The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Batman]

Yes, it is. Geographical profiling is aimed at finding the killerīs base, which is normally his home. End of.

As Wikipedia succinctly puts it:

"Geographic profiling is a criminal investigative methodology that analyzes the locations of a connected series of crimes to determine the most probable area of offender residence."

The more you know about the murders and of suspects involved, the more you can factor in, but the basis is a very simple one.

His assumptions are the factors that produce the math to produce the geoprofile.

• Link between crimes must be accurate and complete
• The offender must be local (not too long journey)
• He should not change his anchor point
• Crimes must be committed by a single offender

From these basic assumptions we have Rossmo's equation. This equation can further be modified with more assumptions but these are the basic assumptions.

Your assumptions are a modification which includes a route to work. However, your assumption also had additional modifications that include 'route to former workplaces also' and 'crimes adjacent to relatives'.

This makes your list of assumptions more complex than Rossmo which is why Rossmo's would be the preferred geographic profile because of parsimony.

The problem we have with the route to work model is that there is a bit of circular reasoning going on here. You are assuming that the person is using a route to work as a model to prove the route to work model.

Notice Rossmo in their assumptions is not assuming any routes about the offender, nor assumptions about where they live. Yet your model includes these assumptions to prove the assumptions.

Do you see this difference?

[Sam Flynn]

Guess what happens when we do not factor in all the relevant material?

Relevant material like "Dr Phillips was right in spite of the independent testimony of three witnesses", or "he could have pretended to visit his mum at one o'clock in the morning", or "he might have felt comfy in Mitre Square because it was 0.6 miles from where he once worked" (despite its being a half hour walk from where he lived), etc? These speculations apart, what about factual relevant material like "there were no Ripper murders further east than Bucks Row", or "several thousand men lived in closer proximity to the murder sites than Cross did, and they needed no excuse to be in the area at all"?

[Fisherman]

Those are not Rossmo's assumptions at all.

Yes, it is. Geographical profiling is aimed at finding the killerīs base, which is normally his home. End of.

As Wikipedia succinctly puts it:

"Geographic profiling is a criminal investigative methodology that analyzes the locations of a connected series of crimes to determine the most probable area of offender residence."

The more you know about the murders and of suspects involved, the more you can factor in, but the basis is a very simple one.

[Batman]

Rossmo does not factor in the idea of a person killing en route. He works from a model that presupposes that the murders are all matters that begin and end at home.
Guess what happens when we do not factor in all the relevant material?

As if georaphical profilers were always right...

Those are not Rossmo's assumptions at all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The "proven" reason(s) to be present - e.g. visiting mum, being 0.6 miles away from a former place of work - are speculative, and even the "work-trek" argument collapses in respect of Chapman if she really was killed at sun-up.

Proven reasons to have been present at a site must always be "speculative". They are not proof that a person was in place, but instead that he had a logical reason to be. The concept is a simple one to understand once you put your mind to it.

The work trek argument does not work with Chapman IF she was killed at sun-up. However, Gareth, the argument that she was killed at sun-up collapses if Phillips was right. So it is not a very effective criticism of the theory. And the police - very soundly - opted for Phillips being the correct part.

In contrast, there were thousands of men in Spitalfields who had every reason to be "by the murder sites", simply because they actually lived, and slept, there. Any one of these men would have been a short walk away from each of the murder sites, irrespective of what time the murders occurred, and could have scuttled back to safety in a commensurately short time.

These men are of no interest and/or consequence until they have either a proven presence at the murder sites and/or proven reasons to be there - on ALL sites, not just the one. In your world, anybody who tells the police that they have seen a man standing by a freshly murdered victim are ridiculous if it can be proven that the man in question actually resided a few miles away. In such a case, he is unlikely to be the killer! In your world, the police would let him go and start knocking on doors adjacent to the murder spot instead. Then, after having employed a metric rule, they would imprison whoever lived closest to the actual murder spot. Mere inches would decide.
In your world, thatīs how to go about it.
In my world, thatīs how to go about making a joke.

Such men would be much stronger suspects, geographically speaking, than a commuter from Bethnal Green and, given the sheer numbers involved, there would have been many, many more plausible "persons of interest" among them. Criminals, misogynists, wife-beaters, bullies, thugs, the mentally ill - you name it - any one of whom would make a far stronger suspect than a carman from another district, who happened upon a body as he walked to work.

None of them would be persons of interest at all, let alone suspects, the way Lechmere is. They would be better bids than Lechmere only on the most basic of levels - they lived closer to the murder spots than he did. Once we refine the search and start asking for some REAL reason to suspect somebody, they would quickly fall off the map.
You see, no matter how many times you repeat a falsity, it will REMAIN a falsity.

