Did Jack the Ripper even exist?

[Robert]

But AP, how would the gangs have recognised who didn't belong to them?

[Cap'n Jack]

Mostly by tattoos, Robert. I have found several cases from the LVP where prostitutes carried the tattoo of their controlling gang, simple initials, like TC as a for example. Do we really believe that particular tattoo refers to Thomas Conway?
I like to play with these peculiar concepts, as you know, so could the awesome destruction that was visited upon Mary Kelly have been a simple attempt to remove a tattoo after her death so that the Irish gang on her doorstep were not implicated in her death?
And of course Jack the Ripper did it, didn't he?

[Sam Flynn]

So, Sam, if 5 prostitutes were murdered in Ipswich in 2005, and then 5 in 2007, the arrival of a spree serial killer who murders five prostitutes in very short time in 2006 should increase that to 10?
Or would it be five?
I personally don't have a difficulty with this, for my base line is that a prolific serial killer should surface as a blimp on the statistics, otherwise he wouldn't be a prolific serial killer would he?
It would be just the day to day murder and mayhem of the LVP.
So where is he?

Reminds me of an Irish joke:

Paddy and Murphy had bought a 7lb turkey for their Christmas dinner, and left it out on the draining board overnight to defrost. When they awoke on the Big Day, the turkey had vanished. Says Paddy, "Bejasus! Where's the turkey got to? It was there last night!". Murphy chipped in, "I bet the cat's had it... where is the greedy little bugger?". "Here he is", says Paddy, holding up the cat. "Right", says Murphy, "Stick him on the kitchen scales!". Paddy does so, and remarks "Seven pounds exactly! That's our turkey there!". "To be sure", says Murphy, "we've found our turkey alright. The problem we've got now is - where's the bloody cat?".

[Cap'n Jack]

And you, Sam, remind of someone I know called Sam, who when he doesn't have a decent answer to a serious question posts a joke instead.
I don't want to know about cats and turkeys, Sam, I want to know why a prolific serial killer operating in a restricted area, with a specific victim type, and a restricted time span does not influence the statistics at all.

[truebluedub]

The statistical variation is so small that no significance can be read into them. Also just because the statistical increase is five we cannot correlate this to the c5.
In other words the statistics cannot help us come to a conclusion as to whether there was a Jack the Ripper.

Chris Lowe

[Cap'n Jack]

So, Chris, you are clearly saying that the sudden arrival of a spree driven serial killer who kills at least five women in a very short time period will have no influence on the murder statistics of a small town?
Do you know any of the officers who investigated the Ipswich prostitute murders?
Would it be your studied opinion that they might have been busier than usual during the month of December 2006, or less busy then December 2005 or December 2007.
I should opinion that were ******* busy, and the statistics will reflect this.
They don't in Whitechapel.

[Supe]

AP,

Clearly, you know nothing about probability and statistics. I'd suggest you stop making a fool of yourself, but since you enjoy doing so carry on.

Don.

[The Grave Maurice]

Do we really believe that particular tattoo refers to Thomas Conway?

Well...yes.

[truebluedub]

Cap'n Jack,
Let me tell you the same thing I tell my 2nd year students: the number of rapes increase at the same time as the sales ice cream. Does the consumption of ice cream lead to rape? No. It's a coincidence which when it appears in the statistics looks like there's a correlation.

Chris Lowe

[Simon Wood]

Do we really believe that particular tattoo refers to Thomas Conway?

Er . . . no.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

And you, Sam, remind of someone I know called Sam, who when he doesn't have a decent answer to a serious question posts a joke instead.

Oh, I had a decent answer, AP. I just thought a bit of levity wouldn't go amiss.

I want to know why a prolific serial killer operating in a restricted area, with a specific victim type, and a restricted time span does not influence the statistics at all.

The statistics Simon posted were sampled at intervals that spanned some 5 years, so the events of just over 3 months in any one year isn't going to affect them overmuch. If we had quarterly statistics at our disposal, especially showing figures for murders/assaults of women, we might see a different picture. As it is, a mere 5 deaths in 3 months or so is hardly going to register on this general scale.

Here's a graph, if it helps:



I've just shown the murders and assaults "with intent to ravage" (which I take to mean violent or indecent assaults). The truly interesting trend is in the apparent increase in the number of the latter in the years 1887/88 - assaults of a violent and/or sexual nature seem to have risen quite dramatically compared to previous years. Whether this is statistically significant, I don't know.

Another interesting fact, gleaned from Simon's snippet, is that "a considerable proportion of the crimes reported as murder from verdicts given by coroners' juries, resolve themselves into the lesser [offence] of manslaughter". How many actual murders would have been "commuted" thus, or indeed how many verdicts of "wilful murder against persons unknown" were actually "assaults with intent to ravage" gone wrong, we are unlikely to know. It sure makes the stats tricky to interpret, though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I've never been good with lies, damned lies or statistics, but thanks anyway for trying to make sense of George Grosvenor's figures.

I am none the wiser, but assuredly better informed.

Regards,

Simon

[Grim]

Hi How

Well, I'm assuming that pimps don't follow their women 24 hours a day - what happens if they run several? - and I imagine that they will sometimes just expect a certain sum each week, with the threat of violence if it's not paid. I suppose if the pimp is short of cash, or the woman has a drink habit etc, which would absorb her earnings, he might follow her round to make sure of collecting the money after each transaction.

No jokes about a wages snatch, please.

Exactly my thoughts, perhaps it was a pimp who was sick that these women were spending away all their earnings and not putting any cash in his hands. There was no reason for him to keep them around anymore.

[m_w_r]

Hi -

Call me stupid, but, to my mind, the considerable proportion of cases which resolved into lesser offences has nothing to do with it. Unless the rules for coroners' juries had changed over the monitoring period, the proportion of cases which might be resolved, in court, into lesser offences might be expected to remain more or less consistent. The commentary to the report seems to be using this proportional argument to encourage public confidence in community safety, but it is actually comparing raw data - the numbers of murder verdicts coming out of the coroners' courts, which seem to be going up. Unless new regulations had begun to affect the verdicts of coroners' juries at or around this time, this means that (in real terms, as they say), more "murder" verdicts and a largely consistent proportion of lesser-offence resolutions equals a rising trend in "actual" murders. Given that the other crime statistics showed a similar trend, one might suppose (for instance) that society was becoming more violent; or that public confidence in the police was growing, and that more crimes were being reported to them.

One other thing - it seems to me that the variations in the annual statistics for murders which resulted in guilty verdicts in court aren't going to tell us much about an unknown murderer who was never convicted of the murders of which he is suspected.

Regards,

Mark

[Sam Flynn]

it seems to me that the variations in the annual statistics for murders which resulted in guilty verdicts in court aren't going to tell us much about an unknown murderer who was never convicted of the murders of which he is suspected.

Quite correct, although the remainder (i.e. those cases which did NOT result in a guilty verdict) might.