Geoprofiling

[FISHY1118]

To put a man named by the Chief Constable of the Met in the same bracket as Lewis Carroll and people like Van Gogh is not a sustainable suggestion. It can’t be defended.

I have no interest in Lewis Carrol or Van Gogh as far as Jack the Ripper suspects go . I merely pointed out the context and wording of the Chief Constable when mentioning the likes of Druitt and kosminsky and Ostrog and the way it can be interpreted. Along with other forms of evidence at the time and following the murders ,i based my judgement on that for my reasoning for Druitt as a poor suspect . Imo

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is enough written evidence to suggest all 3 make poor suspects Herlock . My point is, its my opinion how I interpret that evidence that differs from you , and that is where you seem to have a problem . Provocation is not my game Herlock I have and will continue to put forward my opinion on any matter jtr based on the same evidence we all have access to and share

As we have debated the topic over and over again please don't asked me give examples as why i believe the evidence should be considered in a certain way that backs my argument ,as 3102 post of mine are quite enough already. Regards

To put a man named by the Chief Constable of the Met in the same bracket as Lewis Carroll and people like Van Gogh is not a sustainable suggestion. It can’t be defended.

[Geddy2112]

Interesting idea, but didn't the pubs close at midnight or 12:30am? In some cases that would leave several hours between the Ripper meeting his victims at a pub and the actual murder times.

They might have had a 'Le Jour Viendra' which was our local pubs code phrase for a 'lock in.'

[JeffHamm]

Interesting idea, but didn't the pubs close at midnight or 12:30am? In some cases that would leave several hours between the Ripper meeting his victims at a pub and the actual murder times.

Hi Fiver,

Yes, the pubs I believe had to close by 12:00 (last orders I presume), and probably had to have everyone finish up and out by 12:30. Something like that. However, I'm not suggesting that JtR met his victims at the pub itself, rather, that he may be familiar with the area because of his using that pub as his "local", and so when he goes there that's the area he gravitates to as a starting point since it is what he knows. Or, as it is not uncommon for serial killers to be intoxicated when they kill, he may have found his victims while prowling around after the pub had closed. One thing I thought the police could have done, and maybe they did, was when they had their undercover people on the street, to have some in that area just taking note of anyone who, late at night, passes by on multiple occasions (as if doing some sort of loop pattern type thing). It wouldn't surprise me if that's what JtR was doing, circling around a number of streets, looking for opportunities. If he was, that would be a good area to look for him.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

With the JtR series, I think that may be the case as well. The murder locations are probably more reflective of spatial decisions made by the victims than by JtR. As such, the anchor point is probably going to be more reflective of where JtR tends to "go" to meet his victims. When I've presented the spatial maps in other threads, the area of interest tends to be around the area between the Kelly and Chapman crime scenes, which has a fairly high density of pubs in that area. This is why in the past I've suggested that it may be picking up on a pub that JtR may have frequented, which in turn is why he's comfortable in that area in terms of committing his crimes. That would suggest to me that the spatial maps are highlighting a pub, and given the time period, it probably means he may live not too distant from there but not necessarily in the top zones. He could be a simple 10-15 minute walk from there, for example.

Interesting idea, but didn't the pubs close at midnight or 12:30am? In some cases that would leave several hours between the Ripper meeting his victims at a pub and the actual murder times.

[JeffHamm]

Indeed. This is very helpful, thank you.

Have we any idea which pub?

Despite what sometimes appears in the press, it is unwise to presume the analysis is that specific, the press reports the odd occasion when it is unusually accurate, but in reality, that is only determined in hindsight. However, a pub in the vicinity of say the Ten Bells, meaning within a 5 minute or so walk of there, would be a good starting point for the police to investigate. It might, like any lead, not result in anything, but that's the nature of probabilistic information. Over a large number of cases (meaning different offenders), it should produce something more often than not, but for any given case you don't know if this is one of the "did or did not" set. It's not "evidence" in and of itself, rather, it's a probabilistic way of ranking locations within the crime region in terms of where to start looking for evidence.

That's what makes it useful, but at the same time, one shouldn't forego on directions of investigation that lead outside the hotspot map if real evidence points in that direction.

- Jeff

[Tani]

As spatial analysis of crime locations is one of my areas of interest, I would like to point out that the hot spots these analyses indicate should not automatically be presumed to be the offender's residence. While someone's residence is often a major anchor point with regards to their offending, it should not be presumed that the anchor point highlighted by the analysis must therefore be the offender's residence.

