|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through September 28, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simplicity - Occams Razor:
Archive through September 28, 2000
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 04:23 am |        | Jon,
Whether these were permanent addresses or not doesn't really matter. The point is rather that they were living there in the weeks leading up to their deaths.
I read somewhere that there were ten thousand prostitutes in London during this time period. Let's say 5000 were East End prostitutes (a conservative guess I think) - now look at the odds that the five he picked are from this tiny area of Spitalfields.
Are any of the people on this board Londoners? I live on Kodiak Island off the coast of Alaska - not a great place for research... I'd like to make contact with somebody that lives there and would be interested in researching something. My email is keithrogan@gci.net |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 05:54 am | | Just a question off-topic a bit: Can anyone point me where Maidman Street is situated? I've got a big map, but can't immediately find it.
Jill |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 12:42 pm | | Keith,
How's the fishin' up in those parts? Got any bears?
David |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 01:37 pm | | Keith,
There is certainly a pattern in that the canonicals all lived in a very small area, as you state. And I do appreciate your point fully, but do you understand mine?
I would dispute your statement that all the canonicals fit your pattern and those you label as ‘doubtful’ do not. One of the key words here is ‘snapshot’ as used by Jon (above). On the days of their deaths you can place all five canonicals in either Dorset Street or Flower & Dean Street, but to draw any major conclusion from it is exceedingly dangerous since it is based on very selective data. For example, Liz Stride had only been in her digs at 32 F&D since the Thursday. On the very night she was murdered Polly Nichols had tried to return to the lodging-house at 18 Thrawl Street where she had lodged for the majority of time she’d been in the area, (until ten days earlier).
You are also being selective about the two streets you mention, and here’s why. They were close by but they were not adjoining and neither were they consecutive turnings off the main thoroughfare. To walk from one to the other it was necessary either to walk right past or within yards of other streets to which the victims were connected. Why in that case would the killer only target women specifically from Dorset and Flower & Dean Streets?
Most obviously we must examine White’s Row because the entrance to it (from Commercial Street) lay right between the entrance to the two streets you name. It unquestionably contained doss houses from which the murderer could have found likely victims. Frances Coles and Annie Millwood lodged in White’s Row and perhaps Alice McKenzie too. Elizabeth Ryder, landlady of 52-54 Gun Street told McKenzie’s inquest that “Deceased and M’Cormack had lodged on and off at the lodging-house for the past 12 months. When they were not there they occupied a room at Crossingham’s in White’s-row.” (Source: The Times, 17th July 1889). There may be room for a minor error in Mrs. Ryder’s testimony here. I don’t know whether William Crossingham had any property in White’s Row but he certainly had two places in neighbouring Dorset Street. In any case, here we have a firm link between a Whitechapel Murder victim, (but not a JTR victim) and one or other of two streets at the heart of the ‘wicked quarter mile’.
To walk the entire length of Flower & Dean Street you’d have to have passed the end of George Street where Emma Smith and Martha Tabram both lodged at the time of their deaths, where MJK had lived previously and where Annie Farmer alleged she had been attacked. Directly parallel to ‘Flowery’, just one block away and also crossed by George Street, was Thrawl Street where Nichols had lodged for six weeks. Both these streets also contained a number of common lodging-houses full of potential victims… and who were very likely to walk through F&D to their digs.
What all this should tell you is that the matter of the victim’s addresses is more complex than you have stated. You cannot simply take snapshot data from two non-connecting streets and use it to the exclusion of other data. I’m no mathematician, but what you’re advocating certainly isn’t a valid statistical technique.
Would you now agree that the wider evidence points to a more extensive, but still small area, which contained a large pool of prostitutes who were prone to becoming victims of serious assaults and of murder, but not all of them at the hands of Jack The Ripper?
