Archive through March 30, 1999

** 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 March 30, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Archive through March 30, 1999

Author: Calogridis Monday, 22 March 1999 - 10:46 pm
Hi David, CM: Thanks for the detailed reports, CM! Pipeman will continue to mystify, I suppose. Even if Pipeman was not intending to get involved in the assault that he witnessed, he may have brandished a knife either to intimidate the assailant or to simply walk away and have the means to defend himself. In such a tough area, always best to be prepared. Good point, David, about the interpreter. Seems he toned down the story for the coppers......Mike
Author: Julian Rosenthal Monday, 22 March 1999 - 10:46 pm
G'day everyone. Hey don't we all know that newspapers are sworn to tell the truth regardless of the fact that sometimes stories get embelished to the point that the original story later emerges as a rumour. ••••, I've only been quoted out of context about 10 times. I'll go for the police's version but I'll also bear in mind that Schwartz was the centre of attention at a time when some of the ghastliest murders in time were being committed. I believe this could be a mitigating factor in some of the evidence he gave ie: We don't have a transcript of the questions he was asked and I believe that slips in memory or unknown answers might have been replaced with imagination to appease the police and to also credit himself with being a credible witness. Just another idea. Peter, another board mate? Geez, I'm having enough trouble trying to keep up with these. Good question though, why did she hang onto those cachous when she knew she was dying. Anothe question I have comes from looking at the mortuary photo of Lizzy. Would it have been possible for her to have screamed three times (but not very loudly) AFTER her throat had been cut. Oh, when I've finished reading the half dozen or so books I've currently got, I'll let you know and I'll get some more titles off you. Jules
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 02:37 am
Hello Jules. In your post of March 21, 07:37pm concerning my 'probability' idea, you question whether I was seeking to exclude Martha Tabram from the calculation. The answer to that is no, she ought definately to be part of any such model. If we could fix the number of murder victims and the time period, we could then then vary (model) the number of killers to compare the different probabilities. Unfortunately, either we have no mathematicians or there is simply no interest in the idea, so I'll let it drop for the moment. Thanks for your interest anyway. Regards, V.
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 01:29 pm
Viper - sorry I can't help you with the probabilities question. I'm not a statistician, and don't know anybody, but I would be interested in the results of such an exercise as you posit. I'll second this - doesn't anyone want to take up Viper's challenge? Calogridis and Julian - just some slight clarifications which might help with our interpretation of Schwartz: It's unlikely he "toned down" his story for the police, as he went to them first on September 30 and was then tracked down by the "Star" the next day (a reporter seems to have picked up some tittle-tattle at the station and hurried off to find a story). While the differences in the police statement and press story are intriguing, it's likely what Schwartz told Swanson is what really happened. He was also really not "the center of attention." He was, so far as is known, not sought out by the police but went to them on his own volition. Outside of the "Star" (which did not even give Schwartz' name), none of the other papers seem to have given him much credence, lumping him under the general heading of "another story" or suchlike. CMD
Author: julian Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 08:19 pm
G'day CMD, Viper, everyone. I hate having a good idea destroyed by logic. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Hey Viper, don't let a good idea drop mate. I'd be more than willing to assist with your idea. (all of minee seem to be geting shot to pieces recently). Just tell me what the object of your idea is and I'll research my little heart out for you. Jules
Author: Calogridis Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 10:21 pm
Hi David, Peter, Jules, Viper, CMD! Let's get down to brass tacks with the statistics gentlemen, shall we? Where's Martin Fido when you need him?! Begin with the Canonical Five (not to be confused with the Fab Four- I always include Stride myself). Add Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Rose Mylett, Alice Mckenzie, and Frances Coles. Although we could throw in the Pinchen St. torso and a mythical Fairy Fay, let's leave them out. That gives us 10 murders between April 1888 and Feb. 1891, roughly a three year period. How many prostitutes (or simply female victims) were murdered in the three years previous, 1885-1888? How many were murdered in the three year period subsequent to the Reign of Terror, say 1891-1894? Was this total of ten anything outstanding? I think it was. Does anyone have any data for the other time periods. Thanks........Mike
Author: avala Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 10:36 pm
Fairy Fay ain't mythical.lad!
