Stuart Kind, Geographic Profiler.

[JeffHamm]

The other point worth mentioning, which most will know, is that in the event the WM moved lodgings, which is very possible given the transient nature of the East End; then that would limit the capability of geographic profiling.

I appreciate that a home is not the only possible base, but the home base was Kind's assumption.

Only with respect to identifying his residence location. However, if his main anchor point was his favorite pub, then that may not change despite his change in home address.

Again, while the press (and some researchers) often present Geographical Profiling as trying to locate where the offender "lives", that isn't really accurate. It's about trying to locate where the police should look for evidence; if the area indicated is a business district, the offender probably works there rather than lives there. We don't know what the anchor point is in the JtR series, but given the area, pubs seem worth considering. Also, as I've said on a few threads now, it is also possible that the spatial analysis is simply picking up on commonalities of the victims rather than on commonalities in JtR's thinking (they all had associations with, or fairly near, the hot spot region).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I reckon geographic profiling is underpinned by certain assumptions, including a circle which encompasses the crimes and the offender will have a base within that circle, and the offender will have a buffer zone deemed too close to home while the crimes will drop off with increasing distance from the base.

This is applicable to somebody such as Peter Sutcliffe, who didn't limit his targets to a select group of people in a select area. Sutcliffe attacked women of all backgrounds in various locations at various times, and Sutcliffe's pattern of offending did broadly conform to those assumptions underpinning geographic profiling.

The WM on the other hand, attacked a select type of woman in a select area. That being the case, the idea of a circle encompassing the base is called into question. Not definitive but questionable. And, the next biggest suburb or city, wouldn't work in geographical profiling for the simple reason there is no circle encompassing the base.



I wouldn't agree with this at all.

West Yorkshire is 780 square miles and 2.3 million people live in that area.

There were many places in West Yorkshire that were fortunate enough to not have an attack in the area. Kind could quite easily have come up with south of Leeds or somewhere like that.

As I said, that was impressive from Kind.

He gave extra weight to attacks earlier in the series and to those women attacked later in the night/early in the morning.

I find it very interesting that he believed the later TODs/attacks would be closer to home, and he was proven correct in that assessment. I can't find a report by Kind which details exactly why he believed that, only commentary on his views which do not explain it fully. The commentary includes animal instinct and wanting to evade capture, but it doesn't fully explain it to me.

If anyone can find a report by Kind that would make very interesting reading.

Kinds report is, as far as I'm aware, not publicly available (meaning published anywhere; it might be possible to get a copy through a Freedom of Information Request - if such things exist in the UK?). He wrote his report and submitted it, but before it was read Sutcliff had been apprehended. Canter often references Kinds' report to give him credit where credit is due because it was the first attempt to apply some of the ideas that underpin the idea of using crime location information to try and narrow the area of search.

While Kinds' analysis did lead to a correct location, some of his ideas have since been shown to be less reliable. For example, the idea that the earliest offenses are closest to home, while true in the Sutcliff case, is certainly far from universal. As a counter example, Denis Rader's last 2 (or last 2 of 3?) were all very close to his home while all of his others, including his first, we much further away. Basically, he showed the exact opposite pattern in that his crimes tended to move closer, rather than further, away. The distance based upon serial order of an offense has been looked at, and I'm embarrassed to say I can't recall if the average pattern was "contracting" (Like Rader) or "expanding" (like Sutcliff); what I do recall is that the variability was so high that it wasn't of any use when trying to deal with a specific case.

Also, while Canter prosed what's known as the "circle theory", it should be noted that he never intended that to mean that he was suggesting that offenders "think in circles", rather, it is simply a directionally unbiased geometric shape to base an analysis upon. Also, from my own work (just to toot my own horn), the fewer offenses there are, the more the smallest circle underestimates the true size of the area in which the offender is willing to offend. I suggest a simple calculation that increases the radius of the circle as a function of the series length to estimate the "true size" of the offender's "territory". And of course, that estimate is still very variable at shorter series lengths, so if you average a bunch of estimates together you will get the correct "average territory size", for any individual offender, even after applying the correction, the estimate becomes less and less reliable as the series length decreases. That's the nature of things, though.

