Geographic Profiling

[caz]

Following on from this...

If he did kill Stride, he presumably did consider safety to be a few streets away. He didn't go back to the safety of home, wherever that was, but went on to the 'safety' of Mitre Square, where nobody was on the alert for a murderer. After murdering and mutilating Eddowes, and removing body parts, he still didn't go straight back to the safety of home, unless the Model Dwellings where he discarded the apron piece was on his direct route.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, but the disadvantage is you have to commit murder in an area you are less familiar with, and you have further to travel to get back to safety. In fact, balancing that idea of "get further from home" and "don't get too far from home", that is the basis for the routines behind Rigel.

- Jeff

I would argue that getting back to safety in 1888 Whitechapel would have been a matter of putting a few streets between himself and where he left the body of his last victim. Beyond that, it wouldn't much matter if he had another mile to walk or five, if there was little risk of anyone being stopped and questioned or searched that far from the scene, because even if the police were alerted very quickly to the murder, their efforts would be concentrated in the immediate vicinity, allowing the killer to get further away with every second.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi all,

The above got me thinking, so I've gone and marked all of the pubs I could find on the historic maps. I found nearly 200 (194 to be exact), and while I probably have missed some, there's some interesting aspects. Below I've got the pubs indicated in blue, and the crime locations in red. Below that on the left is a simple density map, showing where the density of pubs is highest (yellow), which maps along Whitechapel Road, and also the north west area particularly just west of Miller's Court, but also a bit north of that and tracking down to Hanbury Street, tracking over towards near where Baker's Row intersects Whitechapel (Nichols was last seen heading up Whitechapel towards Baker's Row as I recall). Eddowes was last seen heading towards Houndsditch, which would take her down to the most dense area of pubs on Whitechapel. The crime based profile tends to favour the north west area, which is also one of the more pub dense locations. While it's hard to be anywhere on this map and not have a pub nearby, if you're looking for victims in this area, gravitating to the areas with the most pubs, and therefore the most chance of finding a victim, would make a certain degree of sense. Avoiding the high density area on Whitechapel as a crime location sort of goes without saying, that area would be just too busy to commit a crime there, but it might be a location to make that initial contact (and could be where he bumped into Eddowes; a simple con like telling her he knew where they could go get a drink, might be all it required to get her to go with him).

Anyway, if JtR prowled Whitechapel, Houndsditch, Bishopsgate, east on Widegate or Artillary, then up Commercial to Hanbury, along towards Bakers Row, and back down to Whitechapel, he's basically following a route through the highest density pub locations. And even getting to Stride's location is still just following along another high pub density side track.

Now, whether that's because JtR was a heavy drinker, or just because those are areas where he might have felt he had the best chance to find a victim, is an interesting question. But either way, I bet JtR spent the early part of his evenings in the pub, and I would start by asking questions in the various pubs up around Miller's Court and Hanbury street. (Which, incidentally, is where Mrs. Fiddymonts (sp?) pub is located).

- Jeff

It is an interesting question.

Colin Ireland frequented a gay pub, because that gave him a good chance to find a victim, but he presumably had to act the part well if he didn't have homosexual tendencies himself, or risk standing out. I would imagine he enjoyed a drink, or at least pretended to, but he couldn't risk getting drunk, or letting his victims get too drunk, if they relied on a taxi or public transport to get to where he murdered them.

Other killers have used drink and/or drugs in the process, and JtR might have stood out if he had spent time in a pub, eyeing up potential prey, while nursing half a pint. So I do see him as a regular drinker, and probably a user of prostitutes, who knew his way round the local hostelries as well as the females who could be found there without an obvious husband or boyfriend in tow. If he fancied his chances, he may have had a few stiffeners to give him extra courage, but overdoing it would have been risky. If he killed Stride, might drink have affected his judgement somewhat, if this was shortly after he'd left the last pub? A narrow escape from Dutfield's Yard could have had a temporary sobering effect on him as he made his way towards Aldgate, but clearly not enough to make him call it a night. The later into the night that he found a victim, the more sober he'd have been unless he knew where to get more alcohol - for example at one of the market pubs that opened early.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

One distinct advantage of travelling in from 'a fair distance out of the area' would have been that the house-to-house searches wouldn't have bothered him. A lesson for the next serial killer to take on board, if not for Jack himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, but the disadvantage is you have to commit murder in an area you are less familiar with, and you have further to travel to get back to safety. In fact, balancing that idea of "get further from home" and "don't get too far from home", that is the basis for the routines behind Rigel.

