statistics? has it been done/might it be helpful or fun to do?

[babybird67]

hi all

I'm not very scientifically-minded but i know some of you out there are, (Sam! where are you?) and i was thinking in bed last night, as you do, and i just wondered if there could be some sort of attempt at doing something statistical with the modern information we know of and linking this back to the known suspects to perhaps shed any chink of light on viability?

I'm sure any "results" would be spurious and would no way be intended to prove anything at all...i just thought it might be interesting...

anyone curious about what i mean, read on...anyone thinking, "what the hell is this woman on? she must be crazy" stop reading now and save yourself the pain!

What i thought was, there are obvious aspects of psychological profiling that weren't known about at the time, as well as some contemporary conjecture during the investigations into the killings themselves...as an example, well, as two examples, we have the suggestion that the killer was local, and the suggestion that the killer may have had medical "skill" (or not).

So, taking the first, that the killer was local; what is the evidence that suggests or contradicts this? All killings within a particular locality; fast escape from crime-scenes; appeared to fit in/not noticed as unusual in areas where he stalked his prey.

Taking the second, that the killer had medical skill; what evidence suggests or contradicts this? Various Doctors' reports to inquests, nature of mutilations, type of knife used if known. Etc Etc.

Anyone still with me at this stage? Sorry this is a long post but i want to try to explain myself clearly. Congratulations if you've got this far!

Is it/would it be possible to establish a generally agreed list of aspects of this nature (i know..."generally agreed" on these boards is always highly contentious, but maybe we could just do this for once? )and place them in numerical priority.

Using the above examples again, if more Ripperologists thought it was much more likely that the killer was local than that he was medically skilled in any way, just using those two, one would have a value of say 10, the other of, say, 5....but replicate this across the range of particular options. (Yes i know i go on a bit...but you're still reading! )

So at the end of this process we would have a list of say ten or twelve relevant factors such as local man, medical skill, possibly foreign, height, etc etc...all with a numerical value with the highest numerical value for that we are most certain of going down to the lowest which we are least certain of.

Once that is done, go through the list of known suspects, giving them the numerical value that matches each attribute they share with the list, so for example, if local to the area is worth ten, and we find someone like Chapman whose barber shop was within walking distance of the all the canonical murders, he would score ten in that section.

Of course there are problems and debateable areas, but i just thought this might be a not-too serious way to look at the case from another perspective and see if it threw up anything interesting.

(I mention Chapman not because i think this method would "prove" him to be the Ripper, just because he is someone i know was local to the area and would fit that example i was using)

I'm well aware this wouldn't prove anything of itself...i think it might be a worthwile exercise though.

Any (polite?) thoughts?

[Mr Chumley]

I know I'm new to this, and am amazed at all the various threads and spin offs, bora da taff, good idea i think

[babybird67]

hi Mr C

bore da to you too, but i must point out i do not share Sam Flynn's wonderful accent as i am English but living in Wales.

Yes this place is great for throwing up different ideas and different theories on the Ripper...i've certainly learned much myself in the short time i have been here.

Have you listened to any of the podcasts Mr C? They are excellent and mean you can continue learning into the night even after you switch your pc off!

tc

[Sam Flynn]

Of course there are problems and debateable areas

There's the rub, though, BB - if the basic assumptions one makes are incorrect, then it throws the whole analysis off-course. For example, to take the assumption that it's only the KNOWN suspects that should concern us is a huge leap of faith in itself and, based on what we know about them, probably incorrect.

If Jack was local to the East End (which I tend to strongly believe), but not among the known suspects, then it narrows down the field - but only to a few hundred thousand potential Rippers. We could go further and assume that he lived locally to Spitalfields, in which case we're down to one man in a few tens of thousands, perhaps. Going still further, that he lived in the very heart of Spitalfields restricts the field to, say, one in ten thousand.

