Law Union: Stepney
Place: London, England
Title: Workhouses and Institutions, 1885-1887

Pat

[Paddy]

Sorry make that Dec 1885 not Dec 1985 ....Pat

[Pierre]

Oh hold on, I see he's come up with some sort of anagram solution to the murders now. I mean, that's never been done before in Ripperology.

Ah, those anagram solution books from the 1990s. What a joy they were to read.

The question I posed was the following: What is the statistical probability that you will find a serial killer´s name in a mustard tin on a murder site?

I don´t think that you can answer that question, David. Or can you?

[Elamarna]

The question I posed was the following: What is the statistical probability that you will find a serial killer´s name in a mustard tin on a murder site?

I don´t think that you can answer that question, David. Or can you?

My Friend

the real question or rather questions are:

1. can you answer that question yourself? or are you saying that it is not possible to give an answer?

2. far more INTERESTINGLY are you suggest that in this case the killer did leave his name?

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;388751]

My Friend

the real question or rather questions are:

1. can you answer that question yourself? or are you saying that it is not possible to give an answer?

Hi Steve,

I will do a simple statistical test to be able to give an estimate, and I will tell you the result. I will use a representative sample, i.e. as far as one can in this case. I will use an archive where cases are presented giving names in pairs and street names. For every such case I will try and find the relevant name. If the particular name is to be found in one or two cases of a hundred, one must draw some conclusion about the probability of the name being found at that murder site. This will take some time, but I will do it as soon as possible.

2. far more INTERESTINGLY are you suggest that in this case the killer did leave his name?

It is there.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The question I posed was the following: What is the statistical probability that you will find a serial killer´s name in a mustard tin on a murder site?

I don´t think that you can answer that question, David. Or can you?

I can tell you that the question doesn't have an answer because it is poorly phrased and meaningless. If you mean "what is the statistical probability that you will be able to rearrange the letters of words or names on documents found in a mustard tin on a murder site in order to form someone else's name?" that's a bit better but then it depends on how many documents are in the tin and how many words (and thus letters) can be found in the documents. The more words, the easier it is going to be to find an anagram of someone's name within those words.

And of course there is then the 'tendency' or bias issue. If you know the result you are looking for, you might select the words to use for the anagram that are most likely to produce that result while ignoring other, equally valid words.

And if, for example, you have a suspect called David Pierre John Smith, you might be able to find David Smith so you ignore the other middle names, or you might be able to find David P. J. Smith or some other variation. So the rules need to be clear.

Are you saying that you can derive someone's name from the 21 letters in the two names Emily Birrell and Mary Kelly? (we shall ignore, for now, that Birrell is sometimes spelt Birrel). And that those exact 21 letters make up the ful and unabridged name of the 'serial killer' in question? Or is it going to be somewhat more complicated than this?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388759]

I can tell you that the question doesn't have an answer because it is poorly phrased and meaningless. If you mean "what is the statistical probability that you will be able to rearrange the letters of words or names on documents found in a mustard tin on a murder site in order to form someone else's name?" that's a bit better but then it depends on how many documents are in the tin and how many words (and thus letters) can be found in the documents. The more words, the easier it is going to be to find an anagram of someone's name within those words.

Naturally you do not understand this simple question written in a forum on the internet. It is too complicated for you even though it is a very wide and generally expressed question. You do not need to be more precise on a forum. It is not a seminar. If you know what that is.

And of course there is then the 'tendency' or bias issue. If you know the result you are looking for, you might select the words to use for the anagram that are most likely to produce that result while ignoring other, equally valid words.

No, I might not, David. In your world people might have ideas they want to push. But I am not part of that little world, you see. I want to know what happened in the past.

As you can see now, I have to answer you in the way that you discuss with others. That is the only type of language you understand. I.e. accusations, belittling and ridiculing.

And if, for example, you have a suspect called David Pierre John Smith, you might be able to find David Smith so you ignore the other middle names, or you might be able to find David P. J. Smith or some other variation. So the rules need to be clear.