Anyway, Kinds initial idea was very clever, and he had nothing really to guide him. While is intuition proved correct in the Sutcliff case, it would have resulted in failure in the BTK case. Eventually, though, people started working on more complete analyses, and the procedures have become a bit more sophisticated than the initial attempts. Kinds work was important, and while is thinking and hypothesis formation was sound, and even seemed to garner support from the Sutcliff case, after examining more than just one offender, it appears (as is probably not surprising) to be a bit more complex than that.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

As for irregular times of murders, I don't see the logic in this and it would be useful to explain: what exactly are irregular times of murders for a serial killer.

Just to put some meat on the bones of this, Trevor:

I reckon it is generally accepted that serial killers have a cooling off period between murders. The practicalities of 'cooling off' is debated, but its existence is widely accepted.

Empirical studies of serial killers demonstrate that the duration of cooling off, varies between offenders and varies between murders committed by the same serial killer.

Kind himself demonstrated that TOD associated with murders committed by the same serial killer, will vary according to many factors, such as: proximity to home, how long the offender has been killing and so on.

Those empirical studies suggest that you couldn't nail down 'irregular' in relation to the time between murders for a serial killer, except to say that taking a break for years is rarer.

And of course, it is understood that the urge to kill in a serial killer's life will come and go as a result of many factors.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The other point worth mentioning, which most will know, is that in the event the WM moved lodgings, which is very possible given the transient nature of the East End; then that would limit the capability of geographic profiling.

I appreciate that a home is not the only possible base, but the home base was Kind's assumption.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Geographical profiling does as you say have its limitations in the case of the Ripper it does not take into account the fact that the killer could have lived away from Whitechapel and came into the area to simply kill and then exited the area. I am referring specifically to the fact that there were docks close by and the killer could have been a merchant seaman who ship came to London on regular visits. This would tie in with the irregular dates of the murders and the gaps between each murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Whitechapel Murderer may well have been a merchant seaman who came to the area to commit a series of murders and then disappeared the same way he had come.

My own research suggests, however, that he was in the area for the entire period in which the murders were committed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Geographical profiling does as you say have its limitations in the case of the Ripper it does not take into account the fact that the killer could have lived away from Whitechapel and came into the area to simply kill and then exited the area. I am referring specifically to the fact that there were docks close by and the killer could have been a merchant seaman who ship came to London on regular visits. This would tie in with the irregular dates of the murders and the gaps between each murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just out of interest:

Kind's proven assumptions may suggest that the location and times of the murders do not point to a seaman.

The reason being that he may have expected to see the later TODs and the earlier murders in the series closer to the docks.

There were other assumptions underpinning his assumptions, such as the earlier murders in the series (e.g. Polly and Annie) taking place closer to the base in areas more familiar to the WM. Similarly the later TODs taking place closer to the base in an attempt to evade capture.

You could argue that a seaman would have stayed in the common lodging houses or somewhere like that, but it may still apply in that the ship would act as an escape route in the event more or less caught red handed and returning to the lodging house wasn't an option.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Geographical profiling does as you say have its limitations in the case of the Ripper it does not take into account the fact that the killer could have lived away from Whitechapel and came into the area to simply kill and then exited the area. I am referring specifically to the fact that there were docks close by and the killer could have been a merchant seaman who ship came to London on regular visits. This would tie in with the irregular dates of the murders and the gaps between each murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I've always been open minded as to whether or not the WM lived in the area, Trevor, and so I'm not sold on the circle encompassing the base. But then again, a base isn't necessarily a home.

The OP is more a case that a geographical profiler's proven assumptions would not lend towards the WM living in and around Flower and Dean Street (in the event the WM did live in the area).

