Informal Preview of Geo-Spatial Analysis Project

[caz]

Hi Colin,

I do remember reading most of the material you posted above, including your own observations, but am most grateful for the reminder. Please don't think I was in any way 'sneering' at your own thinking on the subject. I merely noticed your invaluable caveats and thought we might all benefit from not steering the focus away from either of them for too long at a time. I'll be among the first to congratulate you when your efforts give a clear indication of whether or not they actually apply in this case.

Hi Caz,

Colin Ireland didn't murder and dispose of his victims within a tiny, easily walkable locality. His "criminal map" was conditioned by greater opportunities in terms of transport, in the way that Jack the Ripper's was almost certainly conditioned by a lack of them. Since murder locations constitute the chief criterion for creating a geographic profile, and not where the killer first encountered his victims, I don't see how Ireland somehow militates against the principles of geo-profiling.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

My point was that Ireland's offending behaviour corresponds exactly with the first of Colin's caveats, in that profiling "the residences and 'activity spaces' of the victims" from here to eternity and back would have indicated bugger all about this serial killer's whereabouts, by the morning rush hour following each murder, when he was speeding back towards the Essex coast, against the commuter traffic heading into London. He dictated the same remote pick-up point each time - the pub in Fulham - and it never changed over the course of the series, consisting of at least five victims. The victims dictated the murder locations by where they happened to live. He was invited back to their place after drinks at the pub for what they fondly imagined would be mutual rumpy-pumpy. Or he invited himself and they went along with it.

If you wish to claim that there is an expert out there somewhere who could probably have predicted, given the pick-up point and murder locations, that the offender would be found anywhere outside London, let alone bleedin' Sarfend, then carry on.

But I don't think you'll be wanting to do that, will you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It would have been nigh on impossible to profile Ireland geographically, since his actual murder locations were spread far and wide. Given the victimology, I'd hazard an educated guess that any "profiler" worth his salt would have deduced that he was probably invited back to the crime scenes by his victims, but plotting a victim pick-up location would have been very difficult indeed. This obviously doesn't compare to the Whitechapel series since the murder locations themselves are concentrated in a tiny localized region, not the pick-up locations, and it is the former criterion that is used, primarily, to form a geo-profile.

Best regards,
Ben

[Gideon Fell]

Ludicrously illogical, and if you accused me of dishonesty to my face, I'd probably be physically violent.

Hey, ho, physical violence eh?

[Septic Blue]

If the crimes are committed within a very small, easily walkable locality, it invariably means that the perpetrator had a base that was centrally located to their criminal activity. In this case, we're talking about a particularly small area, which therefore speaks even less favourably for the commuter hypothesis. The arrival of the "commuter" serial killer has only really been made possible with the advent of readily available private transport, largely unavailable in 1888.

There is not a shred of truth in any portion of the above statement.

As Ben's level of intellect is clearly quite significant; I am inclined to believe that this is a dishonest attempt, on his part, to 'lobby' for the candidacy of George Hutchinson, as 'Jack the Ripper'.


Figure 5: Immediate Vicinity; General Vicinity; Broad Vicinity (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

"If the crimes are committed within a very small, easily walkable locality, it invariably means that the perpetrator had a base that was centrally located to their criminal activity." (my emphasis)

This is plainly and simply not true; and you would not find a geographic profiler anywhere, to support such a claim.

"In this case, we're talking about a particularly small area, which therefore speaks even less favourably for the commuter hypothesis." (my emphasis (emboldened))

A smaller killing field would speak more favorably for the possibility of a commuter-offender.

"The arrival of the "commuter" serial killer has only really been made possible with the advent of readily available private transport, largely unavailable in 1888."

Charles Lechmere (a.k.a. "Charles Cross") traversed the entire 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper' as a matter of daily routine: Doing so on foot. Yet, had he been the killer; he would have been a 'commuter'. The same could be said for literally hundreds (if not thousands) of others, who lived within or just outside the 'General Vicinity' (aqua), but whose daily routines necessitated the traversal of the 'Immediate Vicinity' (red).

"The arrival of the "commuter" serial killer has only really been made possible with the advent of readily available private transport, …", you say? What a JOKE!