Some readers still interested enough to be following this may remember that I too have shown an interest in a statistical approach to certain aspects of the case in the past. Unfortunately there don’t seem to be many reliable figures available. The 100/1 and 1000/1 odds you state are presumably derived with a finger in the wind. What we do know is that Met. Police’s H Division which covered Spitalfields and Whitechapel, counted 233 common lodging-houses in the area containing 8530 beds. For obvious reasons the number of prostitutes was impossible to count accurately. It was reckoned to be about 1200. Coroner Baxter stated the population of Spitalfields to be about 20,000. Researchers have attempted to assess the capacity of certain notorious streets and I have seen 1200 beds put forward for Flower & Dean Street and 750 for Dorset Street. Exactly 900 people stayed in Dorset Street on the night of the 1891 Census. For roads only 210 yards and 110 yards long respectively you can calculate the density, confirming Jon’s earlier point about the number of doss houses they contained. Make of these numbers what you will – I don’t see any way of getting to reliable figures without far more data.
As a final comment on this subject please consider this. Thousands of people have studied the Whitechapel Murders over the past century. Along with all the cranks and charlatans there have been some respected writers and researchers. Among this group some have even had first-hand experience of the criminal justice system in their previous professional lives; men who served as magistrates and policemen. Do you really think that these serious students haven’t considered the evidence, including the question of the victim’s adjacent addresses before now? That you can pick the case up, make one simple correlation and set Ripper studies on a correct course after all these years? Are complex criminal cases really solved that easily? Something to ponder...
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 01:52 pm | | Jill,
Maidman Street was well east of Whitechapel and would have been considered part of Mile End. It ran parallel to, and one block south of the Mile End Road just east of where the latter crossed the Regent’s Canal. At a guess that’s 1.5 miles east of the Commercial Street junction (2.4 km to you!)
Regards, V. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 03:07 pm | | Jill and Viper,
I think you are both allowing yourselves to get side-tracked by trivia.
It's been 15 years since I've been to London, but the East end is a big place. If you get off the tube at Aldgate and attempt to walk to all the various places that (in 1888) contained doss houses and prostitutes you'd have a long day ahead of you.
Spitalfields, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel proper, Shoreditch all lay roughly around Aldgate High Street/Whitechapel High Street which was (is) the economic center of the whole area. Those two latter streets (actually the same street) are where prostitutes tended to ply their trade - But they didn't all come from Spitalfields to do it - they came from ALL OVER over the East End.
There were dozens of little neighborhoods where prostitutes and the really destitute poor lived.
I'm not relying on any statistical analysis, nor am I trying to fit the pattern into a profile. Instead, I'm allowing the facts to lead to a conclusion - or a theory, really.
There is simply no reason to suppose that a prostitute working the High Street would be living in one particular area in Spitalfields. There were a thousand cheap lodgings in a variety of neighborhoods where she might live - yet all five of these women lived within a block or so in Spitalfields at the time of their murders.
That is a salient fact. You can disagree with the conclusions I draw from that and we can have a pleasant discussion about it (that's why I'm here). But to disregard that fact with the supposition (presumably), that all prostitutes in the East End lived around the Britannia Pub is simply ignoring the reality.
I'll point again to the fact that after the Mitre Square killing, the victim's bloody apron was found in Goulston Street - a beeline (considering the maze of streets in the area) back to Spitalfields.
If the victims were all staying in a small area of Spitalfields, and the Ripper was at least heading in that direction (following TWO murders when he is likely bloody and looking for cover) then I think you can hazard a conclusion that all of this is more than just a bizarre coincidence and that there is a linkage between victims and killer.
Any conclusions I draw from that are merely guesswork. It may be that he didn't stalk them at all - it may be simply that the victims recognized him and were willing to "do" him based on that fact, while prostitutes that didn't know him, turned him down.
Look back at some of the victim bio's and absorb how often these women are described by witnesses as turning customers down - it happens again and again and is quite understandable in the climate of fear gripping the East End. The Ripper may have approached a half-dozen prostitutes and been turned down before being recognized (even vaguely) by one of the Spitalfields prostitutes who thought; "He's OK, I've seen him around". It may be no more than that simple mistake that cost them their lives.
