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

[caz]

His point was just that JTR was not the only person in Victorian London who ever cut a throat, nor was it an idea that came to JTR out of nowhere.

I don't believe in cosmic forces, and I don't think that three killers in one night, or two killers, makes much of a difference one way or another, because unlikely things do happen. The killer Mike Richards brought up has no bearing on the likelihood of one, or two killers for Stride and Eddowes; it only shows that it is possible because throat-cutting was something JTR didn't own a patent on.

Hi Rivkah,

You evidently haven't read all the posts going way back, where Mike has repeatedly brought up the third murder that night to try and lend more credence to the notion of two men out cutting the throats of Spitalfields unfortunates in the space of one hour and a short walk away from each other. "See, there's another one!" Never mind the fact that the Brown murder was a solved domestic over in Westminster. Never mind the fact that a repeat offender was roaming the streets of Whitechapel at the time cutting throats. Never mind that two murderers in the one night was already an exceedingly rare event. He tries the same thing with the Torso murders, using the fact that there was another active killer around to argue for several more of the buggers.

I just made observations, not arguments, and I think I was pretty careful to state that they were not arguments. I'm not sure why you think they were circular. If I predicated anything on them, it was only to show that another theory was just as easy to whip up as some other one.

Okay, my apologies. I thought you were saying, among other things, that MJK was somehow less likely to be a ripper victim because he selected older women of roughly the same age. That would have been circular because it only applies if she is taken out of the equation beforehand. If we allow for her inclusion we allow for a killer who didn't restrict himself to victims of a certain age. I do know that others have used such circular arguments and included or excluded victims in line with their idea of what the ripper was looking for.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

From Caz...;

"You evidently haven't read all the posts going way back, where Mike has repeatedly brought up the third murder that night to try and lend more credence to the notion of two men out cutting the throats of Spitalfields unfortunates in the space of one hour and a short walk away from each other. "See, there's another one!" Never mind the fact that the Brown murder was a solved domestic over in Westminster. Never mind the fact that a repeat offender was roaming the streets of Whitechapel at the time cutting throats. Never mind that two murderers in the one night was already an exceedingly rare event. He tries the same thing with the Torso murders, using the fact that there was another active killer around to argue for several more of the buggers."

Never mind that you insist on adding an unripped victim to a multiple mutilators list of victims......if you can create a Canonical out of Liz Stride Caz then I certainly can use a 3rd throat cutting to illustrate the prevalence of that particular act.

And am I to understand by your snip in the last paragraph that you also assume the same Ripper man made the Torso's before, during and after the Fall of Terror? You seem to begrudge separating those acts from the Rippers, something which would clearly show the activities of more than one killer in operation that Fall.

You must have a bogey man fetish Caz....reminds me of a line from the Mummy where a henchman claims something is cursed, and the second henchman says..."you think everything is cursed,... this is cursed, that is cursed"....only for you I would substitute Jack for Cursed.

Its only too painfully clear that the inner demons that might cause someone to do horrific acts are present within the human species in general...not just within your Jacky boy.

Best regards

[Colin Roberts]

If two people with murderous minds live in the same area, and don't know each other, nor communicate in any way, so that one has no more idea what the other is up to than anyone else in town, then one has to more effect on the other than the previous coin toss has on the next one.

I share Colin's frustration ...

It's pointless, Caz. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

RivkahChaya is one of the most know-it-all posters to have graced us with her presence.

She refuses to accept the fact that I am making my points on the basis of the concept of Joint probability (the probability of A & B, where A and B are totally independent of each other), and tries to counter my points on the basis of the concept of Conditional probability (the probability of A given B, where A is clearly dependent upon B).

She then tries telling me …

I am arguing on the basis of 'Joint' probability, whilst you are attempting to counter on the basis of 'Conditional' probability.

If the chance of an unassisted triple play occurring during a nine-inning game of baseball is deemed to be 1-in-1,000, then the chance of two unassisted triple plays occurring during the same nine-inning game of baseball - each triple play being independent of the other - would be deemed to be 1-in-1,000,000. Period! No if's, and's or but's.

I am arguing on the basis of 'Joint' probability, whilst you are attempting to counter on the basis of 'Conditional' probability.

Yes, because you are multiplying. You use multiplication when calculating a conditional variable, like ...

… that multiplication has no place in the calculation of a Joint probability.

Again: There are none so blind as those that will not see.