- Jeff

[caz]

Hi erobitha,

Over all the cases I have there's no real difference in performance between the different routines, so which routine does best for any given case one doesn't know until you try them all and compare. One of the things I'm thinking of is trying to see if there is something one can calculate from the offense pattern that suggests which routine should do best. I have to sort a bunch of series first, and see if there's anything obvious, but I always keep my eye out for any hints. In all likelihood, if I were to go through all the cases I have where I have information on "location last seen", it will end up all 3 do equally well over all. It may just be these two examples where it happens to be Dragnet that comes out on top. But one doesn't know until the analysis is done properly, though one gets all sorts of hypotheses through observations. Most of them get proven wrong, but even that's something.

I think it is useful to do a "last location seen" analysis to see if there is some location in common between victims, a pub (in these cases), or a church, or grocery store, etc. It's probably harder for very spread out situations, like Colin Ireland, as the area for analysis is so large. Could still be a line of questioning for family members, etc, to see if they know of a reason for the victim to have been in that area though, and leads could develop as a result.

But if the "location last scene" is thought to be the encounter location, then yes, that's very useful location information and often produces a good profile because again, it's a location that the offender has gone to by their decision making, so the encounter location will reflect the offender's decision making as well. Things like the crime scenes in Colin Ireland's case are not chosen by the offender, but in that series, all the victims chose the same pub, which is where the encounter took place. Similar with the McArthur series, the victims were around a common gathering location, which pointed to an area where McArthur also had ties, and so searching for information in that are would have a good probability of turning up information.

And yes, I think it's possible in the JtR that a pub, like the 10 Bells, could be the anchor point. For what it's worth, in my opinion, though, given JtR is carrying organs around, I tend to think he lives in the area, but I recognize he could have travelled into the area. One of the reasons I think he does live in the area, though, is given how close to morning Annie was killed, with the sun rising, etc. I don't think he would risk a murder if he had to travel far at that time of day, especially carrying body parts (for the first time), and no doubt with blood on his hands (even if he could wipe them, it's not going to be perfect; very risky to be out in the daylight). As such, I rather suspect he lived not far from Hanbury Street. What is interesting, is that inference based upon the time of the murder fits with all the spatial analyses (the hot spots are not far from Hanbury Street). Also, there's reports of footsteps leaving Miller's Court on the morning of Mary Kelly's murder, and if that were JtR and not a police officer (which the witness said they thought it was), it's again getting close to sun up, and so again I would think he would live near by if he's willing to stick around and travel near dawn (there's no reason he couldn't have left under the cover of night, though, so this is very speculative). But if we run with it, that too fits with the idea he had to live near Hanbury since Miller's Court and Hanbury are not far apart. However, back to reality, and I don't know those things for a fact, obviously, and it is possible JtR lives outside the area, and was able to hide his hands via gloves, or just in his pocket. If he did travel in, though, I think he exits from that north west corner, probably to the north, and even then, not too far in that direction, but if it's a 15 minute walk north or north west, let's say, that's still going to get him a fair distance out of the area at a brisk pace, probably close to a mile type thing.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

One distinct advantage of travelling in from 'a fair distance out of the area' would have been that the house-to-house searches wouldn't have bothered him. A lesson for the next serial killer to take on board, if not for Jack himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