See, I'm tossing aside my own theory in that scenario, yet it still takes into account the bizarre coincidence of all these women living in the same place. You just can't discount that. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 03:24 pm | | Viper,
I neglected to comment on your point about "selective data". Yes, Polly Nichols had been living at Thrawl Street - but Thrawl Street is only the next block from F&D Street - the SAME neighborhood.
David,
The fishing in Kodiak is some of the best in the world. The bears are..hhhmmm, everywhere. I was actually badly mauled by a bear only two years ago who did to me something resembling what the Ripper did to these women. Luckily, I was able to get face down and protect my torso to some extent under a frame pack I was wearing. It was only able to tear up my limbs and face before a friend shot it off me.
I built a Bear Safety web site while recovering from that - therapy, I guess. It's at http://members.nbci.com/keithrogan/ if you're interested in such things. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 05:56 am | | | It is true that the East End covers an extensive area, Keith. Also that within it there would have been many conspicuously poor areas and places frequented by prostitutes. We aren’t talking about these though. With one exception, (Mylett, who had no knife wounds), the Whitechapel Murder victims were found, not in Bethnal Green, Shoreditch or any of the other wider parts of the East End, but in the inner core of Whitechapel; Spitalfields; St. George’s and on the eastern fringe of the City of London. Within a 1 kilometre radius of Spitalfields Church in fact. |
Author: Jim Leen
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 09:28 am | | Hello Everybody,
Keith,
" It's not where the murders occurred, it's where the victims lived that is important." I agree with this sentiment to some extent. However I think the most important aspect of the location is with the proximity to the meat market, horse slaughterers and the like.
As The Viper says perhaps an analysis of the victims addresses only distinguishes their social conditions. Ally that with the fact that they were soliciting for custom at a late hour in an impoverished part of London points immediately to desperation. These unfortunate women would not turn down any chance for a few coppers.
The Viper,
" you must not confuse a simple approach with a merely simplistic one." Isn't this argument based upon one's own interpretation of events. Your own interpretation specifically would thus contradict the claim that "too many discussions [are] centred on inconsequential details." The inconsequential details therefore being arbitarily decided.
I do agree that many arguments seem to hinge upon maybes, possibly's and I believe's, and I believe [sic] that you have a point. However, interpretation is a funny thing. With regard to that "d****d key" for instance, yes the "*amne* key" itself is inconsequential but some related matters do have a bearing upon the investigation. I recently posted a theory on the related board, ludicrous moi?, and if you want to comment on it I'd be delighted to read a critique.
Who says advertising doesn't pay?
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 12:24 pm | | Viper,
You're wrong about where the victims were found. Stride was found in Mitre Square, off Aldgate High Street, Eddowes at Berner Street off Commercial Road and Nichols at Bucks Row. These locations are no closer to Spitalfields than to any other poor residential neighborhood.
Jim,
Of course the addresses distinguish their social condition. What you're missing is that the entire East End was a poor district and that prostitutes lived in all parts of it. There is simply no reason to suppose that picking five prostitutes at random around the East End would lead you back to one neighborhood in Spitalfields. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 01:37 pm | | What books are you reading, Keith?
(you got Eddowes & Stride muxed ip)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 02:05 pm | | | Oops, so I do. It was of course, Eddowes in Mitre Square and her apron in Goulston Street. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 02:38 pm | | | Just in case anybody thinks that I am ignoring Jim Leen's concerns (above), they and the whole matter of the key will be taken to E-mail imminently, since it is the most appropriate medium in this instance. Regards, V. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 08:30 am | | Hi Keith,
I wanted to post this before the weekend, but when I hit the submit button, it blew in my face, and the text was lost. So I had to wait until I had time again.