I made those figures up, but they're probably not too wide of the mark. As an illustration of what we're up against, however, suffice it to say that if the very first assumption was wrong, the whole lot falls like a house of cards. Even if it were true, it'd take a lot of diligent work to whittle away at the potential 10,000 suspects - most of whose biographical details we will never know - to derive even a workable "long-list".

Even then, the best we could reasonably hope for is that Jack was living in the same area during the 1891 census, which is the nearest we have to a definitive list of the occupants of the area in 1888. If Jack died, or moved away, between 1889 and 1891, then we might never know he'd been there in the first place.

[babybird67]

There's the rub, though, BB - if the basic assumptions one makes are incorrect, then it throws the whole analysis off-course. For example, to take the assumption that it's only the KNOWN suspects that should concern us is a huge leap of faith in itself and, based on what we know about them, probably incorrect.

I know that Sam. However, we can only deal in KNOWN suspects, since the unknown suspects are just that...unknown!

If Jack was local to the East End (which I tend to strongly believe), but not among the known suspects, then it narrows down the field - but only to a few hundred thousand potential Rippers. We could go further and assume that he lived locally to Spitalfields, in which case we're down to one man in a few tens of thousands, perhaps. Going still further, that he lived in the very heart of Spitalfields restricts the field to, say, one in ten thousand.

Again, Sam, I appreciate that. I myself said not long on joining the site JtR could well have been someone completely off the radar. It's quite possible. As I said in my post, this isn't to try to prove someone on the list of knowns is the Ripper...it was just another way of approaching it, rather than read, discover suspects, and guess. I thought it might throw up a little insight or be a little experiment tackling things from a different direction.

It was just something to do with some of the known suspects, but if you dont think it would work/be a valuable exercise etc, no problem!

tc

[Sam Flynn]

I know that Sam. However, we can only deal in KNOWN suspects, since the unknown suspects are just that...unknown!

But not, as I never tire of pointing out, un-knowable

It was just something to do with some of the known suspects, but if you dont think it would work/be a valuable exercise etc, no problem!

I think there's a great deal of value inherent in researching and understanding more about the known suspects - far more than simply scoring them according to a set of "favourite" criteria. That said, the information we've gleaned in respect of each of the "knowns" (some of it considerable) should be that upon which we base our judgments of them - and, to my mind, no convincing case exists against either.

I'm not bereft of hope, however! I have no doubt that there will still be some interesting finds, and some intriguing new suspects - previously "unknown" - will continue to surface from time to time.

[babybird67]

I think there's a great deal of value inherent in researching and understanding more about the known suspects - far more than simply scoring them according to a set of "favourite" criteria.

oh most certainly Sam. It wasn't favourite criteria as such; just a way of arranging the information we do have, perhaps with things we are more certain of, having a higher value than those where no such great probability is agreed upon.

I thought it might throw up something interesting. Maybe it is the years i worked for Ladbrokes that subliminally suggested it to my mind!

have a good evening

[Mr Chumley]

analysis n lists

hiya both - sorry for the delayed response but have been working away...
interesting debate, and as a new guy, I would like to see a summary of the various data spouted by the explosion of threads, and also opinions on some of the subjects
such as how easy was it to obtain a surgical knife, how easy would it be to conceal this or other knives if it was the case that more than one was used. Do we really think that our boy carried around a parcel of knives in paper/oilcloth or some medical bag. Strangulation by both hands, one hand carotid artery pressure?Was he that silent, rubber soles? How easy to obtain?Did he recce the raea over some time, or live there, living there with the hue and cry that ensued would be a particularly dodgy thing not many dogs s..t on their own doorstep I believe is a saying. Just how mad was he ? He appears to have calculated most things to a fine degree. It would seem that most threads concentrate on one man, could there have been 2, was Jack waiting in the shadows while the pick up man lured the victim to the location?
Oh my the list is endless
very best wishes and hoping for not too many cheep shots in return..your obedient servant...