Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

"...Whatever may be said about the death of Emma Smith, there can be no doubt that the August Bank Holiday murder, which took place in George Yard Buildings… was the handiwork of the dread Ripper..."

-Inspector Walter Dew, Metropolitan Police’s H Division since 1887.

[J6123]

Batman,

I think it probably was

[DJA]

Keppel identified Ted Bundy as a suspect during the Lake Sammamish State Park kidnappings. He went face to face speaking to him. He didn't have any evidence against Ted and went back to talk to him a second time but Ted Bundy had been arrested after being pulled over carrying rape gear in his car but was let go because they had no more evidence against him and he fled.

That's a damn far sight better than anonymous people on the internet trying to dismiss it.

I often wonder why I don't find such criticisms in the actual peer-review journals and just in blogs? If I was so certain he was crap I would get published with a paper pointing out all these mistakes.

After all the witnesses attesting to a guy named Ted which led to a police sketch,Keppel put him in his 25 likely suspects.

[Fisherman]

Chapman is a good suspect. I think Kozminski a good suspect also. I don't think I have a favoured one at all and I won't let that get in the way of a good geographic profile either.

Having said that Chapman does have a connection to this I think. A place of business. A barber's shop in the basement of the White Hart Pub, in George Yard. Which is just below the hot zone.

Make of that coincidence what you will

Can I make of it what I will? If so, I make nothing of it, since he started out there in 1890. That´s not what I call a close shave.

[John G]

-Inspector Walter Dew, Metropolitan Police’s H Division since 1887.

Of course, the fact that she was assaulted on a Bank Holiday is another connection!

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not turing to Douglas and haven't brought him up. I didn't bring up Keppel either. Treveor did. Probably confused him with Rossmo.

Albert DeSalvo works with geographic profiling. The hot zone is close to his home. A DNA dragnet today would have got him.

BTW, John Douglas got a few things wrong in his book The Crimes that Haunt Us. DeSalvo has been DNA matched with at least one victim. Douglas was also hired by the Ramseys so his view there is biased. Moral of that story is don't tell your wife your Christmas bonus when she is writing the Ransom note.

I want to re iterate what I said about the viability of profiling both crimibal and geo. Firstly you dont need the use of a tool with geo profiling, and you certainly dont need to be an expert. You only have to look at a map and see the location of the murders. You then arrive at a decision as to whether you think the murders were committed by someone living local, or someone who came into the murder locations to murder and then went back to his place or residence or work. So this is where the geo profiling fails. For someone to say the killer lived with a radius of lets say 4 streets is absurd, and more absurd is those people who are taken in by the results of these exercises, because in the two examples shown above there is only a 50% chance of one being correct.

As to criminal profilers, and I will use John Douglas as an example because again over the years researchers have relied heavily on his profile. Now if you look closely at his Ripper profile, and ask how did he come to arrive at that profile, without anything to support what he says, other than perhaps comparing the murders of more recent serial killers, a dangerous thing to do as I believe that you cannot totally compare the WM with those committed by more modern day serial killers, there are two many dissimilarities.

In effect that Ripper profile is nothing more than a stab in the dark (no pun intended). In fact anyone without any experience can come up with a profile, if you sat someone down and asked them to describe the type of person they believed the killer to have been using the same criteria, age, family background,married/single. employed/unemployed. They would all probably come up with a variety of profiles, so why should the Douglas profile be so readily accepted as it has been over the years.

In fact I go back to the murders I was involved in where we never used profilers, and in many cases we never had the benefit of the modern day forensics now available to law enforcement, yet most of the murders were still detected.

So I would urge researchers to not rely to heavily on profiling.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I would have to agree that not all types of criminal profiling can be considered reliable, and that's probably putting it mildly! https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ral-psychology

[Sam Flynn]

Can I make of it what I will? If so, I make nothing of it, since [Kłosowski] started out [in the White Hart] in 1890. That´s not what I call a close shave.

Correct. There's every probability that Kłosowski wasn't even in Cable Street, but still resident in the West India Dock area, at the time of Tabram's murder.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, the fact that she was assaulted on a Bank Holiday is another connection!

More people out on the booze for longer. Inhibitions slip, self-control is compromised, and judgement blurs.

[Batman]

Can I make of it what I will? If so, I make nothing of it, since he started out there in 1890. That´s not what I call a close shave.

That argument placing Baderski and Schumann over Wolff Levisohn was obliterated in 2009 on Casebook. I don't know why Wojtczak in her book "The Ripper at Last" restated the same mistakes in 2014.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3609

Posts #5 and #7 and #9

[Batman]

I want to re iterate what I said about the viability of profiling both crimibal and geo. Firstly you dont need the use of a tool with geo profiling, and you certainly dont need to be an expert. You only have to look at a map and see the location of the murders.

