6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[c.d.]

I think we are mixing possibility and probablilty. Certainly it is possible that there was more than one killer. However I think it is quite improbable. As I stated, that is my opinion only. But if you want to provide support for the possibility argument, can you provide specific examples that meet the criteria that I laid out in post No. 221? In other words, not just examples of copycat killings, but copycat killings that involved slitting women's throats and taking out their internal organs. These killings would also have to take place in a small geographic area and occur over a short period of time.

c.d.

[Observer]

This is probably true, but the belief that Stride wasn't soliciting comes from her behavior beforehand-- getting dressed in her best, buying breath-fresheners-- things which were not apparently what she typically did before going out to solicit, and suggest a "special" night of some kind, where she was planning to enjoy herself, not a night where she was going to work.

Hi Rivkah

Do we really know how Stride would prepare her dress for going out to solicit? I'd be obliged if you could point me in the right direction regarding this observation.

Stride had just terminated a relationship, thus I'd suggest she was still taking care of her general hygine. Also she still retained a certain attractiveness when she met her end, still some pride there I'd suggest.

I'd say it would not be unreasonable for Stride to "doll herself up" (old Eglish phrase) even if she was going out to solicit. It was a week-end, and lets face it if the punter liked what he saw he come back for more.

Her teeth were in a pretty poor state though, hence the cachous. I'd also point out that it wasn't only us Brits with the grotty teeth, as suggested by a poster in the Sickert thread doing the rounds at the moment. Stride was of course Swedish. Wasn't George Washington the custodian of a lovely pair of false choppers though? Although to be fair Washington was a Brit in every thing but name.

Regards

Observer

[c.d.]

Hello Hunter,

That's a good point. We don't know (as far as I am aware) of how Liz normally dressed when she went out soliciting or otherwise. And as I have previously stated, preparing for a date and actually being on a date are two different things. Her date could have cancelled or not shown up or they could have had an argument and she was left by herself. We simply don't know.

c.d.

[Colin Roberts]

I don't know that we have enough data to determine what the odds of multiple killers are, so we can't say they are high or low, ...

We don't, and we never would, even if the murders had occurred just yesterday. There would be plainly and simply too many variables that would have to be taken into account.

Even if we could actually calculate such odds on the basis of observed data, we would be doing so with no regard for the fact that murderers commit murder when, where, why, how and upon whom they choose to do so. There is no statistical model that can take that into account.

But, we can attempt to quantify the likelihood that we should perceive of there having been a multi-murderer 'Double Event', on the basis of some of the more prominent variables that should be considered. In other words, we can at least estimate - generally speaking - a set of perceptual (perceptual, as opposed to actual) probabilities, chances and odds (against) that would help us to view the landscape from a meaningful perspective.

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab': 1881-1890

---

In Accordance with the Forty-Forth through Fifty-Third Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England:


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab': 1881-1890 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

The white prompt (arrow), for those of you that don't know, will take you directly to the post, from which the quotation is taken. This is why we should all learn to use the 'Quote' function: i.e. for the convenience of those that would like to see a quoted statement within the context, in which it was made, without having to scroll through dozens of posts in order to find it.

The above quotation is taken from post #86 in its respective thread. My participation in the discussion at hand continues through post #158:

As I do not wish to be involved in a 'Double Event' debate, I shall not be returning; unless, as was the case, just yesterday, my statistical analysis is misrepresented, by posters that either don't bother to read it, or simply don't understand it.

But I would ask that you read at least as far as post #116:

That Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur; within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region, and during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.000006386608%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 15,657,764.58

- Perceptual Odds: 15,657,763.58 -to- 1

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 23.90037 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 9.24593 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

Now, let's assume that someone has tossed a coin twenty four times in succession, and we have video evidence that toss #'s 4, 9, 16, 21 and 24 landed on 'Heads'. Messrs. Cates, Wood, Marriott, Richards, et al. then come along and insist on the basis of conjecture that all 24 tosses landed on 'Heads'.

Should we completely discount their respective theories? Of course not! But neither should we go along with them in the absence of so many pieces of the puzzle.

