Laura Richards knows who the ripper was

[Colin Roberts]

Just when I was hoping that you would join the party, Caz, I find myself confronted with some other issues - outside of the realm of 'Ripperology' - that I must address.

I may need as many as two-or-three days, to tend to these 'real-life' commitments, so please forgive me, in the event that I do not give your thoughtful post the reply that it deserves, ... sooner, rather than later.

I will, for the time being, take a quick stab at one of your questions, and promise to return as soon as I am able to do so.

... why it is most likely, if he was residing on the inside, that it was at the centre, and least likely at the edge? I think I get this bit, but to be sure and putting it in the simplest terms, is it a bit like saying that if he was residing on the vast outside, it was most likely to be just outside your square mile and least likely to be at the other side of the globe?

Imagine a fifty pound bag of white sand being poured through a stationary funnel that is situated at a height of ... let's say ... three feet, above a level plane (e.g. a floor).

Invariably, a mound of nearly perfect symmetry will be formed.

Also, imagine that a single black grain of sand is to be found, somewhere, within that mound.

If you had to describe that mound from the two-dimensional perspective that was achieved, by viewing it from directly above; where then, within that (seemingly two-dimensional) distribution of sand, would you say that the single black grain was most likely to be found?

At its center?

On its periphery?

Hint: When viewing the mound from a three-dimensional perspective, it should be obvious that the grains of sand are standing perhaps ten-thousand-high, at the center, but only one-or-two-high, at the periphery.

I will expound on this issue, in hopes of providing greater clarity, and address your other questions, at some point within the next three-to-four days, Caz.

Thanks!

[caz]

No more! No less!

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable using the term 'probably', in this particular context...

...When I first began to present bits and pieces of my Geographic Spatial Analysis of the six murder-sites that are most widely associated with 'Jack the Ripper' (i.e. those of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly), some 24 -to- 26 months ago, I was told, in no uncertain terms, by Caroline Morris, i.e. 'caz', that mathematics could not / would not lead us to the 1888 doorstep of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I remain, to this day, perplexed!

I perceive Caz as being one of a very small handful of posters that offers nothing but their own personal perspectives, yet manages to contribute invaluably to this, our field of interest.

Caz's personal perspective is invaluable, and rarely do I find myself in disagreement therewith.

But Caz, like so many others, in this particular instance, quickly glanced at my depictions of circular and elliptical probability distributions, and assumed that I was attempting to actually pinpoint the 1888 domicile of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I was not doing so, then; and, I am not doing so, today!

Look again, at my above contention!

I am merely suggesting that we should all be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere¹ within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888: A region, having an area of an entire square mile.

¹ i.e. most likely at the center (red: i.e. relatively 'hot'), and least likely on the periphery (cyan: i.e. relatively 'cold').

Does anyone - honestly - believe that such a contention is too bold?

Hi Colin,

I do appreciate your comments and I now realise how wrong I was to jump to that conclusion about what you were attempting. I now realise that nothing could be further from the truth and I should have said so publicly, on the boards, a long time ago.

I admire and respect you for the huge contribution you make by putting these crimes on the statistical map in a no-nonsense way that nobody appears to have done previously.

If I understand you correctly, it would equally not be too bold to bet ‘even money’ (no more, no less) that Jack was residing outside your square mile region, coming in each time to commit murder (possibly among other business he had there, but not necessarily), and consequently being out of reach of the police searches.

In short, the chances of him residing within your square mile (A) are exactly the same as the chances of him residing anywhere on the vast outside (B). If that is your contention, based on your calculations, I trust it and have no problem with it.

But I imagine the chances of actually locating him if he was residing outside, compared with the relatively tiny inside, would be an entirely different matter! We don’t seem to have the kind of evidence that could realistically narrow down the much larger area (A + B) we would need to search to be 100% (as opposed to 50%) sure that he was actually there during the relevant period of 1888.

One other thing - could you explain for this Chelsea fan, with a lesser ability than you to grasp all this, why it is most likely, if he was residing on the inside, that it was at the centre, and least likely at the edge? I think I get this bit, but to be sure and putting it in the simplest terms, is it a bit like saying that if he was residing on the vast outside, it was most likely to be just outside your square mile and least likely to be at the other side of the globe?

I’m getting out now because my brain hurts and I’m only here to put off the next in a long list of jobs I’m meant to be doing this week! But I shall be back when time allows to see how grossly I have misunderstood you.

Love,

Caz
X

[Colin Roberts]

76th percentile? In that case, Joseph Barnett looks guiltier and guiltier.

It is quite interesting to note the order of ascendency of various contemporary suspects, e.g. Aaron Kosminski, and modern-day persons of interest, e.g. Joseph Barnett, within the context of a particular geographic profile.

...