Have you read up about Ogorzow yet? He will teach you a thing or two, I dare say.

[Sam Flynn]

Any person who has a proven presence or a proven reason to be present by the murder sites is always going to be the better suspect, geographically speaking.

The "proven" reason(s) to be present - e.g. visiting mum, being 0.6 miles away from a former place of work - are speculative, and even the "work-trek" argument collapses in respect of Chapman if she really was killed at sun-up.

In contrast, there were thousands of men in Spitalfields who had every reason to be "by the murder sites", simply because they actually lived, and slept, there. Any one of these men would have been a short walk away from each of the murder sites, irrespective of what time the murders occurred, and could have scuttled back to safety in a commensurately short time.

Such men would be much stronger suspects, geographically speaking, than a commuter from Bethnal Green and, given the sheer numbers involved, there would have been many, many more plausible "persons of interest" among them. Criminals, misogynists, wife-beaters, bullies, thugs, the mentally ill - you name it - any one of whom would make a far stronger suspect than a carman from another district, who happened upon a body as he walked to work.

[Fisherman]

Commercial Street, or its immediate surroundings. Not Commercial Road, although even that would be more advantageous a base for a prowling killer than Bethnal Green.

Different street? Yes.
Other rules? No.

Any person who has a proven presence or a proven reason to be present by the murder sites is always going to be the better suspect, geographically speaking. Regardless of where he lives.
Now, have a look at Paul Ogorzow and try to profile him geographically.

[Sam Flynn]

Commercial Street, or its immediate surroundings. Not Commercial Road, although even that would be more advantageous a base for a prowling killer than Bethnal Green.

[Fisherman]

But he was only observed at one murder site, and he had a perfectly legitimate reason for being there. Why would a serial killer be concerned with making sure they had an explanation for being present at all of the murder sites? In fact, I would have thought that anyone who happened to be observed at several of the murder sites would be automatically a prime suspect, regardless of what explanation they might give for being in the general area.

And that is as it really should be - if you are observed on several of the murder sites in a series, you will undoubtedly become a prime suspect, plus you are the likely killer, all other things unconsidered.

I am not saying that a killer would be concerned with making sure he had an explanation for being at each murder site, John - basically, he would want to be seen as few times as possible, because of the above: if he IS seen at numerous sites, he WILL be picked out as a prime suspect and the likely killer, all other things unconsidered.

In Lechmeres case, we can see that he has a proven presence at one of the sites and a proven reason to have been at the other sites: he passed through Spitalfields in the early morning hours, he had his mother and daughter living in Mary Ann Street and Mitre Square was alongside his old road to work from St Georges.

This is powerful evidence. No observation of how a Mr Soandso lived in Commercial Road in the autumn of 1888 will make him a better suspect on geographical grounds. He may not even have been there, he may have visited his friend Mr Thisandthat when the murders were committed.
And even if he WAS in place in Commercial Road, that on itīs own does not even come close to giving him any suspect status or that of a person of interest.

[John G]

Proven presence or reason to be present is and remains the best geographical indicator of possible guilt there is. And no other man has a proven presence or reason to be present on all murder sites than Charles Lechmere.

Once we try to establish that living close to the epicenter of a murder spree is a factor that will trump proven presence or reason to be present, we have gotten things wrong. It is overemphasizing the idea behind geographical profiling, in other words placing belief in how all murders come about as a result of the killer leaving his home with an intent to kill and going about it as quicklyn as possible.

No room is left for various parameters that can have played a very large role. Those who leave home to kill as many teachers as possible on their old schools will need to get to the school before that can happen. Those who dislike Chinese people need to get to Chinatown. Those who want to kill prostitutes need to go to the red light district.

Put the killer of these types of murders into the "he must live in the midst of the murders" thinking, and you will get lost immediately. The model does not take height for any other thinking than that represented by a killer who has no other objective than to kill, and to whom all other parameters are of no importance or consequence.

The proven presence or reason for presence model takes the thinking one vital step further and covers ALL types of possibilities. You donīt get suspected because you live close to a murder site, you get suspected because you are proven to have been in close proximity to that murder spot at the relevant time when a murder was committed.

It demands much fuller information and therefore, it can only be applied to few people; the more and further spread the murder spots are, the fewer people will fit the bill.

Accordingly, where ordinary profiling will turn up "thousands and thousands" of people who fit the frame, just about each and every one of them will be sifted out of the process once we take it a step further and look at proven presence or reason to be present on the murder sites.

That is why Charles Lechmere - who is not only the only suspect to have been named as somebody who has a proven presence or reason to be present at all the murder sites but actually also the only person to have been named that meets this criteria - remains the foremost suspect from a geographical point of view.