As photographic evidence of other tosses having landed on 'Heads' begins to emerge, we may then warm up to the theories that these gentlemen are proposing. But at this juncture, I don't believe we should do so.

~~~

I have asserted that the domestic 'cut-throat' murder in London's West End, just hours before the murder of Elizabeth Stride, should not be used as a means of propping up the argument for a so-called 'Double Event' involving more than one perpetrator; as in light of the statistical data that I have presented, the occurrence of three independent cut-throat murders would make the events of 29/30 September, 1888, even more extraordinary - not less.

But my assertion has fallen on deaf ears in some instances, as the Brown murder is still being erroneously used as a means of 'rationalizing' the likelihood of three independent cut-throat murders in one fateful six-hour period, within the confines of London's 1888 metropolis.

So should I bother with the following? Perhaps not! But here it goes:

"I pity the argument" that is based on the notion that statistically unlikely events do actually occur.

Of course they occur! This is why no one, as far as I know, is actually discounting the the very real possibility of a multi-murderer 'Double Event'.

Any event that has ever occurred can be described with certain qualifiers that make its occurrence statistically impossible.

Case in point: What is the likelihood that I would have posted this post, containing precisely the number of characters that it does, at the very moment in time that I did?

- The probability is infinitesimal and therefore effectively zero.

- The chance is infinitesimal and therefore effectively zero.

- The odds (against) are astronomical and therefore effectively infinite.

The event must be viewed as being a statistical impossibility.

What is the likelihood that my first cup of morning coffee would have contained precisely the number of water molecules that it did, at the very moment in time that it first touched my lips?

Mr. Cates tried proving that statistically unlikely events do occur by describing an incident, in which a motorist that just happened to be a symphonic musician (I believe), that just happened to have a surname that started with the letter 'E' (I believe), was killed by a rolling bale of hay. What are the odds?

His argument didn't hold a drop of water!

Any event can be viewed from a particular perspective that makes it truly unique, and therefore statistically impossible. Any event!

It is therefore the case that exceedingly extraordinary things happen every time we turn around. This of course means that a multi-murderer 'Double Event' is a distinct and very real possibility. But it is none the less an extraordinarily unlikely possibility.

[Michael W Richards]

Gee....I feel like Ive truly become entrenched in Ripperology lore when you mentioned my surname in a post with some other fine thinkers Colin.

I really like your last line in particular. Because for me, the probability that 1 killer killed both women that night, based solely on the physical evidence of each murder... independently, is slim to none. Why someone would believe that a proven mutilator would then choose to kill someone without at least attempting to achieve the given objectives of a mutilator is beyond my comprehension. Particularly when one must hypothesize why this murder stands apart from the obviously mutilated....i.e..the dreaded "interruption theory."

Because we all know enough to be confident in stating that once a killer has killed multiple times he establishes a Signature. The flexibility of Methodology aside, the Signature remains constant, and its the driving force behind the killer.

I propose to you and anyone here reading this that a Signature is indeed present in the murders of Mary Ann and Annie. It is unique. It is well defined. And it is consistent, despite the change in location.

And in these cases, despite your protestations cd, we have clear and definitive evidence that more than one person who had a definable signature worked in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Jack. The Torso killer. We also have the unique circumstances of hearings about perceived threats by individuals and organizations intent on undermining and disrupting HMG Government. Within those hearings we hear about espionage, subterfuge and criminal acts including murders. And secrecy....the overwhelming need it seems for secretive actions.

I believe thats the tableau that Fall. And without additional evidence to explain the often alarming differences in methodologies and abilities of the killer between the 5 unsolved Canonicals, I am forced to look elsewhere for explanations.

As for Liz Strides 6d...I believe thats a simple matter also. She had it, she left the lodging house with it, she is found without alcohol in her system and no recent meal, and some cashous and a maidenfern with a flower.

Where did it go? Its right there in the evidence.

All the best Colin

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Why someone would believe that a proven mutilator would then choose to kill someone without at least attempting to achieve the given objectives of a mutilator is beyond my comprehension. Particularly when one must hypothesize why this murder stands apart from the obviously mutilated....i.e..the dreaded "interruption theory."

Let me throw this possible explantion out there as wild and unlikely as it may seem. Perhaps he decided that it was better to escape and live to kill again rather then be caught and hanged.

And in these cases, despite your protestations cd, we have clear and definitive evidence that more than one person who had a definable signature worked in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Jack. The Torso killer.

I would strongly disagree that the evidence is clear and definitive. And I am not sure of why you are siting the torso killer. Do we know this was a prostitute who had her throat cut and her internal organs removed?

Can you site examples that meet the specific criteria in my post 221 where it was shown that the crimes were committed by more than one killer?

c.d.

[Sluggo]

We don't, and we never would, even if the murders had occurred just yesterday. There would be plainly and simply too many variables that would have to be taken into account.

Even if we could actually calculate such odds on the basis of observed data, we would be doing so with no regard for the fact that murderers commit murder when, where, why, how and upon whom they choose to do so. There is no statistical model that can take that into account.

But, we can attempt to quantify the likelihood that we should perceive of there having been a multi-murderer 'Double Event', on the basis of some of the more prominent variables that should be considered. In other words, we can at least estimate - generally speaking - a set of perceptual (perceptual, as opposed to actual) probabilities, chances and odds (against) that would help us to view the landscape from a meaningful perspective.



The white prompt (arrow), for those of you that don't know, will take you directly to the post, from which the quotation is taken. This is why we should all learn to use the 'Quote' function: i.e. for the convenience of those that would like to see a quoted statement within the context, in which it was made, without having to scroll through dozens of posts in order to find it.

The above quotation is taken from post #86 in its respective thread. My participation in the discussion at hand continues through post #158:



But I would ask that you read at least as far as post #116:



Now, let's assume that someone has tossed a coin twenty four times in succession, and we have video evidence that toss #'s 4, 9, 16, 21 and 24 landed on 'Heads'. Messrs. Cates, Wood, Marriott, Richards, et al. then come along and insist on the basis of conjecture that all 24 tosses landed on 'Heads'.

Should we completely discount their respective theories? Of course not! But neither should we go along with them in the absence of so many pieces of the puzzle.

As photographic evidence of other tosses having landed on 'Heads' begins to emerge, we may then warm up to the theories that these gentlemen are proposing. But at this juncture, I don't believe we should do so.

