Statistics, chance or design?

[ditlew]

Hi All,

I'm currently making a map for my study wall with the main locations marked: my map so far (feedback is more than welcome). When I got to the last known addresses of the victims I for the first time really realized just how close the victims actually lived to each other. It naturally brings the question to mind if this was a due to mere statistics, by chance or by design? I haven’t yet seen this question discussed in the vast masses of threads in this forum so I’ve hereby dared to ask it, since I don't know enough about the Whitechapel population to answer the question myself.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[Sam Flynn]

The population of Spitalfields/Whitechapel was incredibly densely packed, Ditlew - to the extent that, even though the victims lived in close geographic proximity to one another, there were several thousand others crammed into the same space. All the victims were of the same broad social class, and those of the same social class gravitated to the same sort of slum accommodation, namely the common lodging-houses or the low courts that were co-located with them. Spitalfields had one of, if not the, highest concentrations of lodging-houses (and low courts) in the whole of London.

Seen in that light, it's no surprise at all that the victims came from the same basic area.

[ditlew]

Hi Sam,

Thank you for your helping answer. So what you are saying is that most prostitutes of Whitechapel lived in the center of Spitalfields and hence it was statistically sane that a prostitute killed in Buck’s Row, Berner Street or Mitre Square would be from that area. Thank you again. I didn't have that knowledge and thought it more likely that their addresses would have covered a larger area of Whitechapel. The reason being that the poverty map showed me that poverty wasn't centered in that area alone.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Thank you for your helping answer. So what you are saying is that most prostitutes of Whitechapel lived in the center of Spitalfields and hence it was statistically sane that a prostitute killed in Buck’s Row, Berner Street or Mitre Square would be from that area.

That's more or less what I was saying, Ditlew... and thanks for your kind reply.

The reason being that the poverty map shows me that poverty wasn't centered in that area alone.

It wasn't - it's just that Booth's map doesn't deal in the number of poor in a given street, only the average earnings of those who lived there: for example, a street of 90 poor people could easily end up with a "black" designation, if most of those 90 were "vicious and semi-criminal". Dorset Street, too, ends up with a "black" mark against it... but it had more like 900 people living there.

[ditlew]

It wasn't - it's just that Booth's map doesn't deal in the number of poor in a given street, only the average earnings of those who lived there: for example, a street of 90 poor people could easily end up with a "black" designation, if most of those 90 were "vicious and semi-criminal". Dorset Street, too, ends up with a "black" mark against it... but it had more like 900 people living there.

Ahh, of course, it makes perfectly sense now, I was lacking the density distribution factor! Thank you for pointing this out for me!

Best Regards,
Ditlew