Probability of Double Event

[Trevor Marriott]

Not at all...there was a club full of people...some of whom testified to being outside at 12.35-40ish.



Doesn't matter a jot what 'vision' (emphasis on vision as imagination and evidence are two entirely different things and it seems a court of law places evidence in high regard) you or I conjure up. The fact remains that the killing of women on the street was unusual in Whitechapel....as per records from the Old Bailey....and two killings by two different people within an hour of each other in close proximity.....just did not happen. So the evidence tells you that actually it's highly improbable that it happened in this case. Reason: work out what is likely given what we know is true. You may find some adherents to the principle of anything is possible when you use your imagination....among the hierarchy of the former USSR.....but it doesn't wash when it comes to a murder investigation.....where evidence and reason are paramount.

If this were two different people......it would be unheard of....now considering there are a good old 60 million of us in this country....and god knows how many have lived here since 1888....it would be amazing....almost beyond the realms of imagintion...were this the one and only time such an event occurred.



Except JTR wasn't in control of all factors......let's say he'd have actually gone out with the express purpose of committing a series of murders in exactly the same fashion....it would have been difficult to achieve...given the various things that could come up unexpectedly!

You dont know what was going through his mind you like many other should stop posting all this rubbish about what was going through his mind you werent there he was never arrested and never interviewed so we dont know, end of !!!!

If the killer was a mad seaman as sugested by Chief Inspector Moore even he probabaly didnt know. At the end no one knows whether the killer or killers were cool calm and fully focused on committing these crimes of whether any psycoptahic tendencies they had totally took them over for a short time. Or whether any of them were crimes of passion.

I dont remeber any witnesses saying they were outside in the immediate location where stride was found. So are you saying the doctors got it wrong

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite correct, Mac. However, he had previously demonstrated, and would subsequently show, the capability of quickly cutting a throat to a considerable extent - in length and depth - with one sweep of a knife, to produce a rapid and significant loss of blood. These features are wholly absent from the Stride murder.

Sam
We cross knives again ! this time I am in total agreement with you I hope you are in total agreement with me

[FrankO]

I personally believe people are too hung up on the "mutilation" aspect of the killings. They are engaging in a bit of "Freudian psychology" to convince themselves that the Ripper WAS a "mutilation killer". That is what "drove him" they will claim.

You may call it what you like, Pinkerton, but the fact remains that the murderer prolongued his stay at the crime scenes in order to inflict those mutilations, thereby also prolonguing the very risk of getting caught - and hung. Lifting those skirts & inflicting those mutilations undoubtedly took him a fair bit longer than attacking them & cutting their throats. He didn't do that just once, but 3 times. The odds are that he mutilated female bodies because it was somehow important to him to do just that.

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

However I belive that one of the doctors suggested that the time of death of Stride was much earlier thanwhen everyone belives and that she bled to death.

The Doctors felt it was quite close to the time of discovery (12:56am, discovered at 1am), though physically speaking could have been 10 minutes earlier, which would be roughly the time Schwartz felt he witnessed the argument. This is well within the time the police thought the murder occurred, and the police investigation led to the conclusion she was a Ripper victim.

If that be the case then she was murdered by another hand, otherwise if her death had been earlier then the killer would have had the time to mutilate her body which he clearly didnt.

Sometimes I'm amazed you used to be a cop. The time of death does not preclude the Ripper having been interrupted. Conversely, the killer choosing not to mutilate her of his own free will does not mean he wasn't the Ripper.

Ther are those who want to beleive she was killedby the ripper who will no doubt want to disregard the doctors opinion.

You mean like every single writer on the case...ever? Dr. Phillips was of the opinion that Eddowes was NOT a Ripper victim and that Stride probably was, but he only felt certain about Nichols, Chapman and Kelly having been slewed by the same hand.

On the other side those who dont subscribe to her being killed by the same hand as Eddowes will use it to corroborate their views.

