Informal Preview of Geo-Spatial Analysis Project

[Sam Flynn]

Colin has illustrated the shape of the distribution by picking a particular elliptical contour to show graphically, but he might just as well have picked an ellipse half as big or one twice as big, and of course those would have quite different foci.

I misunderstood. I thought the point was to calculate where the ellipse of best fit should be - an equivalent exercise to predicting the orbit of a planet based on Bode's Law. I'm not sure whether that would be possible, but if it can be done for circles, why not ellipses?

[Chris]

It's worth bearing in mind that an elliptical probability distribution like this doesn't have well-defined foci - only a centre and axes.

Colin has illustrated the shape of the distribution by picking a particular elliptical contour to show graphically, but he might just as well have picked an ellipse half as big or one twice as big, and of course those would have quite different foci.

[Sam Flynn]

Before we get dragged into specific hypotheses, shouldn't we take the analysis "raw" first? Much better to take the mathematical approach from "bottom-up", I feel, rather than delve too soon into "top-down" suspect-based thinking. Colin's approach gives us an excellent chance of doing just that - although I did notice him mention Kosminski early on, which was slightly wicked of him

[JRJ]

More Good Stuff

Great Addition Robhouse.

Would be good to see that as an overlay on a street map. Also names, chronology, Kosminski's address.

JRJ

[Nemo]

Where I believe mistakes are being made; is in the determination of the size/dimensions of the 'Standard Deviation Ellipse'. Rather than being constructed to fit pre-determined lengths of major/minor axis; it should be drawn on the basis of two pre-determined foci (points of x-axis deviation), and a pre-determined semi-latus recta (extent of y-axis deviation). Put simply: The lengths of major/minor axis should be 'realized' after the fact; instead of being 'determined' before the fact...

Obvious isn't it

I can definitely say Colin that if I ever see that construct again I will say "Ahhh, a Roberts ellipse!"

I think you have gained the maximum from what little information there is to go by.

I too think it points to the use of the main thoroughfare of the Whitechapel Rd, but I do not think this guarantees the culprit being a local, as somebody travelling into the area, especially via train, would create the same pattern.

I would like to see the probabilities related to which railway station he may have alighted from ie which staion is nearest the epicentre or foci.

The double foci aspect is very interesting. Which lodging houses are nearest these foci? A simple change of lodging would create the foci.

Excellent work and presentation Colin -You should form a lecture on it.

[robhouse]

I just thought I would post this graphic. It is nowhere near as scientific as Colin's work... the circle is just the smallest circle containing the murder sites. The green arrow is where Polly Nichols was last seen, walking northeast. The purple line indicates where Emma Smith was followed, the x is where she was attacked. The blue arrows are conjectural getaway routes from the murder sites. The two turquoise circles are Aaron Kozminski's most likely addresses on Yalford and Greenfield Streets

RH

I really admire the thorough way you go about things Colin.

On this recent bit about Emma being the epicenter, since she dies as a result of wounds that were inflicted upon her that we cannot say for certain were intended to kill her, and her attack was committed by a small group of men, and she doesnt have her throat cut, it seems to me that in this case, the epicenter being where she was attacked is more likely to suggest an immediate area of violent encounters, rather than a home base point for Jack specifically. It seems co-incidental to your study, is what Im getting at.

The category "Whitechapel Murders" did encompass the spring attacks/murders as well as the Fall ones, but that changed. Murders became dramatic and repetitive within that that time frame and broad "WM" death count. No-one would have called Emma Smiths death a Ripper murder once the Fall deaths began.

Again, thanks for sharing some of your work....excellent stuff.

My best regards Colin.

Hi All,

Many Thanks! Your feedback and compliments are truly appreciated.

I'm interested in your reaction to this postulation Colin.

I am repeating a post that I just posted onto Casebook forums, because, I want to make sure you get it.

I would suggest the following: …

Give me a few days, JRJ: I'll have to gather my thoughts regarding some of these issues.

Emma Smith is the center, the green dot.

