Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

My whole inference here is that by presuming a series of at least the Five Canonicals, despite the very significant differences in that group, you create a GIGO effect that is counter productive to finding the real truth about any of these murders.

And yet Michael, evidence from modern day serial killers has been presented to you which links their murders which contain significantly more differences than appear in the C5. Your response is to completely ignore it. Yet, they were all killed by the same hand.

If you focus solely on differences then you are going to see only differences.

c.d.

In the same context cd, if you disregard the differences you run the risk of building on sand. I would think the only thing in common among known and identified serial killers is that they felt compelled to kill. Whatever demon, or bad electrical connections they may have, they cant seem to stop themselves from killing. They like it, they are drawn to it, it makes them feel better, they are getting revenge, ..whatever. The motivations are essentially seemingly uncontrollable compulsions, or psychological demons.

If you look at that aspect...what can we see in each case that could be a possible motivation? All cuts aside...what do we know in each case that could support other than uncontrollable compulsions as the motivation. For me the man who needed to cut into his victims after a swift and for the most part silent murder is driven by demons. I see that kind of man in the murder of Polly, pretending to be a client to a stranger, letting the stranger facilitate the location, and acting quickly once he sees the opportunity to kill. I also see that with Annie, and that he reveals his motivations more fully..he wants/needs/desires/feels compelled to cut into the female abdomen.

Yes, that seems the case with Kate, however we also have evidence that another more common and mundane motivation may be present. To silence her. The cutting isn't what makes me see differences here, its the possible motivations that do. Anyone with a knife can cut if they have a stomach for it.

[Sam Flynn]

And yes, McCarthy would be in Zone 1, which is the entire yellow area combined with the pink centre, which just helps indicate the peak...

Of course, there would be lots of people in that area

A few thousand, in fact; Dorset Street alone had close to 800 residents at any one time.

[Fisherman]

Letīs just establish the fact that these colourful maps concern themselves only with where people live. And since they live in a particular spot, that spot will be related to the murder sites in itīs own unique way. Which is interesting per se.

Now, the idea of mapping the sites where the murders occurred and then relate those sites to where different people lived, is (basically) to point out that an Eastender is more likely to be connected to the crimes than somebody living in Preston. It does not, however, rule out anybody living in Preston as the killer - if a Preston dweller travelled to London, he could of course be the killer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that what we go by here is addresses. We cannot check whether those written on the addresses were actually there during the autumn of terror, other than to a miniscule degree.

Similarly, the maps do not take into account those who did not live in the area but perhaps worked there - meaning that they may be every bit as likely as those with addresses in the area to have been present in that area during the murders. Every such addition to the colouring will change the maps totally, if they were added to the input: Having friends in the area, having relatives there, working there, passing by for whatever reason on a steady basis, searching for prostitutes there, etcetera. This is basically what Jeff also points out in his latest post, and rightfully so. It is actually being present in an area as such that implicates you as a viable perpetrator, not having an address there.

So itīs blunt fun. But fun. Until a map turns Doveton Street the appropriate colour, though, I am trying my damndest not too get too swept away by them.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

When you say Barnett, do you mean Joe Barnett? Is he in Zone 1 by virtue of living at Miller's Court?

Only there are those who name John McCarthy as a suspect or as more involved in the murders than has generally been thought. It may be sufficient/of interest to say that McCarthy and Crossingham's lodging houses land in Zone 1?

Yes, Joe Barnett due to his having lived at Miller's Court. And yes, McCarthy would be in Zone 1, which is the entire yellow area combined with the pink centre, which just helps indicate the peak. I just mentioned Barnett as he's the only suspect I had listed on that map, but yes, some have suggested McCarthy is worth looking into.

Of course, there would be lots of people in that area, and there's a good possibility that JtR hasn't been named, but he could still be in the area. From my testing so far, 50% of offenders have be located within zones 1-3, so the orange area (which is split, and there's a bit to the east). 75% fall between zones 1-6, so out to the magenta area, and over 90% end up in zones 1-20 (somewhere inside the red area). My testing, though, already preselects offenders that would be marauders (so, only those that live in the area). Also, the anchor point need not be their residence, it could be a place of work, or a club they hang out at, or pub, etc. Basically, this sort of analysis tries to identify locations that are likely to be associated with the offender, suggesting where to look. Often, it does locate the offender's residence, simply because for many people, home is a stable location. Offenders who move around alot, which we must remember people in Whitechappel did, introduce a lot of spatial noise.

- Jeff

[seanr]

So, at the moment, Barnett is the only named suspect (a recent one) that falls in the 75% region (zones 1-6; and he's right in zone 1 too).