Collin Ireland was mentioned, for example. A spatial analysis of his crimes places the bar where he met his victims in zone 1-3, pending upon which routines one uses. While the recommended search area remains large, due to the distribution of his crime scenes, it means a major location associated with his crimes is located in an area only 7.5% of the total suggested search area. Of course, the information about the bar could also be found as it was a common link between his victims, but that is just more information that confirms the routines were extracting that location information.

In the David McArthur case, in Toronto Canada, a spatial analysis of the last known locations of his victims also focused in on the area containing the club where he was known to frequent and find victims.

In both of those cases, the offender's residence was outside the crime range, showing it was a less influential anchor point. In both cases, the locations tend to be associated more with the victims (the victim's residences or the location of the last sightings of the victims), which has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the outcome of the analysis.

With the JtR series, I think that may be the case as well. The murder locations are probably more reflective of spatial decisions made by the victims than by JtR. As such, the anchor point is probably going to be more reflective of where JtR tends to "go" to meet his victims. When I've presented the spatial maps in other threads, the area of interest tends to be around the area between the Kelly and Chapman crime scenes, which has a fairly high density of pubs in that area. This is why in the past I've suggested that it may be picking up on a pub that JtR may have frequented, which in turn is why he's comfortable in that area in terms of committing his crimes. That would suggest to me that the spatial maps are highlighting a pub, and given the time period, it probably means he may live not too distant from there but not necessarily in the top zones. He could be a simple 10-15 minute walk from there, for example.

Again, the interpretation of what the spatial maps show is not as straight forward as just looking at the hot spots and deciding "he probably lives here".

- Jeff

Indeed. This is very helpful, thank you.

Have we any idea which pub?

[FISHY1118]

There is no ‘evidence.’ Many people would say that they think Druitt a poor suspect and that’s fine but I seriously doubt that you’d find anyone that would put a man named by the Chief Constable as a likely suspect in the same bracket as Lewis Carroll, PAV and the Sickert theory. I don’t even think that you believe that he should be in the lowest category. I’ve always been convinced that you say it for reasons of provocation only.

There is enough written evidence to suggest all 3 make poor suspects Herlock . My point is, its my opinion how I interpret that evidence that differs from you , and that is where you seem to have a problem . Provocation is not my game Herlock I have and will continue to put forward my opinion on any matter jtr based on the same evidence we all have access to and share

As we have debated the topic over and over again please don't asked me give examples as why i believe the evidence should be considered in a certain way that backs my argument ,as 3102 post of mine are quite enough already. Regards

[JeffHamm]

As spatial analysis of crime locations is one of my areas of interest, I would like to point out that the hot spots these analyses indicate should not automatically be presumed to be the offender's residence. While someone's residence is often a major anchor point with regards to their offending, it should not be presumed that the anchor point highlighted by the analysis must therefore be the offender's residence.

Collin Ireland was mentioned, for example. A spatial analysis of his crimes places the bar where he met his victims in zone 1-3, pending upon which routines one uses. While the recommended search area remains large, due to the distribution of his crime scenes, it means a major location associated with his crimes is located in an area only 7.5% of the total suggested search area. Of course, the information about the bar could also be found as it was a common link between his victims, but that is just more information that confirms the routines were extracting that location information.

In the David McArthur case, in Toronto Canada, a spatial analysis of the last known locations of his victims also focused in on the area containing the club where he was known to frequent and find victims.

In both of those cases, the offender's residence was outside the crime range, showing it was a less influential anchor point. In both cases, the locations tend to be associated more with the victims (the victim's residences or the location of the last sightings of the victims), which has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the outcome of the analysis.

With the JtR series, I think that may be the case as well. The murder locations are probably more reflective of spatial decisions made by the victims than by JtR. As such, the anchor point is probably going to be more reflective of where JtR tends to "go" to meet his victims. When I've presented the spatial maps in other threads, the area of interest tends to be around the area between the Kelly and Chapman crime scenes, which has a fairly high density of pubs in that area. This is why in the past I've suggested that it may be picking up on a pub that JtR may have frequented, which in turn is why he's comfortable in that area in terms of committing his crimes. That would suggest to me that the spatial maps are highlighting a pub, and given the time period, it probably means he may live not too distant from there but not necessarily in the top zones. He could be a simple 10-15 minute walk from there, for example.

Again, the interpretation of what the spatial maps show is not as straight forward as just looking at the hot spots and deciding "he probably lives here".

- Jeff

[Tani]

There are posters who think Lechmere is a likely suspect. There are also posters who have tried to turn every thread into a Lechmere thread and treated everyone who disagreed with them as idiots. This isn't exclusive to Lechmerians, every suspectology has posters who do that. But the last few years have seen more pushing of Lechmere than other suspects, often by people who directly profit from making him a suspect. This has affected how Lermerians in general are perceived.

