Probability of Double Event

[Sam Flynn]

Kate Eddowes was killed by one effective knife stroke also.

The knife stroke on Stride wasn't anywhere near as effective. She bled to death rather slowly, by all accounts.

Her killer didn't seem to think it necessary for a second one.

Indeed Hunter, because he made darned sure she was dead with the first.

(Tangentially: Thanks CD, Chava, Claire, Lynn, Fish et al for the greets. It's nice to be back.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, it seems everyone is excited about Sam Flynn's early parole and happy to see him back!

As for the dissimilarities in the murders....fair enough....there are some....but then you have to weigh up which is more rare....and therefore which is more unlikely.....

Your entire post was excellent. The above is so logical and simple that I'm amazed at how many people don't get it. And not just cranks, either, like Stewart P Evans, but also solid, reputable researchers, like Trevor Marriott and AP Wolf.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

One has to think about the fact that the killer went with those victims to those locations for the purpose of having sex. The fences are relevant as i would imagine that for the purpose of the sexual act I have no doubt the women would have had their hands on the fence facing it to make it easy for the cliinet to have sex from behind. Had that happened the killer would have had them at a disadvantage

Excellent point, Trevor, except I would say that the women went to the locations for sex and the killer went there for the reasons the results show... and you have hit upon the key... that these women were most vulnerable at that moment. All of the outdoor murders in question were perpetrated against a vertical structure; not in the open. I am not surprised that a trained profesional as yourself noticed that very important factor in regards to these murders.

[Hunter]

I'd rather get to the truth of the matter, rather than make assumptions leading nowhere.

Hi Lynn,

The truth of the matter may very well be out there, but presuming that any of these women were not soliciting on the night of their murders - in spite of the evidence to the contrary - is an assumption leading nowhere.

[lynn cates]

presuming

Hello Hunter.

". . . presuming that any of these women were not soliciting on the night of their murders . . ."

Why do that either? Why not put it in brackets and see where other items go?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

As I promised, I will keep you updated on what is happening in the two Hisingen cases.
The person found in the woods was the missing 27-year old woman. And it seems that the police have now a man in custody. He is a drug abuser, and he has been identified as a man who tralleved together with the now dead woman on the tramway, where he obviously had made passes on her. He got off at the same station as the woman on the night of her death.
He denies that he has killed her, but admits that he was on the tram with her.

On the 19-year old man, who disappeared the day before the woman, there are no news. I do not know whether the drug addict from the tram has been questioned about him.

Further development will be reported.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[

Women are permitted to have lives as well as gentlemen.

I'm not arguing with that Lynn, but I think that the acceptability of women drinking in pubs was very different to it is today (it went through a big change during World War 1, but you have to wait until the 1960s until there was a radical change).

I just tried googling various combinations of women, social drinking, pubs, Britain, Victorian, 19th century etc and the answers nearly all sent me to sites dealing with the history of prostitution.
Here are quotes from the first 3 'answers' :

..

...unmarried women seldom ventured into the pub alone, lest they be mistaken for prostitutes

They visit pubs, which are off limits to respectable woman

They also had access to the pub, which served as a center of social and political life, but was off limits to the virtuous woman.

Given that Liz was not only in the pub, had been registered as a prostitute in the past, was seen with different men during the evening, was found dead in a pitch black spot up against a wall where she had surely gone voluntarily with a man, and was probably killed by a murderer who targeted prostitutes..
the probability has to be that she was soliciting that night.

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Ruby. Thank you for a well thought out post. Thank you also for actually adducing evidence rather than merely waving the hand as so often happens when I ask for the evidence.

You force me, then, to make an intelligent reply—and in a neighbourly tone as you have done.

First, I appreciate your research about ladies in pubs. Of course, one must balance that against the need of some (including females) to purchase malted beverages (for either themselves or their families). Obviously, a public house would be the natural place to seek such beverages. And we do have evidence that many ladies went into such places for a pint. Social taboos notwithstanding, I wonder if perhaps the stigma of a “lady in a pub” were not more a function of social class than one of occupation?

Second, that Liz was even IN a pub before her demise is problematic. Let’s reexamine the purported sightings.
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.
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.
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.).

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.)

Last, if Liz is taking a chap into the yard just prior to being cut, surely her feet would be pointing West, not East. Again, a good forensic reconstruction would go miles towards establishing such a possibility. (And I am still trying to find a place where I can film such.)

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

Cheers.
LC

[tnb]

Not my area of expertise, but in Sarah Wise's book on the Boundary Estate in nearby Bethnal Green, The Blackest Streets, she quotes a landlord from the late Victorian period stating that he felt it more morally respectable to sell alcohol to children rather than refuse to and thus force their mothers to come into the pubs for it themselves! So clearly in some quarters at least there was a certain prejudice against women going into pubs, and if that was the case around the Old Nichol then I am willing to hypothethise that even it were class-related that the case was probably similar in Whitechapel at a similar time.

[macknnc]

Well Lynn..(and I'm not trying to start a fight or rancorous exchange..lord knows there are enough of those around here...) but...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? And weren't most of the women seen with men besides their signifcant other shortly before their bodies were found?

I am not condemming or judgeing anyone here...These were all Whitechapel/Spitefields women who did what they had to do to survive...Who knows how any of us would have reacted were we in the same situation?

I, like every other member of this board, am merely groping in the dark for the answer...

