Informal Presentation of Geo-Spatial Analysis Project

I have demonstrated a practical application of my analysis, in a Casebook forum 'thread' pertaining to William Bury. As some of us may not be inclined to open such a 'thread'; I am providing an interactive 'link', for the benefit of those who might be interested in a practical application of my work, but who are unaware that it has been brought forth in a suspect-specific forum.

As I have yet to discuss the concept of 'Standard Deviation', I am, at this point, jumping ahead of my own presentation. But the data, which accompanies Figures 1-3, should serve to clarify the concept, specifically as it applies to the Autumn 1888 residence of William Bury.

I will, in the coming weeks, resume my "Informal Presentation", with an explanation of 'Standard Deviation' and the specific role that it plays in my analysis.




Click the above set of images to view my presentation of the practical application pertaining to William Bury.

---------

I must admit that I have been caught in the act of contradicting myself …

I am of the opinion that the distribution of murder-sites, in this particular instance, is mostly a function of the tightly clustered locations of the victims' residences, and the correspondingly confined dispersion of their presumed 'activity spaces'.

Put simply: I tend to believe that each of the victims died in areas, to which they were drawn by totally random circumstances; and that these areas were those, in which they likely went about their normal routines (e.g. begging, scavenging, pick-pocketing, soliciting, hawking, etc …). ***

It would seem reasonable therefore (i.e. on the basis of the above subjective reasoning), to assume that the Murder-Site 'Population', in this particular instance, likely constitutes a 'Normal' Distribution. Specifically: A distribution, in which the murder-sites would tend to symmetrically congregate around the epicenter of the 'Dorset Street' and 'Flower & Dean Street' 'rookeries'; one, in which the degree of murder-site density would be highest at the Mean-Center (i.e. the epicenter of the aforementioned 'rookeries'); and one, in which the symmetry of its 'central tendency' would dictate that the Mean-Center and 'Center of Minimum Distance' both be one and the same.

"Put simply: I tend to believe that each of the victims died in areas, to which they were drawn by totally random circumstances; and that these areas were those, in which they likely went about their normal routines (e.g. begging, scavenging, pick-pocketing, soliciting, hawking, etc …)."

Worthwhile expression of my thoughts regarding this particular issue, is not something at which I am able to arrive very easily. In this particular instance; I should have said the following:

"Put simply: I tend to believe that each of the victims died in areas, to which they were drawn by totally random circumstances; but that these areas were those, in which they likely went about their normal routines (e.g. begging, scavenging, pick-pocketing, soliciting, hawking, etc …)."

In other words: I believe that each of the victims died in areas, in which they were typically to be found, going about their normal routines; having been drawn to these areas on the specific occasions of their murders, by random circumstances such as the urgent need for the coinage required for a so-called 'doss'.

Bearing in mind, the following:

- Murder-Site 'Sample': The overall set of six murder-sites under consideration.

- Murder-Site 'Population': The overall set of six murder-sites under consideration (i.e. the Murder-Site 'Sample'), 'plus' the hypothetical set of any correlated subsequent murder-sites that would come under consideration.

… I think that what I am really trying to express, is the belief that a graphic depiction of the murder-site 'population', would very closely resemble a graphic depiction of a 'sample' of middle-aged Spitalfields 'dollymops' going about their normal routines (e.g. begging, scavenging, pick-pocketing, soliciting, hawking, etc …). That being more-or-less, the belief that these women died … where they lived.

And I very firmly believe that a graphic depiction of a 'sample' of middle-aged Spitalfields 'dollymops' going about their normal routines would exhibit all of the characteristics of a 'Normal Distribution' (i.e. to the fullest possible extent; given certain urban and geologic features of London's topography).

All distances measured or quoted in this analysis are direct distances (i.e. "as the crow flies"). I believe that direct distances may mislead us. Is there any way for you to take into account the distances at street level?

Please See Figures 13-17.

I will try to clarify, if need be. Just let me know.

[Edward]

Problem with distances

Blue -
An amazing amount of work dedicated to this presentation! Congratulations on your effort. One thing is troubling me, however. All distances measured or quoted in this analysis are direct distances (i.e. "as the crow flies"). I believe that direct distances may mislead us. Is there any way for you to take into account the distances at street level? In other words, can the distances be estimated as if the murderer were actually walking the streets? For instance, the distance from the the "murder center" to the Mitre Square site would be radically different (a significantly longer distance), if it were not a straight line, but measured along the streets. I assume that the perpetrator was walking. I am of the opinion that Jack lived within the area of the murders. I also believe that Jack was reasonably comfortable with the areas in which the murders were committed. When walking about, one's impression of distance from "home" is based upon the distance that has been travelled, not necessarily the direct line distance from home. In all probability. Jack did not walk directly to the murder site, but went to a location where a victim would likely be found, then moved about the area until a victim is identified. Thoughts?

Best Regards,
Edward

Neath Place, in St. Luke's, which Charles Booth described as 'worse than Percival Street', around the corner.