There you see, David. "You might ignore...". You are insinuating that I should be accused before I have even done my statistical test. I will say something to you now, but I have not much hope that you will understand this:

The purpose of a statistical test in this case is to obtain knowledge about probability.

You do NOT OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE about probability if you throw in systematic measure errors in the material.

Do you understand?

Are you saying that you can derive someone's name from the 21 letters in the two names Emily Birrell and Mary Kelly? (we shall ignore, for now, that Birrell is sometimes spelt Birrel). And that those exact 21 letters make up the ful and unabridged name of the 'serial killer' in question? Or is it going to be somewhat more complicated than this?

The name was not Mary but Jane. And the answer is yes.

I wish I had never seen this. I truly do. So now I will try and disprove an hypothesis about the pawn tickets being left by the killer at the murder site.

That is why I must do the test. I do not know what else to do.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You do not need to be more precise on a forum. It is not a seminar. If you know what that is.

Pierre, you were asking me about the statistical probability of something happening so of course you need to be precise in setting out what that thing is!

[David Orsam]

No, I might not, David. In your world people might have ideas they want to push. But I am not part of that little world, you see. I want to know what happened in the past.

As you can see now, I have to answer you in the way that you discuss with others. That is the only type of language you understand. I.e. accusations, belittling and ridiculing.

I was attempting to answer your question about statistical probability, Pierre, and, in this case, one cannot simply ignore the possibility of human bias affecting the results for the reasons I explained. The fact you are getting so defensive about this is rather worrying and suggests that I might have touched a nerve here.

[David Orsam]

There you see, David. "You might ignore...". You are insinuating that I should be accused before I have even done my statistical test. I will say something to you now, but I have not much hope that you will understand this:

The purpose of a statistical test in this case is to obtain knowledge about probability.

You do NOT OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE about probability if you throw in systematic measure errors in the material.

Do you understand?

No, Pierre, I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about and I wasn't accusing you of doing anything, I was pointing out that if one is trying to calculate the statistical probability of something one has to remove the possibility of human intervention affecting the results. Do you understand that?

[David Orsam]

The name was not Mary but Jane. And the answer is yes.

I wish I had never seen this. I truly do. So now I will try and disprove an hypothesis about the pawn tickets being left by the killer at the murder site.

That is why I must do the test. I do not know what else to do.

The hypothesis is basically disproved by the evidence in the case which explains how Eddowes came to be in possession of the pawn tickets.

But anyway, right, so "Emily Birrell Jane Kelly" will, when rearranged, form this person's name, right?

Is it the name of your suspect, or someone else entirely?

[Errata]

No, Pierre, I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about and I wasn't accusing you of doing anything, I was pointing out that if one is trying to calculate the statistical probability of something one has to remove the possibility of human intervention affecting the results. Do you understand that?

Haha I don't know. Aren't you just straight calculating the popularity of the name? I mean, James Black. Super common first name, super common last name, ergo the probability of that name being on the ticket, and a name must be on the ticket, is much higher than the probability of say, Oleg Krzyzewski.

I mean, we aren't looking for the killer to be on the ticket. Just his name.

[Joshua Rogan]

But anyway, right, so "Emily Birrell Jane Kelly" will, when rearranged, form this person's name, right?

This sounds fun.... I've got "I am J Belly Killer, neerly"

[Joshua Rogan]

"I'll be real Mr E in KY jelly"

[Pierre]

I was attempting to answer your question about statistical probability, Pierre, and, in this case, one cannot simply ignore the possibility of human bias affecting the results for the reasons I explained. The fact you are getting so defensive about this is rather worrying and suggests that I might have touched a nerve here.

No, David. I am just getting tired from your constant expressing of total ignorance, even when it comes to scientific problems where you have no knowledge at all.

You have no statistical education and yet you think you know how statistics work and yet you accuse me in advance of doing things you have no understanding about.

And yes, David. One CAN SIMPLY IGNORE THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN BIAS AFFECTING THE RESULTS. Ever heard of a simple random sample? No, of couse not.