[Rubyretro]

First, I appreciate your research about ladies in pubs. Of course, one must balance that against the need of some (including females) to purchase malted beverages (for either themselves or their families). Obviously, a public house would be the natural place to seek such beverages. And we do have evidence that many ladies went into such places for a pint. Social taboos notwithstanding, I wonder if perhaps the stigma of a “lady in a pub” were not more a function of social class than one of occupation

?

Thanks for the compliment , Lynn ! As to women buying alcohol -I think
(from my 'research' !) that there was nearly always an exterior counter (sort of attached shop) to pubs at this period, where women that needed Drink for themselves or their families would go to , or send out to, to imbibe at home.
If you've ever read Margaret Powell's books (I did a long time ago -not literature but 'social history' from the 'horse's mouth'), they even sent the kids to buy pails of beer on a Sunday morning...but they didn't drink in public.

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.).

The flower might not have been important enough to mention -and I have suggested that a man may simply have taken it off his button hole and stuck it on Liz, because his evening had come to an end (I think that flower sellers particularly sold them in front of theatres). We have no idea if that flower was 'fresh' or half dead, and what it was worth as such.

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.)

I can't remember that bit (I'll go back and look). I think that Liz was a drinker though -it seems incredible that she'd be in a pub without a drink.
Effectively, maybe Gin was her tipple.

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

LC[/QUOTE]
I just can't get this argument at all, I'm afraid -these people weren't following stage directions, and it just takes seconds to sidestep and shift position. How can we ever prove anything by what direction people's feet were pointing in ? We can't possibly know the last words that Liz had with killer and whether she mean't to feint walking away, really mean't to walk away, mean't to have sexual contact*, or any other possibility..

*I think she went there for the purpose, but there was a possibility for her to change her mind.

[lynn cates]

men

Hello Mac. Yes, they were seen with men (at least some of them). But what shall we infer from that?

Just to take a simple case: MJ was seen with Blotchy and it is often induced that he was a client. But on what grounds? Surely not the 45 minutes of Irish folk music?

I appreciate your comments about groping. They are precisely correct. But, as of now, I am groping in a different direction--one without the common assumptions.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Ruby. Actually, Marshall was asked point blank about the flower. He denied it was there. Hence, either:

1. It was not Liz

or

2. The flower was subsequent

A violet from a buttonhole? No problem. A floral arrangement with fern? Doubtful--unless one has exceptional buttons.

"it seems incredible that she'd be in a pub without a drink."

PRECISELY! And that was my whole point--she was NOT in a pub. The "sightings" were mistaken.

As for the reconstruction, we CAN know where Liz was standing due to the unspilled cachous. At some point, a clever "Jack killed Liz" theorist will rise to the occasion and do a decent forensic reconstruction (maybe). Until then, my grave (poor choice of words?) doubts will remain.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello Ruby. Thank you for a well thought out post. Thank you also for actually adducing evidence rather than merely waving the hand as so often happens when I ask for the evidence.

You force me, then, to make an intelligent reply—and in a neighbourly tone as you have done.

First, I appreciate your research about ladies in pubs. Of course, one must balance that against the need of some (including females) to purchase malted beverages (for either themselves or their families). Obviously, a public house would be the natural place to seek such beverages. And we do have evidence that many ladies went into such places for a pint. Social taboos notwithstanding, I wonder if perhaps the stigma of a “lady in a pub” were not more a function of social class than one of occupation?

Second, that Liz was even IN a pub before her demise is problematic. Let’s reexamine the purported sightings.
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.
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.
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.).

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.)

Last, if Liz is taking a chap into the yard just prior to being cut, surely her feet would be pointing West, not East. Again, a good forensic reconstruction would go miles towards establishing such a possibility. (And I am still trying to find a place where I can film such.)

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

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
OK-Maybe she wasn't solicitating that night. maybe that is why her reluctance to immediately accompany the man she was with into a dark alley led to the very un-JtR outburst that IS witnessed?

[Rubyretro]

Hello Ruby. Actually, Marshall was asked point blank about the flower. He denied it was there. Hence, either:

1. It was not Liz

or

2. The flower was subsequent

AS you say, Lynn, the flower could be subsequant.

A violet from a buttonhole? No problem. A floral arrangement with fern? Doubtful--unless one has exceptional buttons.

A quick perusal of sites dealing with men's boutonniere's show that they were at the height of fashion in the late 19th century (their apogee). Thereafter they were a romantic 'harking back' to the Belle Epoque. I don't know where the violets came from as they were orchids (for the Rich), or roses, gardenias and geraniums.
"it seems incredible that she'd be in a pub without a drink."

PRECISELY! And that was my whole point--she was NOT in a pub. The "sightings" were mistaken.
They could have been ..or not.

As for the reconstruction, we CAN know where Liz was standing due to the unspilled cachous. At some point, a clever "Jack killed Liz" theorist will rise to the occasion and do a decent forensic reconstruction (maybe). Until then, my grave (poor choice of words?) doubts will remain

.
The cachous prove nothing beyond that Liz was so suprised by the fatal attack that she clutched the cachous in a 'death grip' (so she wasn't wary of her killer -as she surely would have been with BSM).

considering how very pitch black the yard was, it must have been upmost in Liz's mind not to drop the cachous as she woud never be able to find them, rolled all over the place, in the dark -and she was poor..she didn't want to buy more.

Cheers.
LC

(my computer won't let me Post, I must waffle some more