Geographic Profiling

[erobitha]

Just to add...

A man is not more likely to become a prostitute killer if he is surrounded by prostitutes where he happens to live or work. Just as vicars aren't tempted to fiddle with choirboys because they are there.

People with the inclination to do such harm will gravitate towards a location, lifestyle or career, which enables them to fill their boots. If their preferred prey is not already on their doorstep, they will travel or even make it their life's work to get where the action is.

I wonder how much we can ever really put it down to coincidence when a serial offender is found living and working right in among his victims of choice. Dr Harold Shipman didn't suddenly wake up one morning, realising he was in the very best position to bump off the patients in his care with gay abandon.

Was JtR a dirt poor local man, whose only luck in life was to be stuck in a place that was rich with vulnerable, equally poor women? If he had the means to live anywhere more salubrious [and serial killers must be among the more resourceful members of society, who will lie, cheat, beg, steal or borrow for their basic creature comforts], I can't see him choosing to live there just because of the easy pickings. So that's why I feel this may be a special case, where it could actually be more likely that the killer was able to live well apart from his victims of choice and the sheer squalor of their existence, and only dipped into the honey pot when his violent urges got the better of him.

Love,

Caz
X

Couldn't agree more with this.

[caz]

Just to add...

A man is not more likely to become a prostitute killer if he is surrounded by prostitutes where he happens to live or work. Just as vicars aren't tempted to fiddle with choirboys because they are there.

People with the inclination to do such harm will gravitate towards a location, lifestyle or career, which enables them to fill their boots. If their preferred prey is not already on their doorstep, they will travel or even make it their life's work to get where the action is.

I wonder how much we can ever really put it down to coincidence when a serial offender is found living and working right in among his victims of choice. Dr Harold Shipman didn't suddenly wake up one morning, realising he was in the very best position to bump off the patients in his care with gay abandon.

Was JtR a dirt poor local man, whose only luck in life was to be stuck in a place that was rich with vulnerable, equally poor women? If he had the means to live anywhere more salubrious [and serial killers must be among the more resourceful members of society, who will lie, cheat, beg, steal or borrow for their basic creature comforts], I can't see him choosing to live there just because of the easy pickings. So that's why I feel this may be a special case, where it could actually be more likely that the killer was able to live well apart from his victims of choice and the sheer squalor of their existence, and only dipped into the honey pot when his violent urges got the better of him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Me agreeing with you is becoming a habit. I think I have entered the twilight zone.

Every Serial killer has his/her own nuances. Not all lust killers will live with body parts of their victims. Not all murderers with Necromutilomania tendencies will "enjoy" the dead there and then. I believe Jack took the various body parts as a "takeaway" for his gratification needs. Alone with these organs he could do whatever he pleased. Therefore, he needed a place of privacy and safety to do so. He is getting a multi-sensory experience. The Jekyl and Hyde analogy is a good one. Back to work on Monday as if nothing ever happened. Distance from his "main life" would give him that space to compartmentalise.

After all, engaging with prosititution by its very nature offers that ability to compartmentalise.

Yes, I too thought it a bit weird that I found myself agreeing with RJ Palmer on this one.

Your last sentence sums up precisely my own thoughts, erobitha.

I can't pretend to know the habits of regular users of prostitutes, including kerb crawlers, but I would think the majority don't go out of their way to advertise their predilections, and prefer to keep this part of their lives completely separate from home and the workplace, and secret from their family and friends. Easier to do for a loner, or someone who doesn't have to explain his every move to anyone. But for anyone else, geography can be a useful way to section off their less acceptable social activities. The seedier, anonymous parts of town lend themselves perfectly to anyone with a double life to maintain, and a tiny, tiny percentage will have much darker issues and desires, which they can experiment with in the same way, and often in the same places used by so many others for their jollies.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Many years ago I was on vacation with my brother in another part of the country. He was given the keys to the family car and was driving like a complete lunatic--swerving all over, passing on blind corners, driving 30 miles an hour over the speed limit, etc.

I protested, and he said "Relax! statistically, automobile accidents happen within 10 miles from home; we're a thousand miles from home!"

