The cut in the throat

[Colin Roberts]

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Knife'¹; Exclusive of the Applicable 'Whitechapel Murders': 1883-1893

---

In the absence of the applicable 'Whitechapel Murders', i.e. the 'Whitechapel Murders', in which death was inflicted, by way of 'Knife', ...


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Knife'¹ (Purple); Exclusive of the Applicable 'Whitechapel Murders' (Lavender): 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Knife'¹ (Purple); Exclusive of the Applicable 'Whitechapel Murders' (Lavender): 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

¹ Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', ...
- by way of 'Cut Throat' or 'Cut'/'Stab': 1883-1890
- by way of 'Knife': 1891-1893

... 1888 would seem to have been a relatively 'normal' year.

[Colin Roberts]

"I need not do more than merely allude to the extraordinary series of murders which occurred in Whitechapel, which gave rise to the greatest excitement in London."

~~~

"Crime during the year has shown a decided tendency to increase. This fact may be accounted for, to a certain extent, by circumstances which affected the administration of the Force in a peculiar manner at different periods of the year. The agitation which centered in Trafalgar Square, and the murders in Whitechapel, necessitated the concentration in particular localities of large bodies of police, and such an increase of force in one quarter of the Metropolis, it must be remembered, is only procurable by diminishing the number of men ordinarily employed in other divisions. In the present state of the force increase of protection in the East End means diminished numbers of police in other quarters, and so long as the available force is hardly sufficient, as it is just now, for the performance of the ordinary and every day duties of the Police, any additional drain on its resources leads to diminished protection against, and consequent increase of, crime. There has been no relaxation of effort on the part of the Police to cope with crime; the fact is that the Force is overworked, and under such circumstances crime cannot be met or coped with in a satisfactory and efficient manner. The statistics of crime will be found in the tables attached. I need not do more than merely allude to the extraordinary series of murders which occurred in Whitechapel, which gave rise to the greatest excitement in London. I regret to say that in spite of most strenuous efforts on the part of the Police, the criminal has up till now remained undiscovered." [sic]

James Monro,
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

~~~

Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

For the Year 1888

Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty

London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1889

~~~

Again;

"I need not do more than merely allude to the extraordinary series of murders which occurred in Whitechapel, which gave rise to the greatest excitement in London." (My Emphasis)

[Colin Roberts]

Cases of 'Attempting to Murder: Shooting, Cutting, etc.': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893

---

In accordance with the Reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1883-1893:


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder: Shooting, Cutting, etc.': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Attempting to Murder: Shooting, Cutting, etc.

1883
- Cases: 112
- Apprehensions: 107
- Convictions: 69

1884
- Cases: 143
- Apprehensions: 151
- Convictions: 105

1885
- Cases: 93
- Apprehensions: 96
- Convictions: 63

1886
- Cases: 135
- Apprehensions: 130
- Convictions: 86

1887
- Cases: 130
- Apprehensions: 134
- Convictions: 76

1888
- Cases: 192
- Apprehensions: 192
- Convictions: 101

1889
- Cases: 153
- Apprehensions: 155
- Convictions: 82

1890
- Cases: 145
- Apprehensions: 145
- Convictions: 97

1891
- Cases: 189
- Apprehensions: 203
- Convictions: 103

1892
- Cases: 165
- Apprehensions: 156
- Convictions: 82

1893
- Cases: 184
- Apprehensions: 173
- Convictions: 101

---

Attempting to Murder: Shooting, Cutting, etc.

~ Cases: 1883-1893 ~

- Range: 93 - 192

- Mid-Range (i.e. Range Mid-Point): 142.50

- Median: 145.00

- Mean (i.e. 'Average'): 149.18

- Year, in which We are Most Interested (i.e. 1888): 192.00


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder: Shooting, Cutting, etc.': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

[Colin Roberts]

Cases of 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893

---

In accordance with the Reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1883-1893:


Cases of 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Murder

1883
- Cases: 16
- Apprehensions: 14
- Convictions: 9

1884
- Cases: 16
- Apprehensions: 16
- Convictions: 7

1885
- Cases: 9
- Apprehensions: 11
- Convictions: 5

1886
- Cases: 8
- Apprehensions: 10
- Convictions: 1

1887
- Cases: 13
- Apprehensions: 13
- Convictions: 8

1888
- Cases: 28
- Apprehensions: 24
- Convictions: 6

1889
- Cases: 17
- Apprehensions: 8
- Convictions: 0

1890
- Cases: 16
- Apprehensions: 13
- Convictions: 11

1891
- Cases: 14
- Apprehensions: 8
- Convictions: 6

1892
- Cases: 14
- Apprehensions: 10
- Convictions: 7

1893
- Cases: 20
- Apprehensions: 12
- Convictions: 10

---

Murder

~ Cases: 1883-1893 ~

- Range: 8.00 - 28.00

- Mid-Range (i.e. Range Mid-Point): 18.00

- Median: 16.00

- Mean (i.e. 'Average'): 15.55

- Year, in which We are Most Interested (i.e. 1888): 28.00


Cases of 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