The above got me thinking, so I've gone and marked all of the pubs I could find on the historic maps. I found nearly 200 (194 to be exact), and while I probably have missed some, there's some interesting aspects. Below I've got the pubs indicated in blue, and the crime locations in red. Below that on the left is a simple density map, showing where the density of pubs is highest (yellow), which maps along Whitechapel Road, and also the north west area particularly just west of Miller's Court, but also a bit north of that and tracking down to Hanbury Street, tracking over towards near where Baker's Row intersects Whitechapel (Nichols was last seen heading up Whitechapel towards Baker's Row as I recall). Eddowes was last seen heading towards Houndsditch, which would take her down to the most dense area of pubs on Whitechapel. The crime based profile tends to favour the north west area, which is also one of the more pub dense locations. While it's hard to be anywhere on this map and not have a pub nearby, if you're looking for victims in this area, gravitating to the areas with the most pubs, and therefore the most chance of finding a victim, would make a certain degree of sense. Avoiding the high density area on Whitechapel as a crime location sort of goes without saying, that area would be just too busy to commit a crime there, but it might be a location to make that initial contact (and could be where he bumped into Eddowes; a simple con like telling her he knew where they could go get a drink, might be all it required to get her to go with him).

Anyway, if JtR prowled Whitechapel, Houndsditch, Bishopsgate, east on Widegate or Artillary, then up Commercial to Hanbury, along towards Bakers Row, and back down to Whitechapel, he's basically following a route through the highest density pub locations. And even getting to Stride's location is still just following along another high pub density side track.

Now, whether that's because JtR was a heavy drinker, or just because those are areas where he might have felt he had the best chance to find a victim, is an interesting question. But either way, I bet JtR spent the early part of his evenings in the pub, and I would start by asking questions in the various pubs up around Miller's Court and Hanbury street. (Which, incidentally, is where Mrs. Fiddymonts (sp?) pub is located).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I presume the ability to travel back in 1888 would have depended on the killer's personal and financial circumstances, because transport was readily available to anyone with the time and the money to use it. Even a dirt poor local killer could have walked a fair distance from where he lived or worked to find victims beyond Spitalfields if that had suited him, which is why I think it was probably a personal choice to keep dipping into the same small pool, regardless of his means and whether or not he lived among his prey.

Another point to make about Colin Ireland is that even when they worked out that the victims were all linked to that one pub, the police had to identify the killer in order to learn that he didn't just live round the corner and use the pub as his own local. If he only went there when his object was murder, how would any witnesses be able to do more than give a description of anyone seen drinking and chatting with one or more of the victims? I believe Ireland was only caught after his image was captured on cctv, sitting next to a victim on the tube, as they travelled back to the victim's home. Without this modern technology they would have had no idea where to begin looking for a killer like Ireland, while London Underground trains had been running for 25 years by 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, he was identified on CCTV, you recall correctly. It's hard to say what would have happened, but one possibility would have been to start watching the pub, questioning the staff, and if they recalled and could give a description, that's a start. There's also the possibility of putting someone in the pub, or having the staff contact the police should the person show up again, and so forth. With a crime range like Colin Ireland's, the suggested area is still very large, so it's still a needle in a haystack. But, it's a smaller haystack, and if that pub had been located, it provides the opportunity for information to be found. Not all opportunities are realized, of course. Again, these analyses do not solve cases, they provide information for the detectives to consider, and to suggest regions that generally provide information more than others, but that information still has to be found through hard work and investigation. Just like listing all the known contacts of a victim doesn't solve a case, they still have to be investigated. And the offender isn't always the first on the list, and sometimes, they are not a known associate. Same thing here, the location that bears fruit isn't always in zone one, and sometimes there's nothing there. More often than not, though, there's something that connects the offender to the area, though it may only come to light after they are caught what that is. In serial cases, where often the police can get hundreds, or thousands, of tips on people to check out, it can be useful to plot the suspects on the maps and then conduct interviews guided by that. Again, it can help suggest a priority list to try and make efficient use of limited resources, but by itself, it does not solve the case.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

This is all very interesting stuff Jeff. Correct me if I misunderstood, am I thinking that the dragnet approach has been ther most accurate against the crimes you have checked thus far, providing the data points are accurate? Is there sense of using last known location / pick-up points instead of murder scene locations as that may have been the victim's choice? Would that make much difference? Is the liklihood the killer engaged with the victims closer to where they were last seen alive as opposed to found dead is my point?