His statement was true, of course, but surely he was missing the point?

I think of geographical profilers as insurance executives. There is a mangled car on the side of the highway, and they are predicting it will be a driver from within a ten mile radius, because statistically that fills the bill. Year in, year out, most of our driving is done close to home.

That's fine, but I worry about the lunatics who think like my brother.

Hi rjpalmer,

Actually, that's a good analogy. And it's correct, in a way. If most accidents happen within 10 miles of home, then yes, given you spot a random accident the odds are the driver is within 10 miles of home. Your brother, however, is misunderstanding that statistic and presuming there's a causal relationship - that being within 10 miles of home somehow makes driving more dangerous. Rather, as you point out, both are related to the fact more driving is done close to home. So if you spot a random accident, odds are the driver is close to home (in fact, if you spot a driver, accident or not, the odds are they are close to home). Effectively, that's the idea under geographical profiling, an offender commits crimes in areas they spends more time in, making those the areas they are familiar with, which tend to be close to their anchor points (home, work, etc), because those activities also allow them to become familiar with the area and learn where potential targets are located (and become familiar with the activities in those areas, how busy is it, etc). It's not a causal thing, and there are exceptions.

But the idea is to find those areas where it appears the offender is spending more of their time, just like in the driving/accident analogy you've given. Or, like checking out a victim's spouse, family members, and other close contacts, because statistically speaking, those are the most common relationships between a victim and the offender in violent crimes.

That doesn't mean a given case has to be one of the more common ones. Nor is implying that the area causes the crime. It's just a fact that offenses tend to be committed close to those anchor points. This is why these outputs are information to be considered, but not blindly followed.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Many years ago I was on vacation with my brother in another part of the country. He was given the keys to the family car and was driving like a complete lunatic--swerving all over, passing on blind corners, driving 30 miles an hour over the speed limit, etc.

I protested, and he said "Relax! statistically, automobile accidents happen within 10 miles from home; we're a thousand miles from home!"

His statement was true, of course, but surely he was missing the point?

I think of geographical profilers as insurance executives. There is a mangled car on the side of the highway, and they are predicting it will be a driver from within a ten mile radius, because statistically that fills the bill. Year in, year out, most of our driving is done close to home.

That's fine, but I worry about the lunatics who think like my brother.

haha. that story is like the one of the guy waiting in line for his turn in the guillotine. the two prisoners in front of him are let off because the blade jams, and when its his turn he loudly exclaims-Im not getting in that thing till you get it fixed! lol

[Abby Normal]

Me agreeing with you is becoming a habit. I think I have entered the twilight zone.

Every Serial killer has his/her own nuances. Not all lust killers will live with body parts of their victims. Not all murderers with Necromutilomania tendencies will "enjoy" the dead there and then. I believe Jack took the various body parts as a "takeaway" for his gratification needs. Alone with these organs he could do whatever he pleased. Therefore, he needed a place of privacy and safety to do so. He is getting a multi-sensory experience. The Jekyl and Hyde analogy is a good one. Back to work on Monday as if nothing ever happened. Distance from his "main life" would give him that space to compartmentalise.

After all, engaging with prosititution by its very nature offers that ability to compartmentalise.

hi ero!

Me agreeing with you is becoming a habit. I think I have entered the twilight zone.

thats because you both think the ripper was a non local ; )

[rjpalmer]

Many years ago I was on vacation with my brother in another part of the country. He was given the keys to the family car and was driving like a complete lunatic--swerving all over, passing on blind corners, driving 30 miles an hour over the speed limit, etc.

I protested, and he said "Relax! statistically, automobile accidents happen within 10 miles from home; we're a thousand miles from home!"

His statement was true, of course, but surely he was missing the point?

I think of geographical profilers as insurance executives. There is a mangled car on the side of the highway, and they are predicting it will be a driver from within a ten mile radius, because statistically that fills the bill. Year in, year out, most of our driving is done close to home.

That's fine, but I worry about the lunatics who think like my brother.