~~~

The 'Murder' data is annotated, in certain years, to suggest that it is exclusive of cases, in which the victim was an 'Infant' (i.e. a child, aged less than one year); whereas in other years, it is not.

I believe that it is clearly the case, however, that the annotation should apply to each of the years under consideration (1883-1893).

Consider, for example, the following:

In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', throughout England, within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)

~~~

Infancy - Age 4: 55
---{Infancy: 48}
------{Birth - One Month: 42}
------{One Month - Twelve Months: 6}
---{Age 1: 2}
---{Age 2: 2}
---{Age 3: 0}
---{Age 4: 3}

~~~

Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

~~~

Total: 84

~~~

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', throughout England, within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)

~~~

Infancy - Age 4: 48
---{Infancy: 41}
------{Birth - One Month: 35}
------{One Month - Twelve Months: 6}
---{Age 1: 2}
---{Age 2: 3}
---{Age 3: 1}
---{Age 4: 1}

~~~

Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

~~~

Total: 111

[Colin Roberts]

Cases of 'Attempting to Murder' / 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893

---

In accordance with the Reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1883-1893:


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder' & 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder' / 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder' / 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Attempting to Murder / Murder

~ Cases: 1883-1893 ~

- Range: 102 - 220

- Mid-Range (i.e. Range Mid-Point): 161.00

- Median: 161.00

- Mean (i.e. 'Average'): 164.73

- Year, in which We are Most Interested (i.e. 1888): 220.00


Cases of 'Attempting to Murder' / 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

[Colin Roberts]

The Metropolitan Police District


The Metropolitan Police District; as Depicted in Bacon's Large Scale Atlas of London & Suburbs, 1912 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In accordance with the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District were expanded, to include all Civil Parishes, any portions of which, lay within twelve miles of Charing Cross, as well as all Civil Parishes, the entireties of which, lay within fifteen miles of Charing Cross.

These boundaries remained intact, until the enactment of the Police Act, 1946.

So, while the Divisional Boundaries may have been altered, at various points in time, between 1840 and 1945 (e.g. in accordance with the formation of J Division, 'Bethnal Green', in 1886), the boundaries of the overall district remained unchanged.

~~~

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the City of London Police District and the Metropolitan Police District
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806

{The City of London Police District}
- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
- Population: 37,705

{The Metropolitan Police District}
- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
- Population: 5,596,101

--- {The Administrative County of London (i.e.'Metropolitan London'), Excepting the City of London}
----- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 116.83 Square Miles
----- Population: 4,194,413

--- {The Administrative County of Hertfordshire (In Part)}
----- Area: 35,893.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 56.08 Square Miles
----- Population: 35,492

--- {The Administrative County of Middlesex (In Entirety)}
----- Area: 149,046.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 232.88 Square Miles
----- Population: 560,012

--- {The Administrative County of Essex (In Part)}
----- Area: 60,466.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 94.48 Square Miles
----- Population: 413,679

--- {The Administrative County of Surrey (In Part)}
----- Area: 80,058.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 125.09 Square Miles
----- Population: 295,759