Deviations from Murder-Site Mean-Center (Elliptical) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

From the outside, in …

- Robert Mann (Modern-Day Person of Interest): Whitechapel Union Infirmary, Baker's Row, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 3' 50.14" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 14.66" North

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that the documented 1888 residence of Robert Mann (i.e. the Whitechapel Union Infirmary) should be perceived as having fallen within the 70th percentile (i.e. the top 30.00%) of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

- Robert Mann (Modern-Day Person of Interest): Whitechapel Union Infirmary Mortuary, Eagle Place, Old Montague Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 3' 52.22" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 8.12" North

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that the documented 1888 workplace of Robert Mann (i.e. the Whitechapel Union Infirmary Mortuary) should be perceived as having fallen within the 76th percentile (i.e. the top 23.54%) of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

- Aaron Kosminski (Contemporary Suspect): 34 Yalford Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 3' 56.79" West
Latitude: 51° 30' 59.31" North

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that the probable 1888 residence of Aaron Kosminski (i.e. 34 Yalford Street) should be perceived as having fallen within the 78th percentile (i.e. the top 21.76%) of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

- George Hutchinson & Joseph Fleming (aka 'James Evans') (Modern-Day Persons of Interest): Victoria Home for Working Men, 39-41 Commercial Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 4' 23.98" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 0.64" North

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that the self-stated 1888 residence of George Hutchinson / the self-stated 1889 residence of Joseph Fleming (aka 'James Evans') (i.e. the Victoria Home for Working Men) should be perceived as having fallen within the 89th percentile (i.e. the top 10.52%) of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

- John Simmonds (Modern-Day Person of Interest): 60 Wentworth Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, County of Middlesex
Longitude: 0° 4' 18.56" West
Latitude: 51° 31' 1.75" North

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that the self-stated 1888 residence of John Simmonds (i.e. 60 Wentworth Street) should be perceived as having fallen within the 95th percentile (i.e. the top 4.96%) of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

---------

In a 'nutshell' ...

- Robert Mann (Whitechapel Union Infirmary): 70th Percentile

- Robert Mann (Whitechapel Union Infirmary Mortuary): 76th Percentile

- Aaron Kosminski (34 Yalford Street): 78th Percentile

- George Hutchinson & Joseph Fleming (aka 'James Evans') (Victoria Home for Working Men): 89th Percentile

- John Simmonds (60 Wentworth Street): 95th Percentile

...

However, it is just that: 'Quite Interesting'; nothing more, ... nothing less.

If a contemporary suspect or modern-day person of interest is known to have resided within the observed parameters of the 'killing-field' of 'Jack the Ripper', during the latter months of 1888, then a substantial degree of geographic viability is established.

The cases against Aaron Kosminski and Joseph Barnett, for example, must be comparatively weighed, on the basis of other 'merits', as each of these persons of interest has easily passed the geographic 'litmus test'.

The case against Carl Feigenbaum, on the other hand, doesn't exist, as his whereabouts, during the latter months of 1888, are not known.

Pulp publications and sensational documentaries notwithstanding, Feigenbaum cannot be administered the geographic 'litmus test'. Until such time as he can be, there is no case to be made for his 'candidacy'. Period!

Starter Kit for Feigenbaum!

Hello?

Anyone?

Can we please get a Starter Kit, for Mr. Feigenbaum?

[Heinrich]

Of course!

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest that we should perceive a probability of just 23.32% that 'Jack the Ripper' resided in closer 'proximity'¹ to the murder-site mean-center², than did Mary Jane Kelly and Joseph Barnett, during the latter months of 1888.

13 Miller's Court, Dorset Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, therefore, should be perceived as having fallen within the 76th percentile³ of the overall distribution of probability that pertains to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

¹ i.e. 'proximity' that is based upon elliptical deviation that is proportional to the calculated dimensions of the standard-deviation ellipse; as opposed to absolute deviation, i.e. straight-line distance.

² i.e. the southwest corner of the intersection of Wentworth Street and Osborn Street, in the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel.

³ i.e. the 'hottest' 0.19 square-mile area, anywhere.

76th percentile? In that case, Joseph Barnett looks guiltier and guiltier.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I see that 126 Cable Street isn't far from the epicentre of Ripperville.

I also notice on that big egg shaped jpg that the locations of the six victims spell out the letter K.

Klosowski - gotta be! Mr Gordon will be SO pleased!

[Trevor Marriott]

"Do you honestly believe that the distinct possibility that he commuted into the area"

If so he must have got a season ticket lol

Well you have two choices to pick from or he may have been beamed down from a UFO perhaps Uteri and kidneys were an alien delicacy in 1888.

[HelenaWojtczak]

"Do you honestly believe that the distinct possibility that he commuted into the area"

If so he must have got a season ticket lol

[Colin Roberts]

You only have to look at the murder locations to see that they are all moments away from major thoroughfares quite easy for the killer to exit Whitechapel by that means

Do you honestly believe that the distinct possibility that he commuted into the area, in which his crimes were committed, - in order to commit those crimes - dictates an actual likelihood that he did so?