With your theory that JtR lived in the neighbourhoof of Dorset Street, I have no real problem. I also can well agree that the possibility existed that he stalked his victims from the pub, until their working area, presented himself and murdered them. These are very possible suppositions. But they are not the only possible conclusions to make.
The problem is that you base your arguments with statistical convictions of which you have no proof until now. I'm willing to search for my statistical course from a few years back and calculate if their is a correlation or not. That's why I'm going to run accross the data we have and the data we need, and which to use.
First of all the number of victims and which victims:
In your post you of Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 07:24 you write:
"Yes, Polly Nichols had been living at Thrawl Street - but Thrawl Street is only the next block from F&D Street - the SAME neigborhood" The same time I get the impression that one of the reasons you discount Tabram and Millwood is that they did not live at that time in Dorset or F&D street. But George Street and White's Row, are also the SAME neigbourhood. Please explain me your ambiguity therein? I'm sure you do not discount them solely on address basis. My guess at this time is that you discount them for being generally accepted as grey area victims.
Then why do you not do the same for Stride? Although historically she is named canonical, she is not apprehended this way by the majority. Even those who argue she is a JtR-victim are very careful to base their theories on her. You do not in connection to the picking of Eddowes (as Wolf has pointed out to you in the Goulston Graffiti discussion). Again there is ambiguity in the data you use for your theory.
So which number of victims, and thus their attack sites and living quarters, are we going to use? All those from the same area (up to 7 victims) or only those the majority agree on as JtR victim (3 to 4)?
Secondly the statistical prostitution data:
Your theory is based as you say on the comparison between the prostitutes living in Spitalfields and Whitechapel and those of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, ...
First of all we have some rudimentary data on the number of prostitutes in Spitalfields and Whitechapel: about 1,200 on a population of about 20,000. How many of them would have sollicited in Whitechapel High Street? Also what was the earnings they had to make for a bed?
This we should compare with the prostitutes of the other area's. How many prostitutes were there? How many of them would have occupied the area of Whitechapel High Street? And what earnings did they need?
Actually to be as much accurate as we can be we especially need the figures of the women that fit the profile with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (older, alcoholic, destitute, homeless women).
Conclusions:
If there are no significant differences in the number of prostitutes (the 'significance' has to be calculated) solliciting around Whitechapel High Street according to their living quarters and their life situations, then yes we can proceed checking if the number of victims (between 3 to 7) chosen from the same area is significant. If the last is a significant number (I've got the statistical tables to calculate such) then yes, there is a basis for you theory. I'm totally willing to calculate all this, if you are willing to provide me the data I require for it.
Trivia:
When a person brings forth a theory it has to have some foundation. You brought forward so far a supposed foundation, one that is ambiguous and not tested to reality. I'm not throwing your theory out the window here, nor did Viper I think. We are only asking you to found it. And I even want to help therein.
Why do I don't find this trivial: because not so many years back some professors have argued based on illogic suppositions that black people were less smart than white people because they failed tests more than white, ignoring fully that the first were brought up in a poor neighbourhood with no encouragement and problematic schooling. They even dared to say that the latter were products of their stupidity and not the cause of it.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 10:35 am | | Hello All !
Thanks Viper for your well thought out comments to this discussion. This has emphasised my need to check, double-check my facts. Although my opinion only, I believe there are sufficient facts available to virtually rule out many of the wilder theories that have been procreated over the years.
Funnily enough, the Rabbis' comments
'Keith,
" It's not where the murders occurred, it's where the victims lived that is important." I agree with this sentiment to some extent. However I think the most important aspect of the location is with the proximity to the meat market, horse slaughterers and the like'.
I believe the opposite although I guess it isn't important which direction you approach your enquiries as much as where you are going with them. It is not where the victims lived, but where the murders occured that I find more significant although I am very interested in this particular discussion.