--- {The Administrative County of Kent (In Part)}
----- Area: 42,516.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 66.43 Square Miles
----- Population: 96,746

~~~

The Metropolitan Police District, 1888

Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891

'Metropolitan London', County of Middlesex (i.e. North of the River Thames):

Fulham Registration District
- The Parish of St. Paul Hammersmith: 97,239
- The Parish of All Saints Fulham: 91,639

Sub-Total: 188,878

Kennsington Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Abbotts Kennsington: 166,308

Chelsea Registration District
- The Parish of St. Luke Chelsea: 96,253

Paddington Registration District
- The Parish of St. James Paddington: 117,846

Hampstead Registration District
- The Parish of St. John at Hampstead: 68,416

St. Pancras Registration District
- The Parish of St. Pancras: 234,379

St. Marylebone Registration District
- The Parish of St. Marylebone: 142,404

St. George Hanover Square Registration District
- The Parish of St. George Hanover Square, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 78,364
- The Combined Parish of St. Margaret & St. John the Evangelist, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 55,539
----- {The Parish of St. Margaret (Detached), Liberty of the City of Westminster: 21,433}
----- {The Parish of St. Margaret, City of Westminster¹: ?}
----- {The Parish of St. John the Evangelist, City of Westminster¹: ?}
- The Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, City of Westminster¹: 235

Sub-Total: 134,138

¹ The City of Westminster, which consisted of the 'base' portion (i.e. the non-detached portion) of the Combined Parish of St. Margaret & St. John the Evangelist, and the Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, was situated within the boundaries of the Liberty of the City of Westminster.

Westminster Registration District
- The Parish of St. James Westminster (aka 'St. James Piccadilly'), Liberty of the City of Westminster: 24,995
- The Parish of St. Anne Westminster (aka 'St. Anne Soho'), Liberty of the City of Westminster: 12,317

Sub-Total: 37,312

Strand Registration District
- The Parish of St. Martin in the Fields, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 14,616
- The Parish of St. Paul Covent Garden, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 2,142
- The Parish of St. Clement Danes: 8,492
----- {The Parish of St. Clement Danes, Liberty of the City of Westminster: ?}
----- {The Parish of St. Clement Danes, Liberty of the Savoy: ?}
- The Liberty of the Rolls: 421
- The Precinct of the Savoy, Liberty of the Savoy: 201
- The Parish of St. Mary le Strand, Liberty of the Savoy: 1,549
- The Middle Temple, City of London¹: 95

Sub-Total: 27,516

¹ The Middle Temple was situated within the boundaries of the City of London. It was a component of the Municipality of the City of London, and accordingly fell within the jurisdiction, of the City of London Police Force. Its population, therefore, was not applicable to that of the Metropolitan Police District.

Sub-Total; as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District: 27,421

Islington Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Islington: 319,143

St. Giles Registration District
- The Combined Parish of St. Giles in the Fields & St. George Bloomsbury: 39,782
----- {The Parish of St. Giles in the Fields: ?}
----- {The Parish of St. George Bloomsbury: ?}

Holborn Registration District
- The Combined Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('above the Bars') & St. George the Martyr: 26,228
----- {The Parish of St. Andrew Holborn¹: ?}
--------- {{The Parish of St. Andrew Holborn, County of Middlesex (i.e. 'above the Bars'): ?}}
--------- {{The Parish of St. Andrew Holborn, City of London (i.e. 'below the Bars'): Not Applicable}}
----- {The Parish of St. George the Martyr: ?}
- Gray's Inn: 253
- Furnival's Inn: 121
----- {Furnival's Inn, County of Middlesex: 97}
----- {Furnival's Inn, City of London²: 24}
- Lincoln's Inn: 27
- Staple Inn: 21
----- {Staple Inn, County of Middlesex: 18}
----- {Staple Inn, City of London²: 3}
- The Liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents, and Ely Place: 4,506
- The Combined Parish of St. James Clerkenwell & St. John Clerkenwell: 66,216
----- {The Parish of St. James Clerkenwell: ?}
----- {The Parish of St. John Clerkenwell: ?}
- The Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate')³: 1,972
----- {The Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate'), County of Middlesex: 1,972}
----- {The Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate'), City of London: Not Applicable}
- The Charter House: 136
- The Parish of St. Luke: 42,440

Sub-Total: 141,920

² The portions of Furnival's Inn (24), and Staple Inn (3), that were situated within the boundaries of the City of London, were components of the Municipality of the City of London, and accordingly fell within the jurisdiction, of the City of London Police Force. Their respective populations, therefore, were not applicable to the population of the Metropolitan Police District.

Sub-Total; as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District: 141,893