~~~

I have asserted that the domestic 'cut-throat' murder in London's West End, just hours before the murder of Elizabeth Stride, should not be used as a means of propping up the argument for a so-called 'Double Event' involving more than one perpetrator; as in light of the statistical data that I have presented, the occurrence of three independent cut-throat murders would make the events of 29/30 September, 1888, even more extraordinary - not less.

But my assertion has fallen on deaf ears in some instances, as the Brown murder is still being erroneously used as a means of 'rationalizing' the likelihood of three independent cut-throat murders in one fateful six-hour period, within the confines of London's 1888 metropolis.

So should I bother with the following? Perhaps not! But here it goes:

"I pity the argument" that is based on the notion that statistically unlikely events do actually occur.

Of course they occur! This is why no one, as far as I know, is actually discounting the the very real possibility of a multi-murderer 'Double Event'.

Any event that has ever occurred can be described with certain qualifiers that make its occurrence statistically impossible.

Case in point: What is the likelihood that I would have posted this post, containing precisely the number of characters that it does, at the very moment in time that I did?

- The probability is infinitesimal and therefore effectively zero.

- The chance is infinitesimal and therefore effectively zero.

- The odds (against) are astronomical and therefore effectively infinite.

The event must be viewed as being a statistical impossibility.

What is the likelihood that my first cup of morning coffee would have contained precisely the number of water molecules that it did, at the very moment in time that it first touched my lips?

Mr. Cates tried proving that statistically unlikely events do occur by describing an incident, in which a motorist that just happened to be a symphonic musician (I believe), that just happened to have a surname that started with the letter 'E' (I believe), was killed by a rolling bale of hay. What are the odds?

His argument didn't hold a drop of water!

Any event can be viewed from a particular perspective that makes it truly unique, and therefore statistically impossible. Any event!

It is therefore the case that exceedingly extraordinary things happen every time we turn around. This of course means that a multi-murderer 'Double Event' is a distinct and very real possibility. But it is none the less an extraordinarily unlikely possibility.

The FACT remains that a "Double Event" did indeed occurr. As we all know, both Liz and Kate were murdered within 30 to 45 minutes of each other. However unlikely.

[c.d.]