There is not a shred of truth in any portion of the above statement.

As Ben's level of intellect is clearly quite significant; I am inclined to believe that this is a dishonest attempt, on his part, to 'lobby' for the candidacy of George Hutchinson, as 'Jack the Ripper'.

Which is a shoddy, disgraceful accusation for you to make. Ludicrously illogical, and if you accused me of dishonesty to my face, I'd probably be physically violent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with George Hutchinson. It has to do with what has been learned from studies into serial killers.

"… if you accused me of dishonesty to my face, I'd probably be physically violent."

I'm sure we are all very impressed! It must require a remarkable level of bravery to swing one's handbag, from behind one's keyboard.

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with George Hutchinson."

Coming from you; I would think that it had everything to do with George Hutchinson.

"It has to do with what has been learned from studies into serial killers."

Something that "has been learned from studies into serial killers", is that we should never use 'absolutes' such as "invariably", when attempting to generate any sort of 'profile' of a particular offender. You Know That!

This is plainly and simply not true; and you would not find a geographic profiler anywhere, to support such a claim.

Really?

Really !!!

Well then why does one of the pioneers of geographical profiling express the view that he lived in the heart of the murder district? Why didn't he suggest that he was a commuter who waltzed into the murder district from outside? Flower and Dean Street is pretty central to the base of operations, and no, George fcuking Hutchinson didn't live there.

[ATTACH]5445[/ATTACH]
'Screen-Capture' (photograph of television screen) from "Revealed" Jack the Ripper: The First Serial Killer (2006)

A Portion of Kim Rossmo's Criminal Geographic Target (i.e. his proprietary geographic profile), of the 'Macnaghten-Five' murder-sites of 'Jack the Ripper'

Rossmo's 'CGT' designates a rectangular 'search area' that is divided into 40,000 'cells'; to each of which a proprietary 'distance-decay' function (including empirically derived constants and exponents) is applied. Each 'cell' is thereby assessed as to its likelihood of having played host to the residence of 'Jack the Ripper'. The 'probability distribution' in this case, is indeed an "amorphous blob".

Note the three 'peaks' of relatively high probability density (red):

- The vicinity of the southeast corner of New Goulston Street / Middlesex Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel

- The vicinity of the southwest corner (Lolesworth Buildings) and northeast corner of Thrawl Street / George Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields ***

- The vicinity of the northeast corner of Osborn Place / Brick Lane, (Boundary) Parishes of St. Mary Whitechapel & Christ Church Spitalfields

*** Rossmo described this, the 'highest' of the three 'peaks', in the following manner:

"… the peak area, where the profile is falling on, covers Flower & Dean Street, Fashion Street, Thrawl Street, …"

We have somehow interpreted this to mean that, according to Rossmo: "'Jack the Ripper' probably lived (specifically) on Flower & Dean Street".

This is a significant misrepresentation of Rossmo's 'conclusions'; especially in light of the fact that the red portion of this 'peak' barely comes into contact with Flower & Dean Street – doing so, only in the immediate vicinity of #5, a large doss house on the south side of the thoroughfare, opposite #56 (the 'White House').

Rossmo's model would actually suggest that the 'highest point' (i.e. the immediate vicinity of Lolesworth Buildings), within this, the 'highest peak'; would be the single most likely residence of 'Jack the Ripper'. That is a 'far cry' from suggesting that he probably lived there.

Note also, the two 'valleys' of relatively low probability density (blue):

- The vicinity of the intersection of Dorset Street / Crispin Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields

- The vicinity of Whitechapel Road; from Osborn Street / Church Lane –to- Black Lion Yard / Fieldgate Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel

Rather than simply relying on the proclamations and twisted interpretations of a sensationalist television-documentary host; why don't you spend some time enhancing your understanding of Rossmo's 'CGT' analysis of the 'Macnaghten-Five' murder-sites?