¹ The Civil Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('above the Bars'), County of Middlesex (?), i.e. that portion of the Ancient Parish of St. Andrew Holborn that extended beyond the boundaries of the City of London, into the County of Middlesex, was the only portion, of the Ancient Parish, for which the population was applicable to either the Holborn Registration District, or the Metropolitan Police District.

³ The Civil Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate'), County of Middlesex (1,972), i.e. that portion of the Ancient Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate') that extended beyond the boundaries of the City of London, into the County of Middlesex, was the only portion, of the Ancient Parish, for which the population was applicable to either the Holborn Registration District, or the Metropolitan Police District.

City of London Registration District
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard¹: 779

¹ The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard originally constituted the portion of the Ancient Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate that extended beyond the boundaries of the City of London, into the County of Middlesex. Interestingly, it was included within the Civil Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate, City of London Registration District, in accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891; even though it was not a component of the Municipality of the City of London, and accordingly did not fall within the jurisdiction, of the City of London Police Force. Its population, nonetheless, was applicable to that of the Metropolitan Police District.

Hackney Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Stoke Newington: 30,936
- The Parish of St. John at Hackney: 198,606

Sub-Total: 229,542

Shoreditch Registration District
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch: 124,009

Bethnal Green Registration District
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green: 129,132

Whitechapel Registration District
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate: 1,449
- The Old Artillery Ground: 2,138
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields: 22,859
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 11,303
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories'): 301
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: 32,326
----- {The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, County of Middlesex: 32,284}
----- {The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, City of London¹: 42}
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London: 933
----- {The Liberty of the Tower: 0}
----- {The Precinct of Old Tower Without: 65}
----- {The Tower: 868}
- The Precinct of St. Katherine: 182
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate²: 2,971
----- {The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, County of Middlesex: 2,971}
----- {The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, City of London: Not Applicable}

Sub-Total: 74,462

¹ The portion of the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel that was situated within the boundaries of the City of London, was a component of the Municipality of the City of London, and accordingly fell within the jurisdiction, of the City of London Police Force. Its population, therefore, was not applicable to that of the Metropolitan Police District.

Sub-Total; as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District: 74,420

² The Civil Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, County of Middlesex (2,971), i.e. that portion of the Ancient Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate that extended beyond the boundaries of the City of London, into the County of Middlesex, was the only portion, of the Ancient Parish, for which the population was applicable to either the Whitechapel Registration District, or the Metropolitan Police District.

Mile End Old Town Registration District
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town: 107,592

St. George in the East Registration District
- The Parish of St. George in the East: 45,795

Stepney Registration District
- The Parish of St. John of Wapping: 2,123
- The Parish of St. Paul Shadwell: 8,123
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff: 14,928
- The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse: 32,202

Sub-Total: 57,376

Poplar Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow: 40,365
- The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard: 70,000
- The Parish of All Saints Poplar: 56,383

Sub-Total: 166,748

Sub-Total;'Metropolitan London', County of Middlesex (i.e. North of the River Thames), as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District¹: 2,649,566

¹ "as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District", i.e. ...

Inclusive of:
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard, County of Middlesex (City of London Registration District): 779

Exclusive of:
- The Middle Temple, City of London (Strand Registration District): 95
- Furnival's Inn, City of London (Holborn Registration District): 24
- Staple Inn, City of London (Holborn Registration District): 3
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, City of London (Whitechapel Registration District): 42

