Probability of Double Event

[Fisherman]

Here you are, Mack. This is from the Daily Telegraph. When you read it, you must realize that this article was written in our times, when men as well as women could expect to live on average up to around 80 years of age. Back in 1888, and in the East End, life expectancy would have been a couple of decades shorter than this, meaning that the middle-age of those people would have started and finished earlier. A 58 year old man in Whitechapel of 1888 would NOT have counted for a middle-aged man - he would have passed as an old man.

Daily Telegraph
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 5:21PM GMT 16 Mar 2010

Middle age begins at 35 and ends at 58
Middle age begins in your mid-30s and ends in your late 50s, a new survey finds.

According to a study, the average Briton believes that youth ends at 35 and old age begins at 58. In between - all 23 years - is your middle age.

The news that 58 is "over the hill" may come as a surprise to anyone who has passed the milestone and feels they are not yet in the twilight of their lives.

The finding that we regard people in their fifties as getting doddery, despite the evidence that older people are living more active lives than ever, was revealed by academics from the University of Kent to a meeting of the Economic and Social Research Council, in London.

Professor Dominic Abrams, who studied data from 40,000 people across Europe, said: "The survey showed that age prejudice – being treated as "too young" or "too old" – is perceived to be a serious or very serious issue by 63 per cent of respondents, so it is obviously important to know what these age labels mean to people."

A survey asked: when does youth end and old age begin? For the UK, the average response was that you stop being young at 35, and start being old at 58.

But the figures also showed that opinions differed among the age groups. Younger people, those aged 15 to 24, thought youth ended at just 28 and old age began at 54.

Not surprisingly, people in their eighties were more generous. They regarded the final year of youth as 42, and the onset of old age as 67.

Professor Abrams, a psychologist, added: "This evidence shows that what counts as young and old is very largely down to the age of the beholder."

Men regarded the end of youth and start of old age to begin two years earlier than women did, according to results from the European Social Survey.

There were also large differences among European countries. Youth was perceived to end earliest among the Portuguese; they said it was at 29, while in Cyprus it was 45. The Portuguese also thought old age began was 51 – whereas Belgians believed it took at lot longer, at 64.

The population of the UK is ageing. Sixteen per cent of us are 65 or older, and for the first time that age group outnumbers people under 18.

++++

So there you are. By now it should be quite obvious that Marshall may very well have identified his man as middle-aged, regardless if he perceived him as being 30, 35 or 40, something we canot possibly know, since he did not say. We do know, though, that Marshall never got to see the face of his man, and the face is the one feature we mostly go by when determining age.

Summing up, there is nothing at all in the testimony that points to or even hints at Marshalls man and BS being of differing ages.

The best,
Fisherman

[Pinkerton]

Chava,
The odds of a given result of a single coin flip are 1 in 2. The odds of two coin flips coming up with the same result are 1 in 4. The formula to calculate this is simply 1 in (2 to the power of the # of flips). Therefore the odds of you getting "heads" on 50 consecutive flips is 1 in 1,125,899,906,842,624.

In other words, you can keep flipping a coin during your every waking moment. Then on your death bed you could give the coin to your son to keep flipping until he is on his death bed, and he could give the coin to his son to keep flipping until he died. And you will NEVER get 50 flips with the same result in a row. The odds of getting from the 49th to the 50th flip are irrelevant to the argument.

And the odds of Stride being killed by someone other than the Ripper who is not in collusion with him are also astronomical (just like 50 consecutive coin flips coming up with the same result).

There are a lot of incredibly intelligent people on these boards. It simply AMAZES me that some of them believe that Stride was not a Ripper victim. The only possible explanations I can come up with is that:

1--They believe there were FAR more murders of women, and prostitutes in London during this time then their were. And I don't mean they are off by a factor of two or three. I mean they are off by a factor of 10 or 100!
2--They are so emotionally invested in the theory that Stride was not a Ripper victim they are allowing it to effect their judgment (this unfortunately happens with people frequently and I am sure in some cases it happens to me as well though I try to guard against it).
3--They believe in such concepts as "fate", "luck", "karma", or the supernatural.

I'm open up to other arguments as to why people believe this!

[macknnc]

Just one thing..I'm 60...and 30 is not "middle aged" and it wasn't 30 years ago when it applied to me, either.

