Did jack kill liz stride?

[Hunter]

That's good Sam.

We should remember that PC Lamb said that it looked as if she was gently layed down. Her knees were drawn up in a defensive subconsious reflex which had to be after she was on the ground. This attack was swift and without warning.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Addy]

vote

I'm not allowed to vote (yet) however I would vote Yes. Why? The right night (he was around that night), right area and the idea of JtR being disturbed would (in my opinion) account for the fact that Catherine Eddowes was murdered in another "region" of London.

Greetings,

Addy

[Sam Flynn]

Do you take into account the rarity of 2 prostitutes being killed in a similar way on the same night and in a relatively close proximity?

It depends pretty much on how one quantifies "rarity". In order to do so, it's simply not good enough to go by your gut instinct - which is a trap too many people fall into, and not just in the context of the Ripper case. It's a known quirk of human nature that people aren't very good at handling "unusual" probabilities, and when that happens the tendency is to assume "well, it just can't be due to chance, can it?".

The proper way to go about it is to establish a baseline of serious assaults, to find out what the "background" probability would be of one such event happening in any given hour in that sort of neighbourhood, and from that to establish the odds of two such events happening - independently - in any given hour.

I made some rough calculations a while back, and the odds came in at a little less than the odds of getting five numbers plus the bonus-ball in the UK National Lottery - something like 50,000:1. Now, that still might sound like "long odds" to some, until you realise that somebody wins that prize in almost every draw that's held - indeed, quite often, more than one person will beat those "scary" odds and share the prize.

It's easy to allow oneself to be scared of probabilities, especially if all one does is to concentrate on the minutiae. By looking at a bigger picture, however, one can see "rarities" for the illusions that they often are.

[Hunter]

I'm not allowed to vote (yet) however I would vote Yes. Why? The right night (he was around that night), right area and the idea of JtR being disturbed would (in my opinion) account for the fact that Catherine Eddowes was murdered in another "region" of London.

Greetings,

Addy

Hello Addy,

Welcome to the message boards.

Your reasons for including Stride are shared by most who believe the same. Since I don't have a concrete opinion either way let me play devil's advocate for a moment and point out there are some peculiar aspects to this murder that is dissimilar to the others. It comes down to weighing both aspects I guess and reaching a conclusion as to what is most likely. I haven't yet, because I believe there is still more to learn.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[pr1mate]

It depends pretty much on how one quantifies "rarity". In order to do so, it's simply not good enough to go by your gut instinct - which is a trap too many people fall into, and not just in the context of the Ripper case. It's a known quirk of human nature that people aren't very good at handling "unusual" probabilities, and when that happens the tendency is to assume "well, it just can't be due to chance, can it?".

The proper way to go about it is to establish a baseline of serious assaults, to find out what the "background" probability would be of one such event happening in any given hour in that sort of neighbourhood, and from that to establish the odds of two such events happening - independently - in any given hour.

I made some rough calculations a while back, and the odds came in at a little less than the odds of getting five numbers plus the bonus-ball in the UK National Lottery - something like 50,000:1. Now, that still might sound like "long odds" to some, until you realise that somebody wins that prize in almost every draw that's held - indeed, quite often, more than one person will beat those "scary" odds and share the prize.

It's easy to allow oneself to be scared of probabilities, especially if all one does is to concentrate on the minutiae. By looking at a bigger picture, however, one can see "rarities" for the illusions that they often are.

I would agree that rarity is somewhat subjective. I read somewhere that a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' comes along 4 times a week for the average person. If this stat is true, a once in a lifetime opportunity is not that rare. If asked "how rare is a once in a lifetime opportunity" most would answer "very rare". The real answer is a particular once in a lifetime opportunity is rare but overall they are common.

A throat being cut, not so rare. A prostitute being killed, not so rare. 2 murders in one night, kind of rare? 2 prostitutes being killed, close together, by having their throats cut on the same night.. well to me that is pretty darn rare.

I don't think that I could make the leap to say that just because it is rare means it is true but, I would have to say it seems more than a coincidence.

[Addy]

Hunter

Hi Hunter.

Thank you for your welcome. There are indeed some dissimilarities, like the knife used (some say the same as on the others, others say a different one). So far I find the "disturbed" theory the most convincing. None the less, when I read some accounts with a different opinion, I start to doubt too. Perhaps it can be resolved sometime.

Greetings,

Addy

[corey123]

I'm not allowed to vote (yet) however I would vote Yes. Why? The right night (he was around that night), right area and the idea of JtR being disturbed would (in my opinion) account for the fact that Catherine Eddowes was murdered in another "region" of London.

Greetings,

Addy

Welcom Addy,

Its ok if you cant vote yet. Most on this thread are not voting but stating many senerios regarding Lizs death.

When you can vote, I would love for you to vote on it. By then I would be supprised if your opinion hadnt changed at all.

Again welcom

[corey123]

Hi Hunter.