And, by the way; it matters not, on which side of the fence you happen to be.

The fact that you are in complete disagreement with my contention is irrelevant, to the issue that I am about to raise.

---

You have conducted your own 'analysis', so to speak, of a distribution of six murder-sites, and the topographical features of the landscape, in which those murder-sites happen to be situated.

You have concluded, somehow, that the as yet unidentified perpetrator(s) of some - or, perhaps all - of the crimes that correspond with these murder-sites, 'probably' resided here or there, during the period of time, in which the crimes were committed.

You have done so, by way of your own human tendency to 'profile' the unknown.

So, let's desist with the bullshit notion that you, as well as others, like to espouse: That you - somehow - 'don't believe' in criminal profiling.

[HelenaWojtczak]

This is all way above my head

[Colin Roberts]

I am merely suggesting that we should all be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere¹ within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888: A region, having an area of an entire square mile.

¹ i.e. most likely at the center (red: i.e. relatively 'hot'), and least likely on the periphery (cyan: i.e. relatively 'cold').

Does anyone - honestly - believe that such a contention is too bold?

A certain poster that clearly exhibits a complete inability to grasp such a contention, need not reply. I believe that we all know what his answer would be.

Only one poster i would ask for a recount

If you were to exhibit a greater degree of concern for appropriate punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure, the readership of these message boards might be able to better comprehend the points that you were trying to make.

In that event, people around here might actually be inclined to give your babble a bit of consideration.

As it stands; they aren't, ... and they don't!

No one around here takes you seriously! Trust me!

~~~

I gather that you consider my contention, ...

i.e. that "we should all be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888: A region, having an area of an entire square mile", ...

... to be overconfident.

In other words:

I gather that you perceive ...

- a chance of less than 1-in-2

- odds of more than 1-to-1

- a probability of less than 50.00%.

If so, what sort of chance, ... what sort of odds, ... what sort of probability do you perceive?

Let me guess:

- an infinitesimal chance

- infinite odds

- an infinitesimal probability.

If so; why?

Why?

Why do you seemingly believe that 'Jack the Ripper' plainly and simply did not reside within the elliptical square-mile that was, arguably, the square-mile that was most central to the observed parameters of his 'killing field': A square-mile that was inhabited, in 1888, by perhaps as many as 125,000 persons?

Why?

You only have to look at the murder locations to see that they are all moments away from major thoroughfares quite easy for the killer to exit Whitechapel by that means

Do you honestly believe that the distinct possibility that he commuted into the area, in which his crimes were committed, - in order to commit those crimes - dictates an actual likelihood that he did so?

[Trevor Marriott]

So, I contend that we should perceive a chance of as much as 1-in-2 that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere - during the latter months of 1888 - within the above color-shaded elliptical region, having an area of 1.00 square-miles.

A chance of as much as 1-in-2.

Odds of as little as 1-to-1 (i.e. 'Even Money').

A probability of as much as 50.00%.

Is my contention, perhaps, ... just a little too bold?

I don't see how it could be perceived as being so!

I have isolated the square-mile that is arguably most central to the distribution of six murder-sites that defines the parameters of the observed 'killing-field' of 'Jack the Ripper'. And, I am stating that I would be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere within that square-mile, during the latter months of 1888.

'Even Money'!

Please note that I have not suggested, in any way, shape, or form, that 'Jack the Ripper' 'probably' resided within this elliptical square-mile, during the so-called 'Autumn of Terror'.

Technically speaking, I could not - and, therefore, would not - contend that 'Jack the Ripper' 'probably' resided within this particular region, during the latter months of 1888, unless it represented an accumulation of more than 50.00% of the overall distribution of probability that has been generated, by my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised).

It doesn't!

It represents an accumulation of precisely 50.00% of the overall distribution of probability!

No more! No less!

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable using the term 'probably', in this particular context, unless we were dealing with an accumulation of at least ... let's say ... 5/8 (i.e. 62.50%) of the overall distribution of probability. And, in that event, we would be dealing with an elliptical region that was substantially larger than 1.00 square-miles.

~~~

When I first began to present bits and pieces of my Geographic Spatial Analysis of the six murder-sites that are most widely associated with 'Jack the Ripper' (i.e. those of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly), some 24 -to- 26 months ago, I was told, in no uncertain terms, by Caroline Morris, i.e. 'caz', that mathematics could not / would not lead us to the 1888 doorstep of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I remain, to this day, perplexed!

I perceive Caz as being one of a very small handful of posters that offers nothing but their own personal perspectives, yet manages to contribute invaluably to this, our field of interest.

Caz's personal perspective is invaluable, and rarely do I find myself in disagreement therewith.