If we use the Ireland and MacArthur examples of pubs, would one not assume such an establishment could be the anchor point here too? For example, The Ten Bells actually would fit quite snugly.

Hi erobitha,

Over all the cases I have there's no real difference in performance between the different routines, so which routine does best for any given case one doesn't know until you try them all and compare. One of the things I'm thinking of is trying to see if there is something one can calculate from the offense pattern that suggests which routine should do best. I have to sort a bunch of series first, and see if there's anything obvious, but I always keep my eye out for any hints. In all likelihood, if I were to go through all the cases I have where I have information on "location last seen", it will end up all 3 do equally well over all. It may just be these two examples where it happens to be Dragnet that comes out on top. But one doesn't know until the analysis is done properly, though one gets all sorts of hypotheses through observations. Most of them get proven wrong, but even that's something.

I think it is useful to do a "last location seen" analysis to see if there is some location in common between victims, a pub (in these cases), or a church, or grocery store, etc. It's probably harder for very spread out situations, like Colin Ireland, as the area for analysis is so large. Could still be a line of questioning for family members, etc, to see if they know of a reason for the victim to have been in that area though, and leads could develop as a result.

But if the "location last scene" is thought to be the encounter location, then yes, that's very useful location information and often produces a good profile because again, it's a location that the offender has gone to by their decision making, so the encounter location will reflect the offender's decision making as well. Things like the crime scenes in Colin Ireland's case are not chosen by the offender, but in that series, all the victims chose the same pub, which is where the encounter took place. Similar with the McArthur series, the victims were around a common gathering location, which pointed to an area where McArthur also had ties, and so searching for information in that are would have a good probability of turning up information.

And yes, I think it's possible in the JtR that a pub, like the 10 Bells, could be the anchor point. For what it's worth, in my opinion, though, given JtR is carrying organs around, I tend to think he lives in the area, but I recognize he could have travelled into the area. One of the reasons I think he does live in the area, though, is given how close to morning Annie was killed, with the sun rising, etc. I don't think he would risk a murder if he had to travel far at that time of day, especially carrying body parts (for the first time), and no doubt with blood on his hands (even if he could wipe them, it's not going to be perfect; very risky to be out in the daylight). As such, I rather suspect he lived not far from Hanbury Street. What is interesting, is that inference based upon the time of the murder fits with all the spatial analyses (the hot spots are not far from Hanbury Street). Also, there's reports of footsteps leaving Miller's Court on the morning of Mary Kelly's murder, and if that were JtR and not a police officer (which the witness said they thought it was), it's again getting close to sun up, and so again I would think he would live near by if he's willing to stick around and travel near dawn (there's no reason he couldn't have left under the cover of night, though, so this is very speculative). But if we run with it, that too fits with the idea he had to live near Hanbury since Miller's Court and Hanbury are not far apart. However, back to reality, and I don't know those things for a fact, obviously, and it is possible JtR lives outside the area, and was able to hide his hands via gloves, or just in his pocket. If he did travel in, though, I think he exits from that north west corner, probably to the north, and even then, not too far in that direction, but if it's a 15 minute walk north or north west, let's say, that's still going to get him a fair distance out of the area at a brisk pace, probably close to a mile type thing.

- Jeff

[caz]

Hmmm, I just double checked and Dragnet again does the best with the McArthur series too (the bar is well inside zone 1, above it's just over the border in zone 2, and for Rigel it is slightly further into zone 2 as well). While two does not a trend make, it might be Dragnet's routines are better suited when the locations are things more influenced by the victim's choices (i.e. last known sightings; or in the Colin Ireland case, their residences) as the offender's choice of location, after the meeting, is no longer in their control.

With regards to JtR, the crime scene locations could therefore be viewed as data pertaining to the victim's behaviour as much as JtR's decision making about where he goes to look for victims. If the analyses are reflecting information more from the victims than JtR, which one could argue is the case, then the fact the area of interests tends to reflect areas in which the victims all tended to reside makes a certain level of sense. When considering JtR as coming from outside the immediate area, then those highlighted areas are reflecting where JtR goes to find victims, as per the Ireland and McArthur cases - the anchor point could be simply the density of victims is high there. It would still mean he spends time in that area, looking for victims, but the anchor point need not reflect his residence per se.