~~~

'Metropolitan London', Counties of Surrey and Kent (i.e. South of the River Thames):

Wandsworth Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Putney: 17,771
- The Parish of All Saints Wandsworth: 46,717
- The Parish of St. Mary Battersea: 150,558
- The Parish of Holy Trinity Clapham: 43,698
- The Parish of St. Leonard Streatham: 42,972
- The Parish of St. Nicholas Tooting Graveney: 5,784

Sub-Total: 307,500

Lambeth Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Lambeth: 275,203

St. Saviour Registration District
- The Parish of Christ Church, Borough of Southwark: 13,264
- The Parish of St. Saviour, Borough of Southwark: 13,913
- The Parish of St. George the Martyr, Borough of Southwark: 59,712
- The Parish of St. Mary Newington: 115,804

Sub-Total: 202,693

St. Olave Registration District
- The Parish of St. Olave, Borough of Southwark: 2,159
- The Parish of St. Thomas, Borough of Southwark: 752
- The Parish of St. John Horselydown, Borough of Southwark: 9,812
- The Parish of St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey: 84,682
- The Parish of St. Mary Rotherhithe: 39,255

Sub-Total: 136,660

Camberwell Registration District
- The Parish of St. Giles Camberwell: 235,344

Croydon Registration District
- The Hamlet of Penge: 20,375

Greenwich Registration District
- The Parish of St. Paul Deptford: 101,286
- The Parish of St. Nicholas Deptford: 6,887
- The Parish of St. Alphege Greenwich: 57,240

Sub-Total: 165,413

Lewisham Registration District
- The Parish of St. Mary Lewisham: 72,272
- The Parish of St. Margaret Lee: 16,381
- The Parish of St. John the Baptist Eltham: 5,682

Sub-Total: 94,335

Woolwich Registration District
- The Parish of St. Luke Charlton ('next Woolwich'): 11,742
- The Parish of St. James Kidbrooke: 2,298
- The Parish of St. Mary Magdalen Woolwich: 40,848
- The Parish of St. Nicholas Plumstead: 52,436

Sub-Total: 107,324

Sub-Total;'Metropolitan London', Counties of Surrey and Kent (i.e. South of the River Thames), as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District: 1,544,847

Total;'Metropolitan London', Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District¹: 4,194,413

¹ "as was Applicable to the Population of the Metropolitan Police District", i.e. ...

Inclusive of:
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard, County of Middlesex (City of London Registration District): 779

Exclusive of:
- The Middle Temple, City of London (Strand Registration District): 95
- Furnival's Inn, City of London (Holborn Registration District): 24
- Staple Inn, City of London (Holborn Registration District): 3
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, City of London (Whitechapel Registration District): 42

--- Population Data, Pertaining to the Non 'Metropolitan London' Portions of the Metropolitan Police District, to Follow ---

