The locations

[Phil H]

The polite one's never are.

As I said before, please don't twist my words as you squirm, Fisherman.

Phil

[Monty]

This is tiresome, Monty.

You know just as well as I do that you stated that this is not a Lechmere thread.
Fair enough, that is not the same as saying that Lechmere should not be discussed here.
But it comes kind of close. And was kind of uncalled for.

If you are of the meaning that Lechmere - as well as any other suspect - belongs to the discussion, then why say that it is not a Lechmere thread in the first place?

See, Monty, you can´t eat your cake and keep it at the same time.

Now that we´ve established that, can we make use of the boards in a more productive manner ...? Stay away from the cheap shots and such? Please?

The best,
Fisherman

So you cannot cite where I stated that Cross should not be discussed on this thread?

Why not state that instead of providing yet another long winded post which essentially provides nothing of significance?

Despite what you claim, it seems you are adamant to turn every post towards you pet suspect. So pointing the finger, whining about cheap shots, kinda blows up in your face.

Phil,

I discussed this issue of Kosminski and Stride with Rob House. His counter was that its possib le Aaron could have either taken an extended route home or risked the walk through the area. I cannot claim this is impossible in all fairness to Rob.

Monty

[Fisherman]

The polite one's never are.

As I said before, please don't twist my words as you squirm, Fisherman.

Phil

I don´t have to twist anything. I quoted you directly. You spoke of unscientific methods, not of an unscientific suspect.

And at the end of the day, Phil, you need to look at things in a more sober way.

The Ripper killings were not solved. Nobody was brought to justice. No shade of proof could be cast on anybody, remember.

And here you are, stating that it is unscientific to suspect somebody now that was not suspected then. By a police corpse that failed to solve the case.

Good night, sweet prince.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So you cannot cite where I stated that Cross should not be discussed on this thread?

Why not state that instead of providing yet another long winded post which essentially provides nothing of significance?

Despite what you claim, it seems you are adamant to turn every post towards you pet suspect. So pointing the finger, whining about cheap shots, kinda blows up in your face.

I can only cite you saying that this is not a Lechmere thread. And apparently you had no cause to say that, going by how you now duck out.

If you should ever feel like discussing the case, let me know.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Keep to the topic in hand Christer.

You don't want another 3 month sabbatical.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Keep to the topic in hand Christer.

You don't want another 3 month sabbatical.

Monty

You know, Monty, sometimes I actually do.

If you would extend me the courtesy of discussing the identification problem I raised on this thread, it is now up for discussion on a witness thread. If not, fine.

Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

And where did Dahmer first kill? In his home, yes. And that is the heart of a person´s comfort zone, the centre of the radius representing that area, normally.

My point was that his first kill was also unpremeditated.

All you need to do, Rivkah, is to ask yourself why serialists so very often are tied namewise to a certain area; the Green river killer, the Genessee river killer, the Trailside killer. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

That happens because newspapers call them that. When they are caught, if they ever are, it usually turns out they have dumped bodies in other locations as well. Gary Ridgway dumped bodies in other places besides the woods around the Green River, but, until he was identified, and was known only as "The Green River Killer," he was credited only with bodies found along the banks of the river, or the woods immediately adjacent to it.

Herb Baumeister was called "The I-70 Killer," because he dumped several bodies along I-70 (a US highway very close to where I am right now). He also buried some in his backyard, and one in his basement, which he later dug up, and skeletonized, keeping it for a while. He dumped a few bodies other places, or got rid of them in some other way, but until he was caught, he was credited only with the I-70 killings. He committed suicide once the police were closing in, but his yard was dug up, and several bodies were found, and later objects he'd kept that had belonged to some of his victims were matched to missing persons, but the bodies weren't located.

More or less every time a serial killer is caught,

The ones who are caught. It maybe that there are a lot who are never caught, because they watch TV, and say "Hmm. This 'comfort zone' thing Joe Mantegna keeps talking about on Criminal Minds...maybe I oughtta vary my body dumps."