[erobitha]

My sense is that it might run deeper than that. Colin Ireland's desire to commit his murders 'elsewhere' could have a psychological component unrelated to mere habit or modus operandi.

Some depraved murderers seemingly have no problem with burying their victims under the kitchen floorboards. They have given up any pretense of normality or self-respect. They are 'all in.'

By contrast, maybe in Ireland's mind the 'distance' he placed between his 'normal' life and his crimes was a type of compartmentalization. He fooled himself into believing that if he killed people in a faraway place it wasn't really 'him' doing it. He allows himself to be 'Hyde' on these rare occasions, but insists on not polluting his own 'Jekyll' environs.

There's a whole advertising campaign based on this idea. 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' As long as you commit your evil deeds is Sin City, you can still return home with your pretense of respectability intact.

Me agreeing with you is becoming a habit. I think I have entered the twilight zone.

Every Serial killer has his/her own nuances. Not all lust killers will live with body parts of their victims. Not all murderers with Necromutilomania tendencies will "enjoy" the dead there and then. I believe Jack took the various body parts as a "takeaway" for his gratification needs. Alone with these organs he could do whatever he pleased. Therefore, he needed a place of privacy and safety to do so. He is getting a multi-sensory experience. The Jekyl and Hyde analogy is a good one. Back to work on Monday as if nothing ever happened. Distance from his "main life" would give him that space to compartmentalise.

After all, engaging with prosititution by its very nature offers that ability to compartmentalise.

[JeffHamm]

So after reading all of this, even with modern technology, and even with a respected modern investigation tool as geographic profiling is even this has no common ideal of THIS IS Where he likely lived? As a layman in this I am seeing multiple techniques in this. Am I missing or misinterpreting it when I ask...According to Geographic profiling, using the pub the Ripper met the victims at, or the murder sites areas as an anchor where did the Ripper Him or Herself likely live?

Hi clark2710,

Spatial analysis (called geograhical profiling by some) is about extracting information from location information. Basically, and this is a bit over simplistic, the idea is to try and identify the location of common origin for a set of independent journeys. So, the idea is that each offense location represents a journey, with a common origin (call that location O). Now, that doesn't necessarily mean on the night of the offense the offender started from O and headed out to the crime scene, rather, that the offender has become familiar with that location during their usual daily routines. They become aware of the layout of a geographical region, and know where to find targets for their particular crime. For most offenders, but of course not all, the area they are most familiar with will be anchored around their place of residence, so in the public we often hear about how this "locates where the offender lives". And while that is often the case in general, there are times when that anchor point will be some other location, such as a the offender's place of work, or a pub that they frequent, and so forth. Deciding whether the area signaled in the JtR case is reflecting the offender's residence, or the pubs they frequented, etc, is an interpretation of the analysis. The analysis is just a mathematical calculation that produces probabilistic output map. What it "means" is an interpretation issue, and that's where consideration of things like "what information are represented by these locations we're entering?", "Other than their residence, what else might be serving as an anchor point?", "what if the offender is a commuter?" and so forth.

The different techniques (Rigel, Dragnet, etc), while the maps may look very different, are underneath very similar. There's a few different assumptions, some changes in the specific equations, and so forth, but despite what look like very different outputs, on the whole they are all equally accurate.

So, would I say I'm confident that JtR lived within the indicated areas? Of course not, there's a 20% chance he's a commuter and didn't live in the area at all. But, I am confident (not 100% of course, but confident nonetheless), that there is something associated with JtR in that upper northwest area. And while it wouldn't surprise me if it was his residence, I would not dismiss the possibility that that was where he went to drink at night, particularly given the high density of the pubs up there, and the tendency for all of the murders to have occurred after the pubs closed. Of course, if he was heading out from the pub to prowl, he probably lived near by as well since presumably one goes to the local pub near home. But if he heads in to slum it, that may be the area he frequents the pubs, and then from there prowls the area, developing his familiarity of where things are, before heading back off out of the region. I could see that being the case too.

