Geoprofiling

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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]

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

[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.'

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.