As for irregular times of murders, I don't see the logic in this and it would be useful to explain: what exactly are irregular times of murders for a serial killer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/map.htm

Taking a look at the map of Sutcliffe's attacks, and then looking at the WMs known attacks; I believe there are similarities in the spread.

One obvious limitation is that we do not have all of the information on the WMs actual number of attacks.

The YR map has a cluster of attacks and the odd one farther away; as does the WM map.

Assuming the WM did live within the circle, which is a big assumption, and utilising Kind's logic; which proved correct, then somewhere around the Whitechapel Road, not far from Buck's Row, would seem a fair conclusion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would agree that an outsider targeting an area, as say a red light district, would make the mathematical formula ineffective. But I don’t think it’s impossible to geoprofile an outsider. Why not just go with the next biggest suburbs or cities?

I reckon geographic profiling is underpinned by certain assumptions, including a circle which encompasses the crimes and the offender will have a base within that circle, and the offender will have a buffer zone deemed too close to home while the crimes will drop off with increasing distance from the base.

This is applicable to somebody such as Peter Sutcliffe, who didn't limit his targets to a select group of people in a select area. Sutcliffe attacked women of all backgrounds in various locations at various times, and Sutcliffe's pattern of offending did broadly conform to those assumptions underpinning geographic profiling.

The WM on the other hand, attacked a select type of woman in a select area. That being the case, the idea of a circle encompassing the base is called into question. Not definitive but questionable. And, the next biggest suburb or city, wouldn't work in geographical profiling for the simple reason there is no circle encompassing the base.

Bingley isn’t big if I’m correct so it doesn’t really work here so much. But wasn’t it untouched? Here’s a link to the Murder Map. I think Bingley is the one untouched urban area surrounded by the crimes. Might that make it consistent with the formula?

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/map.htm

I wouldn't agree with this at all.

West Yorkshire is 780 square miles and 2.3 million people live in that area.

There were many places in West Yorkshire that were fortunate enough to not have an attack in the area. Kind could quite easily have come up with south of Leeds or somewhere like that.

As I said, that was impressive from Kind.

He gave extra weight to attacks earlier in the series and to those women attacked later in the night/early in the morning.

I find it very interesting that he believed the later TODs/attacks would be closer to home, and he was proven correct in that assessment. I can't find a report by Kind which details exactly why he believed that, only commentary on his views which do not explain it fully. The commentary includes animal instinct and wanting to evade capture, but it doesn't fully explain it to me.

If anyone can find a report by Kind that would make very interesting reading.

[JeffHamm]

Geographical profiling does as you say have its limitations in the case of the Ripper it does not take into account the fact that the killer could have lived away from Whitechapel and came into the area to simply kill and then exited the area. I am referring specifically to the fact that there were docks close by and the killer could have been a merchant seaman who ship came to London on regular visits. This would tie in with the irregular dates of the murders and the gaps between each murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You are sort of describing what is referred to as a "Commuter" pattern, where an offender travels away from their home range (areas that are associated with their normal day-to-day activities) to their crime range (the region where they commit offenses - but as I have issues with that notion, this, sadly, will not be short; sorry). The other pattern, referred to in the literature as the "marauder" pattern, are offenders whose area of criminal activity overlaps with their home range (the area of their day-to-day activities). Within the home range are locations referred to as "anchor points", which are the locations one tends to be connected with - so one's residence, one's place of work, the pub one may regularly frequent, church, school, recreation locations (gym/fishing spots/etc), and so forth. The underlying notion is that marauders will tend to offend in areas associated with anchor points, with their residence often being a strong anchor (but, it must be emphasized, not always! - This is one of the pet peeves I have with how spatial analysis gets presented to the public, it tends to over emphasize the idea that one is trying to "locate where the offender lives", which is not really the case. While the residence often does end up fairly high in the resulting profile, there are cases where the main offending anchor point is the offender's place of work (Dennis Rader, or BTK, for example, was more anchored to his work locations than his residence), or their favourite pub (Bruce McArthur, in Toronto, met his victims in the pub, and for his case the only locations one could profile was the last known location the victims were seen - and this produces a profile that highlights the area that includes that pub - this is in part why I think the JtR spatial analysis may not necessarily be focusing on JtR's residence, but might be suggestive of pubs he visited).