It's not magic, it's maths. Geographical profiling is highly misrepresented in both the press and the entertainment industry with regards to how specific it is, and what the high probability zones represent, and so forth. Why that area might be an anchor point is a matter of interpretation of the analysis, and that's where a good investigator makes a difference. They can use this spatial analysis as it is intended, probability information for them to consider, and then apply their knowledge to work out how best to utilize it. Just like a good investigator knows that a spouse is the first person to rule out of an investigation, followed by close family members, friends, neighbors, work colleagues, etc because as they work through that list, more often then not, they're going to find there's someone they cannot rule out, and as they focus on them for that purpose they start finding more and more leads that connect them. Same here, working through the indicated areas, the chance of coming across information that produces leads should happen sooner. That information might then help tell us if the anchor point is a residence, or a pub, or a place of work, or an entry way to the crime area (like a motorway offramp).

It's not DNA or fingerprints, it doesn't identify a person, but it's not tea leaves either.

- Jeff

[clark2710]

Hi rjpalmer,

One should never dismiss based upon probability lists like this; there are always exceptions (it's why this sort of thing isn't proof anymore than being the spouse of a victim isn't proof of being the offender, even though by far that is the most common association). And yes, some offenders do return to areas where they are familiar from having lived there before. Generally, their former residence (or place of work, etc) is the anchor point of the profile. Berkowitz (Son of Sam), for example, moved north, but all of his offenses were from his old residence and south (he worked for a while at the airport, which would take him south from there). His new residence falls outside the crime range, even the expanded version that I've mentioned before, making him a commuter by any definition. However, his previous residence falls inside the crime range (making him a marauder) and falls within the suggested search area (zone 6; reducing the total area to 15%).

Just like one should not dismiss someone simply because they are not a victim's spouse or close family member (the most common offender) and one can point to cases where the offender didn't have that close family tie, doesn't mean it's the most common event. Commuters are less common, but they are not so rare that the idea should be dismissed out of hand (which I think I've been pretty careful to point out). But in terms of ranking probabilities, a local with ties in the area is more probable than a commuter. And a commuter with previous ties to the area more likely than a commuter with no other ties to the area. So, without anything more to work with, the rankings are a local (within the crime range area), a commuter with current or former ties to the area, a commuter with no known ties to the area. I would suggest they will have ties, but it may be like Colin Ireland where as far as I know his ties to the area was only because he chose that pub to find victims (though perhaps he had others).

Again, it is a misinterpretation of what this sort of analysis does. It does not identify a person, it does not tell you what the association the offender has with that area is (it often is reported as if it is telling you where the offender lives, but while that often turns out to be the case, that's only because a stable residence can result in a strong anchor point). What this does is suggest areas that the offender is likely to have some sort of association with. As I say, often it turns out that association is the offender's residence if they are living in a stable location, but it need not be, particularly for those who are more mobile. Like your example, it could be a former residence, it may be a place of work (or former), or some other location that the offender had reason to go to in their day to day lives, creating familiarity with that location. Over longer series of crimes, spanning years, the issue of an offender moving to a new location is important to consider, as the areas they are familiar with will change. That often results in a slow change in terms of the area in which they start offending.

- Jeff

So after reading all of this, even with modern technology, and even with a respected modern investigation tool as geographic profiling is even this has no common ideal of THIS IS Where he likely lived? As a layman in this I am seeing multiple techniques in this. Am I missing or misinterpreting it when I ask...According to Geographic profiling, using the pub the Ripper met the victims at, or the murder sites areas as an anchor where did the Ripper Him or Herself likely live?

[JeffHamm]

Not necessarily. One can't dismiss the possibility that the murderer could be currently living outside the East End but is familiar with the streets because he lived there as a boy; had once worked there; had relatives in the area that he frequently visited, etc.

I just read of a murderer in Minnesota who dispatched his victim in a lonely desolate spot behind a warehouse. He knew the area because he had once worked nearby, but was no longer a current resident. I think the Thomas Cutbush people, if there are any left, might have something to say on this score.