The suggestion that Rossmo specifically tagged Flower & Dean Street is most erroneous; and the notion that he would have used a term such as "probably" (i.e. a probability greater than 50%) in describing the likelihood that the offender lived in the immediate vicinity of any of the three 'peaks' is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, the 'highest point' of the 'highest peak' (i.e. Lolesworth Buildings – not Flower & Dean Street) probably 'enjoyed' no more than two-to-three percent of the entire probability distribution in Rossmo's analysis.***

*** To label a particular point as a killer's 'single most-likely' place of residence, is not to say that he 'probably' lived there.

Note: The residence of your beloved George Hutchinson (i.e. The Victoria Home for Working Men - not depicted on the 1862 Stanford Map) 'enjoyed' a greater density of Rossmo's probability distribution, than did most of the dwellings on Flower & Dean Street.

[ATTACH]5446[/ATTACH]
Figure 9: Deviations from Murder Site Epicenter (Elliptical) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Red Ellipse: 1.00 Standard Deviations from Murder-Site Epicenter

Again; using one 'standard deviation' as the '50%-threshold', we have a perceived 'probability' of 63.68% that the murderer would continue to operate within (assuming he were to continue); and therefore a 31.84% perceived 'probability' that the he would be found to be living within (assuming he were to be found).

Yellow Dot: Possible 1888 Residence of Aaron Kosminski

34 Yalford Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 3' 56.79" West
Latitude: 51° 30' 59.31" North

Yellow Ellipse: 0.67 Standard Deviations from Murder-Site Epicenter

So; we have a perceived 'probability' of 46.76% that the murderer would continue to operate within; and therefore a 21.76% perceived 'probability' that the he would be found to be living within.

In other words: In accordance with my geo-profile model; there was merely a 22% 'likelihood' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided in closer proximity to the murder-site epicenter than did Aaron Kosminski. This of course, speaks very favorably for the possibility that Aaron Kosminski was 'Jack the Ripper'.

I have yet to complete a similar analysis of the Victoria Home; but I plan to do so. I would venture to guess, at this point; that my model will suggest a 'likelihood' of less than 15% that 'Jack the Ripper' resided in closer proximity to the murder-site epicenter than did George Hutchinson. This of course, would speak even more favorably for the possibility that George Hutchinson was 'Jack the Ripper'.

By "commuter" I refer to those who journeyed to the crime scenes from an appreciable distance away. If the killer lived in the areas shaded turquoise or even purple, he would still be regarded as a locally-based offender.

In accordance with the 'commuter'/'marauder' distinction, typically used in 'Geographic Profiling': Anyone residing in the 'Broad Vicinity' (purple) (as did Charles Lechmere) would have 'commuted' to the 'Immediate Vicinity' (red), for a particular purpose; if in fact, they rarely, if ever, travelled in other directions for the same purpose. In other words: Charles Lechmere 'commuted' from his home in the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, through the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', in order to arrive at his place of employment, in the City of London; because that was the only direction, in which he travelled for that particular purpose.

In the context of 'Geographic Profiling':

Charles Lechmere (a.k.a. "Charles Cross") traversed the entire 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper' as a matter of daily routine: Doing so on foot. Yet, had he been the killer; he would have been a 'commuter'.

… if you're going to make such nauseating attacks on my integrity, …

What's "nauseating", is your relentless determination to lobby for the candidacy of George Hutchinson as 'Jack the Ripper', in hopes of 'convincing' us all.

I'm sick of being accused of having nefarious reasons for expressing a particular view, …

Then clean up your act!

I dare say: I am surely not the only one in these forums who is disgusted by your obnoxious (and at times: seemingly dishonest) lobbyist approach.

[Ben]

The problem, Colin, is that your contributions are marred by your often hysterical and overly exclamatory posting style. It spoils it. Go through your post on the previous page, and consider how rude and contemptuous you were towards anyone who disagreed with you. "Philistine", "joke!", "empty soap box", accusations of "disonesty". They all had honest motivations for posting which they phrased without any malice or antagonism. I realise that you might be a little under-furnished when it comes to interpersonal skills and general finesse, but slagging off anyone who disagrees with you is just daft, and makes you look particularly silly after you posted an off-topic rant about your treatment on the boards.

Don't do it again, please, or it'll be hair-pulling in addition to feistily-wielded handbags.