At the moment, there's no great way to separate out marauder vs commuter type patterns, though there is work being done on that. As I recall, one of the ideas had to do with working out the size of the crime range (smallest circle area), on the basis that commuters tended to result in smaller crime ranges (so small area, high density) because they were going to a particular area only for criminal activity, so their range tended to be more focused and limited, while marauder's know a larger area as they spend their normal day to day routines there as well. That's not going to help us much, though, as the ability to travel is much greater now than it was in 1888, so what is currently viewed as "a small area", reflecting "short distances" would be a very large area in 1888. JtR's area is pretty small though, even in 1888 terms, so if my recollection is correct on indications of "greater chance of commuter", then I think one might want to consider that possibility as being more reasonable than is often argued for. Doesn't mean he has to come from outside the area, only that the pattern does not make that an unlikely situation. But if he does, there are no good routines for estimating where a commuter is likely to be located, at least as far as I know.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I presume the ability to travel back in 1888 would have depended on the killer's personal and financial circumstances, because transport was readily available to anyone with the time and the money to use it. Even a dirt poor local killer could have walked a fair distance from where he lived or worked to find victims beyond Spitalfields if that had suited him, which is why I think it was probably a personal choice to keep dipping into the same small pool, regardless of his means and whether or not he lived among his prey.

Another point to make about Colin Ireland is that even when they worked out that the victims were all linked to that one pub, the police had to identify the killer in order to learn that he didn't just live round the corner and use the pub as his own local. If he only went there when his object was murder, how would any witnesses be able to do more than give a description of anyone seen drinking and chatting with one or more of the victims? I believe Ireland was only caught after his image was captured on cctv, sitting next to a victim on the tube, as they travelled back to the victim's home. Without this modern technology they would have had no idea where to begin looking for a killer like Ireland, while London Underground trains had been running for 25 years by 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

I believe that PC Long was telling the truth regarding the apron. In other words I feel Jack had a bolt hole somewhere in/near Aldgate, possibly a place of work. [ Robert Sagar ]. So after a failed attempt to mutilate a woman in a first comfort zone he moved to a second before heading home. In essence that's why I wanted to see what a Geo profile threw up IE without Kate but with Martha and possibly Emma which Jeff has kindly shown.
Regards Darryl

Like 46 Lime Street perhaps, a 5 minute walk from Mitre Square. A shared building for numerous shipping merchants.

[erobitha]

Hmmm, I just double checked and Dragnet again does the best with the McArthur series too (the bar is well inside zone 1, above it's just over the border in zone 2, and for Rigel it is slightly further into zone 2 as well). While two does not a trend make, it might be Dragnet's routines are better suited when the locations are things more influenced by the victim's choices (i.e. last known sightings; or in the Colin Ireland case, their residences) as the offender's choice of location, after the meeting, is no longer in their control.

With regards to JtR, the crime scene locations could therefore be viewed as data pertaining to the victim's behaviour as much as JtR's decision making about where he goes to look for victims. If the analyses are reflecting information more from the victims than JtR, which one could argue is the case, then the fact the area of interests tends to reflect areas in which the victims all tended to reside makes a certain level of sense. When considering JtR as coming from outside the immediate area, then those highlighted areas are reflecting where JtR goes to find victims, as per the Ireland and McArthur cases - the anchor point could be simply the density of victims is high there. It would still mean he spends time in that area, looking for victims, but the anchor point need not reflect his residence per se.