I believe that both depictions (i.e. the photograph and the Booth 'description') are of Neath Place, Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green.


Red (left-to-right):
- Percival Street, Parish of St. James Clerkenwell
- Neath Place, Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green (west-to-east)
- Pereira Street, Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green (north-to-south)

Neath Place and Pereira Street were both part of the 'Brady Street' rookery, which was situated in very close proximity to Buck's Row, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel.

On its eastern side; Pereira Street ran adjacent to …


Little Collingwood Street, Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green

Charles Booth Notebook 'B351' pp234-235: "... all English: no prostitutes or bullies (i.e. pimps (?)): ... some thieves & many juvenile thieves."

While at its southern end; Pereira Street ran into a junction, from which it was diagonally opposite the northern end of Foster Street, Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green: i.e. the 1888 home of Robert Paul.

Needless to say: I am sure that much of the Parish of St. Luke looked very similar in 1888; especially those portions, which constituted the periphery of the northern-most reaches of the City of London (e.g. the area immediately north of the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane, Parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate).

Encompassed by the following:

- The Parish of St. Mary Islington (north) (i.e. the southern-most reaches of 'North London')
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch (east) (i.e. the western-most reaches of the 'East End')
- The Parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate (south) (i.e. the northern-most reaches of the City)
- The Parish of St. James Clerkenwell; The Charter House; and The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard (west) (i.e. the eastern-most reaches of the 'West End')

… The Parish of St. Luke formed a sort of 'Central London' no-man's-land.

In his first of three surveys ("Labour and Life of the People: London" (two volumes + appendix), Williams & Norgate, 1889-1891); Charles Booth estimated the following:

- The Parish of St. Luke was populated by ~46,000* persons; of whom ~53.00%* were 'poor'
- The City of London was populated by 42,561 persons; of whom 31.00% were 'poor'
- The Whitechapel Registration District** was populated by 73,518 persons; of whom 39.20% were 'poor'

* Interpolated Data

** Whitechapel Registration District:
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity (Minories)
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Middlesex portion)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- The Liberty of the Tower
--- The Precinct of Old Tower Without
--- The Tower
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Middlesex portion)

I believe that St. Luke and the City constitute the two most unwittingly overlooked/ignored areas, in the modern-day 'hunt' for 'Jack the Ripper'.

[Roy Corduroy]

Wasn't the Parish of St. Luke just as 'local' as the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse?

Neath Place, in St. Luke's, which Charles Booth described as 'worse than Percival Street', around the corner.

[DarkPassenger]

Could someone please sum up the OP for someone who's maths and statistics knowledge could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a fat crayon?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Colin.

Should those who actually lived in The City be discounted; even though Charles Booth estimated, in 1889, that 85% were of 'blue-collar' society, and that 31% were actually 'poor'?

...85% and 31% of how many, though?

From Charles Booth's first of three surveys: "Labour and Life of the People: London" (two volumes + appendix), Williams & Norgate, 1889-1891

The City of London:
- Estimated Population; City of London: 42,561
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 1%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 6%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 24%
- (Total Percentage; Below 'Line of Poverty': 31%)
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 54%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 15%

As compared to the Whitechapel Registration District, for which greater detail is provided:
- Estimated Population; Whitechapel Registration District *: 73,518
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 3.3%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 8.9%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'C': 10.7%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'D': 16.3%
- (Total Percentage; Below 'Line of Poverty': 39.2%)
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'E': 43.3%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'F': 11.3%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'G': 4.4%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'H': 1.8%

* Whitechapel Registration District:
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity (Minories)
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Middlesex portion)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- The Liberty of the Tower
--- The Precinct of Old Tower Without
--- The Tower
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Middlesex portion)

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I thought odds compiling was confusing[ my occupation] but to get ones head round such detailed work, with the explanations shown, tends to make [ at least me] one dizzy.
To me, it is blatently obvious that the killer proberly resided very close to the killing zone, and if the opportunety arose again to kill, would have struck within that safety blanket.
With respect we proberly are all barking up the wrong tree, when [a] attempting to identify the killer. and[B] attempting to pinpoint his location, and although all these attempts are praiseworthy where does it lead us?
Regards Richard.

[John Bennett]

Ah! Venn diagrams. I understood those. Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Erm. I know my maths isn't great, but doesn't that make 116%? Presumably there must be some sort of crossover?

Indeed, John - think of an overlapping Venn Diagram.

[John Bennett]

Thanks Colin,

It wasn't brief, but it is a bit clearer. Is it about what is defined as 'local'?

...85% and 31% of how many, though?

Erm. I know my maths isn't great, but doesn't that make 116%? Presumably there must be some sort of crossover? Perhaps?

Boy, do I sound dumb!

[Sam Flynn]

Should those who actually lived in The City be discounted; even though Charles Booth estimated, in 1889, that 85% were of 'blue-collar' society, and that 31% were actually 'poor'?