You clearly are someone with a favorite suspect, not someone who badgers everyone about your favorite suspect, so I hope your courtesy is returned.

Sad to hear this, that behaviour sounds obnoxious! But yes, I don't make it my business to force my suspect on others.

[Fiver]

Sup.

This isn't a Lechmere thread. I gather he's a touchy subject here, but I can have my opinion, as can those who believe Druitt did it, Kosminski did it, and others. I come on this forum for good discussions and would ask politely that I not be badgered at for having Lechmere as a suspect. I'm not throwing it in anyone's way or trying to prove anything. I'm sorry this is touchy on here, but this thread is not about him anyway.

Thanks.

There are posters who think Lechmere is a likely suspect. There are also posters who have tried to turn every thread into a Lechmere thread and treated everyone who disagreed with them as idiots. This isn't exclusive to Lechmerians, every suspectology has posters who do that. But the last few years have seen more pushing of Lechmere than other suspects, often by people who directly profit from making him a suspect. This has affected how Lermerians in general are perceived.

You clearly are someone with a favorite suspect, not someone who badgers everyone about your favorite suspect, so I hope your courtesy is returned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

While Druitt isn't one of my top suspects, I do consider him a viable suspect, while many who have been names as suspects aren't viable. In fact, I wouldn't even include Lechmere among the 3 worst suspects. He's a very weak suspect, while people like Joseph Merrick, William Gladstone, Arthur Conan Doyle, and others are just plain ridiculous suspects.

Hi Lewis,

For some inexplicable reason Druitt gets some people pretty hot under the collar. I’ve seen people on here go to extraordinary lengths to try and knock down some imaginary league table as far as it’s even being suggested that we shouldn’t even use the word ‘suspect’ in regard to him. I’ve never understood it. Of all of the appalling suspects that have been named why not at least keep an open mind on one that was named by one of the most senior police officers in the Met?

[Lewis C]

There is no ‘evidence.’ Many people would say that they think Druitt a poor suspect and that’s fine but I seriously doubt that you’d find anyone that would put a man named by the Chief Constable as a likely suspect in the same bracket as Lewis Carroll, PAV and the Sickert theory. I don’t even think that you believe that he should be in the lowest category. I’ve always been convinced that you say it for reasons of provocation only.

Hi Herlock,

While Druitt isn't one of my top suspects, I do consider him a viable suspect, while many who have been names as suspects aren't viable. In fact, I wouldn't even include Lechmere among the 3 worst suspects. He's a very weak suspect, while people like Joseph Merrick, William Gladstone, Arthur Conan Doyle, and others are just plain ridiculous suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your forgetting Herlock what Macnaghten actually said in his MM [were been there and done that tho ] ,you can jump up and down all you like, there is enough evidence to suggest they are the 3 worse suspects we have. Just my opinion based on the evidence herlock , remember where all aloud to have those .

There is no ‘evidence.’ Many people would say that they think Druitt a poor suspect and that’s fine but I seriously doubt that you’d find anyone that would put a man named by the Chief Constable as a likely suspect in the same bracket as Lewis Carroll, PAV and the Sickert theory. I don’t even think that you believe that he should be in the lowest category. I’ve always been convinced that you say it for reasons of provocation only.

[FISHY1118]

You can’t seem to resist it can you Fishy? That in a subject where we have around 200 suspects named and the overwhelming majority of them for the flimsiest of reasons you can put Druitt in the ‘worse suspects’ category shows that you aren’t looking at the subject in an unbiased way. How can you casually cast aside a suspect who was mentioned as likeliest by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police. That fact alone raises him head and shoulders above the crowd. And yet all that we have against him is ‘well Macnaghten must have just made it up.’ Could any rebuttal have a flimsier basis. Despite that anger that Druitt inexplicably creates in some people he remains near the top of any reasonable pile. Accepting that we can call that a very weak pile but he’s up there nonetheless.

And I won’t apologise for repeating this but it’s even more bizarre that you can repeatedly, and at every opportunity, dismiss Druitt and yet you are about the only person alive who supports the thoroughly descredited Stephen Knight Gull/Sickert theory. A theory that categorically should be in the ‘worse suspects’ category.

It’s like saying “I don’t think that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac. I think that it was Doris Day.”

I think your forgetting Herlock what Macnaghten actually said in his MM [were been there and done that tho ] ,you can jump up and down all you like, there is enough evidence to suggest they are the 3 worse suspects we have. Just my opinion based on the evidence herlock , remember where all aloud to have those .