And: There are none so pretentious as those that will make bold claims before checking their accuracy.

~~~

Clarification of Joint probability versus Conditional probability:

Joint:

- The probability that upon drawing two cards from a deck of 52, they will each turn out to be an Ace

As we are dealing with two independent outcomes, we must return the card that is drawn on the first attempt to the deck, before drawing for the second attempt.

Probability of Ace and Ace = 4/52 X 4/52 = 0.59%, i.e. a chance of 1 in 169.

In this instance, the second outcome, i.e. the second Ace, DOES NOT depend upon the first outcome, i.e. the first Ace, in any way, shape or form.

Conditional:

- The probability that upon drawing two cards from a deck of 52, they will each turn out to be an Ace

As we are dealing with one independent outcome, as well as one dependent outcome, we must not return the card that is drawn on the first attempt to the deck, before drawing for the second attempt.

Probability of Ace given Ace = 4/52 X 3/51 = 0.45%, i.e. a chance of 1 in 221.

In this instance, the second outcome, i.e. the second Ace, DOES depend upon the first outcome, i.e. the first Ace, and entirely so.

Now, what is the probability that we will soon be witness to RivkahChaya entering stage right, to tell me just how wrong I am, and then exiting stage left, without bothering to check the accuracy of her claim?

[caz]

Never mind that you insist on adding an unripped victim to a multiple mutilators list of victims......if you can create a Canonical out of Liz Stride Caz then I certainly can use a 3rd throat cutting to illustrate the prevalence of that particular act.

Hi Mike,

I only insist on my prerogative not to rule out Stride on other people's invalid or poorly reasoned grounds.

If you can only site the Westminster case to illustrate a 'prevalence' of throat cutting murderers (plural), then you either don't know the meaning of the word 'prevalence' or you have no argument. We already knew there was a prevalence of the actual act of throat cutting, in just a tiny part of the East End, over a 70-day period of 1888, affecting women described as 'unfortunate' - and that one man was almost certainly responsible for cutting two or more of the throats concerned.

And am I to understand by your snip in the last paragraph that you also assume the same Ripper man made the Torso's before, during and after the Fall of Terror? You seem to begrudge separating those acts from the Rippers, something which would clearly show the activities of more than one killer in operation that Fall.

No, I 'assume' very little. So I don't 'assume' the same man who was cutting throats and leaving his victims where he cut them was also responsible for the torso murders, any more than I would 'assume' the former was some kind of superhuman mutilator who would never have left a victim unripped. On current information I can neither rule him out of the torso murders nor rule him in. However, for me he will remain the prime suspect for all the other unsolved Whitechapel murders unless some real evidence comes to light that another hand was responsible for any of them.

You must have a bogey man fetish Caz....

Gee thanks, and not even a little bit personally insulting.

I suspect there are still many, many more of us who allow for one bogey man murdering the majority of the victims, than those who must have several additional bogey men to account for murders that don't match the very precise specifications they have arbitrarily set for one of those bogey men's mentality, decision making and behaviour, based on just one or two of the crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

.... We already knew there was a prevalence of the actual act of throat cutting, in just a tiny part of the East End, over a 70-day period of 1888, affecting women described as 'unfortunate' - and that one man was almost certainly responsible for cutting two or more of the throats concerned....

Hi Caz,

I suppose my posts directed at your comments can come off as insulting, what Im intending to do though is to challenge the seemingly teflon exterior you have when it comes to arguments contrary to your own.

On the above point, I have no disagreement whatsoever. You sensibly linked 2 murders with one man, and allowed for more. That being said a 5 death Canonical Group is a far cry from 2, or more murders by one man. Its a string of assumptions that ties them all together, and the loosest knot is holding Liz Stride hostage.


Best regards

[caz]

Jack off the Hook

Hi Mike,

I only have a teflon exterior when it comes to theorists trying to tell me it's 'rot' or 'fantasy' to consider that one man may have been responsible for more than just a couple of the Whitechapel murders. That's not an argument; that's a sign of a mind that has snapped shut.

And when I say that one man could indeed have been responsible for more than just two (in the absence of any evidence that clears him or incriminates anyone else) that's not an argument either; it's merely stating the bleedin' obvious. Of course he could. Doesn't mean he was. Doesn't even mean I'm claiming he was.

What's all this about 'holding Liz Stride hostage'? For heaven's sake the poor woman had her throat cut and can't tell us who killed her. This is merely about holding a known cut-throat on suspicion, while nobody can give him an alibi or prove anyone else guilty. Christ knows why you want this creep off the hook for Stride's murder, and apparently for several other murders too, when you don't even have a scrap of evidence against anyone else. But since you do want it so badly it's up to you to find that evidence and establish his innocence. Everyone else on the planet at the time has more right than he does to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

It's pointless, Caz. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

RivkahChaya is one of the most know-it-all posters to have graced us with her presence.

She refuses to accept the fact that I am making my points on the basis of the concept of Joint probability (the probability of A & B, where A and B are totally independent of each other), and tries to counter my points on the basis of the concept of Conditional probability (the probability of A given B, where A is clearly dependent upon B).

She then tries telling me …





… that multiplication has no place in the calculation of a Joint probability.

Again: There are none so blind as those that will not see.

And: There are none so pretentious as those that will make bold claims before checking their accuracy.