...85% and 31% of how many, though?

This is a titanic effort and a lot of work has evidently gone into it. However (with no disrespect to Colin) I am struggling with it. What is it actually attempting to achieve? I gather it's nothing to do with 'profiling', ie finding where the murderer probably lived. But I also see that there is an effort to 'predict' a potential subsequent crime location. Is this what it's about?

Mathematics has never been my strong point and perhaps I'm being a tad thick here, but I'm just wondering if someone can post a brief overview of the concept at work here.

Septic Blue? Anyone?

How near is 'near'?

How far is 'far'?

How local is 'local'?

For that matter; what exactly constitutes 'local'?

Can a murder 'locale' be defined in terms of varying degrees of vicinity: 'Immediate Vicinity'; 'General Vicinity'; 'Broad Vicinity'?

[ATTACH]6164[/ATTACH]
Figure 3: 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

Can those varying degrees of vicinity be based not just on the 'observed' dispersion of established murder-sites; but also on the 'expected' dispersion of impending subsequent murder-sites?

Perhaps they can be! Perhaps they should be!

Are the terms 'local' and 'East-Ender' interchangeable?

Does our focus on the East End perhaps amount to 'tunnel-vision'?

[ATTACH]6165[/ATTACH]
Figure 4: Ancient Parochial Establishment of East London (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Part of an effort to define that, which was 'local' in the context of political geography:

- Bright Yellow: St. John at Hackney
- Orange: St. Leonard Shoreditch
- Red: St. Dunstan Stepney
- Green: Bromley St. Leonard
- Purple: City of London
- Gold: The Liberty of His/Her Majesty's Tower of London
- Blue: Precinct of the Priory of St. Mary without Bishopsgate (St. Mary Spital)
- Green: Precinct of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, Aldgate (County of Middlesex)

The Ancient Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney (Red) was divided, between the years 1329 - 1817, into the following Civil Parishes:

- St. Matthew Bethnal Green
- Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- St. Mary Whitechapel
- St. John of Wapping
- St. George in the East
- St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- St. Anne Limehouse
- St. Mary Stratford Bow
- All Saints Poplar

The Precinct of the Priory of St. Mary without Bishopsgate (St. Mary Spital) (Blue) was originally part of St. Botolph without Bishopsgate (excepting the northernmost 'tip', which was part of St. Leonard Shoreditch). By the end of the seventeenth century, it had become The Liberty of Norton Folgate (north) and The Old Artillery Ground (south).

The green areas, which constituted the Middlesex portions of the Precinct of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, Aldgate were originally part of St. Botolph without Aldgate. The smaller area (north) eventually became Holy Trinity (Minories), while the larger area (south) became The Precinct of St. Katharine (west), and once again St. Botolph without Aldgate (east).

...


Figure 5: Murder-Site 'Vicinity' in the Context of a Larger 'East End' (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Red Outline and Portions of White-Dotted 'Compensation' Outline: An estimation of the area most likely to have been considered the 'East End', in 1888

The Parliamentary Borough of Shoreditch
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch

The Parliamentary Borough of Bethnal Green
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green

The Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity (Minories)
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Middlesex portion)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- The Liberty of the Tower
--- The Precinct of Old Tower Without
--- The Tower
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Middlesex portion)
- The Parish of St. John of Wapping
- The Parish of St. George in the East
- The Parish of St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse
- The Parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow
- The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard
- The Parish of All Saints Poplar

My analysis would suggest that a sizable portion of 1888's 'East End' was not 'local' to this series of murders; and that a sizable portion of the area, which was 'local' to this series of murders was not in the 'East End'.

Wasn't the Parish of St. Luke just as 'local' as the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse?

It's exclusion from the East End notwithstanding; wasn't the Parish of St. Luke actually more 'local' to this particular set of six murder-sites, than was the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse?

Was the Parish of St. John at Hackney 'local'? What about the Parish of St. John Horselydown?

Should Horselydown have been considered more 'local' than Hackney?

Were Druitt's chambers in The Temple actually more 'local' than Bury's residence in the Parish of Bromley St. Leonard?

Should those who actually lived in The City be discounted; even though Charles Booth estimated, in 1889, that 85% were of 'blue-collar' society, and that 31% were actually 'poor'?

Can this analysis lead to the development of a very simple geographic-profile 'model'? Yes, it can; and it will!

But; will this geographic-profile 'model' provide us with anything more than an enhanced perspective? No! Of course not!

[John Bennett]

This is a titanic effort and a lot of work has evidently gone into it. However (with no disrespect to Colin) I am struggling with it. What is it actually attempting to achieve? I gather it's nothing to do with 'profiling', ie finding where the murderer probably lived. But I also see that there is an effort to 'predict' a potential subsequent crime location. Is this what it's about?

Mathematics has never been my strong point and perhaps I'm being a tad thick here, but I'm just wondering if someone can post a brief overview of the concept at work here.

Septic Blue? Anyone?