Geoprofiling

[FISHY1118]

As long as I’ve shown my point. Maybe I’ll start another thread entitled ‘Why Druitt Is Around a Thousand Times More Likely To Have Been The Ripper Than Gull’?

No ,All you did was waste time and argue a point simply for argument sake, because I happen to have an opinion that differs to yours .Nothing more .

[John Wheat]

The issue with a commuter is that he would be limited to the operating hours of trains. These murders, excluding Liz's, would be after trains had stopped running. Now, if he stays over in the bolt hole then leaves the next morning, maybe. There is a lingering issue that may relate to where he lived and what he did......the gap between Annie then Liz, and from Liz to Mary. Polly and Annie were killed within 2 weeks. The that annoying gap until LIz, who is cut only once, and Kate, who is the only "Ripper" victim on City land. What Im hinting at is this...what if Liz and Kate were killed by different people and neither was Jack? Shall we then assume he doesnt kill in the East End from early September until early Nov? Or should we question whether Mary was in fact a Ripper victim....which could suggest that after Annie, that man just left the area?

Each assumption once questioned raises a myriad of new questions, which doesnt mean that we are better off just assuming.

Hi Michael

I never said anything about how far he had to commute. The Ripper could well have lived in a neighbouring part of London within walking distance or could have commuted by horse and cart. He doesn't necessarily have to have commuted by train. I believe Jack killed atleast 4 of the C5. I'm undecided on Liz Stride. I think the idea that they were numerous violent knife mutilators in Whitechapel at the same time all of a sudden to be fanciful.

Cheers John

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

I think it likely the Ripper had a bolt hole in Whitechapel but might not have lived in Whitechapel itself.

Cheers John

The issue with a commuter is that he would be limited to the operating hours of trains. These murders, excluding Liz's, would be after trains had stopped running. Now, if he stays over in the bolt hole then leaves the next morning, maybe. There is a lingering issue that may relate to where he lived and what he did......the gap between Annie then Liz, and from Liz to Mary. Polly and Annie were killed within 2 weeks. The that annoying gap until LIz, who is cut only once, and Kate, who is the only "Ripper" victim on City land. What Im hinting at is this...what if Liz and Kate were killed by different people and neither was Jack? Shall we then assume he doesnt kill in the East End from early September until early Nov? Or should we question whether Mary was in fact a Ripper victim....which could suggest that after Annie, that man just left the area?

Each assumption once questioned raises a myriad of new questions, which doesnt mean that we are better off just assuming.

[John Wheat]

The thing about these cases John is the fact that they all...the alleged Ripper kills...happened within a single square mile. On streets that often dead ended or twisted into other streets. Lanes, side streets...the area that Jack operated within was uniquely convoluted, having grown from simple major thoroughfares to something with connective lanes, alleys and passageways. Local knowledge, although not a prerequisite for the killer, would explain how he seemingly disappeared from the crime scenes. He may have arrived at those sites using the same "secure" route. "Secure" being less travelled and less well known alleys.

Which is why geoprofiling may offer some real insight. But......and few people suggest this.......what if he did not stay in one location very long? What if he moved around the many lodging houses in the area during those 2 1/2 months? What if he had a bolt hole in the area, but lived on the West Side?

Hi Michael

I think it likely the Ripper had a bolt hole in Whitechapel but might not have lived in Whitechapel itself.

Cheers John

[Michael W Richards]

How useful actually is Geoprofiling? Do serial killers always kill in the area where they live? Or do they as some have suggested tend to kill slightly away from where they live? For example a neighbouring area.

The thing about these cases John is the fact that they all...the alleged Ripper kills...happened within a single square mile. On streets that often dead ended or twisted into other streets. Lanes, side streets...the area that Jack operated within was uniquely convoluted, having grown from simple major thoroughfares to something with connective lanes, alleys and passageways. Local knowledge, although not a prerequisite for the killer, would explain how he seemingly disappeared from the crime scenes. He may have arrived at those sites using the same "secure" route. "Secure" being less travelled and less well known alleys.