~~~

Clarification of Joint probability versus Conditional probability:

Joint:

- The probability that upon drawing two cards from a deck of 52, they will each turn out to be an Ace

As we are dealing with two independent outcomes, we must return the card that is drawn on the first attempt to the deck, before drawing for the second attempt.

Probability of Ace and Ace = 4/52 X 4/52 = 0.59%, i.e. a chance of 1 in 169.

In this instance, the second outcome, i.e. the second Ace, DOES NOT depend upon the first outcome, i.e. the first Ace, in any way, shape or form.

Conditional:

- The probability that upon drawing two cards from a deck of 52, they will each turn out to be an Ace

As we are dealing with one independent outcome, as well as one dependent outcome, we must not return the card that is drawn on the first attempt to the deck, before drawing for the second attempt.

Probability of Ace given Ace = 4/52 X 3/51 = 0.45%, i.e. a chance of 1 in 221.

In this instance, the second outcome, i.e. the second Ace, DOES depend upon the first outcome, i.e. the first Ace, and entirely so.

Now, what is the probability that we will soon be witness to RivkahChaya entering stage right, to tell me just how wrong I am, and then exiting stage left, without bothering to check the accuracy of her claim?

Great post Colin and very informative!

I know it isn't statistics/probability but I have also been struck by another shall we say pattern:

Martha Tabram-Aug 7 (beginning of month)
Polly Nichols- Aug 31 (end of Month)
Annie Chapman- Sep 8 (beginning month)
Stride/eddowes- Sep 30 (end of month)
Mary kelly- Nov 9 (beginning of month)

They are all murdered in a pattern on weekends or holidays in the beginning or end of the month. Now of course this could just be a coincidence but IMHO not only does it point to the murderer being employed but also perhaps that the pattern also links them to the same killer.

Now of course this pattern begs the question:
What type of employment in 1888 London might perhaps prevent a killer from killing on weekends (or at any time) in the middle of the month, either because it takes one out of town and/or has one working on middle of the month weekends?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I only have a teflon exterior when it comes to theorists trying to tell me it's 'rot' or 'fantasy' to consider that one man may have been responsible for more than just a couple of the Whitechapel murders. That's not an argument; that's a sign of a mind that has snapped shut.

And when I say that one man could indeed have been responsible for more than just two (in the absence of any evidence that clears him or incriminates anyone else) that's not an argument either; it's merely stating the bleedin' obvious. Of course he could. Doesn't mean he was. Doesn't even mean I'm claiming he was.

What's all this about 'holding Liz Stride hostage'? For heaven's sake the poor woman had her throat cut and can't tell us who killed her. This is merely about holding a known cut-throat on suspicion, while nobody can give him an alibi or prove anyone else guilty. Christ knows why you want this creep off the hook for Stride's murder, and apparently for several other murders too, when you don't even have a scrap of evidence against anyone else. But since you do want it so badly it's up to you to find that evidence and establish his innocence. Everyone else on the planet at the time has more right than he does to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Since its clear by the physical evidence in the Stride murder case that she wasnt ripped or "prepped" for ripping, nor did she have her throat cut twice, the unknown man responsible for the deaths preceding hers should not be held responsible for this murder. Without more evidence to link the killer to the killer of the first 2...not the victimology,...she is, albeit..in my own dramatic words, being held hostage within a Canonical Group.

Which makes her life an open book for all the Ripper students that want to peek in and critique her morals, her work ethic, or whathaveyou.

This thread wonders about a woman dressed nicely with accoutrements more in keeping with a social plan for the evening than a "work for doss" plan.... yet because she is lumped in with these other women we get to make all kinds of assumptions as to why she was there. Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

I would go further, and say that if it weren't for the "down on whores" line in one of the letters which we are nonetheless sure was a hoax, we wouldn't assume that any Ripper victim must have been soliciting.