Author: D. Radka Wednesday, 24 March 1999 - 10:55 am
I think it is just possible that The WM killed Coles and/or McKenzie, but unlikely--very likely he stopped abruptly with Kelly because of some reason we don't know yet. And it is likely that he hazed, harrassed, otherwised mugged or possibly even killed a woman or two before he killed Tabram. But, based on the persistence of his MO as reported by the policemen at the crime scenes, it is most probable that his killings were Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly. I am Sugdenian concerning who the victims were--I believe Phil has this part of it exactly right. Respectfully to all involved here, I don't think that demographic murder statistics will help us identify who the victims were. For identifying purposes you need MO and police reports concerning each specific victim. Sure, a lot of women were killed in Whitechapel in those days, but I feel we would be wise to listen primarily to the professionals who were on the scene concerning victims. David
Author: The Viper Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 03:49 am
Hello All Your latest batch of post only highlights the problems in this idea. David, In that we cannot prove conclusively who was and who was not a victim of Jack The Ripper using statistics I would agree with out wholeheartedly. But in some cases, Stride especially, the evidence we have has caused a major divide between the pros and antis. I don�t want to get into that debate again, the bullet points are listed in my first post on this subject. What we could do statistically is to say something like this� �If there were two murderers at work in Whitechapel during the �Reign of Terror�, and a total of X victims, and if Jack killed (X-1) victims, what is the probability that the other murderer killed Stride on the same night as one of Jack�s victims randomly?� Now change the model. Let�s assume that Jack killed (X-2) victims, and one other murderer killed both the others. How does this change the probability of Stride and a Ripper victim being killed on the same night randomly? Then we could have Jack killing (X-2) victims, and have two other murderers killing one victim each etc. etc. These things are easy to misinterpret and I hope this has clarified things a little. However� Calogridis, Your comments show some of the pitfalls here. 1). I think your route of comparing the year-on-year murder statistics is more likely to show the overall probability of murder, rather than the chances of murder by a particular hand as described above. 2). We come back to the age-old question of who we include. You are right to start with the Canonical Five and Tabram. They all died in a tight three-month timeframe and all fell to the knife. Thereafter you highlight our problem. The Pinchin Street body fits more closely with a different murder sequence and I have no problem with excluding it. Fairy Fay was not a murder victim, so we�ll exclude her. Was Mylett murdered? Depends whether you believe the police or the coroner/inquest jury. But even if she was murdered, the cause was strangulation, so perhaps we should exclude her too. Mckenzie and Coles present a different problem. We could include them, but statistically it might cause a huge shearing of the results. Nineteen months elapsed just between these two killings, and common sense says that the chances of a murder taking place in the autumn of 1888 were considerably higher than in the winter of 1891. Perhaps statistical techniques can take account of this, but if they don�t help then the stats might bear no relation to real probability. That�s where we need expert assistance. Julian, Thanks for your encouragement. I still intend to make an attempt at a calculation along the lines described. The results won�t be posted here in case the method is incorrect. Only a bone fide mathematician should be trusted to perform this task accurately. Regards, V.
Author: D. Radka Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 07:00 am
Ladies and Gentlemen, The proposed statistical technique of trying to identify the victims of the WM has come up before on these Boards in other guises. It is, I fear, a form of alchemy. I do not accept it, instead I prefer reasonable science, logical cleanliness, and sane epistemology. Alchemy, I fear by its very nature, is highly resistant to eradication--it just keeps coming back again and again no matter how much pesticide is applied to it. The last time alchemy appeared it took the form of a plan to feed vast quantities of statistical census data concerning 1888 Whitechapel into a database. We would obtain all this from trade directories, census records, police and prison admission/release records, court cases, and whatever other official documents of the era, and then spend oodles of hours systematically keypunching all of it. Then we would dream up the most brilliant nanotechnological search routines, commanding our Cray supercomputer to fire away. After cooking the data for multiple half-lives, the Cray would tell us, for example, the names of all the males between ages 25 and 30 who lived with their mothers and who spent at least one night in jail at some point in their lives and who had an apartment located within 764 feet of either where Annie Chapman was killed or an underground entrance and who were single and who had a lisp or other speech pathology and who once lived where dead animals such as dogs and horses but not cats were discoverd and...and...(pant, pant)--get the picture, gang? The objection I expressed to the suggested statistical alchemy at that time is that it cannot determine a necessary connection. Rather, it can present statistical approximations as virtual necessary connections, and thereby it could deceive us while it entertains us. If man A can be statistically determined to have had a 25,000,000,000% greater chance of being the WM than man B had, this still means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I said. Because perhaps man A was able to successfully resist his impulses to kill in his religious faith, or perhaps he was too occupied with his opium addiction or his wagon wheel re-spoking business to entertain such impulses, or whatever, I said. Trying to statistically determine who the victims were is of the same alchemistic order. In the end, you wind up magically transforming something inherently undefinable into something so complicated you can no longer can fathom it as undefined, thereby falling into your own fantasmagorical abyss. Please gang, division by zero is undefined, and that's it. It doesn't mean ANYTHING. It can't qualify or modify ANYTHING. You can't say ANYTHING is similar to the nature division by zero, because there IS NO division by zero. I'm afraid we human beings are just going to have to leave it at that, unless we want to risk compromising our reasoning faculties. David
Author: Edana Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 08:56 am
fantasmagorical abyss....I love it! (By the way David, I'm in the process of gathering Lars cigars, not an easy task right now because my source has mysteriously dried up. We need a visit from the great Lars himself!) Edana
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 11:00 am
Hi, Viper and David: I have to agree wholeheartedly with David that no purpose would be served by trying to make the Whitechapel murders fit a statistical model. For a start, you are dealing with thousands of people in the East End, many of them with names we shall never know, and even if we do know them, the amount of additional information about them that we can glean at this late date will be pitifully small. The extreme poverty of many in the East End comes into play here. The area was full of transients and people who were just looking for a doss for the night such as most of the women who were victims. So since the essential denominator or database is missing, there is nothing that can be calculated. Moreover, since we cannot agree if the murders were committed by the same hand within the canonical five let alone with the larger group that would include Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Frances Coles, and so on, the ability to carry out any sort of statistical analysis is severely limited if not to say nullified. A good thought, Viper, but I think not doable with the circumstances we are dealing with. Chris George
Author: Liza Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 03:55 pm
When Long Liz married in 1869 who were her witnesses? This will save me a trip to London!
