Probability of Double Event

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Had the man owned a gun, we wouldn't be making any comparison."

And if the Ripper had shot Liz?

Letīs be fair here, Tom. I have never stated that the good lady was a prostitute, have I? Nor have I denied that she was killed by her husband, in her home.

But that does not make her any less a woman in London who had her throat cut on the same night as the two single events, does it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"You might as well bring up statistics showing how many women died that night from any cause be it illness, childbirth or being run over with a cart and then use that to show that it was normal for women to die on any given night."

Geez, C.d - if I am disingenuous to compare two violent murders commited by knife - what does it make you, comparing a cold-blooded murder with childbirth ...?

Can we please apply some sort of proportion sense here?

Iīm off for tea now - and Iīm not really sure that I dare to see what will follow while Iīm away!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Because I like you, Fisherman, I wouldn't dream of accusing you of making stuff up. But I will suggest you're wrong on almost every count.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scorpio]

If I am correct in recalling a 1988 Ripper Programme starring Lewis Collins, the timing of how fast the Ripper could walk from one destination to another was an issue. ie How fast could the Ripper walk from Berner Street/Dutfield Yard to Mitre Square. Was it possible for one killer to carry out the crimes in the given time frames? Do we know the Ripper routes? If he was a resident of Whitechapel, chances are he knew a lot of shortcuts.

If we start looking at the frame of mind of the killer, then just possibly he was disturbed and wanted to find another victim to do the job properly? Which he duly did.

Busy Beaver

Hi,the Berner St/Mitre Sq time versus distance thing is not an issue. Somebody covered the distance in fourteen minutes, but i believe that Jack had about thirty minutes to accomplish this.
Scorpio

[c.d.]

C.d:

"You might as well bring up statistics showing how many women died that night from any cause be it illness, childbirth or being run over with a cart and then use that to show that it was normal for women to die on any given night."

Geez, C.d - if I am disingenuous to compare two violent murders commited by knife - what does it make you, comparing a cold-blooded murder with childbirth ...?

Can we please apply some sort of proportion sense here?

Iīm off for tea now - and Iīm not really sure that I dare to see what will follow while Iīm away!

The best,
Fisherman

The point is Fish that BOTH of those arguments are disingenuous because they fail to make distinctions. In the first instance, all women who died are lumped together regardless of how they died. In the second instance, no distinction is made as to who killed the women and whether or not they were prostitutes. Both arguments fail.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

I knew you would see the light someday, Fish. Welcome to our side.

c.d.

Must be a cold and lonely place with just you 3 there !!!!!!!

[c.d.]

Actually, Trevor, if you look at the polls that have been conducted on Casebook, we are in the majority so it is quite warm and comfortable on our side.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Either I didn't see it, or your 'point' made zero sense, like the one you just tried to make about Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well the questions in that post were plain and simple easy to understand for a person with more than one brain cell who is able apply rational and logical thinking to this mystery.

But of course I forgot they were directed at you !

[Tom_Wescott]

You should be ashamed of yourself, posing questions of logic to a drooling simpleton. You cruel, evil man, you!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Post a link to the post or thread and I'll answer your questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

You should be ashamed of yourself, posing questions of logic to a drooling simpleton. You cruel, evil man, you!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Post a link to the post or thread and I'll answer your questions.

If I do I dont know if you will be capable of finding it !

[Johnr]

Parachuting In With a "Time Out" Comment....

ERR A-HEM....

In my mind there are two considerations; one of which goes to support either sides of this debate.

One: As far as I know, there is no evidence in any of the other four canonical murders of the murderer following his potential victim around: pestering her: buying her gifts and generally schmoozing her.

Two: To those who subscribe to the theory that each of the five murders escalated in intensity. As if more violence, swifter ruthlessness and greater urgency occurred with each subsequent slaughter.
Would the Ripper if he had been thwarted in sating his gruesome appetite with Stride, have speedily chosen a replacement victim, and avenged the unsated previous attempt?

Therefore, point one suggests a different murderer, and point two, that his subsequent actions after the failed attempt on Stride, was followed by greater intensity in that next attempt.

THis only works if people believe the Ripper needed to go beyond throat-slitting to achieve his goal.
This is only my surmise.

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Tom_Wescott]

One: As far as I know, there is no evidence in any of the other four canonical murders of the murderer following his potential victim around: pestering her: buying her gifts and generally schmoozing her.

There is no evidence the Ripper did any of this in Stride's case. In fact, there's absolutely no evidence that any man bought her any gifts. There's only evidence that Stride was seen snoodling with many different men, as prostitutes are wont to do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Many-many apologies for parachuting in too, but hasn't this discussion already been conducted on THREE different threads about Stride in July 2010? Although the current thread bears the benefit of having added Eddowes to the discussion...

[The Grave Maurice]

There's only evidence that Stride was seen snoodling with many different men....

Snoodling? Are you sure you're talking about Stride's sexual encounters?

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Because I like you, Fisherman, I wouldn't dream of accusing you of making stuff up."

Good on you, Tom. And letīs face it, even if you had come up with such a suggestion, you would never find anything to back it up with.

"But I will suggest you're wrong on almost every count."

The one word I like very much in that one-liner is "suggest". There have been days when you would have opted for "tell you" instead, so Iīm pleased with the development here.

And I like you too. But donīt tell anyone.

C.d:

"BOTH of those arguments are disingenuous because they fail to make distinctions. In the first instance, all women who died are lumped together regardless of how they died. In the second instance, no distinction is made as to who killed the women and whether or not they were prostitutes. Both arguments fail."

I think, C.d, that you must be a bit more discerning in your approach here, if you forgive me for saying so. What you do on the second count here, is to A/ work from the assumption that Liz must have been killed by Jack, and B/ work from the assumption that she must have been soliciting at the time of her death. In fact, we know neither of these things - which is why we are having this discussion. And which, by the way, is why the death of mrs Brown belongs to the discussion. For if we try MY approach, that the killer may have been some sort of boyfriend of Strides, then we have an accordance with mrs Brown on that point. If she was not soliciting, we have another. And both these things are open to discussion, something of which you will be very much aware.
Itīs only when we work from the untenable demand that Jack must have killed Stride, identifying her as an unfortunate, that the Brown killing seems worlds away. Try a change of glasses, and we suddenly have something that carries a lot more of a resemblance.

The best,
Fisherman