[Colin Roberts]

This thread wonders about a woman dressed nicely with accoutrements more in keeping with a social plan for the evening than a "work for doss" plan.... yet because she is lumped in with these other women we get to make all kinds of assumptions as to why she was there. Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

"... the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time."

[RivkahChaya]

OK. Took me a while, but those are some of Peter Sutcliffe's victims. I'm not sure what your point is. I looked them up, and it seems like the ones you pictured are victims who were without a doubt never prostitutes, even though some of Sutcliffe's victim were.

Are you just pointing out that a serial killer can mix it up? or are you trying to suggest that the reports about these women were wrong?

BTW, it irks me to no end whatsoever, that an old newspaper article describes one of the non-prostitute victims as an "innocent victim."

[Colin Roberts]

OK. Took me a while, but those are some of Peter Sutcliffe's victims. I'm not sure what your point is. I looked them up, and it seems like the ones you pictured are victims who were without a doubt never prostitutes, even though some of Sutcliffe's victim were.

Jayne MacDonald, Josephine Whitaker, Barbara Leach, Marguerite Walls, and Jacqueline Hill: Five of the thirteen women that died at the hands of Peter Sutcliffe, i.e. the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. None of these five was a prostitute; whereas each of the other eight was not only a prostitute, but was actively soliciting at the time that she encountered Sutcliffe.

Are you just pointing out that a serial killer can mix it up?

Yes! In which case it does not matter that the victim was not soliciting. This point has been made to Michael on many occasions, but he chooses to either ignore the communication, or dodge the bullet by suggesting that modern-day serial killer cases bear no relevance to 1880's murder mysteries.

[Observer]

Hi Caz,

This thread wonders about a woman dressed nicely with accoutrements more in keeping with a social plan for the evening than a "work for doss" plan.... yet because she is lumped in with these other women we get to make all kinds of assumptions as to why she was there. Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

Best regards

Hi Mike

So no prostitute working on the streets of the East End, ever ever made an effort to spruce herself up for the benefit of the Saturday night clientele? I don't know if you're aware of the fact that some prostitutes picked up men in Public Houses, I think Stride used this method, and obviously the more alluring she was to the punters the more successfull the success rate.

You want some evidence that prostitutes considered that their state of dress might bring in more punters? We need look no further than an earlier victim of Jack the Ripper. I'd draw your attention to the words of Polly Nichol, namely

"I'll soon get my doss money. See what a jolly bonnet I've got now."

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike

So no prostitute working on the streets of the East End, ever ever made an effort to spruce herself up for the benefit of the Saturday night clientele? I don't know if you're aware of the fact that some prostitutes picked up men in Public Houses, I think Stride used this method, and obviously the more alluring she was to the punters the more successfull the success rate.

You want some evidence that prostitutes considered that their state of dress might bring in more punters? We need look no further than an earlier victim of Jack the Ripper. I'd draw your attention to the words of Polly Nichol, namely

"I'll soon get my doss money. See what a jolly bonnet I've got now."

Regards

Observer

I believe that quote had more to do with Pollys upbeat mood than a thought she would entice business with the hat Observer.

The highest rate of reported sexual diseases was within the occupation of Dockers, men who scaled fish all day, or lifted crates and boxes about, men whose hard physical work made them dirty and Im sure, less than fragrant. Those are the men that the East End Unfortunate women "served" most.

To suggest that a woman who couldnt afford her bed would buy sweets and a flower to entice a man of that ilk isnt really viable, economically or as an explanation for the accoutrements.


Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

I'd draw your attention to the words of Polly Nichol, namely

"I'll soon get my doss money. See what a jolly bonnet I've got now."

Hmm. That's not how I had understood that quote, as her "jolly bonnet" being attractive, unless there was some sort of bonnet code regarding being on-duty, and available for various extras: tilted to one side meant oral, to the other meant trios, feathers meant you could get the "girlfriend experience" for the right price, etc.*

Anyway, I understood her as saying that the fish were biting so well, she had earned enough money to buy a new hat, and the night was still young, and the lake still full.

Now, IIRC, the "jolly bonnet" bit was proceeded by a comment that she'd already earned her doss and spent it, but she'd soon earn it again. If she'd said something like "advertising pays; see what a jolly bonnet I've got," then I don't think there'd be any question that the point of the hat was to attract customers.


*Totally made all the examples up.