Was 30 middle age in 1888? Given the shorter life spans of those days, I would have to say the answer is "possibly"

Do different people see the same person with different eyes and make different judgments about their age? Of course they do.. and they do so all the time..

With all that, I see no significant difference in the two men and would assume one man was being described twice...

[Jon Guy]

Then I hope I have mistaken him for another ***hole who jumped me on a Stride thread telling me in very colorful terms how wrong I was when, as usual, I was wrong about nothing. He was set straight by someone else, I'm sure.

No, you were hopelessly wrong, perpetuating myths once again.

But I wanted to gut punch him. If it wasn't Jon, then my apologies, but if it was, then I'd love to see him hurl the same insults to my face one day. Now you've got ME worked up.

Well. just let me know when you finally get it together to leave the ranch.

[Chava]

Pinkerton, let me ask you a question. A machine calibrated for a random toss, throws an undoctored coin, and 49 times in a row it comes up heads. Do you bet heads or tails on the 50th toss? Many people will bet tails going by what's called 'the law of averages'. But in terms of statistical probability the odds are the same on the 50th toss as on the 49th toss that the coin will come down tails. The run of heads means nothing. The odds are always 50/50 in those circumstances. This is a somewhat similar situation. It really does not matter how many women get murdered every year in any given place. Women get murdered. Murderers don't look at the papers to see whether they should or should not murder given the number of women who have already been murdered. They kill because they believe they have a reason to kill. They do not check the calendar or the clock. The fact that two women have not been hitherto killed in the East End so closely together does not mean that this cannot happen. The events may or may not be linked.

[Pinkerton]

You are mistaken

No Chava women do NOT get killed like that all the time. That is the assumption too many people make that I am attempting to dispel. Look through one year's worth of Old Bailey records and see how many women you find that get murdered in an entire YEAR. You will find only a handful. And the court's jurisdiction is almost the entire city of LONDON, not just a small section like Whitechapel. And all murders go to the Old Bailey, unless the suspect is found not to be competent enough to stand trial (and this rarely happens). And I guarantee that this handful will NOT have been killed within an hour of each other, within a mile of each other, and both with their throats cut with a knife. That is why I say the odds are so fantastically stacked against Stride being killed by another.

[Chava]

But there is another possibility: Stride pisses off a customer. Or has an argument with her fancy-man. Or is desired by a man whom she's not interested in. And gets her throat cut. Meanwhile, a little while later in another part of the city, the Ripper thinks 'it's time to get one tonight!!'

As I've said, I believe Stride was killed by the Ripper. But unfortunately women get killed for personal reasons like those above all the time. And the killer either chose not to do anything further to her (if he was a 'domestic' killer) or did not get the chance to do anything further to her (if he was the Ripper). The fact that two women were killed close in MO, close in area and close in time does not guarantee that they were both killed by the same man. Absent the trademark knife work, I don't think we can ever say for sure that Stride was a Ripper victim.

[Pinkerton]

...statistical improbabilities happen every day...

Yes, but more often then not they DON'T! That's what makes them improbable!

There are only THREE scenarios I can think of for the scenario in which someone other than the Ripper killed Liz Stride. The first two are fairly unlikely, and the third is ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely.

The first scenario (the most likely of the three but still VERY unlikely) would be if there were two killers (one JTR, and the other not) working IN TANDEM. The Ripper says to the other killer "You go kill someone less than a mile away, and in less than an hour later I will kill someone also". How many cases like this have there been in history? None that I can think of, but I don't rule out the possibility that there MIGHT have been a couple (out of the HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of serial killings that we are aware of in the annals of crime).

The next most likely scenario (which is still extremely unlikely, and less likely that the first scenario) is that someone (not the Ripper) murdered Stride. The real Ripper hears about this (he would have had to have heard about it somewhat quickly) and then said to himself "Oooh! What a good idea! I'll try and get nearby where the other bloke killed the prostitute and kill one of my own within the next 15 minutes or so! This fifteen minutes represents how much time it took for him to hear about the killing, and then lure a prostitute to Mitre Square, and then murder her (unless you happen to think the Ripper just happened to be in the area of the murder and heard about it quickly).