i.e. at some point, in the coming weeks (months (?)).

~~~


The Metropolitan Police District, and the City of London Police District, 1888 (Red Outline); 'Metropolitan London', 1888 (Navy Outline) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police District (Red Outline)
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806
- Population Density: 8,131 Persons per Square Mile

- {The Metropolitan Police District}
--- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
--- Population: 5,596,101
--- Population Density: 8,089 Persons per Square Mile

- {The City of London Police District}
--- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
--- Population: 37,705
--- Population Density: 35,910 Persons per Square Mile

---

'Metropolitan London'¹, i.e. The Administrative County of London (Inclusive of the City of London) (Navy Outline)
- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 117.88 Square Miles
- Population: 4,232,118
- Population Density: 35,902 Persons per Square Mile

¹ As Defined, in 1888, by the Boundaries of Jurisdiction, of the Metropolitan Board of Works

[Colin Roberts]

H Division, Metropolitan Police Force


H Division - 'Whitechapel', Metropolitan Police Force, 1888 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

In accordance with the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, For the Year 1887; there was but one murder, committed within the boundaries of H Division, throughout the course of the calendar year.

One! That of Miriam Angel.

One!

[Colin Roberts]

If Colin Roberts's murder stats are not just a pile of poo, ...

Let's hope they aren't!

... there were only 11 adult women murdered by knife in the whole of England in 1887 and 11 again in 1889, while in 1888 there were 17.

Take away the six Whitechapel Murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly and you are instantly back to 11 murders of adult women by knife in the whole of England in 1888.

Indeed, Caz!

In the absence of the applicable 'Whitechapel Murders', i.e. the 'Whitechapel Murders', in which death was inflicted, by way of 'Knife', ...


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Knife'¹ (Purple); Exclusive of the Applicable 'Whitechapel Murders' (Lavender): 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Knife'¹ (Purple); Exclusive of the Applicable 'Whitechapel Murders' (Lavender): 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

¹ Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', ...
- by way of 'Cut Throat' or 'Cut'/'Stab': 1883-1890
- by way of 'Knife': 1891-1893

... 1888 would seem to have been a relatively 'normal' year.

[lynn cates]

confirmation

Hello Colin. Welcome back.

Thank you so much for posting these. They seem to confirm my posts #15, #32, #35, #50, and #75. There were INDEED many murders in London in 1888.

Again, thanks!

Cheers.
LC

[claire]

Somewhere here there is a wall. I'm going to find it and...oof! Yup, that's it. And again. And again.

[Tom_Wescott]

Praise for Caz

If anyone should do a thorough write-up of the Berner Street murder (besides me, for the umpteenth time) it's Caz. She has a way of putting things in perspective that no one else thinks of. And you gotta love Colin with those charts...how does he do it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

Colin!! It's so nice to have you back, SB. I've already learned new stuff thanks to you. Keep at it.

[Colin Roberts]

Hello Colin. Welcome back.

Thank you, Lynn!

Thank you so much for posting these. They seem to confirm my posts #15, #32, #35, #50, and #75. There were INDEED many murders in London in 1888.

Relatively speaking, ...

In accordance with the Reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1883-1893:


Cases of 'Murder': Metropolitan Police District, 1883-1893 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

... there were, as you say, "many murders in London in 1888". Especially, when one considers the fact that the twenty eight cases of 'Murder' that did occur within the Metropolitan Police District, during that year, did not include the murder of Catherine Eddowes.

But, we must take into account, the fact that the overall crime rate, throughout the Metropolitan & City of London Police Districts, i.e. 'Greater London', was abnormally high, in 1888.

"Crime during the year has shown a decided tendency to increase. This fact may be accounted for, to a certain extent, by circumstances which affected the administration of the Force in a peculiar manner at different periods of the year. The agitation which centered in Trafalgar Square, and the murders in Whitechapel, necessitated the concentration in particular localities of large bodies of police, and such an increase of force in one quarter of the Metropolis, it must be remembered, is only procurable by diminishing the number of men ordinarily employed in other divisions. In the present state of the force increase of protection in the East End means diminished numbers of police in other quarters, and so long as the available force is hardly sufficient, as it is just now, for the performance of the ordinary and every day duties of the Police, any additional drain on its resources leads to diminished protection against, and consequent increase of, crime. There has been no relaxation of effort on the part of the Police to cope with crime; the fact is that the Force is overworked, and under such circumstances crime cannot be met or coped with in a satisfactory and efficient manner. The statistics of crime will be found in the tables attached. I need not do more than merely allude to the extraordinary series of murders which occurred in Whitechapel, which gave rise to the greatest excitement in London. I regret to say that in spite of most strenuous efforts on the part of the Police, the criminal has up till now remained undiscovered." [sic]