Jeff D |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 01:12 pm | | | The way I see it is, when you've run out of concrete facts, (and after 112yrs are there any left?) then you have to go solely on supposition, guesswork, reason, logical thinking, call it what you like. If you don't, if you insist on proof, it's pointless debating, the story ended, "Killer unknown"--we today are not going to change that,"without a shadow of doubt". I think it's reasonable to guess that the victims and killer knew each other, maybe quite well!. He could have claimed his victims by both stalking and being presented with opportunity. Nichols could have been stalked to where she was killed, Chapman was lured into the backyard, but I think Eddowes murder was an opportunity killing, she knew him!. Stride, I don't count, I think thats down to Michael Kidney, her commonlaw husband,cutting her throat with his open razor. I don't know how you would describe the Kelly murder,I suppose stalking comes into it though. I would have thought most pro's would have used the same doss houses all the time, it was the nearest they would ever get to a home, now and again they would slip up, but would be back the next night,( I'm only guessing).But take Chapman getting kicked out of her doss,she said,"dont let the bed Brummie, I'll be back"! that sounds like she knew him well. Polly Nichols also, laughing as she was refused, "never mind, I'll soon get my doss, look what a jolly bonnet I've got", there were no hard feelings. Talking about the dates of the killings, someone said judging from the time lapse between Eddowes death and Kelly's death another killer should perhaps be considered. But supposing,(just supposing) Barnet was the Ripper, he came down from Dorset St, via Bell Lane,Stoney Lane and across Houndsditch to Duke St intending to try the orange market for some work. Maybe he bumped into Eddowes, he crossing H/ditch, she coming down it from the police station,-- opportunity! He wouldn't have known Stride had just been killed so he took it. It was risky,it had to be fast and he got himself in a terrible mess doing it. Perhaps, in his view, JtR came very, very close to being caught that morning, caused by extra police activity due to Stride's murder (though the police didn't realise how close they had come). This experience could have told Jack to leave it alone for a while! Besides happening at or close to weekends, there is another pattern. If you count Tabram who was killed on 7th Aug, Nichols 31st Aug, Chapman 8th Sep, Eddowes 30th Sep--beginning and end of each month. No killing October 7th 8th or 9th because he had been frightened, and if it was Barnet,--no killing October 30th or 31st because he was walking out on Mary, but he was bang on time on the 9th Nov. |
Author: Johnno
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 10:46 pm | | Warwick,
In my opinion, there is not really anything to suggest that the victims knew their killer(s) on a personal level, except in the case of MJK (if Barnett was her killer), and Stride (if Michael Kidney or some other enraged ex-lover was her killer).
Certainly, the victims may have been a familiar sight to the killer, and vice versa, but they may not have know each other other than by sight.
Based on my understanding of serial killers, they generally do not know their victims. Serial killers have been known to murder a certain type of person, that type being outwardly obvious based on their looks, ages, etc. The type of victim may of a type known only in the killer's mind.
As for the night of the double event, if you discount Stride as being a Ripper victim, and suppose that the Ripper was somewhere near Aldgate when he met Eddowes, it is quite possible that he may not have been aware of the Stride murder, since it took place in a street which is not in the immediate vicinity of Mitre Square. The murders took place in different districts of police jurisdiction: Stride was murdered in Metropolitan Police territory, whilst Eddowes was murdered in City Police territory.
Of course, if the Ripper did kill Stride, he would easily have been able to walk to Mitre Square from Berner Street within the time that had elapsed.
An interesting topic for debate is that of whether the victims solicited their killer, or the killer approached the victims first. It certainly would not be unreasonable to presume the former, since trade was highly competitive. Also related to this topic is the issue of whether the Ripper went out to kill, or killed when the opportunity presented itself.
Certainly the pattern of dates of the murders suggests that the killer (if we presume the same man murdered the five "canonical" victims, and possibly also Tabram) had some form of regular schedule, such as employment, which may have prevented him from killing on, say, a Tuesday night.