Trevor, it depends on the case. If it's a single crime and you don't have a large volume of data then you probably don't need it. If it's a series of crimes with large volumes of data then you can manage that data and sort it using special databases made for law enforcement which internally use mathematics to link up data and have geospatial algorithms to use.

If you are running a department and you are allocated a few tens of thousands of pounds to run a DNA dragnet, you will be under constraints to use that money properly. Usually, the cost of the dragnet will not cover everyone in a considerably large area. Which means you have to limit the area you perform the dragnet in. You either GUESS where to do the dragnet or you use tools to give you the best probabilities.

Geographic profiling is also used by the World Health Organisation in tracking diseases. They just call it Geographic information systems, instead. http://www.who.int/heli/tools/maps/en/

A map is a tool. The question is do you want to just use maps with pins or are you willing to use modern tools in conjunction with it? I go with the latter because it beats human guesswork.

Anyway even though it's hit or miss, the JtR geographic profile hits on case related details (addresses of victims and a murder in a hot zone). Should we ignore that Trevor? Some people here say yes... but it's hard for them to defend doing so without claiming more coincidences.

Also Trevor your suspect, Carl Feigenbaum, can't be reconciled with the bloody apron piece which I pointed out to you on the first page and which you have skipped over. JtR wasn't making his way out of Whitechapel after the murders. He was making his way INTO IT.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Trevor, it depends on the case. If it's a single crime and you don't have a large volume of data then you probably don't need it. If it's a series of crimes with large volumes of data then you can manage that data and sort it using special databases made for law enforcement which internally use mathematics to link up data and have geospatial algorithms to use.

If you are running a department and you are allocated a few tens of thousands of pounds to run a DNA dragnet, you will be under constraints to use that money properly. Usually, the cost of the dragnet will not cover everyone in a considerably large area. Which means you have to limit the area you perform the dragnet in. You either GUESS where to do the dragnet or you use tools to give you the best probabilities.

Geographic profiling is also used by the World Health Organisation in tracking diseases. They just call it Geographic information systems, instead. http://www.who.int/heli/tools/maps/en/

A map is a tool. The question is do you want to just use maps with pins or are you willing to use modern tools in conjunction with it? I go with the latter because it beats human guesswork.

Anyway even though it's hit or miss, the JtR geographic profile hits on case related details (addresses of victims and a murder in a hot zone). Should we ignore that Trevor? Some people here say yes... but it's hard for them to defend doing so without claiming more coincidences.

Also Trevor your suspect, Carl Feigenbaum, can't be reconciled with the bloody apron piece which I pointed out to you on the first page and which you have skipped over. JtR wasn't making his way out of Whitechapel after the murders. He was making his way INTO IT.

Very good post. I would just like to add that the geographic profile is also a minus against Druitt [and probably others] being the ripper.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If you look at the map with Martha going outwards as in ripples he struck NE NW SE SW of her. She is almost central. But NW seems important, two murders plus the general direction he would be heading after Goulston St, and the fact that Dorset street had a notorious reputation. Makes me wonder if he knew that area particularly well.

[Sally]

Batman,

Thanks for posting these maps, very interesting. Maybe geoprofil8ng is hit or miss, but I can't see what we have to lose by considering it myself. I have no issue with Tabram being a Ripper victim personally. Good work

[Sam Flynn]

That argument placing Baderski and Schumann over Wolff Levisohn was obliterated in 2009 on Casebook. I don't know why Wojtczak in her book "The Ripper at Last" restated the same mistakes in 2014.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3609

Posts #5 and #7 and #9

The assertions made in posts 5, 7 and 9 were incorrect, not least because the poster was basing her argument solely on the abridged and sometimes garbled account of Wolff Levisohn's testimony included in one book (HL Adam's Trial of George Chapman). Now, thanks to the splendid efforts of Mark Ripper, I was able to read the actual court records in full. In these, Wolff Levisohn claims that he first met Klosowski in the White Hart pub in 1888, which cannot be correct, because - here's the kicker - Levisohn said that, when he met Lucy Klosowski the following year (which would have been 1889), she had a daughter and a son. This cannot be correct, because the son was born in late 1890 and the daughter in 1892.

Besides, Levisohn doesn't even mention Cable Street, where we know Klosowski and his wife were living between sometime in mid/late 1888 and at least October 1889, when he married Lucy. His son wasn't born until September 1890, by which time the family were living in the White Hart. The only possible conclusion to draw is that Levisohn's timings were out by a year or two, that he first met Klosowski sometime between late 1890 and 1891, and that this is the very earliest we can place Klosowski in the White Hart pub.

When it comes to timings, Levisohn was a very unreliable witness. Demonstrably so.