Originally posted by Batman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.
Collapse
X
-
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostDoes the rossmo model take into account differences in where the murder takes place AND where the victims bodies were found?Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostNo. Its because we know where lech lived and where he worked.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-08-2018, 05:38 AM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostNo. Its because we know where lech lived and where he worked. Rossmos model only takes into account where the crime took place because they dont know where the killer lived. (Or worked).apples and oranges.
No, it is not more parsimonious?
No, it is not circular reasoning?
If not then why not?
Also, as I pointed out, it can't just be "because we know where lech lived and where he worked." It also has previous places of employment included and nearby relatives to murder sites.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
What I'm thinking is why would a serial killer strike in locations that he's associated with? Wouldn't the reverse be true? For instance, targeting victims nearvto where a relative lives as the disadvantage that he might be recognised in the area. And what advantage does it give him? If, say, he's unfortunate enough to be stopped and searched by a police officer and a blood stained knife is found, he can hardly respond by saying, "don't worry, I'm just visiting mother!"
Similarly, if he's stopped near his place of work with incriminating evidence, such as blood stained clothing, he could say that he was in the area to meet a work friend for a drink, but that doesn't negate the incriminating evidence, nor will the friend be able to alibi him for the period he was away committing the crime, unless he was involved as well, of course!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostNo what though?
No, it is not more parsimonious?
No, it is not circular reasoning?
If not then why not?
Also, as I pointed out, it can't just be "because we know where lech lived and where he worked." It also has previous places of employment included and nearby relatives to murder sites."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostNo what though?
No, it is not more parsimonious?
No, it is not circular reasoning?
If not then why not?
Also, as I pointed out, it can't just be "because we know where lech lived and where he worked." It also has previous places of employment included and nearby relatives to murder sites.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostThe Ripper murders happened where they happened, regardless of where Cross lived or worked. In effect, Fisherman's "work-trek/mum-visit" constructs are necessary devices to transplant Cross into the heart of Ripper territory - a place where thousands of men already were, without such mechanisms being invoked. In the absence of these mechanisms, and the speculations that accompany them, there's nothing that places Cross in temporal or physical proximity to the murders at all, apart from the one he discovered in Bucks Row.
Lechs route to work and where he used to live/mums house do place him in close location-mere yards-from the murder sites and at approximate time.
you cant say that about any other named suspects OR unnamed suspects.
sure other people could be near and at same times-theres just NO FREAKING EVIDENCE for it (as opposed to lech-where there is). just admit it and move on.Its a check mark for his validity as a suspect-big deal."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postsam what are you talking about. you guys are overthinking this it aint rocket science and you don't need some convoluted model or vague statistics.
Lechs route to work and where he used to live/mums house do place him in close location-mere yards-from the murder sites and at approximate time.
you cant say that about any other named suspects OR unnamed suspects.
sure other people could be near and at same times-theres just NO FREAKING EVIDENCE for it (as opposed to lech-where there is). just admit it and move on.Its a check mark for his validity as a suspect-big deal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostLechs route to work and where he used to live/mums house do place him in close location-mere yards-from the murder sites and at approximate time.
you cant say that about any other named suspects OR unnamed suspects.
Furthermore, there were thousands of men like him in Whitechapel, and on statistical grounds alone it's a dead cert that there'd have been scores of these, perhaps more, who'd have made far more likely Ripper candidates than Charles Cross. No need for a work rota, no need for a familial connection to the site of Stride's murder, no work connections needed to be in the vicinity of Mitre Square. Being local, they'd have had the freedom of the district, and could have been at any of the murder sites (and back) within a few minutes.
sure other people could be near and at same times-theres just NO FREAKING EVIDENCE for itLast edited by Sam Flynn; 11-08-2018, 06:50 AM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostBit we don't actually know his shift patterns, the days on which he worked or even if he went to Broad Street every day.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostNo. Its because we know where lech lived and where he worked. Rossmos model only takes into account where the crime took place because they dont know where the killer lived. (Or worked).apples and oranges.
Once there IS a suspect, no profiling is done in relation to him/her - all that is needed is a check as to whether it is known if he/she was in the area or had reason to be there.
At a stage where there is a suspect, profiling has no value at all and no police force will engage any profiler to help out. It is only if the suspect can be exonerated that the police must take a step back and start from the beginning all over again. If the suspect instead matches the criteria, the case for guilt is immensely strengthened and prosecution is likely around the corner.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostThe Ripper murders happened where they happened, regardless of where Cross lived or worked. In effect, Fisherman's "work-trek/mum-visit" constructs are necessary devices to transplant Cross into the heart of Ripper territory - a place where thousands of men already were, without such mechanisms being invoked. In the absence of these mechanisms, and the speculations that accompany them, there's nothing that places Cross in temporal or physical proximity to the murders at all, apart from the one he discovered in Bucks Row.
It is what we know about the carmans work trek, his mothers residence and his workplace that allows for us to say that he had links to all the areas where the murders occurred.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostWhat I'm thinking is why would a serial killer strike in locations that he's associated with?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
sure other people could be near and at same times-theres just NO FREAKING EVIDENCE for it (as opposed to lech-where there is). just admit it and move on.
Admit the obvious? Gareth? Batman? Not gonna happen.
Comment
Comment