Probability of Double Event

[Errata]

I am entirely unfamiliar with British autumns. My one experience with one really only caused confusion, because how on EARTH could it be that cold and still raining. That being said....

Doesn't a fair amount of the flower's significance in the mind of a witness depend on the rarity of it? Roses are not at all uncommon in London, but they typically die at the first frost. Any roses to be had after the first frost would be hothouse flowers. Something typical impoverished flower vendors didn't have access to. They sold seasonal flowers. So if it was well after first frost, a rose would be remarkable. Before, unremarkable.

[Tom_Wescott]

A. Gardner/Best. Read the testimony and I think you’ll discover the ring of the apocryphal here. In particular, the talk about “mind that it’s not Leather Apron getting his arms round you” I find less than inspiring.

There was a third, unnamed party who corroborated Best and Gardner. Prior to viewing the body, the men made mention of the flower she had been wearing, so there's good reason to suspect they saw Liz. They also admitted having jibed the couple, which is certainly not presenting one's self in a flattering light. I think it likely they saw Liz, although the man she was with would not have been the same man Marshall saw her with later, this being indicated by the 'tall hat' the pub man was wearing versus the small hat Marshall saw on his man. Since these witnesses viewed Liz and her man for the longest amount of time, the one thing they'd be most likely to remember is the hat.

B. Brown. It has been suggested, passim, that this sighting was of another couple. Note also that, if his account is true, then Schwartz’s account is probably not since they were supposed to be roughly synchronous.

The 'other couple' in question is the young couple referred to by Fanny Mortimer. However, when the young lady was interviewed it transpired that she was not in Berner or Fairclough Street between 12:30 and 1am. The likelihood is that Brown say Stride. Considering the man was standing in from of her and she was against a wall, Brown shouldn't be expected to have seen the flower.

C. Marshall. This is far and away the most credible sighting (save Smith’s—of course). Yet, notice, Liz has no flower. For this to be a “Liz sighting,” one must find a natural account for whence the flower and at that hour (Oops! I rhymed.).

A credible sighting, to be sure, but I can't agree with Lynn and say it was more credible than any other. Although Marshall says she wore no flower, which is possible, it's also possible he did not see it because, as with Brown, the couple were standing close together.

Third, recall that Liz’s stomach was examined and no trace of malt liquor was found. (One could argue that she had gin or whisky. Indeed. But that would be a mark of disingenuousness on the medical examiner.)

There was nothing disingenuous here, simply that Phillips was only able to attest to the lack of MALT liquor. There's little question but that Liz had been drinking. She was an alcoholic, after all. If nothing else, we have the testimony from her good friend who went to the Queen's Head pub with her earlier that evening. All other witness evidence places her inside a pub (Best and Gardner) or outside a pub or drinking establishment (Marshall, Schwartz, PC Lamb, etc.).

Last, if Liz is taking a chap into the yard just prior to being cut, surely her feet would be pointing West, not East.

This is strictly a Lynnism that I don't pretend to understand any better than anyone else.

Could Liz have been soliciting? Well, it’s possible. But I think the evidence against is at least as strong as the evidence for.

All evidence points towards Stride soliciting. None points towards her on a date, or working as a spy, or whatever other nonsense gets put forth from time to time.

isn't it more or less accepted, meaning for the purposes of this post at least, "known for a fact" (as much as anything is about this case) that all the victims were at least part-time/occasional/when it was needed prostitutes?

Yes, this is a fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I don't understand the malt liquor thing. Wouldn't they have tested for alcohol in general?

As to the direction of the feet, that goes by me completely.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish and Lynn think I oversimplify things. Personally, I think they overcomplicate things.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

TomW:

"Personally, I think they overcomplicate things."

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don´t.

It´s not that simple, Wescott.

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

C.D. wrote:
As to the direction of the feet, that goes by me completely.
The direction of the bodies in action is a favorite query in Lynn Cates' thought process. It was not wrong at all to call it a Lynnism – or a LynnCatism? I've unsuccessfully tried to convince Lynn Cates that a reconstruction of body positions during an attack is possible ONLY for the very LAST part of the attack, thanks to the body/bodies found in situ. All else is conjecture.
Obviously, I'm not claiming that a reconstruction of the way an attack occurred is not possible (as in weapons, their usage, and which usage of which weapon or which blow corresponding with which injury came first). I am ONLY referring to the “geographic“ positions of the people involved in an attack. These cannot be reconstructed but for the very last part of the attack, resulting in and according to how the body was found.
And, Lynn, it's quite obvious you haven't ever been in a street fight before. Or even, in a fight at school, as a teenager. Otherwise you'd have noticed that, when fighting, people tend to turn all around the compass. And I sincerely hope that your teaching job has never required separating college students involved physically in a fight, although it would have certainly been a fitting preparation for the casebook forums.
(By the by, this is the 5th time I'm posting the exact same post in this exact same discussion. I remember that the first time it was in July.)