At the moment, there's no great way to separate out marauder vs commuter type patterns, though there is work being done on that. As I recall, one of the ideas had to do with working out the size of the crime range (smallest circle area), on the basis that commuters tended to result in smaller crime ranges (so small area, high density) because they were going to a particular area only for criminal activity, so their range tended to be more focused and limited, while marauder's know a larger area as they spend their normal day to day routines there as well. That's not going to help us much, though, as the ability to travel is much greater now than it was in 1888, so what is currently viewed as "a small area", reflecting "short distances" would be a very large area in 1888. JtR's area is pretty small though, even in 1888 terms, so if my recollection is correct on indications of "greater chance of commuter", then I think one might want to consider that possibility as being more reasonable than is often argued for. Doesn't mean he has to come from outside the area, only that the pattern does not make that an unlikely situation. But if he does, there are no good routines for estimating where a commuter is likely to be located, at least as far as I know.

- Jeff

This is all very interesting stuff Jeff. Correct me if I misunderstood, am I thinking that the dragnet approach has been ther most accurate against the crimes you have checked thus far, providing the data points are accurate? Is there sense of using last known location / pick-up points instead of murder scene locations as that may have been the victim's choice? Would that make much difference? Is the liklihood the killer engaged with the victims closer to where they were last seen alive as opposed to found dead is my point?

If we use the Ireland and MacArthur examples of pubs, would one not assume such an establishment could be the anchor point here too? For example, The Ten Bells actually would fit quite snugly.

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, I just double checked and Dragnet again does the best with the McArthur series too (the bar is well inside zone 1, above it's just over the border in zone 2, and for Rigel it is slightly further into zone 2 as well). While two does not a trend make, it might be Dragnet's routines are better suited when the locations are things more influenced by the victim's choices (i.e. last known sightings; or in the Colin Ireland case, their residences) as the offender's choice of location, after the meeting, is no longer in their control.

With regards to JtR, the crime scene locations could therefore be viewed as data pertaining to the victim's behaviour as much as JtR's decision making about where he goes to look for victims. If the analyses are reflecting information more from the victims than JtR, which one could argue is the case, then the fact the area of interests tends to reflect areas in which the victims all tended to reside makes a certain level of sense. When considering JtR as coming from outside the immediate area, then those highlighted areas are reflecting where JtR goes to find victims, as per the Ireland and McArthur cases - the anchor point could be simply the density of victims is high there. It would still mean he spends time in that area, looking for victims, but the anchor point need not reflect his residence per se.

At the moment, there's no great way to separate out marauder vs commuter type patterns, though there is work being done on that. As I recall, one of the ideas had to do with working out the size of the crime range (smallest circle area), on the basis that commuters tended to result in smaller crime ranges (so small area, high density) because they were going to a particular area only for criminal activity, so their range tended to be more focused and limited, while marauder's know a larger area as they spend their normal day to day routines there as well. That's not going to help us much, though, as the ability to travel is much greater now than it was in 1888, so what is currently viewed as "a small area", reflecting "short distances" would be a very large area in 1888. JtR's area is pretty small though, even in 1888 terms, so if my recollection is correct on indications of "greater chance of commuter", then I think one might want to consider that possibility as being more reasonable than is often argued for. Doesn't mean he has to come from outside the area, only that the pattern does not make that an unlikely situation. But if he does, there are no good routines for estimating where a commuter is likely to be located, at least as far as I know.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Cheers Jeff. The subject is certainly intriguing, and I did wonder if a killer might deliberately try to get round geographical profiling in this way, by putting a large distance between himself and where his victims of choice could be found and picked up.