Im fully aware this isnt a Cross thread Christer, hence my comment in my previous post. I think you will find it was you who drew this witness into the thread, as you do in every other thread.

As the thread-starter, I fully endorse thread-drift. I have been on threads about Alcoholics Anonymous, that ended up being about tacos, and threads about breastfeeding that ended up being about crossword puzzles.

[Monty]

Again, Rivkah, where did I state the opposite?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Rivkah:

"My point was that his first kill was also unpremeditated."

Well yes - but I don´t think that using a comfort zone must be premeditated, Rivkah; instead I would say that those who harbour an inner urge to kill will normally do so - premeditated or not - in an area where they feel some sort of security.

"That happens because newspapers call them that. When they are caught, if they ever are, it usually turns out they have dumped bodies in other locations as well. Gary Ridgway dumped bodies in other places besides the woods around the Green River, but, until he was identified, and was known only as "The Green River Killer," he was credited only with bodies found along the banks of the river, or the woods immediately adjacent to it."

In all fairness, the papers would not have dubbed him the Green River killer if he had not been tied to Green River by his killings, Rivkah. And the River areas where he dumped the bodies were of course subjected to police surveillance after some time, meaning that they no longer provided the feeling of security they originally did. That meant tht he needed to move to other areas, but you may rest assured that he would choose these areas with great care too. His reasoning would have gone along the lines: "Damn the cops - now I can´t go back and dump more bodies along my favoured stretch of ground. Let´s see, where else have I been before and gotten knowledge of the grounds? What secure place is there, known to me, that i can use now?"

Some killers will be more prone to doing this swop, some sense too late that their grounds are no longer safe. Ask Arthur Shawcross, for example.

"Herb Baumeister was called "The I-70 Killer," because he dumped several bodies along I-70 (a US highway very close to where I am right now). He also buried some in his backyard, and one in his basement, which he later dug up, and skeletonized, keeping it for a while. He dumped a few bodies other places, or got rid of them in some other way, but until he was caught, he was credited only with the I-70 killings. He committed suicide once the police were closing in, but his yard was dug up, and several bodies were found, and later objects he'd kept that had belonged to some of his victims were matched to missing persons, but the bodies weren't located."

So? To me, that tells me that he favoured the I-70, meaning that this was a comfort zone of his. His basement and backyard would equally have represented safe zones to him. In the other cases, you have me confused - you say that he was caught AND that he committed suicide when the police closed in, so I´m not sure which applies. Anyway, it seems that objects belonging to missing persons were found at his place, implicating that they had been killed by Baumeister, right? But the bodies were not located, is that so?

Then how do we know that they are not buried along the I-70...?

Sorry if I misread you here, but I´m a bit lost by the wording of your post.

"It maybe that there are a lot who are never caught, because they watch TV, and say "Hmm. This 'comfort zone' thing Joe Mantegna keeps talking about on Criminal Minds...maybe I oughtta vary my body dumps."

Yes, Rivkah, I second that very much, as you will be able to see in my former post. This is exactly what some killers must have taken advantage of - the knowledge that the police know about comfort zones. But the general rule is that there is always a logical explanation to why serial killers´victims are procured/killed/dumped in the areas where they end up. This is why you always hear the coppers in tv-shows - and reality - say: Let´s map this guy´s movements! Let´s find out where he was brought up, where he spent his early years, where he has worked, where his friends live ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mad Dan Eccles]

I don't really see why locations matter at all. The victims were streetwalkers, in the sense that they literally walked the streets looking for custom, including MJK, who at least had a room to take her clients back to, but had to find them in the same way as the others. Since "loitering" was a specific reason for any passing copper to question anybody, especially at night, these ladies were presumably walking with an appearance of purpose most of the time rather than standing still. Their murderer, even more so, for exactly the same reason.

The killings took place in an area of less than one square mile. Two miles per hour is a pretty slow walking speed. So these people could have gotten from anywhere on that map to anywhere else in about half an hour at very most, even if they were in no hurry at all. Assuming JtR to have killed when the opportunity arose, if he'd been five minutes earlier or later in encountering those women, the map would look completely different. And if he had some unknown agenda, apart from MJK, those women carried out their trade anywhere quiet, such as the nearest dark alley. Even if he was hunting those specific women (which isn't very probable), the specific locations where they died can hardly have been chosen with pinpoint accuracy.