[mariab]

C.D. wrote:
I don't understand the malt liquor thing. Wouldn't they have tested for alcohol in general?
I've been told that doctors during autopsies even today initially detect alcohol and other substances through smell, before moving to a more sophisticated (chemical) way of detection, by blood analysis. As doctors are required to have an experienced nose in certain smells, for detecting medicinal/chemical substances. I have NO idea if Victorian doctors used any chemical tests or blood analysis for detecting alcohol or poison in the blood during autopsies. I have no idea even if blood type had been already discovered in the Victorian era, but I doubt it, since I've heard that blood type was used in World War II, but NOT World War I in blood transfusions. I know for certain that X-ray was first used during World War I (introduced by Marie Curie), but blood type? Somehow I suspect that Victorian doctors only used their sense of smell to detect substances in autopsies. At any rate, alcohol is pretty easy to detect, as is arsenic (smells like almonds), and I've been told that the mouth/breath a of person attained by tuberculosis smells “like dead leaves“, whatever that's supposed to mean exactly.

[mariab]

Wescott wrote:
Fish and Lynn think I oversimplify things. Personally, I think they overcomplicate things.
Wow, this sounds like a quote by Oscar Wilde or something. Personally I don't think that you oversimplify things, Tom, but sometimes you tend to...well, I don't wanna say that you rush to conclusions, which is a horrible thing to say to a researcher and Ripperologist and it's totally not true in your case, but sometimes you “sell“ things as if they were already established, when clearly they're not. As in the recent usage of “busted“ for Best. But it doesn't happen often.
And Lynn definitely tends to overcomplicate things, but, for a philosophy professor, it would rather surprise me if he didn't.

[c.d.]

As far as I can see it, Liz might have been killed:

1. as she walked into the yard;
2. as she was talking with her killer;
3. as she was preparing for sex;
4. during sex;
5. after sex;
6. as she was leaving the yard

She might have been spun around during the attack or changed direction after being cut. It is also possible that her killer moved her body when she was on the ground.

Taking all of the above into account, I don't see how we can possibly deduce anything from the direction of her feet.

c.d.

[mariab]

The direction of her feet can only demonstrate how she fell to the ground, and, possibly, if she was strangled (as in the possibility to detect convulsions through the state of her feet).
Intercourse having taken place could totally be detected in the Victorian era, and I remember having read an article or dissertation on casebook (possibly by Wolf Vanderlinden on Martha Tabram?) discussing police reports reporting (covertly) about this, but I don't remember if it was about the existence or the lack of trace/evidence. Kind of crucial to remember whichever it was, but I really don't.
Actually I'm still checking the second, short German proposal (for a conference) for typos and stuff, as I was completely exhausted when I concocted it yesterday (in a few minutes, and I had to keep shortening it, since it was too long.) I've just sent over the first, long one (for the job).

[Tom_Wescott]

As far as I can see it, Liz might have been killed:

1. as she walked into the yard;
2. as she was talking with her killer;
3. as she was preparing for sex;
4. during sex;
5. after sex;
6. as she was leaving the yard

Numbers 1, 3, and 6 would only have been possible if her feet had been facing north by northeast. Come on, c.d., you're embarrassing yourself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't wanna say that you rush to conclusions, which is a horrible thing to say to a researcher and Ripperologist and it's totally not true in your case, but sometimes you “sell“ things as if they were already established, when clearly they're not.

And sometimes I say certain things for effect, such as pretending I have an inflated ego, or because it gets Fisherman going. Or maybe it's because I know something you don't. I rarely say anything until I've consider all the angles. As for my 'busted Best' statement, I clearly didn't intend to imply that Best and Bulling had been arrested, although admittedly my choice of words was quite poor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Numbers 1, 3, and 6 would only have been possible if her feet had been facing north by northeast. Come on, c.d., you're embarrassing yourself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

...and if her body was turned around or moved?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

It doesn't matter. What counts is where her feet were pointing when she was found. They were pointing the wrong direction for her to have been a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Ok. Methinks I detects sarcasm.

c.d.