Colin Ireland's case had an added layer of difficulty for the police, as the victims themselves were 'commuters' to that same pub, coming from individual locations in all directions, where they were actually murdered. I believe Ireland himself phoned the police at one point, frustrated that they had not yet realised the murders were linked, because they hadn't made the connection with the pub where all the victims drank. But that was still a focal point for the series, as was the small area of Spitalfields in 1888, created by the killer himself. Ireland could have targeted gay men in Southend, or anywhere up and down the country, but tied himself to one place he could grow familiar and comfortable with, when he had murder in mind. I wonder if he'd have frequented that particular pub for any other reason?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The Marauder/Commuter distinction, as used in this literature, tends to refer to whether or not the offender is found in the crime region circle. Personally, I think it's a bit of an arbitrary distinction, in part because it conflates the spatial analysis with locating an offender's residence. While the residence is very often a strong anchor point, and so tends to end up within the space highlighted, it isn't always (as in this case). Interestingly, a case in Toronto, Canada in 2018 (Bruce McArthur), was similar in some ways to Colin Ireland. McArthur was meeting men in an area called the Gay Village of Toronto, and burying the bodies in planters where he had his gardening business. He didn't own that property, but had his gardening business located there. The property itself was owned by friends of his. Anyway, I was able to find some information on that case as it came out, marking off the locations of the last known sightings of his victims, and also the location where one of his victim's car was found abandoned. That too showed the Gay Village, and locating the bar that Bruce was known to frequent, though I think he may have been banned from it at one point as well. Anyway, McArthur's home residence, where I think the actual murders happened, is well out of the area (again, in that sense he's a commuter, but the bar in this case is the location of familiarity, that's the anchor point). Now, again, like the Colin Ireland case, we're really plotting out space locations of the victims (their residences, with McArthur where the victims were last seen), so we're not using information about the offender's choices but the victims. It suggests what might be a common area for those victims, and so the offender just had to share that area, and now there's opportunity for the offender to meet all of them.

Here's the McArthur analysis, the bar is the blue square at the bottom of zone 1. Mallory Cresent is where the bodies were found. I didn't enter that as a location because if you have the bodies in planters at a house, you don't need a profile to figure out who the people of interest are. But, if I do include it, the secondary area in the north shifts to the location of the bodies, and the bar slides into zone 2 type thing.



Anyway, the Colin Ireland case reminded me of the McArthur case so I was curious to see how it would turn out. The Ireland case, based upon the victim's residences and not the locations they were last seen, results in a much larger crime range, resulting in a much larger area of interest of course, but that's hardly surprising.

And yes, Ireland called the police, and made sure they found the bodies and knew they were linked. McArthur, however, was not interested in his crimes being found out. Sadly, with McArthur, the police hadn't even linked the dissappearnces of McArthur's victims as indicating anything was going on, while the gay community in Toronto were worried about a serial killer amongst them (due to the missing cases). I think McArthur had 8 victims, but I've only been able to find information on 5.

- Jeff

[caz]

Sorry, when I say the analysis should be robust, I mean the fact I don't have the exact addresses for the crime scenes (the victims homes) shouldn't make a huge difference for the present purposes because it is a large crime range so the spatial analysis is going to end up suggesting a pretty big area anyway. One wouldn't do it this way, obviously, and if I can find the addresses I'll have a go with them to compare.

-Jeff

Cheers Jeff. The subject is certainly intriguing, and I did wonder if a killer might deliberately try to get round geographical profiling in this way, by putting a large distance between himself and where his victims of choice could be found and picked up.

Colin Ireland's case had an added layer of difficulty for the police, as the victims themselves were 'commuters' to that same pub, coming from individual locations in all directions, where they were actually murdered. I believe Ireland himself phoned the police at one point, frustrated that they had not yet realised the murders were linked, because they hadn't made the connection with the pub where all the victims drank. But that was still a focal point for the series, as was the small area of Spitalfields in 1888, created by the killer himself. Ireland could have targeted gay men in Southend, or anywhere up and down the country, but tied himself to one place he could grow familiar and comfortable with, when he had murder in mind. I wonder if he'd have frequented that particular pub for any other reason?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

whats local? thats actually a good question. I would say someone who lives and or works in the immediate area of the murders for a couple of months prior, although probably could get to know it like the back of his hand sooner depending how much hes out and about. so I would consider lech a local, bury probably.
Its one of my main issues with chapman-did he live there long enough?
hutch is smack dab in the middle and fits the geo profile nicely. : )

but thats actually a good point and one for reflection.

Surely the point is, Abby, that whoever JtR was, he would have familiarised himself as much as he needed to, with the streets which his victims used. That would have applied regardless of how long he had been in the area, if living or working locally, or how often he visited, if coming in from outside. He wasn't obliged to start attacking women in totally unfamiliar surroundings, so we may presume he made himself familiar with them if he wasn't already.

Love,

Caz
X