But Caz, like so many others, in this particular instance, quickly glanced at my depictions of circular and elliptical probability distributions, and assumed that I was attempting to actually pinpoint the 1888 domicile of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I was not doing so, then; and, I am not doing so, today!

Look again, at my above contention!

I am merely suggesting that we should all be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere¹ within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888: A region, having an area of an entire square mile.

¹ i.e. most likely at the center (red: i.e. relatively 'hot'), and least likely on the periphery (cyan: i.e. relatively 'cold').

Does anyone - honestly - believe that such a contention is too bold?

A certain poster that clearly exhibits a complete inability to grasp such a contention, need not reply. I believe that we all know what his answer would be.

Only one poster i would ask for a recount

[Colin Roberts]

Cumulative Probability Distribution: Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent of Possible Accumulation (Elliptical) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

...

The original manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised) would suggest a perceptual probability¹ of 50.00% that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888.

¹ As we are dealing with a retrospective 'probability', we must refer to it as being 'perceptual', as opposed to being 'actual'.

...

... we should perceive a chance of as much as 1-in-2 that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere - during the latter months of 1888 - within the above color-shaded elliptical region, having an area of 1.00 square-miles.

So, I contend that we should perceive a chance of as much as 1-in-2 that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere - during the latter months of 1888 - within the above color-shaded elliptical region, having an area of 1.00 square-miles.

A chance of as much as 1-in-2.

Odds of as little as 1-to-1 (i.e. 'Even Money').

A probability of as much as 50.00%.

Is my contention, perhaps, ... just a little too bold?

I don't see how it could be perceived as being so!

I have isolated the square-mile that is arguably most central to the distribution of six murder-sites that defines the parameters of the observed 'killing-field' of 'Jack the Ripper'. And, I am stating that I would be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere within that square-mile, during the latter months of 1888.

'Even Money'!

Please note that I have not suggested, in any way, shape, or form, that 'Jack the Ripper' 'probably' resided within this elliptical square-mile, during the so-called 'Autumn of Terror'.

Technically speaking, I could not - and, therefore, would not - contend that 'Jack the Ripper' 'probably' resided within this particular region, during the latter months of 1888, unless it represented an accumulation of more than 50.00% of the overall distribution of probability that has been generated, by my Geographic Profile Model (unrevised).

It doesn't!

It represents an accumulation of precisely 50.00% of the overall distribution of probability!

No more! No less!

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable using the term 'probably', in this particular context, unless we were dealing with an accumulation of at least ... let's say ... 5/8 (i.e. 62.50%) of the overall distribution of probability. And, in that event, we would be dealing with an elliptical region that was substantially larger than 1.00 square-miles.

~~~

When I first began to present bits and pieces of my Geographic Spatial Analysis of the six murder-sites that are most widely associated with 'Jack the Ripper' (i.e. those of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly), some 24 -to- 26 months ago, I was told, in no uncertain terms, by Caroline Morris, i.e. 'caz', that mathematics could not / would not lead us to the 1888 doorstep of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I remain, to this day, perplexed!

I perceive Caz as being one of a very small handful of posters that offers nothing but their own personal perspectives, yet manages to contribute invaluably to this, our field of interest.

Caz's personal perspective is invaluable, and rarely do I find myself in disagreement therewith.

But Caz, like so many others, in this particular instance, quickly glanced at my depictions of circular and elliptical probability distributions, and assumed that I was attempting to actually pinpoint the 1888 domicile of 'Jack the Ripper'.

I was not doing so, then; and, I am not doing so, today!

Look again, at my above contention!

I am merely suggesting that we should all be willing to bet 'even money' that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere¹ within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888: A region, having an area of an entire square mile.

¹ i.e. most likely at the center (red: i.e. relatively 'hot'), and least likely on the periphery (cyan: i.e. relatively 'cold').

Does anyone - honestly - believe that such a contention is too bold?

A certain poster that clearly exhibits a complete inability to grasp such a contention, need not reply. I believe that we all know what his answer would be.

[Steven Russell]

Steven Russell:

"How come you Barnettists don't make more of a big deal about Kelly's last meal being fish and potatoes given that Barnett was connected with the fish trade?"

I think that oranges would have been more damning, Steven, given the fact that Barnett had been sacked from Billingsgate Fish Market for a good many weeks when Kelly died, instead resorting to try and hawk fruit.
Anyways, fish was not exactly a rare commodity back then.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks, Fisherman.
Best wishes,
Steve.

[Trevor Marriott]

If ever there were an instance of the pot calling the kettle 'black'!

Its nice to see you picked up on my little quip. Glad to see you are not totally immersed in percentages

[Colin Roberts]

Hi Helena
That "documentary" was almost as lame as the Mei Trow nonsense. How do these people get on the air?

Totally agree with you Abby

If ever there were an instance of the pot calling the kettle 'black'!