James Monro,

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Is it possible that this increased rate of crime 'set the stage', so to speak, for the murder of Elizabeth Stride? Of course, it is!

But, I am inclined to believe -and, very much so - that the murder of Elizabeth Stride ...

"I need not do more than merely allude to the extraordinary series of murders which occurred in Whitechapel, which gave rise to the greatest excitement in London." (My Emphasis)

... was part of an "extraordinary series of murders" (My Emphasis), - as well as having been part of a hyper-extraordinary sub-set of that series, i.e. the so-called 'Double Event' - that may have helped to 'set the stage', for the observed increase, in the overall crime rate.

---

I won't 'beat around the bush', Lynn.

I have returned to Casebook, and entered this discussion, specifically, because I believe that you and 'Fisherman' are attempting - either wittingly, or unwittingly - to apply a certain degree of 'spin' to the argument that the so-called 'Double Event' was not, in fact, extraordinary.

Instances of domestic homicide, here, and infanticide, there, are plainly and simply irrelevant; and, quite frankly, ... need not apply.

What is relevant, when attempting to gauge the extraordinary nature, of the so-called 'Double Event', is instances of uninhibited slaughter, to which there were no known witnesses, for which there was no apparent 'rational' motive, in which there was no attempt to conceal corpus delicti, and, which occurred within some reasonable degree of deviation - let's say, ... eight-to-ten standard deviations - from the murder-site mean center that is applicable to those murders, which are most widely attributable to 'Jack the Ripper' (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly).

In light of the fact that only fifteen registered deaths of female adults, throughout England, were classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', in 1888: The occurrence of two such deaths, i.e. the murders of two vagrant dolly-mops, - whose last known addresses, incidentally, were separated by just 120 yards - by way of having their throats cut, within a span of just one hour, and within a distance of just 950 yards, of each other, was truly extraordinary.

And, regardless of whether these two dolly-mops were felled by the same hand; the remarkable proximities of their murders, with regard to both time, and placement, should not - under any circumstances, whatsoever - be trivialized.

---

Incidentally, in light of the fact that only fifteen registered deaths of female adults, throughout England, were classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', in 1888: The murder of Sarah Brown does not serve to marginalize the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event'. It serves to make it even more extraordinary!

---

I will return, later this weekend, with some estimations of the perceptual probability, chance, and odds, - i.e. the probability, chance, and odds that I believe should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888 - of two independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', occurring within the same hour, within the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'.¹

¹ i.e. the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', regardless of whoever/whatever 'it' - he, she, or they - happened to be.

Again, thanks!

You are most welcome, Lynn!

Somewhere here there is a wall. I'm going to find it and...oof! Yup, that's it. And again. And again.

And you gotta love Colin with those charts...

Thanks, Tom!

Colin!! It's so nice to have you back, SB.

Thanks, Ken!

[Fisherman]

Colin Roberts:

"I have returned to Casebook, and entered this discussion, specifically, because I believe that you and 'Fisherman' are attempting - either wittingly, or unwittingly - to apply a certain degree of 'spin' to the argument that the so-called 'Double Event' was not, in fact, extraordinary."

Let´s skip the wittingly or unwittingly business and be very straightforward with no "spin" at all, Colin: if it WAS a true double event, it was extraordinary. If it was not, is was extraordinary anyway, in the respect that two murders within such a short space in time and so close to each other geographically, are ALWAYS extraordinary.
But Strides murder being extraordinary in this context does not in any fashion tell us anything at all about the identity of her killer. It only tells us that there either was an element of coincidence involved - or there was not.

Whenever a killing takes place within a short span of time and close in geography to another killing, it is reasonable to suggest that the perpetrator was one and the same. That must be a main line of inquiry. It applies in this case too.

But the moment we satisfy ourselves that it MUST have been so, we are doing ourselves a disservice. The door must be left open for another killer at any time, until the case is proven and closed.

Proving the case involves looking at the case-specifics. And here, they differ very much inbetween Stride and the other four canonicals. And that does NOT strengthen the one-killer scenario; it DETRACTS from it. I think most people would agree about that.

I have no trouble acknowledging that Strides killer may have been interrupted. Nor do I have any problems with a scenario where he never INTENDED to eviscerate in the first place. I think both suggestions are viable, though I much favour suggestion 1 over suggestion 2 in viability, since my take on the Ripper is that the eviscerations were his main driving force.

