Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[GUT]

Hi.
This is when I should remind folk on Casebook of my ''39 theory''.
Martha Tabram aged 39 , stabbed 39 times.
Polly Nichols killed 31st August,
Annie Chapman 8th Sept.=39
Eddowes and Stride killed 30th October.
Kelly 9th November =39
August is the 8th month Nichols killed 31st=39
September is the 9th month Eddowes killed 30th=39
Kelly rented Room 13, at 26 Dorset street=39
Barnett moved out 30th , Kelly was killed on the 9th=39.
A letter posted''I live at number 39 Cutler street''
Pure Numerology but full of possibilities.
Regards Richard.

Still one of my favorite theories, if it involves 39 little people.

[John Wheat]

The C5 and Tabram can be linked by a number of factors, entirely unrelated to "statistics", as demonstrated by Keppel et al 2005, in their signature analysis.

What, however, is remarkable in my opinion is the plethora of fanciful theories that have been proposed as an alternative to the single killer argument: grand conspiracies; Chapman murdered by an army officer disguised as the pensioner Ted Stanley...

To John G

Absolutely. The multiple killer hypothesises are BS.

Cheers John

[Errata]

I believe that some circumstantial evidence exists which provides for a motive for the 4th Canonical murder, which would make it coincidence that she was killed during a period when a madman was believed to be ruling the streets, and the "coincidental" factors regarding Kates choice of an alias when juxtaposed with the subsequent alledged Ripper murder seem to suggest that Kate perhaps had some knowledge of the next victim in the "series". Perhaps this indicates a link by motive.

I maintain that none of those things are coincidences, because none of them are remarkable. A woman being murdered by a one off while a serial killer is on the loose is in fact ridiculously common. This is because single murderers outnumber serials 10,000 to 1, so occasionally their going to overlap. Not a coincidence.

Mary Kelly is not exactly the John Smith of aliases, but nor is it uncommon. Therefor not a remarkable alias. Or name. Had she chosen Benedict Cumberbatch for an alias, and then another completely unrelated woman also went by Benedict Cumberbatch, that would be remarkable. And therefor a coincidence.

Many things are interesting, many things are odd, many things make you go "Gee I wonder what the odds of that are?" But unless the odds are slim to none, actually slim to none not just assumed slim to none, none of it is a coincidence.

I realize that average human's bar for wonder and amazement is a lot lower than it used to be, but standards are standards, and most of the so called coincidences in this case just simply aren't.

[c.d.]

"If people restricted the likely list of single killer victims to women whose attacks and injuries were very, very similar, we would have only a 2, perhaps 3, person series."

And if we take into consideration that all of the women in the C5 had different names and that they were all killed in different locations and at different times, then we can safely conclude that there were five different killers.

c.d.

[Mayerling]

I maintain that none of those things are coincidences, because none of them are remarkable. A woman being murdered by a one off while a serial killer is on the loose is in fact ridiculously common. This is because single murderers outnumber serials 10,000 to 1, so occasionally their going to overlap. Not a coincidence.

Mary Kelly is not exactly the John Smith of aliases, but nor is it uncommon. Therefor not a remarkable alias. Or name. Had she chosen Benedict Cumberbatch for an alias, and then another completely unrelated woman also went by Benedict Cumberbatch, that would be remarkable. And therefor a coincidence.

Many things are interesting, many things are odd, many things make you go "Gee I wonder what the odds of that are?" But unless the odds are slim to none, actually slim to none not just assumed slim to none, none of it is a coincidence.

I realize that average human's bar for wonder and amazement is a lot lower than it used to be, but standards are standards, and most of the so called coincidences in this case just simply aren't.

Hi Errata,

An interesting thread here.

I have a book called "Haydn's Dictionary of Dates". My edition is from 1893. Under the section called "Trials" for 1888 there was the trial of a gang that year who killed one Joseph Rumbold in Regent's Park. Most of the gang were under 17, but one was of age to be considered for hanging. His name was Francis Coles. He was sentenced to death, but the sentence was reduced to a prison one. Notice that in February 1891 a prostitute named Frances Coles was murdered (possibly by the Ripper - a man named Saddler was arrested and acquitted of the killing). We have two people linked by a close period of time near the Whitechapel Murders, and while one is a man and one a woman their names are alike. Does it mean anything? It is an interesting coincidence, but I can't see it as going anywhere.

I do know of odd coincidences in history and in crime. In 1877 two brothers named Louis and Patrick Staunton mistreated and starved a mentally challenged young heiress (whom Louis married) named Harriet Staunton to death. In the course of the crime, the two brothers were aware that Harriet's mother and family were desperately trying to keep an eye on them. They fled to Penge with their mistresses and the dying Harriet and her baby.
Harriet and the baby finally died, and Louis was preparing to have them quickly buried and then flee with his mistress as well as his brother and the brother's mistress to some unknown place. But when going into a store in Penge, Louis was surprised to see one of the closest friends of Harriet's mother there...and to be recognized. The brothers and their girl friends were all arrested and tried for murder, and eventually convicted. That is a coincidence that did have some point - it brought the criminals to justice. But it was at the tail end of the crime, and did not help Harriet or her baby.

Chance - it's an interesting phenomenon but only that.

Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

"If people restricted the likely list of single killer victims to women whose attacks and injuries were very, very similar, we would have only a 2, perhaps 3, person series."

And if we take into consideration that all of the women in the C5 had different names and that they were all killed in different locations and at different times, then we can safely conclude that there were five different killers.

c.d.