A very fair statement. Let's hope this starts a trend.

One also has to look at the wound inflicted on Stride, the way it was inflicted is so different to the others, add to that all the other major issues i.e differnet time, loctaion etc.

Killed by a single stroke of a sharp knife across the jugular. This is not something your average man could have pulled off, as even rudimentary research will tell you. Dr. Phillips even remarked on this in relation to Stride, but you seem to be picking and chosing your medical evidence. As for time, Stride was killed in the same hour as Eddowes, so hardly a difference. And location, last I checked they were all killed in the East End of London - the same side of the same city, so no problem with location.

Balance of probability is that she was not a ripper victim and dont let Mr Wescott convince you otherwise.

Thank you for spelling my name correctly. Another anomaly I hope to see become a trend. And I agree, nobody should let me convince them, or you, or any writer. They should let the evidence lead them to the truth, as it has done for me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

However, he had previously demonstrated, and would subsequently show, the capability of quickly cutting a throat to a considerable extent - in length and depth - with one sweep of a knife, to produce a rapid and significant loss of blood. These features are wholly absent from the Stride murder.

Smooth maneuver, Sam. But you know full well that Stride's scarf got in the way of the blade, as would have her positioning over jagged stones and against the wall. This presented obstacles not present at the other murder scenes that would more than amply explain why her wound was not as deep as you would like it to have been. And there's that oft forgotten fact that the Ripper was a human and not a robot, so one might expect the kind of disparity one finds throughout all the murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;148758]The Doctors felt it was quite close to the time of discovery (12:56am, discovered at 1am), though physically speaking could have been 10 minutes earlier, which would be roughly the time Schwartz felt he witnessed the argument. This is well within the time the police thought the murder occurred, and the police investigation led to the conclusion she was a Ripper victim.



Sometimes I'm amazed you used to be a cop. The time of death does not preclude the Ripper having been interrupted. Conversely, the killer choosing not to mutilate her of his own free will does not mean he wasn't the Ripper.

Of course the time is relevant do you not read the posts properly. If the killer simply cut her throat and left her to die that points to another killer otherwise he would have mutilated her how long does it take to stick a knife in someones abdomen several time "seconds"

If I was still a cop I might be arresting you for masquerading as a writer


Killed by a single stroke of a sharp knife across the jugular. This is not something your average man could have pulled off, as even rudimentary research will tell you. Dr. Phillips even remarked on this in relation to Stride, but you seem to be picking and chosing your medical evidence. As for time, Stride was killed in the same hour as Eddowes, so hardly a difference. And location, last I checked they were all killed in the East End of London - the same side of the same city, so no problem with location.

Sometimes you talk utter crap (most times)

But some cant see the truth when its staring them in the face, and when they finally look it scares them because it goes against all they have beleived in for many years. Hard to change for some people but one hopes given long enough and many nights of sitting in a dark room pondering they may finally see the light.

[Sam Flynn]

Smooth maneuver, Sam. But you know full well that Stride's scarf got in the way of the blade

Surely not the same knife that later cut through layers of Eddowes' clothing, Tom?

as would have her positioning over jagged stones and against the wall. This presented obstacles not present at the other murder scenes

It would only have taken a fleeting second to inflict a second, deeper cut... even if it weren't intended as a preamble to mutilation, but as a simple making-sure that the victim was dead.

[Chava]

Gareth, how nice to see you back!

(I still think Stride was a Ripper victim, though. Despite my recent posts about probability!)

[Fisherman]

A good morning to all of you Casebookers - but a very special good morning to Sam, who has found his way back to the threads! I think I speak for a good many of us when I say that you have been very much missed!

Back to business:

"I acknowledged (if you re-read my post) that Whitechapel was one of the most crowded areas did I not? However it is still only a tiny fraction of the population of London of the time. And crimes in Whitechapel represented only a tiny percentage of crimes throughout London."