Hi rjpalmer,

One should never dismiss based upon probability lists like this; there are always exceptions (it's why this sort of thing isn't proof anymore than being the spouse of a victim isn't proof of being the offender, even though by far that is the most common association). And yes, some offenders do return to areas where they are familiar from having lived there before. Generally, their former residence (or place of work, etc) is the anchor point of the profile. Berkowitz (Son of Sam), for example, moved north, but all of his offenses were from his old residence and south (he worked for a while at the airport, which would take him south from there). His new residence falls outside the crime range, even the expanded version that I've mentioned before, making him a commuter by any definition. However, his previous residence falls inside the crime range (making him a marauder) and falls within the suggested search area (zone 6; reducing the total area to 15%).

Just like one should not dismiss someone simply because they are not a victim's spouse or close family member (the most common offender) and one can point to cases where the offender didn't have that close family tie, doesn't mean it's the most common event. Commuters are less common, but they are not so rare that the idea should be dismissed out of hand (which I think I've been pretty careful to point out). But in terms of ranking probabilities, a local with ties in the area is more probable than a commuter. And a commuter with previous ties to the area more likely than a commuter with no other ties to the area. So, without anything more to work with, the rankings are a local (within the crime range area), a commuter with current or former ties to the area, a commuter with no known ties to the area. I would suggest they will have ties, but it may be like Colin Ireland where as far as I know his ties to the area was only because he chose that pub to find victims (though perhaps he had others).

Again, it is a misinterpretation of what this sort of analysis does. It does not identify a person, it does not tell you what the association the offender has with that area is (it often is reported as if it is telling you where the offender lives, but while that often turns out to be the case, that's only because a stable residence can result in a strong anchor point). What this does is suggest areas that the offender is likely to have some sort of association with. As I say, often it turns out that association is the offender's residence if they are living in a stable location, but it need not be, particularly for those who are more mobile. Like your example, it could be a former residence, it may be a place of work (or former), or some other location that the offender had reason to go to in their day to day lives, creating familiarity with that location. Over longer series of crimes, spanning years, the issue of an offender moving to a new location is important to consider, as the areas they are familiar with will change. That often results in a slow change in terms of the area in which they start offending.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

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.

My sense is that it might run deeper than that. Colin Ireland's desire to commit his murders 'elsewhere' could have a psychological component unrelated to mere habit or modus operandi.

Some depraved murderers seemingly have no problem with burying their victims under the kitchen floorboards. They have given up any pretense of normality or self-respect. They are 'all in.'

By contrast, maybe in Ireland's mind the 'distance' he placed between his 'normal' life and his crimes was a type of compartmentalization. He fooled himself into believing that if he killed people in a faraway place it wasn't really 'him' doing it. He allows himself to be 'Hyde' on these rare occasions, but insists on not polluting his own 'Jekyll' environs.

There's a whole advertising campaign based on this idea. 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' As long as you commit your evil deeds is Sin City, you can still return home with your pretense of respectability intact.

[Abby Normal]

Not necessarily. One can't dismiss the possibility that the murderer could be currently living outside the East End but is familiar with the streets because he lived there as a boy; had once worked there; had relatives in the area that he frequently visited, etc.

I just read of a murderer in Minnesota who dispatched his victim in a lonely desolate spot behind a warehouse. He knew the area because he had once worked nearby, but was no longer a current resident. I think the Thomas Cutbush people, if there are any left, might have something to say on this score.

or bury. if it was a non local id go with him, or someone like him. although he may be considered close enough in bow to be a local by some.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, but the disadvantage is you have to commit murder in an area you are less familiar with

Not necessarily. One can't dismiss the possibility that the murderer could be currently living outside the East End but is familiar with the streets because he lived there as a boy; had once worked there; had relatives in the area that he frequently visited, etc.

I just read of a murderer in Minnesota who dispatched his victim in a lonely desolate spot behind a warehouse. He knew the area because he had once worked nearby, but was no longer a current resident. I think the Thomas Cutbush people, if there are any left, might have something to say on this score.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Caz,

Yes, I suspect he would have had a few pints in the pubs as well. And yes, I agree that a few streets puts JtR is relative safety, and as you point out, if Stride and Eddowes are both JtR victims, a few streets and minutes is enough for him to feel safe.

- Jeff