Which is why geoprofiling may offer some real insight. But......and few people suggest this.......what if he did not stay in one location very long? What if he moved around the many lodging houses in the area during those 2 1/2 months? What if he had a bolt hole in the area, but lived on the West Side?

[John Wheat]

How useful actually is Geoprofiling? Do serial killers always kill in the area where they live? Or do they as some have suggested tend to kill slightly away from where they live? For example a neighbouring area.

[GBinOz]

Meanwhile, back to the geoprofiling issue; my vote was for it being useful.

Can we please stay on the topic?

Well said Enigma. I also vote for geoprofiling being useful.

Perhaps the protagonists on this forum could investigate membership of a cage fighting club to resolve their differences rather than dragging threads off topic?

[Enigma]

Meanwhile, back to the geoprofiling issue; my vote was for it being useful.

Can we please stay on the topic?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this thread it is . Druitt remains in the to 3 worst suspects imo, nothing in the above post changes that .

As long as I’ve shown my point. Maybe I’ll start another thread entitled ‘Why Druitt Is Around a Thousand Times More Likely To Have Been The Ripper Than Gull’?

[FISHY1118]

All of the above is exactly as I said, wordplay.

You only added the ‘compared to the serious suspects’ after I challenged you.

The end.

On this thread it is . Druitt remains in the to 3 worst suspects imo, nothing in the above post changes that .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok lets try one more time shall we


, Me ''There is enough evidence to suggest they are the 3 worse suspects we have. ''Just my opinion based on the evidence herlock'' [clearly you ignored this bit]


You ''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.''


Me ''I have no interest in Lewis Carrol or Van Gogh as far as Jack the Ripper suspects go ''


Ive made it as clear as day Herlock that i dont consider L.C and V.G suspects, that YOU consider them suspects is of no importants or relevance to me regarding my original comment . So how then is my first point wrong when it was followed up with my response to your Carroll/Gogh point ? Perhaps you think i should have named all 200 plus suspects after my statement.



You ''So as we can see from those two posts you originally said that ‘the three worse suspects’ of all of the suspects and after I challenged you on that point you’ve used a bit of wordplay to shift your position slightly to make them the worst of those ‘who are continually mentioned here’. It’s provably a move from the worst of all the suspects to the worst of those regularly mentioned on here


Its here where you are simply confused herlock , you challenged me and i clarified it as explained above, but it obviously ignored it, and now it is you who are guilty of a little word play that you so endlessly enjoy.



You. Now that I’ve hopefully cleared that up (unless you decided on some other change) I can re-state my original point that it makes no sense to place Druitt at the bottom as one of the worst three because that would mean that you rated him (and Cross and Maybrick) as worse suspects that Prince Albert Victor, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mary Pearcey or Macnaghten himself.


1 Druitt .

2.Lechmere

3.Maybrick

Yes they are in my opinion the 3 worse suspect compared to the ''serious suspects that we know'' of, that who are continually mentioned here and have been debated at length over a long period of time. Your above point is irrelevant, as is plain to see.


You Ive no wish to continue this but I wanted to clear up that specific point. My apologies to Tani who began the thread to discuss geoprofiling before we went off on a tangent



You only confused it . Yes of course you should apologize, you cant help but 'Argue to Death' every ''Opinion'' post i make like its somehow wrong because you dont agree with it. In the end, all youll do is get us chucked off yet another thread.



This really should be the end of this Druitt saga . But who knows .

In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-
''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”


Good enough for the Top Investigator of the Ripper murders is good enough for me . I see no reason to think otherwise, even from a chief constable whos Memoranda seems to be littered with errors.

All of the above is exactly as I said, wordplay.

You only added the ‘compared to the serious suspects’ after I challenged you.

The end.

[FISHY1118]

We have to go through this every time Fishy. You never just accept a point without trying to somehow make it seem that it was not what you meant. In your first post you said:



The underlined part is very clear in its meaning and is clearly not the same as the meaning that you changed it to in your last post:



So as we can see from those two posts you originally said that ‘the three worse suspects’ of all of the suspects and after I challenged you on that point you’ve used a bit of wordplay to shift your position slightly to make them the worst of those ‘who are continually mentioned here’. It’s provably a move from the worst of all the suspects to the worst of those regularly mentioned on here.