On the whole, though, far more serial killers fall into the marauder pattern than the commuter pattern. Moreover, many of the "commuter" serial killers are truckers, and their crime locations tend to be scattered along roadways (although there is the example of Angel Resendiz, the Railway Killer, who rode trains and killed along the rail lines). I've written and published an article on the "marauder/commuter" divisions, (Hamm, J.P. (2003). They might all be marauders, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 30(5): p632–654.) which suggests that the published rates of commuter patterns are probably vastly overestimated in many studies (and even despite my concerns on that, the general notion is that 80% of offenders are marauders and 20% commuters).

So, if we set my concerns aside, a commuter as JtR is the less probable pattern, but 20% is still something to be considered and one shouldn't set it aside. And the idea of Jack being a sailor was the notion proposed by the first "Ripperologist", Edward Larkins, who had made quite an effort trying to track the comings and goings of various cattle ships trying to tie them to the dates of the murders. I think, in the end, he required one consider at least 3 different ships (almost a different ship per event, but perhaps he was including more than the C5??) and had to speculate that his "suspects" were actually on those ships. Larkins got a bit of a reputation amongst the officials as being a bit of a pain actually.

In modern times, a commuter tends to distribute offenses very very widely, the notion of someone travelling to a particular location only to then search the area for victims is not something I can off the top of my head think of (I can, however, think of offenders who travel to a particular area or location because they know they can find victims there - such as those who go to red light districts to find prostitutes, or go to a specific pub to find victims, like Bruce McArthur did). These offenders, though, still tended to live relatively close to those locations (there was a UK fellow, though, who did travel into London to a pub to meet gay men in order to then kill them - I forget his name just now - and while he denied being gay himself, I have my suspicions that he was, and couldn't accept that about himself, and went to that pub on more than the occasions that he offended. That would mean the pub was part of his day-to-day life, even if a "secret life", and if so it then becomes a theoretical debate as to whether or not that location becomes part of his "home range".

And after all that, that brings us back to what you describe, a sailor who regularly travels to London, means that London is part of his "every day life", it's part of his work-life to be there, and so that means London is just another part his "home range".

Anyway, if JtR were a sailor, and he were only in London during the dates of the offenses, etc, that means at other times he's either at sea, or he's at another port. His "home range", therefore, would constitute London, his ship, and the ports he visits as part of his work (much like how Sutcliff's murders in Manchester reflect his work as a lorry driver, which took him there). The question then becomes, where are the disembowelling murders of prostitutes in the open streets but in other ports during that time? There is no reason why JtR, the travelling sailor, would limit his search for victims to just London, he would be searching where ever he is on land. But to my knowledge, there are no similar murders found in European ports (or anywhere else a sailor might end up, but given his round trip is around 2 weeks, I would expect a ship to and from Europe somewhere). I would expect at least one victim to be found elsewhere, and probably more, given he seems particularly successful given he would only have a couple nights to find a victim while in London - many serial killers prowl for weeks on end before the opportunity arises. Mind you, those serial killers are often targeting non-prostitutes (break and enter types), and those who target prostitutes usually just employ their services until the urge to kill returns, so I suppose their "success" rates are fairly high - I doubt it would be that hard to find a willing prostitute after all. But that just further raises the question of where are the crimes of a similar nature outside of London, particularly, in port cities? A "Jack the Tar", would be expected to kill at either end of his sailing journey, and yet, we have nothing of a similar nature elsewhere.

Now, none of that precludes "Jack the Tar", but to speculate that JtR spent some time in London and some time somewhere else does seem to require one put forth some sort of evidence that JtR actually was somewhere else. Pointing to the lack of crimes in Whitechapel hardly works, as one can point to the lack of such crimes anywhere else during that period to argue he wasn't anywhere else either! So either he ceased to exist altogether (I think unlikely), or perhaps he was like most local serials killers and just in between crimes.