I once saw a TV show - I forget what it was called - in which some kind of alleged "expert" from the FBI plotted the canonical five killings on a map, showed that they were all equidistant from one street, and since one of the hundreds of obscure JtR suspects lived there, thereby "proved" it was him. Never mind that five examples is statistically way too few, or that any of the people involved could have changed the result by pausing long enough to buy cigarettes! If this is how the FBI catches serial killers, I'm surprised they've ever caught any!

There are simply no conclusions at all to be drawn from the locations. other than that the killer most likely lived in Whitechapel, which isn't exactly news.

[Phil H]

I agree that there a no conclusions to be drawn from the locations, but surely we still need to consider them?

Given the remote possibility that the killer was seeking to create a deliberate "pattern" - how would we know unless we analyse the sites?

MJK was killed indoors - a different KIND of site, a change in the killer's MO, if only one killer was involved - or an indication that Mary died by another hand. We need to think it through to see what we can learn or deduce.

There might be something in whether "Jack" chose the sites or the women did (I favour the latter, given that all the four outdoor sites had wooden gates or a fence to lean on). The degree of seclusion might rule in or out Stride (for example).

I also believe that, as a site, the use of No 29 hanbury St has something to tell us, and that we have not looked deeply or logically enough at that location. Does it, for instance, tell us that "Jack" knew beforehand what lay behind two doors, unseeable from the street? In turn that might indicate whether the killer had a connection with the house.

Was "Jack" the dosser discussed by Sugden? Had he used the privy while sleeping rough on the staircase?

Or does the choice of that yard - overlooked by many windows, only one obvious escape route, potentially a trap - tell us that "Jack" really was a risk-taker?

For all those reasons i do not believe that we can dismiss the locations, as an issue in the case, as lightly as you seem to be prepared to do.

Phil

[lynn cates]

with a little help from my friends

Hello Dan.

"If this is how the FBI catches serial killers, I'm surprised they've ever caught any!"

My sentiments exactly. Perhaps they got "by with a little help from their friends"?

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

...

Mad Dan Eccles? Hmmm!

Danny Harkins, aka 'Eccles' was a Chelsea hero - not on the pitch, but on the terraces - in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Are you a Chelsea Boy?


Danny Harkins: Fourth from Left

The killings took place in an area of less than one square mile. Two miles per hour is a pretty slow walking speed. So these people could have gotten from anywhere on that map to anywhere else in about half an hour at very most, even if they were in no hurry at all. Assuming JtR to have killed when the opportunity arose, if he'd been five minutes earlier or later in encountering those women, the map would look completely different. And if he had some unknown agenda, apart from MJK, those women carried out their trade anywhere quiet, such as the nearest dark alley. Even if he was hunting those specific women (which isn't very probable), the specific locations where they died can hardly have been chosen with pinpoint accuracy.

"... if he'd been five minutes earlier or later in encountering those women, the map would look completely different."

True! But its points of central tendency, i.e. the murder-site mean-center, the murder-site center of minimum distance, the murder-site circumcenter, the murder-site centroid, etc. would still be very similar.

Consider, for example, the fact that the sets of integers {5, 12, 13, 27, 33} and {2, 16, 17, 25, 30} would each appear quite differently when plotted on a number line. But then take note of the fact that each set would have the same mean: namely 18.

You are touching upon a major flaw – as I see it – in most recognized geographic profile models.

Most of these models asses a particular point on the ground, e.g. a particular dwelling, on the basis of its deviation from each of the murder-sites that have been brought into play. This effectively assumes two fallacies:

- that the murderer travelled directly from his base, to each of the respective murder-sites.

- that the murderer was able to travel through any obstacle, e.g. a wall, that might have impeded his direct route.