I know that where I live (Washington, D.C.), you sometimes see something similar on the news involving attempted abductions of young girls. The first girl screams or manages to get away and the abductor runs off only to try the same thing with another girl a little while later.

c.d.

[Colin Roberts]

… for me, the probability that 1 killer killed both women that night, based solely on the physical evidence of each murder... independently, is slim to none. Why someone would believe that a proven mutilator would then choose to kill someone without at least attempting to achieve the given objectives of a mutilator is beyond my comprehension. Particularly when one must hypothesize why this murder stands apart from the obviously mutilated....i.e..the dreaded "interruption theory."

Because we all know enough to be confident in stating that once a killer has killed multiple times he establishes a Signature. The flexibility of Methodology aside, the Signature remains constant, and its the driving force behind the killer.

I propose to you and anyone here reading this that a Signature is indeed present in the murders of Mary Ann and Annie. It is unique. It is well defined. And it is consistent, despite the change in location.

"Why someone would believe that a proven mutilator would then choose to kill someone without at least attempting to achieve the given objectives of a mutilator is beyond my comprehension."

And why someone such as you, Mike, would delve so deeply into the minutiae of this particular case whilst completely ignoring the general facets of the 'Yorkshire Ripper' case is beyond my comprehension.

Lynn even goes so far as to boast of his ignorance of serial killer cases, and state that he shall remain purposefully unenlightened. But I suppose that if he wants to come across as being a philistine in this particular instance, then that is his prerogative.

Peter Sutcliffe, Mike, was interrupted in seven of the twenty assaults, for which he was convicted. Some of the interruptions were real, in as much as they involved approaching motorists and/or pedestrians, while some of them were not real, in as much as they involved nothing more than Sutcliffe's own apprehensions and second thoughts.

Stride's murderer could have been interrupted by something as insignificant - to you and me - as a sudden change in the wind's direction. Such an interruption could have occurred just as he was beginning to cut Stride's throat, in which case the cut might have ended up being less profound than it otherwise would have been.

I've made this point on many occasions, Mike, but it always ends up being ignored by those – such as you - that are lobbying for acceptance of their pet theories involving a multiple-perpetrator 'Double Event'.

Sutcliffe used ligature strangulation in two of the attacks, for which he was convicted, rather than his trusty hammer, because he wasn't actually hunting when he came across the two respective victims, and therefore was not equipped with his weapon of choice.

Several of Sutcliffe's victims were not soliciting when he confronted them because they plainly and simply were not prostitutes: Period! But he believed - in his own distorted perception – that they were prostitutes, and that is all that mattered.

One of Sutcliffe's victims was murdered within the confines of her own apartment. Imagine that! Her wounds, needless to say, were more extensive than those of most of his other victims. Hard to believe, isn't it?

All the best Colin

And to you as well, Mike.

[Colin Roberts]

The FACT remains that a "Double Event" did indeed occurr. As we all know, both Liz and Kate were murdered within 30 to 45 minutes of each other. However unlikely.

And ???

[c.d.]

Hello Colin,

A very interesting and informative post. As you point out, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules to indicate what might cause paranoia in someone committing a crime especially when the penalty for said crime would be hanging.

As far as Sutcliffe being interrupted, was there an instance where he killed shortly after abandoning his first intended victim?

c.d.

P.S. Also kudos for using the term philistine. I think that might be a first on these boards.

[lynn cates]

widespread

Hello CD. Thanks.

Conversely, can you cite a sexual serial killer stalking the streets of London?

Is it barely possible that NEITHER was "widespread"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Odds, isn't it?

Hello Rivkah.

"Things that are statistically unlikely still happen, and asking after they happen, whether they could have happened is frivolous, because clearly they did."

Excellent point. What are the odds on the human genome arising?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

Conversely, can you cite a sexual serial killer stalking the streets of London?

Is it barely possible that NEITHER was "widespread"?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Well if one is rare wouldn't two or more be even rarer?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Rivkah.

"Things that are statistically unlikely still happen, and asking after they happen, whether they could have happened is frivolous, because clearly they did."

Excellent point. What are the odds on the human genome arising?

Cheers.
LC

Exactly. But flip that around. They did happen but they are STILL statistically unlikely meaning that they are rare and we would not expect to see them with any sort of frequency. And doesn't that lead us to the question of probability?

c.d.