As I say, I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm not dismissing the idea entirely. obviously, we don't know what JtR was doing between crimes, so maybe he was on a ship or maybe he wasn't. All I know is that as far as I'm aware, there were no similar crimes committed in other cities that would suggest JtR was elsewhere, and without being able to place him elsewhere, odds are that he was still in London.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Many will have heard of him and read about his work on the Yorkshire Ripper case.

I believe he was the first to apply mathematics to the subject of identifying an offender's location, and as such was the father of geographic profiling.

For those who don't know, Peter Sutcliffe selected victims across a pretty wide area, mostly West Yorkshire. Kind was brought in to assist the police in an effort to understand where Sutcliffe lived. Kind deduced that the murderer lived in the Manningham/Shipley area, parts of North Bradford. As it turned out, Kind was absolutely correct: Sutcliffe lived in Bingley which is between Manningham and Shipley. 'No mean feat considering Leeds, Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield; is a big area.

A real life geographic profiler whose ability to deduce an offender's location is proven.

Kind worked on two assumptions:

1) The earlier murders in the series would be closer to home.

2) Most interestingly, the later TODs would be closer to home also. The reason Kind gave for this is a long story, and it had much to do with the natural instinct of animals and sleep. An inbuilt mechanism, out of the control of an offender.

Utilising Kind's proven assumptions, Flower and Dean Street and its surrounding streets would seem unlikely.

I know there are a few people here interested in geographical profiling and so those unaware of Stuart Kind may find that interesting.

Geographic profiling does have its limitations of course, and one of those may be relevant to the WM: an offender targeting a select type of person in a select area, as opposed to searching for opportunities in the environment surrounding his home. That would render geographic profiling redundant.

Geographical profiling does as you say have its limitations in the case of the Ripper it does not take into account the fact that the killer could have lived away from Whitechapel and came into the area to simply kill and then exited the area. I am referring specifically to the fact that there were docks close by and the killer could have been a merchant seaman who ship came to London on regular visits. This would tie in with the irregular dates of the murders and the gaps between each murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lombro2]

I would agree that an outsider targeting an area, as say a red light district, would make the mathematical formula ineffective. But I don’t think it’s impossible to geoprofile an outsider. Why not just go with the next biggest suburbs or cities?

Bingley isn’t big if I’m correct so it doesn’t really work here so much. But wasn’t it untouched? Here’s a link to the Murder Map. I think Bingley is the one untouched urban area surrounded by the crimes. Might that make it consistent with the formula?

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/map.htm

[Fleetwood Mac]

Many will have heard of him and read about his work on the Yorkshire Ripper case.

I believe he was the first to apply mathematics to the subject of identifying an offender's location, and as such was the father of geographic profiling.

For those who don't know, Peter Sutcliffe selected victims across a pretty wide area, mostly West Yorkshire. Kind was brought in to assist the police in an effort to understand where Sutcliffe lived. Kind deduced that the murderer lived in the Manningham/Shipley area, parts of North Bradford. As it turned out, Kind was absolutely correct: Sutcliffe lived in Bingley which is between Manningham and Shipley. 'No mean feat considering Leeds, Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield; is a big area.

A real life geographic profiler whose ability to deduce an offender's location is proven.

Kind worked on two assumptions:

1) The earlier murders in the series would be closer to home.

2) Most interestingly, the later TODs would be closer to home also. The reason Kind gave for this is a long story, and it had much to do with the natural instinct of animals and sleep. An inbuilt mechanism, out of the control of an offender.

Utilising Kind's proven assumptions, Flower and Dean Street and its surrounding streets would seem unlikely.

I know there are a few people here interested in geographical profiling and so those unaware of Stuart Kind may find that interesting.

Geographic profiling does have its limitations of course, and one of those may be relevant to the WM: an offender targeting a select type of person in a select area, as opposed to searching for opportunities in the environment surrounding his home. That would render geographic profiling redundant.