A simpler model - like mine - that assesses a particular point on the ground, on the basis of its deviation from a single point of central tendency, assumes neither of these fallacies.

I once saw a TV show - I forget what it was called - in which some kind of alleged "expert" from the FBI plotted the canonical five killings on a map, showed that they were all equidistant from one street, and since one of the hundreds of obscure JtR suspects lived there, thereby "proved" it was him. Never mind that five examples is statistically way too few, or that any of the people involved could have changed the result by pausing long enough to buy cigarettes!

"I once saw a TV show - I forget what it was called - in which some kind of alleged "expert" from the FBI plotted the canonical five killings on a map, showed that they were all equidistant from one street, …"

There is no point in the Universe that is equidistant from each of those murder-sites. None!

If this is how the FBI catches serial killers, I'm surprised they've ever caught any!

It isn't! So you shouldn't be surprised.

There are simply no conclusions at all to be drawn from the locations. other than that the killer most likely lived in Whitechapel, which isn't exactly news.

Nonsense!


Accumulation of Geographic Focus Analysis Probability Distribution (Elliptical): from Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011


Accumulation of Geographic Focus Analysis Probability Distribution (Elliptical): from Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Seventy Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

I have developed a very simple geographic profile model that I have until recently referred to as my … drum roll … Geographic Profile Model, but which I have now decided to call my Geographic Focus Analysis.

The model, however, is in dire need of certain revisions, for example:

- the incorporation of a weighted murder-site scale, e.g. …

--- Tabram: 52.5%
--- Nichols: 97.5%
--- Chapman: 100.0%
--- Stride: 67.5%
--- Eddowes: 92.5%
--- Kelly: 77.5%

- the use of a perceived 'mode' of the murder-site distribution, as the focal point of the analysis, rather than the current use of the measured 'mean' of the same.

Each of these revisions would move the focal point of the analysis away from the southwest corner of the intersection of Wentworth Street and Osborn Street, in the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, i.e. the murder-site mean-center; and toward the southeast corner of the intersection of Flower & Dean Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields. This change in focus would in turn alter the placement, orientation, relative dimension, and size of the each of the respective elliptical color-shaded isopleths that can be seen in the above imagery.

I have been pondering these revisions for a couple of years, but as I can already hear the sneers that would invariably emanate from this supposedly scholarly kiddy pool that we typically refer to as a 'message board', I haven't been inclined to put forth the enormous effort that would be required.

Anyway, back to your nonsensical assertion:

"There are simply no conclusions at all to be drawn from the locations."

My unrevised Geographic Focus Analysis would 'conclude' that the local constabulary, in late November 1888, would have done well to conduct a random search (the random search that actually did take place, a month earlier, notwithstanding), in which 10% of available time and resources would have been devoted to the area that fell within the red color-shaded isopleth, 10% of available time and resources would have been devoted to the area that fell within the orange color-shaded isopleth, 10% of available time and resources would have been devoted to the area that fell within the yellow color-shaded isopleth, etc.

Contrary to popular misconception, this is what geographic profiles are intended to do: assist in the prioritization of areas that should be randomly searched; NOT pinpoint the perpetrator's residence. But, I guess that a straw man falls more easily than a real man. Especially around here.

"If this is how the FBI catches serial killers, I'm surprised they've ever caught any!"

My sentiments exactly. Perhaps they got "by with a little help from their friends"?

Perhaps they took your lead, and finally realized that the single most effective means of solving a murder mystery is ad nauseam message board pontification.

[RivkahChaya]

Again, Rivkah, where did I state the opposite?

Monty

Sorry; just using your post as a springboard. Wasn't contradicting you.

you have me confused - you say that he [Herb Baumeister] was caught AND that he committed suicide when the police closed in, so I´m not sure which applies.

My bad. I should have said something like "identified," rather than caught. I don't remember the whole story, but there have been a couple of docs on American television, so they are probably on TruTV, or youtube.