The third scenario is so unlikely that I have a better chance of being struck by lighting AND winning the lottery within this next year. In this scenario the Ripper just HAPPENS to coincidentally murder a prostitute (without hearing of the other murder), within the hour of someone murdering another prostitute (Stride), within a mile of the other murder, and both by cutting the victim's throat with a knife. I challenge ANYONE to find such a case in the annals of crime. I think the "Amazing Randy" might even offer up a million dollars if you found such a case! In fact if you think scenario three happened, then I think there is a good chance that you already believe that events in the world are often influenced by supernatural forces...

The biggest problem with the "Stride not being a Ripper victim" argument, is similar to the "the press invented Jack the Ripper" argument. The only way either is even remotely plausible is if you believe prostitutes were being murdered in a small section of London's East End on virtually a DAILY BASIS. And this simply WAS NOT THE CASE!! Why do think the Ripper murders we so newsworthy! In fact you won't find two such murders of prostitutes on a weekly, or even MONTHLY basis anywhere in London!

[Tom_Wescott]

Jon Guy - sweetest man on the boards

I was correct, it was Jon Guy. Here's the thread. Read post #66.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=132956#post132956

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

By the bye, you were not exactly polite towards Jon Guy, were you? And he is, as far as I can tell, one of the nicest, mildest and mannerwise correct people I have come across on these boards.

Then I hope I have mistaken him for another ***hole who jumped me on a Stride thread telling me in very colorful terms how wrong I was when, as usual, I was wrong about nothing. He was set straight by someone else, I'm sure. But I wanted to gut punch him. If it wasn't Jon, then my apologies, but if it was, then I'd love to see him hurl the same insults to my face one day. Now you've got ME worked up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I am going to have to shoot myself.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Toppy

Hello CD.

"Anything but a cutaway coat thread. Please, I beg of you."

Aww, come on CD. Would you prefer a Toppy was/was not Hutch thread?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

"That's my point, a cutaway coat, which was popular with men who had money, would not be described as a 'dark jacket'."

It could well be, Tom, for the two garments could look very much alike. And we also need to take into account that Schwartz´s descripption took the road over an interpretor before it reached the paper. It presents no problem at all.

"Maybe in Sweden, where everyone dies at 50, but not in the rest of the world, and a 52 year old man would certainly not think so.

"Maybe in Sweden, where everyone dies at 50, but not in the rest of the world, and a 52 year old man would certainly not think so."

We live longer than you do, Tom. I suspect that is due to our staying away from untenable suggestions. Now, go google the American understanding of "middle-age" You will be relieved of a prejudice you don´t need, so don´t forget to thank me afterwards.

"there's nothing in the action or movements of the two men that suggest they were one and the same. For this reason, they must be thought of as two distinct individuals"

Despite the fact that they looked like twins, that is.

"I'll have to see what else you've found wrong with my simple and logical assessment of the evidence"

I can help out on that point, Tom: much as it is simple, it is not logical.

"In no way similar" indeed! Nighty night, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Holy ****. Anything but a cutaway coat thread. Please, I beg of you.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

How much read up are you on the 1880:s fashions, Tom? Back then, smallish, tight-fitting cutaway jackets became popular. Cutaways were named cutaways because there was a portion of the garment cut away on each side of the front of it, furthest down. Such a garment could easily be described a a "small coat", just as Marshall did. And Schwartz´s description only stretches to "dark jacket", giving quite little away.

That's my point, a cutaway coat, which was popular with men who had money, would not be described as a 'dark jacket'.

30 is middle-age today.

Maybe in Sweden, where everyone dies at 50, but not in the rest of the world, and a 52 year old man would certainly not think so.

But there ARE no differences, Tom, save for the ones you have thought up

It's this kind of approach you take that makes debate pointless. I'll say it again that yes, both of these men share certain similar characteristics in build, and they share them with Edmund Reid, also known to have work a dark jacket, but like Edmund Reid, there's nothing in the action or movements of the two men that suggest they were one and the same. For this reason, they must be thought of as two distinct individuals, regardless of whatever havoc that reaks on your 'Liz had a secret boyfriend' theory, which I seem to remember was 'Kidney killed Liz' until I proved to your satisfaction that Kidney did not kill Liz. I'm still reeling at how I was able to win you over on that one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I just noticed that while I was typing this, you edited and made your long post even longer, so I'll have to see what else you've found wrong with my simple and logical assessment of the evidence.