Hi Jeff

When you say Barnett, do you mean Joe Barnett? Is he in Zone 1 by virtue of living at Miller's Court?

Only there are those who name John McCarthy as a suspect or as more involved in the murders than has generally been thought. It may be sufficient/of interest to say that McCarthy and Crossingham's lodging houses land in Zone 1?

[c.d.]

My whole inference here is that by presuming a series of at least the Five Canonicals, despite the very significant differences in that group, you create a GIGO effect that is counter productive to finding the real truth about any of these murders.

And yet Michael, evidence from modern day serial killers has been presented to you which links their murders which contain significantly more differences than appear in the C5. Your response is to completely ignore it. Yet, they were all killed by the same hand.

If you focus solely on differences then you are going to see only differences.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

A single cut severing only 1 artery completely is like a double throat cut that nicks spines? Eh?? If you want to try Apples to Apples, have 2 apples.

Yes, but - boy! - what a cut it was:

"The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed... All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking the intervertebral cartilages." (Dr Brown's notes from Eddowes' post mortem.)

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Just thought you might be interested. I've finally had a chance to implement some improvements in one of the underlying predictors and have just completed running it through the testing phase. And, to my surprise, it's made a decent improvement (often things that appear they might work, well, don't once tested properly). With the current version, out of 33 test cases the offender's residence is the anchor point we're locating in 31 of them, for the other 2 I'm locating their workplace (as their residence is sufficiently far away from their offense locations that they would be a commuter. As I say, geographical profiling starts with the assumption the offender is a marauder, which is true about 80% of the time.

Anyway, 10 (just under 1/3) locate the anchor point within zone 1 (yellow + pink region), by zone 3 (expand to orange region) 50% of the offender's anchor point has been located, and 75% are located with 6 zones (expand to the light red/magenta region). 93.94% are found inside the red area, and the other two a bit beyond into the green area. While it no longer splits into two areas, the northern one is the remaining focus (and this primary area would be in the upper circle you suggested based upon the Eddowes/GSG activity alone).

So, at the moment, Barnett is the only named suspect (a recent one) that falls in the 75% region (zones 1-6; and he's right in zone 1 too). The suspect marker north of Miller's court doesn't actually have anyone associated with it. I mislocated Hutchinson here at one point as I misidentified the building, but that building was a new residence for low income residence, so I've kept it marked as a lone male would have the privacy he might need in such a location, etc. But that's nothing to base anything on, and I just didn't want to take the location off after having found it.

Also interesting is that the peak (the pink area inside zone 1) focuses on the end of Dorset Street, where there was a pub and I believe there's tales of a potential sighting of a fellow who aroused suspicion there? Problem is that, if that pub was JtR's anchor point, I would think he would be recognized as a regular.

Anyway, as I say, provided JtR was a local, and all of the C5 including Stride were killed by him, then based upon the locations of his offenses, then the spatial analysis suggests he has come significant connection (home, work, etc) in that region. The GSG falls inside that region too, suggesting there may be more to that location than just a random place to drop the apron piece. In the Levy suspect thread they mention that Levy (the witness) was a cousin I think of the Levy the suspect (mad butcher I think), and there was some connection with those buildings (a brother of the suspect Levy lived there it might have been?).

I'm pleased with how this is performing on my test cases. What I need to do, though, is expand that set as I'm now getting to the point I'm worried I might be picking up on things that are idiosyncratic to the set of cases I have, rather than things that generalize to other cases.

- Jeff

thanks jeff!

[Fiver]

A single cut severing only 1 artery completely is like a double throat cut that nicks spines? Eh?? If you want to try Apples to Apples, have 2 apples.

Your post is a bit ironic, considering Stride's killer did a more thorough job of slitting her throat than Eddowes' killer did of slitting her nose.

[Sam Flynn]

On the above Sam, 1......"only managed a portion of her bladder" seems to presume it was targeted

I don't think it matters much either way - if the bladder was targeted, then he only managed to cut a piece of it, which says a lot about his "expertise"; if it was accidental, then it's a further indicator of how crude the evisceration was.

[JeffHamm]

thanks jeff
this is cool. and theres my favored suspect right in the thick of it.

Hi Abby,

Just thought you might be interested. I've finally had a chance to implement some improvements in one of the underlying predictors and have just completed running it through the testing phase. And, to my surprise, it's made a decent improvement (often things that appear they might work, well, don't once tested properly). With the current version, out of 33 test cases the offender's residence is the anchor point we're locating in 31 of them, for the other 2 I'm locating their workplace (as their residence is sufficiently far away from their offense locations that they would be a commuter. As I say, geographical profiling starts with the assumption the offender is a marauder, which is true about 80% of the time.