After his suicide, his wife let the police have free reign to go through his stuff, and dig up the yard. They owned a house on a pretty big plot, with a wooded area behind it. I'm in Indianapolis right now. I oughtta look up exactly where he lived, and drive by. I'm not sure what stretch of I-70 he used, but I'm guessing it's the place where it leaves Indianapolis in the direction of Ohio. That is one boring, monotonous drive. Also, straight, and not well-lit. There's a comparable stretch of I-65 south of Indianapolis, but the thing about the part of I-70 I'm thinking of, is that there's a very long part without exits, or stoplights, and the road is raised for drainage, so you could pull over, roll a body down, and the chances of somebody stopping in the same spot and noticing the body aren't good, because when cars stall, it's usually at exits or lights, and when light trucks have to stop because they lose cargo, it's usually at a turn, and those don't happen there.

Since Baumeister lived on the NW of Indianapolis, this was the stretch oif highway with those characteristics closest to him. He could have gone up a state road, 31, and there are long stretches, but there are some family farms, and the speed limit is lower, plus, there are more lights, and because of the farms, more crows, turkey buzzards, and coyotes, so a body is going to attract scavengers in short order.

Baumeister ran a second-hand store (before eBay), so traveling to Ohio, to major cities is more believable than traveling upstate, where you just have small towns, and there are fewer cars-- there's traffic, but the same people making daily commutes, as opposed to a lot of random people using I-70, which is a major artery across the US. I think Baumeister did his homework, when he picked I-70. I don't think it was "comfort," other than the comfort of knowing his dump spot was unlikely to be connected to him.

Then how do we know that they are not buried along the I-70...?

His technique seemed to be stop, dump, roll. It would take less than a minute, in some places. I doubt he took the time to bury anyone, because bodies in a drainage ditch wouldn't be visible, and a guy digging along the road would. I think there was some suspicion that he experimented with woodchippers, and acid baths, so some bodies may never be found. Some may have been dumped in the river, for all I know, because there was a time when there was a lot of construction on I-70, and traffic was slow.

Sorry if I misread you here, but I´m a bit lost by the wording of your post.

Again, my bad.

I don't really see why locations matter at all. The victims were streetwalkers, in the sense that they literally walked the streets looking for custom, including MJK, who at least had a room to take her clients back to, but had to find them in the same way as the others. Since "loitering" was a specific reason for any passing copper to question anybody, especially at night, these ladies were presumably walking with an appearance of purpose most of the time rather than standing still.

From whence the term "streetwalker."

I once saw a TV show - I forget what it was called - in which some kind of alleged "expert" from the FBI plotted the canonical five killings on a map, showed that they were all equidistant from one street....

[apologies for losing track of attribution; I hope it's right now] There is no point in the Universe that is equidistant from each of those murder-sites. None!

In the universe? I would agree that there is no point on earth, but in the universe? I think there is probably a point in the stratosphere that is equidistant. Unless JTR lived on the top of a very long post, I doubt that he lived somehow, "equidistant" from all the murder sites.

[Colin Roberts]

I once saw a TV show - I forget what it was called - in which some kind of alleged "expert" from the FBI plotted the canonical five killings on a map, showed that they were all equidistant from one street....

There is no point in the Universe that is equidistant from each of those murder-sites. None!

In the universe? I would agree that there is no point on earth, but in the universe? I think there is probably a point in the stratosphere that is equidistant. Unless JTR lived on the top of a very long post, I doubt that he lived somehow, "equidistant" from all the murder sites.

In the Universe: Assuming - I suppose - that we don't consider the interiors of black holes to represent a fourth dimension.

In order to find points of equidistance from five arbitrarily placed locations, we would have to delve into four-dimensional space. In order to find points of equidistance from six arbitrarily placed locations (e.g. 'M5' + Tabram), we would have to delve into five-dimensional space.*

*Unless the arbitrarily placed locations just happened to lie on - on, not within, on - a circle (2D) or sphere (3D).

"[apologies for losing track of attribution; I hope it's right now]"

Kudos for making the effort! But, you effectively have Eccles quoting me. Once you master the technique, your quotes will be very easy for readers to track, unlike those of other posters that can't be bothered to learn how to use the quote function at all.