Sarcasm aside,... just 3 of the Five women actually had organs taken, something I would say is rather uncommon..., we know of only 2 that were actively soliciting strangers at the time they met their killer, so random acquisitions is a position without current validation in the evidence,... there is evidence that any skill and knowledege perceived based on the actions of the killer(s) varied, and was eventually completely absent,... and lots of other factor too long to list here make a continous series from Polly to Mary unlikely.

If people would just say said they "assume", like the contemporary police assumed, we are looking at a series of Five, then I would have been saved a lot of typing. But they dont, do they? They assume 5 or more and then select snippets of evidence to bolster that theory. They review data from Modern anaylsis of serial killers before we know for a fact that we have one here in the form of Jack...they ignore the imperical evidence that there were multiple murderers in that town at that time, they ignore that a commission was investigating THE most dangerous threat to London in the form or self rule anarchists, and they ignore the fact thatn we already have a known other killer running free in the form of Torso man.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Differences between the killings are just that, differences. They may or may not be significant. They may or may not indicate different killers. But differences do not NECESSARILY indicate different killers.

c.d.

[Errata]

Chance - it's an interesting phenomenon but only that.

Jeff

And that, right there is the basic difference. Coincidence is astounding. By definition. Chance is simply curious. Many things about this case are curious but not astounding. Chance, not coincidence.

Coincidence also lends a sense of import to the scenario, just because of our cultural input. There's an old Saturday night Live Sketch with Jon Lovitz shouting "COINCIDENCE??? I think NOT!" and anyone who ever had that running through their head gets the sense that coincidence is somehow full of portent. Which isn't the case, again by definition, but the way we use the language has caused our casual communication to change the definition. So we actually have a hard time using the word correctly.

Which happens, but since no other definition of coincidence has come to light, we are stuck with the old one that says it has to be remarkable, and it has to have no causal relationship. It's obviously not a coincidence for my sister and I to have been born in the same small town. There's a causal relationship. But it's also not a coincidence that me and Elvis were born in the same small town. Because people have to be born somewhere, and if it wouldn't be remarkable that Elvis was born in Tupelo (and it isn't), my also being born there certainly doesn't make it astounding. That's just chance. If both Elvis and I had two headed dogs, that would be remarkable. And therefore coincidence.

It's like that Alanis Morissette song that drives me crazy called "Ironic". Where she lists a bunch of things that are in no way ironic by any definition of the word. Rain on your wedding day, not ironic. Free ride when you already paid? Not ironic. None of it is ironic. It's bad luck. Which is not irony. Drives me nuts, that song.

[Scott Nelson]

What about her singing voice? Pretty angry, huh?

[Errata]

What about her singing voice? Pretty angry, huh?

I'm usually a fan. I'm not gonna lie. But my anger is such that all my friends stampede to turn that song off before I let loose a lexicographers rage. I'm like Pavlov's dog spewing invective when the "Ironic" bell is rung.

[Pierre]

The C5 and Tabram can be linked by a number of factors, entirely unrelated to "statistics", as demonstrated by Keppel et al 2005, in their signature analysis.

What, however, is remarkable in my opinion is the plethora of fanciful theories that have been proposed as an alternative to the single killer argument: grand conspiracies; Chapman murdered by an army officer disguised as the pensioner Ted Stanley...

Hi John,

I agree with you on your comment on the signature analysis by Keppel et al.

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Sarcasm aside,... just 3 of the Five women actually had organs taken, something I would say is rather uncommon...,

we know of only 2 that were actively soliciting strangers at the time they met their killer,

Hi Mikael,

Do we? What is the source?

so random acquisitions is a position without current validation in the evidence,...

So are there other hypotheses in 1888?

there is evidence that any skill and knowledege perceived based on the actions of the killer(s) varied,

and was eventually completely absent,...

What sources do you use for this statement?

and lots of other factor too long to list here make a continous series from Polly to Mary unlikely.

If people would just say said they "assume", like the contemporary police assumed, we are looking at a series of Five, then I would have been saved a lot of typing. But they dont, do they? They assume 5 or more and

then select snippets of evidence to bolster that theory.

How would you define "evidence"?

They review data from Modern anaylsis of serial killers before we know for a fact that we have one here in the form of Jack...

If modern analysis uses old data, that is called history.

they ignore the

imperical

You mean empirical.

evidence that there were multiple murderers in that town at that time,

Not just the signature but also the victimology (age, looks, living conditions) and the MO (for example working in a small area and within a short period of time) indicate that this was one single killer.

they ignore that a commission was investigating THE most dangerous threat to London in the form or self rule anarchists, and they ignore the fact thatn we already have a known other killer

"A known" "other" killer? What do you mean?

running free in the form of Torso man.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello Michael,

Differences between the killings are just that, differences. They may or may not be significant. They may or may not indicate different killers. But differences do not NECESSARILY indicate different killers.

c.d.

Hi,

No, they are not "just differences". They can easily be explained by factors as locations and time frames for example. This is very evident in the case of Nichols, Stride and Kelly.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi,

No, they are not "just differences". They can easily be explained by factors as locations and time frames for example. This is very evident in the case of Nichols, Stride and Kelly. They could not have found Kelly where they found Nichols, since the location did not offer the killer the same protection. They could not have found Nichols where they found Stride due to the traffic in the location. And they could never have found Stride in Dorset Street, since he was indoors and could do anything he wanted to in that location.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Like the GOGMAG letter predicting the identity of the next murder victim and her exact address?

What category would you include that particular story in? "Truth" or fairy tale?

You might have missed this question Pierre.