There is also the possibility that the killer's crimes indeed were opportunistic, and that he took advantage of that as he was making his way to or from his place of employment. There was no shortage of the class of women upon which he preyed.
Regarding the luring of the victims to the scenes of their deaths, the killer need not have worried about that, for the prostitutes would solicit on a main thoroughfare, and then natually take their clients to a quiet place to do their deeds. The yard in the rear of 29 Hanbury Street was known to have been used by prostitutes for this very purpose.
Regarding the absence of murders in October, we have nothing to explain that. It is possible that the heat of the murder investigations caused the Ripper to lay low for a while, but there may have been other circumstances (like illness or absence) which could explain the absense of killings.
All of the above is merely speculation, some or none of which may have any element of truth. In the absense of facts from primary sources which address a particular issue, as you say, we can only go on guesswork and logical thinking. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 26 September 2000 - 08:29 am | | Hi Rick,
I can understand your argument, but I'm not asking for total unobtainable numbers, do I. Keiths theory is a valuable possibility, and not illogic. But even logical theories need to be tested to some extent, for it to be acceptable. Some rough numbers will do to calculate the significance.
If they build whole accelerator machines crossing the alps to test the theory of the birth of the universe (billion of years ago), then what is the difficulty in me asking for some rough statistical numbers, from an age where they liked the gathering of statistical figures, and using them to solve a statistical question, that easily could have been asked on an exam, with a traditional course of statistics and an interested mind what the result of it would be? In this discussion we can go further than just guesswork and seemable logical thinking.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 02:03 pm | | Jill,
I responded yesterday as I was leaving the house but it appears that I forgot about that annoying "Spell Check" screen that pops up when you submit a note and my reply is now lost in cyber-space.
Anyway, a couple of points.
1. It's not really pertinent whether one excludes Stride or includes Tabram and Millwood since they all fit the profile, having lived most recently around Flower & Dean Streets.
2. The same holds true for the Britannia Pub. The fact that the victims tended to frequent it may have had more to do with where they lived and what they did for a living than with JtR.
What IS pertinent is that they all lived in this one small neighborhood. If Jack was casing women, this is where he did it - perhaps at the pub, perhaps at Spitalfields market, perhaps at some other place within the neighborhood. He may have sold gin out a back door or been a pawnbroker or sold mutton from a stall.
For my purposes, it doesn't matter. I only maintain that he lived or worked (or both) in that neighborhood.
It's just as well that my note from yesterday went south because this morning somebody very kindly sent me a useful link to an 1889 map showing the "social class" of various London neighorhoods.
You'll note that the inhabitants of Dorsett/F&D are indeed identified as "criminal", but so are a lot of other neighborhoods with a km or so of the Whitechapel Road.
I suppose if you wanted to do a statistical analysis you might pick an epicenter of where the murders happened and from there draw a 1 kilometer or 1 mile circle and see what percentage of the "criminal neighborhoods" the Dorsett/F&D area took up. Does that make sense?
You'd then have to run the odds of having 4,5,6,7 prostitutes (your call on who you think should be included) all from that one neighborhood being killed.
That's just a suggestion that makes sense to me, but I'm no statistician. I'll leave that to your good judgement and eagerly await the results.
Here is the link to the map I spoke of: http://www.umich.edu/~risotto/
Good luck! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 28 September 2000 - 03:28 am | | Hi Keith,
Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it:
If there's no other way around it, I can measure the dark blue area's of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Firstly I would have to state 1200 prostitutes (on 20.000 inhabitatns) on x m². Then I have to calculate the blue area's of each area as far away as the epicentre of the murders as Spitalfields/Whitechapel. From that I can postulate the amount of prostitutes there very roughly. Although I would have to look at the surrounding area's, and the building structures of the blue area to decrease or increase the outcome with a factor. Then I still have some rough numbers, but more reliable for interpretation. If I have those numbers I can start calculating the significance for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 victims.
You'll understand that this will take some time:-)
Greetings,
Jill |
|
|
|
|
