The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Fisherman]

What I'm thinking is why would a serial killer strike in locations that he's associated with?

It is a very common trait, and it is the base for the profiling business that is discussed out here. The reason lies in how the killer has comfort zones where he feels at ease. Such comfort zones need not be around his home only, they can be anywhere that he has been and where he knows the grounds. For example, when Ridgway was nicked, his wife realized that many of the murder spots were places that Gary had taken her to for picnics and such. He scouted the areas first, and killed there afterwards, knowing the grounds.

[Fisherman]

The 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.

Once again, I am transplanting nothing, I am making no excuses or anything like that.
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.

[Fisherman]

No. 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.

Actually, there is no profiling needed in Lechmere´s case. Profiling is for cases where there is no suspect identified and a logical starting point for the search is needed.
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.

[Fisherman]

Bit we don't actually know his shift patterns, the days on which he worked or even if he went to Broad Street every day.

That is true, and it is the reason that I speak of one instance where it is proven that he was present at a murder site while the other instances are ones where it is only proven that a reason for him to be around has been identified.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

We can't say that about Cross, either. Only the Bucks Row murder checks out in terms of time or place; as for the rest of the murders, Cross's presence at the relevant times and places is even more speculative than my positing that "Joe Bloggs" of Thrawl Street was out and about at the given times. At least Joe Bloggs needed no excuse to be in the area, and he didn't have to stray too far from home to commit the crimes.

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 it

There is no evidence whatsoever that Cross was at 29 Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square or Miller's Court, and it would be much easier for Joe Bloggs to have been at those sites at any time of the morning than it ever would be for Cross.

[MrBarnett]

sam 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.

Bit we don't actually know his shift patterns, the days on which he worked or even if he went to Broad Street every day.

[Abby Normal]

The 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.

sam 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.

[MrBarnett]

No 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.

Where do you get 'previous places of employment' from?

[Abby Normal]

No 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.

no you cant compare the rossmo model to the lech model because the rossmo model tries to find where the killer lives based on crime scene and not knowing where the killer lived and or worked), whereas the lech model we already know where he lives and works. that's why I said apples and oranges and why you trying to say its circular reasoning with lech is incorrect.

[John G]

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!

[Batman]

No. 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 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.

[Sam Flynn]

No. Its because we know where lech lived and where he worked.

The 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.

[Sam Flynn]

Does the rossmo model take into account differences in where the murder takes place AND where the victims bodies were found?

Even if it did, that wouldn't be relevant to the Ripper murders, unless one subscribes to the lunatic idea that the victims were killed elsewhere and dumped where they were later found.

[Abby Normal]

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?

No. 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.

[Abby Normal]

Does the rossmo model take into account differences in where the murder takes place AND where the victims bodies were found?