Thank you for your welcome. There are indeed some dissimilarities, like the knife used (some say the same as on the others, others say a different one). So far I find the "disturbed" theory the most convincing. None the less, when I read some accounts with a different opinion, I start to doubt too. Perhaps it can be resolved sometime.

Greetings,

Addy

Addy,

The question about the knife in the murder of liz stride is a question filled with much specualtion. The knife was very sharp, not blunt, it was most likely a POINTED knife. The length is hard to calculate. I believe the killer suprised her and cut the throat from behind Liz, resulting in the apperance in a different knife. In my opinion it may have been the same knife in all 5 cases.

[Hunter]

Addy,

The question about the knife in the murder of liz stride is a question filled with much specualtion. The knife was very sharp, not blunt, it was most likely a POINTED knife. The length is hard to calculate. I believe the killer suprised her and cut the throat from behind Liz, resulting in the apperance in a different knife. In my opinion it may have been the same knife in all 5 cases.

Hi Corey,

Just to go back to the evidence again. All of the victims were probably assaulted from behind- given the advantage there and the fact that street prostitutes serviced their costomers that way ( not to automatically assume that was what Liz was doing) but the doctors believed that the throat was cut while she was falling or on the ground because there was no blood reported found on her or the wall.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Sam Flynn]

I would agree that rarity is somewhat subjective.

Actually, it's the perception of rarity that's subjective, pr1mate. Events in "the world out there" happen quite objectively, and their frequency and likelihood can be measured with objectivity, too. Once that is done, an objective assessment of likelihood can be undertaken in comparison with other apparently "rare" happenings, which is what I tried to do.

I don't think that I could make the leap to say that just because it is rare means it is true but, I would have to say it seems more than a coincidence.

It may be that the "Double Event" was orchestrated by the same person, but deciding that it was just because it seems rare isn't the best way to go about it, when the odds against it are slightly less daunting than winning the runners-up prize on the Lotto. Incidentally, six different people achieved just that on Wednesday - a Sextuple Event!

[corey123]

Hunter,

I have veiwed the evidence time and time again. The other four were NOT cut from behind, they were cut while they were on the ground. Stride WAS mostlikely cut from behind. Imagine her standing, a man reaches behind her and cuts her throat, immediatly letting her fall to the ground. Thats what happened.

Yours truly

[Addy]

I always understood Liz Stride being attacked from behind, the killer pulling her head back by her scarf. The bottom edge of the scarf was also frayed along the slash on her throat. As far as I know the others were probably strangled before their throat was cut: from the front. Still, there is conflicting evidence from the doctors who were there in situ and the post mortem. And there must have been pressure on the doctors, this being high profile cases. They might have judged things differently than they would otherwise have done or try to hang on to their own opinions a bit more than they normally would.

Greetings,

Addy

[Hunter]

Hunter,

I have veiwed the evidence time and time again. The other four were NOT cut from behind, they were cut while they were on the ground. Stride WAS mostlikely cut from behind. Imagine her standing, a man reaches behind her and cuts her throat, immediatly letting her fall to the ground. Thats what happened.

Yours truly

Corey, I apologize if I appeared to imply that you had not read the evidence. I was just reinterating what Phillips and Blackwell stated at the inquest that there was no blood on the wall or Liz's clothing that would suggest her throat was cut while standing. As Tom and I discussed Yesterday, I have no idea how he would have gotten her to the ground without a struggle and then cut her throat. Its a mystery among others in this case.

From Addy
...As far as I know the others were probably strangled before their throat was cut: from the front...

Addy, you are correct on the first part but they were likely strangled or at least overpowered from behind as this position offered a better opportunity for the attacker to avoid ressistance and control his victim.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[corey123]

Hunter,

No apologies needed. I was only stating that I have read almost every post on this thread(sad I started the thread and have not read it all).

About your comment to Abby, I had always managed to believe he strangled them from the FRONT gradually working his way to the ground and commencing the throat wound, then so on and so on.

yours truly

[pr1mate]

Actually, it's the perception of rarity that's subjective, pr1mate. Events in "the world out there" happen quite objectively, and their frequency and likelihood can be measured with objectivity, too. Once that is done, an objective assessment of likelihood can be undertaken in comparison with other apparently "rare" happenings, which is what I tried to do.
It may be that the "Double Event" was orchestrated by the same person, but deciding that it was just because it seems rare isn't the best way to go about it, when the odds against it are slightly less daunting than winning the runners-up prize on the Lotto. Incidentally, six different people achieved just that on Wednesday - a Sextuple Event!

I agree with what you are saying. My initial post was more of a question of clarity. It seemed you were weighing the likelihood of each action as an independent vs the likelihood of the event as a whole.

I think we are saying the same thing to some extent. For the events to happen as they did and not be connected seem unlikely but not impossible. And, just because they seem unlikely to not be connected does not make it probable that they are connected. Hope that makes sense?