Now that I’ve hopefully cleared that up (unless you decided on some other change) I can re-state my original point that it makes no sense to place Druitt at the bottom as one of the worst three because that would mean that you rated him (and Cross and Maybrick) as worse suspects that Prince Albert Victor, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mary Pearcey or Macnaghten himself.

Ive no wish to continue this but I wanted to clear up that specific point. My apologies to Tani who began the thread to discuss geoprofiling before we went off on a tangent.

Ok lets try one more time shall we


, Me ''There is enough evidence to suggest they are the 3 worse suspects we have. ''Just my opinion based on the evidence herlock'' [clearly you ignored this bit]


You ''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.''


Me ''I have no interest in Lewis Carrol or Van Gogh as far as Jack the Ripper suspects go ''


Ive made it as clear as day Herlock that i dont consider L.C and V.G suspects, that YOU consider them suspects is of no importants or relevance to me regarding my original comment . So how then is my first point wrong when it was followed up with my response to your Carroll/Gogh point ? Perhaps you think i should have named all 200 plus suspects after my statement.



You ''So as we can see from those two posts you originally said that ‘the three worse suspects’ of all of the suspects and after I challenged you on that point you’ve used a bit of wordplay to shift your position slightly to make them the worst of those ‘who are continually mentioned here’. It’s provably a move from the worst of all the suspects to the worst of those regularly mentioned on here


Its here where you are simply confused herlock , you challenged me and i clarified it as explained above, but it obviously ignored it, and now it is you who are guilty of a little word play that you so endlessly enjoy.



You. Now that I’ve hopefully cleared that up (unless you decided on some other change) I can re-state my original point that it makes no sense to place Druitt at the bottom as one of the worst three because that would mean that you rated him (and Cross and Maybrick) as worse suspects that Prince Albert Victor, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mary Pearcey or Macnaghten himself.


1 Druitt .

2.Lechmere

3.Maybrick

Yes they are in my opinion the 3 worse suspect compared to the ''serious suspects that we know'' of, that who are continually mentioned here and have been debated at length over a long period of time. Your above point is irrelevant, as is plain to see.


You Ive no wish to continue this but I wanted to clear up that specific point. My apologies to Tani who began the thread to discuss geoprofiling before we went off on a tangent



You only confused it . Yes of course you should apologize, you cant help but 'Argue to Death' every ''Opinion'' post i make like its somehow wrong because you dont agree with it. In the end, all youll do is get us chucked off yet another thread.



This really should be the end of this Druitt saga . But who knows .

In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-
''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”


Good enough for the Top Investigator of the Ripper murders is good enough for me . I see no reason to think otherwise, even from a chief constable whos Memoranda seems to be littered with errors.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I know what i said, its right there '' i have no interest in Lewis Carrol or Van Gogh as far as Jack the Ripper suspects go'' Emphasis on the 'as far as suspects goes ''. I certainly dont consider either of them as ''suspects'', merely names of people around at time of the murders, who for some reason [ book sales ,15 mins of fame] Ripperologist like to keep the cottage industry of JtR alive by using these types of famous people that they know imo have nothing to do with with murders .

Now that ive successfully cleared that up , back to the topic .

1 Druitt .

2.Lechmere

3.Maybrick

Yes they are in my opinion the 3 worse suspect compared to the serious suspects that we know of, that who are continually mentioned here and have been debated at length over a long period of time.

The fact that you keep mentioning the Chief Constable who named Druitt only as '' more capable of committing the murders than Thomas Cutbush, imo counts as nothing towards him being a serious suspect, only that his comparing their life [or in Druitts case death] situation to that of cutbush. His merely making a comparison to Cutbush rather than a genuine suspect .imo


One begs the question as to why a Chief Constable who had little to do with the offcial investigation would even consider Druitt , when surely he would have had some knowleged at the time of what Inspector Abberlines [who was in charge of the entire case] thoughts on Druitts as the ripper were concerned.