Smoke and mirrors cannot alter that fact.

But he was only observed at one murder site, and he had a perfectly legitimate reason for being there. Why would a serial killer be concerned with making sure they had an explanation for being present at all of the murder sites? In fact, I would have thought that anyone who happened to be observed at several of the murder sites would be automatically a prime suspect, regardless of what explanation they might give for being in the general area.

[Fisherman]

To those who enjoy geographical profiling, I would like to have a comment on Paul Ogorzow, a German serial killer who lived in Karlshorst. One would think that the murders he committed would "fan out" from his residence, but no.

He could never have been apprehended by basic profiling, but the model of proven presence or reason to be present firmly nails him.

[Fisherman]

Proven presence or reason to be present is and remains the best geographical indicator of possible guilt there is. And no other man has a proven presence or reason to be present on all murder sites than Charles Lechmere.

Once we try to establish that living close to the epicenter of a murder spree is a factor that will trump proven presence or reason to be present, we have gotten things wrong. It is overemphasizing the idea behind geographical profiling, in other words placing belief in how all murders come about as a result of the killer leaving his home with an intent to kill and going about it as quicklyn as possible.

No room is left for various parameters that can have played a very large role. Those who leave home to kill as many teachers as possible on their old schools will need to get to the school before that can happen. Those who dislike Chinese people need to get to Chinatown. Those who want to kill prostitutes need to go to the red light district.

Put the killer of these types of murders into the "he must live in the midst of the murders" thinking, and you will get lost immediately. The model does not take height for any other thinking than that represented by a killer who has no other objective than to kill, and to whom all other parameters are of no importance or consequence.

The proven presence or reason for presence model takes the thinking one vital step further and covers ALL types of possibilities. You donīt get suspected because you live close to a murder site, you get suspected because you are proven to have been in close proximity to that murder spot at the relevant time when a murder was committed.

It demands much fuller information and therefore, it can only be applied to few people; the more and further spread the murder spots are, the fewer people will fit the bill.

Accordingly, where ordinary profiling will turn up "thousands and thousands" of people who fit the frame, just about each and every one of them will be sifted out of the process once we take it a step further and look at proven presence or reason to be present on the murder sites.

That is why Charles Lechmere - who is not only the only suspect to have been named as somebody who has a proven presence or reason to be present at all the murder sites but actually also the only person to have been named that meets this criteria - remains the foremost suspect from a geographical point of view.

Smoke and mirrors cannot alter that fact.

[Fisherman]

Just thought that I’d have a quick look on this thread to see what’s going on.

We have Fish complaining of people being stubborn and stupid because they might disagree with him.

Nothing changes........

Oh, I wouldnīt say that - stubborness and stupidity can be amended, Herlock. Not all are receptive, but I for one will not give up hope.

[Sam Flynn]

The perspective I was referring to is that presumably virtually anyone who lived in Whitechapel would be no more than about a mile away from any of the murder sites.

Possibly, but it would be so much better for a killer who had only a half/quarter/tenth of a mile to travel before he found a victim, with an equally short journey back to safety after the evil deed was done.

But what of Schwartz? I don't think he was JtR, and I'm not totally convinced Stride was a Ripper victim.

Agreed, on both points Personally, I'm very dubious that Stride was a Ripper victim anyway.

[John G]

And someone who lived in (say) Wentworth Street lived within a few minutes' walk of the three most extreme and bloody Ripper murders which, as I've already indicated, is more than can be said of Cross... or Schwartz for that matter.Unless that was tongue-in-cheek, Google-mapping the trajectories from Ellen Street to the murder sites doesn't bring any new perspective on the matter. My point about someone living in the "hot zone" being able to get to 29 Hanbury Street and commit the Chapman murder, in the same time that it would have taken Cross (or Schwartz) even to get there, was - and remains - perfectly valid. Such a person would knock spots off Cross or Schwartz in terms of being extremely well-placed to commit the majority of the Ripper murders, and certainly the most ambitious and complex ones.

The perspective I was referring to is that presumably virtually anyone who lived in Whitechapel would be no more than about a mile away from any of the murder sites. Flower and Dean Street, by the way, is even closer to the sites.

But what of Schwartz? I don't think he was JtR, and I'm not totally convinced Stride was a Ripper victim. However, what makes him a lesser suspect than Lechmere? For instance, his BS storey is full of holes, I.e. on the basis of the cachos problem etc. You could therefore argue that he invented a suspect to deflect attention away from himself.

In fact, Tom Westcott argues that Schwartz was initially presented as a suspect seen being chased by another man, I.e. based on an account given by Wess to an Echo reporter. (Westcott, 2017.)