Pinkerton, the one and only thing that carries relevance here is the combination of two facts: Whitechapel was crowded and crime rates were very high. The fact that Whitechapel crimes only made up a "tiny" fraction of the London crimes is uniteresting. The fact that it made up an ever tinier fraction of the British crimes on the whole is just as uninteresting. That does in no way detract from the SPECIFIC crime rate and crowdedness attaching to Whitechapel. No other part of any city or any country enters the discussion. To say that would be to say that a Colombian drug dealer would never kill anybody since crime rates are low in Tokyo.
We are dealing with an area with very many people and very high crime rates, and thus we are dealing with a kind of environment that is more likely to produce two killings in an hour with different perpetrators than most other environments. It very much belongs to the discussion.

"you are making it sound like almost every woman murdered during this time would have had their throats cut with a knife"

I can´t rule over what you think you hear, Pinkerton - what I am saying, though, is that knife violence and throat-cutting was more of an ordinary occurence then than it is now, and that we need to couple it with the fact that the papers wrote about it every day, perhaps putting ideas into people´s minds.

"They are engaging in a bit of "Freudian psychology" to convince themselves that the Ripper WAS a "mutilation killer". That is what "drove him" they will claim."

Ehrm ... yes. Unless he happened to cut up four women and rummage about inside them by mistake, I think that it is a reasonable thing to claim. Let´s not loose our grip on reality, Pinkerton. What would it take for you to believe in a killer driven by an urge to mutilate? Surely you can see the relevance in what he did, putting his own life on the line to see it through?

"There is no need to get "testy" Fisherman. We are having a friendly debate (at least I hope we are). If my language was too patronizing in my previous posts then I apologize."

Apologies accepted, Pinkerton. And true enough, it was your wording about the possibility of another killer, something you stated was beyond the limits of credibility, that produced my bad mood. I am all for a friendly debate, just like you, but obviously faulty suggestions that I cannot possibly be correct will not function, no matter how much friendlyness and how big smiles they are accompanied by.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

I'd say, bloody marvellous, Sam Flynn is back--if it weren't for the fact he'll tick me off for going off topic
*does pleased dance*

[caz]

It would only have taken a fleeting second to inflict a second, deeper cut... even if it weren't intended as a preamble to mutilation, but as a simple making-sure that the victim was dead.

Good to see you back, Sam!

And even better to see you making such a clear-cut argument for the ripper being responsible, and against a one-off, inexperienced throat cutter, professional hit man or close personal acquaintance of the victim.

Naturally, a perfect stranger with very recent experience of delivering fatal throat cuts quickly, cleanly, silently and efficiently would not have worried too much whether he left Stride dead or for dead, before hurrying off to find a more willing victim in a more mutilation-friendly location. She could not have whispered the ripper's name to a club member with her dying breath if she didn't know him from Adam, and if she did survive the single cut he would not risk humiliation as the worst hit man in London.

In short, only the ripper could afford not to make absolutely sure she was beyond help, but as it happens the single cut was enough and her killer may have known it instinctively.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"In short, only the ripper could afford not to make absolutely sure she was beyond help, but as it happens the single cut was enough and her killer may have known it instinctively."

Well, that´s that, then!

... then again, I do think we may be able to produce a case or two from history where a man with an intention to kill may have botched the job. And a few more where people who never did have that intention, but instead were the victims of an uncontrollable rage, people that cut away, struck away, throttled away, in a not very composed fashion, leaving others with cracks in their skulls instead of bashed-in brains, people gasping and regaining their breath after some time - and women with their throats cut in a manner where they either did not die at all, or at least not died instantly. Which reminds me of ...

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Clutching at straws there, Fish.

And when only a handful of women are murdered in London during the LVP in an ENTIRE YEAR, and throughout the ENTIRE CITY OF LONDON, it stretches ANY SENSE of believability to think that two prostitutes could have their throats cut with a knife, within a mile of each other, and within an hour of each other, by the hand of two different unrelated killers.