In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-

''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”


Good enough for the Top Investigator of the Ripper murders is good enough for me . I see no reason to think otherwise, even from a chief constable whos Memoranda seems to be littered with errors.

Regards

We have to go through this every time Fishy. You never just accept a point without trying to somehow make it seem that it was not what you meant. In your first post you said:

. You want evidence that rules him ''out'' ? How about one piece of evidence that rules him in ? . Lechmerians continue with this obsession as do Druittist that somehow they are ''Top'' suspects because we cant rule them ''out'' as the evidence doesnt allow for it or show it . Imo Druitt , Lechmere , and Maybrick make the 3 worse suspects as there is no evidence they were the killer nor were they suspected by the police at the time of the murders .

The underlined part is very clear in its meaning and is clearly not the same as the meaning that you changed it to in your last post:

.
Yes they are in my opinion the 3 worse suspect compared to the serious suspects that we know of, that who are continually mentioned here and have been debated at length over a long period of time.

So as we can see from those two posts you originally said that ‘the three worse suspects’ of all of the suspects and after I challenged you on that point you’ve used a bit of wordplay to shift your position slightly to make them the worst of those ‘who are continually mentioned here’. It’s provably a move from the worst of all the suspects to the worst of those regularly mentioned on here.

Now that I’ve hopefully cleared that up (unless you decided on some other change) I can re-state my original point that it makes no sense to place Druitt at the bottom as one of the worst three because that would mean that you rated him (and Cross and Maybrick) as worse suspects that Prince Albert Victor, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mary Pearcey or Macnaghten himself.

Ive no wish to continue this but I wanted to clear up that specific point. My apologies to Tani who began the thread to discuss geoprofiling before we went off on a tangent.

[FISHY1118]

But you said:

“…they are the 3 worse suspects we have.”
That means that you think that a man named by the Chief Constable and others is a worse suspect that Lewis Carrol or Arthur Conan-Doyle or Macnaghten himself and the other ‘suspects’ that usually get nothing but derision on the forums (and with good reason). You believe that Druitt is somehow a worse suspect than all of them? Yes, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I’ve said that I’ve no issue with anyone not thinking that Druitt is a good suspect, but to put Druitt in the very lowest category makes no sense.

Yes I know what i said, its right there '' i have no interest in Lewis Carrol or Van Gogh as far as Jack the Ripper suspects go'' Emphasis on the 'as far as suspects goes ''. I certainly dont consider either of them as ''suspects'', merely names of people around at time of the murders, who for some reason [ book sales ,15 mins of fame] Ripperologist like to keep the cottage industry of JtR alive by using these types of famous people that they know imo have nothing to do with with murders .

Now that ive successfully cleared that up , back to the topic .

1 Druitt .

2.Lechmere

3.Maybrick

Yes they are in my opinion the 3 worse suspect compared to the serious suspects that we know of, that who are continually mentioned here and have been debated at length over a long period of time.

The fact that you keep mentioning the Chief Constable who named Druitt only as '' more capable of committing the murders than Thomas Cutbush, imo counts as nothing towards him being a serious suspect, only that his comparing their life [or in Druitts case death] situation to that of cutbush. His merely making a comparison to Cutbush rather than a genuine suspect .imo


One begs the question as to why a Chief Constable who had little to do with the offcial investigation would even consider Druitt , when surely he would have had some knowleged at the time of what Inspector Abberlines [who was in charge of the entire case] thoughts on Druitts as the ripper were concerned.


In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-

''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”


Good enough for the Top Investigator of the Ripper murders is good enough for me . I see no reason to think otherwise, even from a chief constable whos Memoranda seems to be littered with errors.

Regards

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

But you said:

“…they are the 3 worse suspects we have.”

That means that you think that a man named by the Chief Constable and others is a worse suspect that Lewis Carrol or Arthur Conan-Doyle or Macnaghten himself and the other ‘suspects’ that usually get nothing but derision on the forums (and with good reason). You believe that Druitt is somehow a worse suspect than all of them? Yes, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I’ve said that I’ve no issue with anyone not thinking that Druitt is a good suspect, but to put Druitt in the very lowest category makes no sense.