An excerpt from my Project Narrative:

"… urban topography can place significant limitations on the practicality, and even the possibility of a particular point 'playing host' to the impending subsequent murder. It is therefore quite remarkable that the murder site epicenter, in this case, not only affords both physical possibility and 'Ripperesque' practicality; but actually coincides with a prominent feature in the landscape of the 'Whitechapel Murders': The very spot, on which many surmise that Emma Smith was confronted by her alleged assailants.


Figure 1: Murder-Site Epicenter (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

- Green Dot: Murder Site Epicenter - Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Wentworth Street and Osborn Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, County of Middlesex

- Red Color-Shading: 'Footprint' of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory, as depicted in the 1894 Ordnance Survey

- Yellow Dot: "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane" - Northeastern Exterior of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory, Brick Lane, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, County of Middlesex

Most accounts of the circumstances, in which Emma Smith was allegedly assaulted by a group of ruffians, on the morning of 3 April 1888, include references to 'Osborn Street' and/or the vicinity of a 'cocoa factory', with regard to the location of the attack. The references are generally vague and somewhat difficult to comprehend, as the thoroughfare 'Osborn Street' became 'Brick Lane' as it progressed northward through its intersection with Wentworth Street (west) / Old Montague Street (east), before passing the east side of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory. As the northwestern 'extremity' of Osborn Street, i.e. the southwest corner of its junction with Wentworth Street, was the point at which it was most closely 'connected' to the 'cocoa factory', it has perhaps been deemed to have been the most likely venue for the assault.

However, a very specific reference to the location of the attack was included in a report filed by Inspector Edmund Reid, Metropolitan Police Force, H Division (date unknown): "The offence had been committed on the pathway opposite No.10 Brick Lane". Ironically, this assertion was contradictory to one made earlier in the same report: "She had been assaulted and robbed in Osborne (sic.) Street". But the specificity of the "opposite No.10 Brick Lane" reference should not be ignored; especially in light of the distinct possibility that all 'primary' references to 'Osborn Street' were actually intended to describe the point, at which Smith first encountered the alleged group of men, who then followed her north into Brick Lane.

It would seem unlikely therefore, that the murder site epicenter actually coincides with the spot that Emma Smith identified as being the location, in which she was confronted by her alleged assailants. In fact, if Reid's 'Brick Lane' reference is assumed to be accurate, then the murder site epicenter lies approximately thirty eight yards southeast of the spot, on which Smith claimed she was attacked.

"the pathway opposite No.10 Brick Lane"
Northeastern Exterior of Taylor Brothers' Chocolate & Mustard Factory, Brick Lane, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 4' 15.15" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 3.02" North

In any case, the murder site epicenter is in remarkably close proximity to the spot, on which the 'Whitechapel Murders' saga purportedly began. If nothing else; the murder of Emma Smith set the 'stage' for the six murders that followed, within the 'Whitechapel' series. But, the purported location of Smith's encounter with her alleged assailants notwithstanding; the intersection of Wentworth Street / Old Montague Street and Osborn Street / Brick Lane is nonetheless a prominent feature in the landscape of the 'Whitechapel Murders'."

[Roy Corduroy]

Emma Smith is the center, the green dot.

Roy

Someone, asked about Ted Bundy, whom to me is the most fascinating serial killer. His crimes generally spiraled outward from his home in Seattle; In an effort to hide a connection to his crimes, he eventually drove farther and farther from his home (up to 360 miles) to pick up victims until he moved to Utah; THERE IS A PATTERN.

Thanks again,

JRJ

The above does answer my question JRJ, although it wasnt Bundy specific... that at least in Bundys case, he moved further away as he worked.

Ive thought that the rationale with some serial killers that their early murders are closer to home for fear of a long travel home after the kill makes sense. I also think as time goes by and barriers increased in the form of vigilantees and police, that later murders would either be forced to return to a location closer to home...or be strategically outside the normal location range. In these cases, the first possibility there might make some sense with Marys location.

Cheers JRJ

[JRJ]

Colin Roberts,

I am repeating a post that I just posted onto Casebook forums, because, I want to make sure you get it. First: your work is a major advance in Ripper Research!

