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

[lynn cates]

rare

Hello CD. Thanks.

I'll let you answer that by performing the following thought experiment.

A good single malt, say a 50 year old Macallan, can be quite expensive, since rare.

http://www.bornrich.com/entry/50-year-old-macallan-whisky-sets-record-at-the-world-s-biggest-whisky-sale/

Now, would a second bottle make the first more or less expensive?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

lack of interest

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

In which case, why should one care a feather or a fig for statistical probability?

No offense, but I have no time for such twaddle. I have a case to solve.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

I have to say that I have never been accused of putting out "twaddle" before. B.S.? Yes, many, many times. I seem to recall Dr. Watson using that term (twaddle I mean, not B.S.), but I digress.

Anyway, I shall attempt to clarify my position and then we can move on. I have no doubt that copycat crimes exist but while all copycats might be equal, I think some are more equal than others.

Now if I am watching the news and they report numerous incidences of schools being vandalized or car windhshields being broken over a period of a few weeks, I would have no problem imaging somebody seeing those reports and thinking hey, that sounds like fun, and hence a copycat is born. I would be much less inclined to think copycat if they started reporting on women having their throats sliced and internal organs removed.

That leads us to Whitechapel. Is it possible that more than one killer was slitting throats and taking organs at that time. Sure. If so, would most people consider that to be quite unusual? I, for one, would say yes. I would want to see evidence to support that it was more than one man. I don't see anything so drastically different in the murders that a reasonable and quite plausible explantion can't account for it.

You and others think differently and that's fine.

c.d.

[Colin Roberts]

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

Not as far as we know, c.d.

"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?

What are the odds that Lynn placed me on his 'Ignore' list a few weeks ago, after I told him that his arrogance was as contemptible as - I am sure - my own must be?

What are the odds that this debate will have led to anything at all, ten years from now?

What are the odds that I will allow myself to engage in this sort of foolishness again, at any point in the near future?

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

Is it barely possible that NEITHER was "widespread"?

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

Well put, c.d.

Precisely the point that I am attempting to make regarding references to the Brown murder that are intended to somehow 'rationalize' the extraordinary unlikelihood of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event'.

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.

"… 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."

This portion doesn't make any since as I apparently stumbled on my own line of reasoning. It should have read:

… the Brown murder is still being erroneously used as a means of 'rationalizing' the likelihood of two independent cut-throat murders in one fateful forty-five-minute period, within the confines of London's 1888 inner East End.

[Colin Roberts]

In which case, why should one care a feather or a fig for statistical probability?

No offense, but I have no time for such twaddle.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Colin,...I believe you already know Ive always enjoyed your very thoughtful analysis and commentary, but I have to say that statistics and story lines taken from the histories of known and identified serial killers,...(as fascinating as they are), have zero impact on my own perceptions of the facts in these particular cases. Because my friend unless you know what you are analyzing you cannot use some external filter like statistical data from a very distinct and unique group within known killers to solve the riddles.

Im not saying serial killer data isnt valuable when analyzing serial killings...it surely is. Im saying that no-one knows if we are looking at one or more multiple murders, a string of unrelated murders by killers, or some murders within a group that are intended to be perceived as part of a preceding group. The physical evidence suggests that within the Canonical Group we have a skilled and knowledgeable killer who somehow loses those abilities on some later murders, uses his right hand and his left equally as his primary knife hand,....(something less than 1% of ANY given population would be capable of),.. and kills middle aged women working outdoors and young women in the own beds indoors. Hence...the evidence, such as it is, does not allow for a serial killer conclusion....at this point in time. In fact, some physical evidence at some murder scenes suggest there was no such animal at work here at all.

What you and cd and many, many folks seem to ignore are the dramatic differences in some later murders from the 2 early ones. The only ones that seem to show definitive traits and continuity in signature and method.

In the Canonical Group there are 2 women who were killed by someone intent on murdering strangers and mutilating their abdomens, with a goal of organ extraction from that region. The victims were both soliciting at the time, they were both homeless, they were slightly incapacitated... one by booze the other by illness, and they both die by the hand of someone who knew how to use a knife judiciously and how to access the internal organs. We cannot say that that same man killed Liz for very obvious reasons, and we have medical opinion that the next 2 victims were killed by someone without a modicum of those 2 attributes.