When looking at the evidence and the timetable attached to it, my own personal feeling is that there is no source of interruption recorded that tallies with my scenario. That does not mean that there could NOT have been such a thing; someone could have, for example, rattled the handle of the kitchen door in the yard. Or the killer may simply have spooked. But he normally did NOT spook, judging by the other crimes, and my guess remains that he was not interrupted, so that means TO ME that I don´t think it was Jack.
The most telling little bit in this puzzle, though, is that the cut in the throat differed from the ones we have on the other victims. It IS shallower, and to argue that the killer may have been interrupted at the very moment he cut is an even MORE coincidental suggestion than the overall interruption theory, and so I am inclined to rule Stride out as a Ripper victim.

After this, there is the all-important discussion of the locality and the surrounding circumstances, but I will leave that aside here for now, BS man and all. I have argumented my stance so many times about that already.

My conclusion remains that Stride may well have been the victim of somebody else than the Ripper. I am not saying that I can weigh it in percentages, but I am saying that I favour her as not being Jack´s. Others have come to the same conclusion too, some of them researchers I hold high in regard, people with knowledge and backgrounds that offer good insights into topics like this one.

I very much appreciate your work, by the way - statistics are always helpful. But they are only statistics, no matter how long we stare at them and interpret away. They provide us with a rough overall background, though, and that is a good thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

reply

Hello Colin. Thanks for the kind words.

"I won't 'beat around the bush', Lynn."

Nor even the Cutbush? (Couldn't resist.)

"I have returned to Casebook, and entered this discussion, specifically, because I believe that you and 'Fisherman' are attempting - either wittingly, or unwittingly - to apply a certain degree of 'spin' to the argument that the so-called 'Double Event' was not, in fact, extraordinary."

Actually, I consider ALL murder extraordinary in one sense. As for the "Double Event," 1. No, I do not consider both murders by the same hand, but possibly similar in conception. (By the way, Christer and I have SIGNIFICANT differences in conception vis-a-vis the Stride killing. That is good--well informed, thinking adults sometimes differ.) 2. I do not consider it linked to Polly and Annie before nor MJ after.

"Instances of domestic homicide, here, and infanticide, there, are plainly and simply irrelevant; and, quite frankly, ... need not apply."

Right. There is no need to apply ANYTHING (although I am always struck by the violence in 1888 whist trawling the newspapers). But, from my point of view, a knifing (as the other one on the night of the "Double Event") need not apply either.

"What is relevant, when attempting to gauge the extraordinary nature, of the so-called 'Double Event', is instances of uninhibited slaughter, to which there were no known witnesses, for which there was no apparent 'rational' motive, in which there was no attempt to conceal corpus delicti, and, which occurred within some reasonable degree of deviation - let's say, ... eight-to-ten standard deviations - from the murder-site mean center that is applicable to those murders, which are most widely attributable to 'Jack the Ripper' (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly)."

Relevance may be where one finds it. The reasoning in the last paragraph is cogent and, I daresay, rather standard. I have no particular problem with it. I do think, however, that whilst most are researching the possibility of one killer, a lone researcher (possibly 2) might conceivably look elsewhere. Case in point: look at the claim that Barnett killed MJ. Very well, I suppose a minimal case could be concocted. But now, look what happens when we extend that to ALL the WCM. Barnett?

"In light of the fact that only fifteen registered deaths of female adults, throughout England, were classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', in 1888: The occurrence of two such deaths, i.e. the murders of two vagrant dolly-mops, - whose last known addresses, incidentally, were separated by just 120 yards - by way of having their throats cut, within a span of just one hour, and within a distance of just 950 yards, of each other, was truly extraordinary."

Yes, truly extraordinary. (I find it interesting that your criterion is cut throat--above you mentioned Tabram.) And certainly, it likely changes the inductive probability here. But an induction is STILL an induction and NEVER entails its conclusion.

"And, regardless of whether these two dolly-mops were felled by the same hand; the remarkable proximities of their murders, with regard to both time, and placement, should not - under any circumstances, whatsoever - be trivialized."

Agreed. And since I have spent--and continue to spend--beaucoups of good money and time on this, I certainly do not consider it trivial.

"I will return, later this weekend, with some estimations of the perceptual probability, chance, and odds, - i.e. the probability, chance, and odds that I believe should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888 - of two independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', occurring within the same hour, within the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'.¹"

Very well. But please to observe the ontological status of probability.

Thanks again!

Cheers.
LC