I would suggest the following:
1) That you include the location of Eddowes Apron on Goulston Street as a data point, especially as the Whitechapel Murderer was almost certainly heading home from there (it was deposited no earlier than 1:45 a.m. in the morning!).
2) That you chronologically number and name the victim’s (next to their faces) on the maps and highlight the 3 ‘certain’ victims (red circle) from the 3 ‘probable’ victims (yellow circle?)
3) There seems to be a growing though not universal concensus that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim (i.e., Ripper Podcast: Anything But Your Prayers: The Murder of Elizabeth Stride). As she seems to be the least likely Ripper Victim of the 6, it might be useful to create a parallel study without her. (or if not too difficult parallel studies for all possible permutations beyond the ‘3 certain’ victims and apron).
4) I find it very interesting that the WM District seems to have the following natural boundries ordered from strongest to weakest:
• To the North: The Railine
• To the North-East: Railine Terminus/Royal London Hospital
• To the West & NW: Bishopsgate Road (too far or a psychological barrier i.e., an unfamiliar neigborhood)
• To the South & SW: Whitechapel Road (except for Liz Stride who may very well not have been his victim).

Assuming Whitechapel Road formed a psychological barrier (i.e. too well lit, travelled, and patrolled), then from the epicenter, the Ripper would have had to cross TWO thoroughfares (Whitechapel and Comercial Streets) to get to the scene of Stride’s murder and one to get to Eddowes. To me this suggests that he used the more winding and less frequented Wentworth/Montague St. as his main artery; indeed Colin Roberts’ epicenter is ON Wentworth/Montague St.

Bram Stoker published Dracula, nine years after Jack the Ripper (which means he conceived the idea even closer to the murders). In it Dracula relocates to London at 197 Chicksand Street; this is 3 Blocks from Colin’s Epicenter! Coincidental –I think not.

Someone, asked about Ted Bundy, whom to me is the most fascinating serial killer. His crimes generally spiraled outward from his home in Seattle; In an effort to hide a connection to his crimes, he eventually drove farther and farther from his home (up to 360 miles) to pick up victims until he moved to Utah; THERE IS A PATTERN.

Thanks again,

JRJ

I agree, JRJ - if so, and bearing in mind that we may have an elliptical "orbit" to contend with, it's just possible that Jack had two bases in the region of both foci; or, if you like, he had two circular "catchment areas" that overlapped. If so, he may have moved lodgings between murders, settling more-or-less in the western part of the district after the Chapman murder until the end of the series, prior to which he lived more towards Mile End.

I was wondering when that part I put in bold above would come up. Although if he moves or has multiple rooms or dwellings to use all still in the primary zone I guess it wouldnt matter.

Really stupendous work Colin, thanks very much for the previews.

A question....is there any statistical data that shows average distance from home ratios as applies to serial killers? Do the kills tend to vary in distance from their home in any predictable pattern....early ones tend to be close, that kind of thing.

My best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree, JRJ - if so, and bearing in mind that we may have an elliptical "orbit" to contend with, it's just possible that Jack had two bases in the region of both foci; or, if you like, he had two circular "catchment areas" that overlapped. If so, he may have moved lodgings between murders, settling more-or-less in the western part of the district after the Chapman murder until the end of the series, prior to which he lived more towards Mile End.

[JRJ]

Major Axix

To me the major axis of the last and thus far culmative "Deviations from Murder Site Epicenter (Elliptical)" suggests the killer was very comfortable in using the Whitechapel road (or any parallel throughfare closely northward i.e., Wentworth/Montague St.) at least to reach his crime scenes if not to egress from them; further suggesting in my mind that the man was local or at least extremely conversant with the ins and outs of the "Whitechapel Murder District." I’m interested in your reaction to this postulation Colin.

Thanks,
JRJ

P.S.: Great Work Colin!

[Chris]

Put simply: The lengths of major/minor axis should be 'realized' after the fact; instead of being 'determined' before the fact.

I find it difficult to work out exactly what you're getting at from a verbal description. I'd better wait for the equations.