Author: Liza Thursday, 25 March 1999 - 03:57 pm
When Long Liz married in 1869 who were her witnesses? This will save me a trip to London!
Author: Calogridis Friday, 26 March 1999 - 11:56 pm
Howdy All! Liza, sorry I can't help you. Sugden says, "On 10 July 1866 she was registered as an unmarried woman at the Swedish Church in Prince Square, St. George-in-the-East. Three years later she married. The bridegroom was a carpenter named John Thomas Stride and the service was performed by William Powell in the parish church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields on 7 March 1869. Elizabeth is described on the marriage certificate as Elizabeth Gustifson, spinster, the daughter of Augustus Gustifson, labourer. At the time of the marriage, Stride was living at 21 Munster Street, Regent's Park, and Elizabeth at 67 Gower Street. Almost nothing is known about their marriage." And if a great historian like Phil "the Drill" can't uncover that data, it may be hard to find. But someone might know something- keep the faith. Viper, keep up the good ideas, dude!! I for one think the X(X-1) type ideas have merit, being an old math major myself- though statistics wasn't my strong suit. Have a good weekend. Cheers.......Mike
Author: Julian Monday, 29 March 1999 - 09:45 pm
G'day everyone, Um. I humbly apologise to everone for recently providing what I thought to be acurate information that might have lead to some thought provoking questions. I have now found out that I was misled. The information was that Ms Stride was alive for at least a minute after being slashed. I have since found out that this was impossible and her life expectancy after receiving such a wound as she did would not have been longer than a few seconds. Sorry if I set some of you off on a wild goosechase. I will hereby punish myself with a self imposed exile at a club of my choice with some great mates, busty wenches and lots of beer. I shall return with slightly exaggerated tales of asounding prowess on the Snooker table and unbelieveable feats of bravery trying to negotiate the dancefloor with six schooners in my hands. Jules
Author: Calogridis Monday, 29 March 1999 - 10:49 pm
Howdy Jules, I see you're into self-flagellation or death by barley malt, whichever comes first. Just get it right, mate. We rely on you for the facts. You da man. Cheers.......Mike
Author: Cindy L. Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 01:55 am
Jules, I'll try to ignore that remark about "busty wenches" (This is the 20th century) and accept your appology anyway. Just get it right next time. I rely on you to keep me straight when I ask a stupid question. I'm new here remember. Cindy L.
Author: Caroline Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 06:47 am
Hi all, I just love mathematical problems and sta--sta--figures. I did some calculus when I was 15 at 'O' level time (got an A grade too), so I've dabbled with integration and differentiation, and I always love going off at a tangent! (And I can often do the sums Carol V. has trouble with on Countdown, within the time and not a pencil in sight, unlike the constipated mathematician who worked it out with a slide-rule.) Point I'm making is, this thing about the numbers of possible victims in the time-scale (I think 13 between 1887 and 1892 if you're asking), and probability theories, could well have some validity, so goodonya Jules and V. You have the encouragement of this non-busty wench, at least. Love, Caz
Author: Edana Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 08:39 am
Math? Huh? What? My brain shuts off completely when its even mentioned and statistics?...eeeek! I run screaming for the hills. I would like to add my encouragement, but cannot offer my help whether it's busty, wenchlike or just plain snookerish. Edana (We won't nab the bastard with numbers)