And I maintain that those who believe Stride was not a Ripper victim are engaging in "magical thinking" and "emotional reasoning". I don't mean to sound insulting but I feel like I am debating someone who thinks the earth is flat and nothing I say will convince them otherwise.

Hi Pinks,

Actually, Colin Roberts recently came up with figures for the WHOLE OF ENGLAND, for adult women murdered by knife, in 1888 and the years immediately before and after. That's the only relevant comparison in my view, so anyone who invokes the "rampant East End [blade or otherwise] crime" argument for Stride being a common example of this, and not the ripper's work, is pulling the wool over their own eyes, if not trying to do it to others.

Adult women knifed to death anywhere in the country numbered eleven in 1887 and again in 1889, but - what do you know? - there was a whacking great percentage rise to seventeen in 1888, which takes care of the six cases known fondly as the Whitechapel Murders from Tabram to Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Actually, that would provide any killer with the perfect alibi, should they want to; strike at the same night and area as another murder, and you are in the clear.

Except that Stride's killer (if not the ripper) would have needed to be psychic to guess that Eddowes would follow within the hour, and then, as people keep trying to argue, he could have inflicted more damage in seconds (either a second throat cut or a rip across the abdomen) but didn't, which would make this the worst copycat attempt in the history of crime.

An alibi is proving you were somewhere else at the time of the crime, so whoever killed Stride didn't have one. In the event, if that man had been found, we absolutely know that he'd have needed a bloody good alibi for each of the other murders, or he'd have hanged for them, even if Stride had not died from her single wound.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In fact, there is good reason to believe that Jack was the killer of Stride. But that does NOT owe to how the cut on Strides neck looked. It owes to the fact that we KNOW that he was active on the night, and we KNOW that he was in the vicinity, and we can work out a perfectly feasible schedule with one stop in Berner Street and one at Mitre Square. That is the most compelling reason to dub Jack the killer of Stride.

Now you're talking - and we can add in the sheer rarity of adult women getting murdered by a cut to the throat anywhere in England at the time.

But the location, the timing, the cut, the left-out mutilation, the differing position of the body, the noted affectionate meeting with Marshall´s man, the BS man incident - they all tell a different story altogether. And all of these deviations belong to one victim and one victim only. It´s not as if we had the BS man scene with Eddowes, a shallow cut only to Kelly´s neck, Chapman left un-mutilated due to Cadosche scaring the Ripper off or Nichols cut at closing time for the pubs - no, ALL of the differences, each and every one of them, are collected at one and the same spot - Dutfield´s Yard.

Yes, you've noticed - all the victims were not the same; did not behave the same; did not give their killer an identical murder opportunity. Well done. You'd be surprised at how many of those who claim to be here only for the poor victims think of the ripper's victims as fembots, dancing to his tune and not deviating from it.

You miss the point here by a whisker: had Lechmere aka Cross come down Buck's Row a few seconds earlier, Nichols might now be a Stride; had Cadosche poked his nose through a gap in the fence at the wrong time, Chapman might now be a Stride; had Watkins returned to Mitre Sq a bit sooner, Eddowes might now be a Stride; had Cox pounded on the door to No.13 while Blotchy was inside, to see if her neighbour was okay, she and Kelly might now be two more Strides.

If three or more fatal throat cuts in one night had been the norm for the time and place (ie London in general in 1888), the argument for three independent murderers on Sept 30 1888 would not be such a logical fallacy.

But with figures suggesting that 2 active knife murderers in one night (the unsolved ripping in Mitre Sq and the solved domestic in Westminster) made it quite exceptional in its own right, and absolutely not the norm, with only 17 knife murders of adult women in the whole of England spread over the 366 days of 1888, the argument for 3 different killers on that one night (because there were already 2) becomes untenable.

Love,

Caz
X