In London in 1888 there were a plethora of bad men living in and around Whitechapel,... weve all seen the names of dangerous people with mental illness, we have convicted murders and some that will be convicted of that crime later, we have criminals and thugs in abundance, we have spies and dynamiters, we have street people coming and going without any knowledge of their character or their morality. We have someone who for years makes Torsos out of complete women. We have minor knife attacks and knife sightings all over the place, and we have a climate within the geographical area that spawns anger, resentment, frustration and in some cases activism.

To throw out all that London was at that time, all the possible characters who with a slight nudge could have easily killed others,.. in favor of a solo killer who.. by the evidence.. changes his signature, his targets and loses his abilities with each new crime isnt good investigative work, in my opinion.

Instead of bemoaning why others dont accept that.. statistically speaking.. a serial killer is high on some probability chart, use only the individual murder evidence and try to explain the above. Tell me why I should buy into an argument that suggests the clear and definitive motives in the first 2 murders abandons them for the 3rd. Tell me how someone skilled and knowledgeable can kill only 2 women out of 5 with those attributes being present. Tell me why a man who is intent on murder to facilitate mutilations suddenly changes his tune. Tell me why a man who hunts randomly acquired middle aged prostitutes out on the streets at night suddenly chooses to kill young women indoors in their own beds. Just use the known Canonical Group murder evidence without any serial killer dogma when you do.

In fairness to myself and Lynn and others...it would be so refreshing to hear someone confess that there is insufficient evidence to conclude a serial killer killed the Canonicals, as there is to conclude at this time that they were not killed by one. Many options are still on the table...despite the narrow view that these unsolved murders have been solved simply by the proclamation that they were connected based on serial killer data.

Cheers...and as always, best regards.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello CD. Thanks.

Your bottom line is mine. "That's OK."

Cheers.
LC

[Sluggo]

And ???

These murders have 2 completely different MO's. Not the same killer. The fact that they happened on the same date is purely coincidence.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

Your bottom line is mine. "That's OK."

Cheers.
LC

Glad to hear it, Lynn.

These boards would be quite dull if everybody agreed on everything.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Glad to hear it, Lynn.

These boards would be quite dull if everybody agreed on everything.

c.d.

No, it wouldn´t.

Fisherman

[c.d.]

No, it wouldn´t.

Fisherman

I disagree. See how exciting that was?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

I disagree. See how exciting that was?

c.d.

Yeah, c.d! I think your right!

Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

I don't know how I missed this earlier today.

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

Is it barely possible that NEITHER was "widespread"?

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

What c.d. is suggesting, and correctly so, is that if an event were unlikely to occur in the first place, then an independent second occurrence of the same sort of event would be even more unlikely.

I'll let you answer that by performing the following thought experiment.

While you're looking down your nose at everyone, Socrates, …

A good single malt, say a 50 year old Macallan, can be quite expensive, since rare.

http://www.bornrich.com/entry/50-year-old-macallan-whisky-sets-record-at-the-world-s-biggest-whisky-sale/

Now, would a second bottle make the first more or less expensive?

… perhaps you should take a moment to learn the difference between probability theory and the economic model of supply-and-demand.

These murders have 2 completely different MO's. Not the same killer. The fact that they happened on the same date is purely coincidence.

How convincing!

Boy, do I feel stupid!

[Sluggo]

I don't know how I missed this earlier today.



What c.d. is suggesting, and correctly so, is that if an event were unlikely to occur in the first place, then an independent second occurrence of the same sort of event would be even more unlikely.



While you're looking down your nose at everyone, Socrates, …



… perhaps you should take a moment to learn the difference between probability theory and the economic model of supply-and-demand.



How convincing!

Boy, do I feel stupid!

I do love healthy debate!

[Colin Roberts]

In which case, why should one care a feather or a fig for statistical probability?

No offense, but I have no time for such twaddle.

Apparently, my response to Mr. Cates's boorish philistinism is not being depicted in certain browser and/or device platforms.

Let's try again.

In which case, why should one care a feather or a fig for statistical probability?

No offense, but I have no time for such twaddle.