Anyway, 10 (just under 1/3) locate the anchor point within zone 1 (yellow + pink region), by zone 3 (expand to orange region) 50% of the offender's anchor point has been located, and 75% are located with 6 zones (expand to the light red/magenta region). 93.94% are found inside the red area, and the other two a bit beyond into the green area. While it no longer splits into two areas, the northern one is the remaining focus (and this primary area would be in the upper circle you suggested based upon the Eddowes/GSG activity alone).

So, at the moment, Barnett is the only named suspect (a recent one) that falls in the 75% region (zones 1-6; and he's right in zone 1 too). The suspect marker north of Miller's court doesn't actually have anyone associated with it. I mislocated Hutchinson here at one point as I misidentified the building, but that building was a new residence for low income residence, so I've kept it marked as a lone male would have the privacy he might need in such a location, etc. But that's nothing to base anything on, and I just didn't want to take the location off after having found it.

Also interesting is that the peak (the pink area inside zone 1) focuses on the end of Dorset Street, where there was a pub and I believe there's tales of a potential sighting of a fellow who aroused suspicion there? Problem is that, if that pub was JtR's anchor point, I would think he would be recognized as a regular.

Anyway, as I say, provided JtR was a local, and all of the C5 including Stride were killed by him, then based upon the locations of his offenses, then the spatial analysis suggests he has come significant connection (home, work, etc) in that region. The GSG falls inside that region too, suggesting there may be more to that location than just a random place to drop the apron piece. In the Levy suspect thread they mention that Levy (the witness) was a cousin I think of the Levy the suspect (mad butcher I think), and there was some connection with those buildings (a brother of the suspect Levy lived there it might have been?).

I'm pleased with how this is performing on my test cases. What I need to do, though, is expand that set as I'm now getting to the point I'm worried I might be picking up on things that are idiosyncratic to the set of cases I have, rather than things that generalize to other cases.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

1. Annie's killer cut her colon, too, and only managed to cut out a portion of her bladder. 2. Plus he hacked out three "fillets" of abdominal flesh in order to open her up, when one or two cuts would have been more efficient and just as effective.

3. There can be no established linkage at this remove in time, but there are sufficient similarities between the four evisceration murders to suggest that the same person was responsible for them. At one time, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe and the Keplerian heliocentric model were "just theories" too, but we didn't have to wait until the age of space travel for it to become obvious that Ptolemy's theory was the least likely to be true, not least because it required additional speculations to be posited in order to make it work. It's the same with every "alternative" Ripper theory I can remember.

On the above Sam, 1......"only managed a portion of her bladder" seems to presume it was targeted, when Phillips indicates that the "whole" operation was geared to obtaining the complete uterus...on #2, I don't recall anyone suggesting an alternative and preferable manner of doing things, in fact the cuts reveal a specific target and the specific actions to obtain said target. As for 3, hyperbole aside with all due respect, your previous conclusion that there are "sufficient similarities" in 4 of the murders isn't anything more than your own perception. Pollys murder, for example, is for me dramatically different from Marys murder. In almost every category that is relevant for profiling. Those 2 are not sufficiently similar....and though I note that you likely left Liz Stride off to make your list of 4, her murder is categorically different from the other 4.

My whole inference here is that by presuming a series of at least the Five Canonicals, despite the very significant differences in that group, you create a GIGO effect that is counter productive to finding the real truth about any of these murders.

[Sam Flynn]

There was a very stupid miscalculation severing the colon section..messy. That alone doesn't seem to match the type of cutting done by Annies killer.

Annie's killer cut her colon, too, and only managed to cut out a portion of her bladder. Plus he hacked out three "fillets" of abdominal flesh in order to open her up, when one or two cuts would have been more efficient and just as effective.

actually what Ive said is that the very foundation of a Canonical Group requires having established linkage

There can be no established linkage at this remove in time, but there are sufficient similarities between the four evisceration murders to suggest that the same person was responsible for them.

At this point in time, they are all just theories.

At one time, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe and the Keplerian heliocentric model were "just theories" too, but we didn't have to wait until the age of space travel for it to become obvious that Ptolemy's theory was the least likely to be true, not least because it required additional speculations to be posited in order to make it work. It's the same with every "alternative" Ripper theory I can remember.

[Michael W Richards]

Of course not. And there is no such thing as "proof", there is only proof, no quotation marks.

You seem to think that what cannot be proven is always proven to the contrary? Thatīs a tad odd, to say the least. Is that how you are arguing your case? Since A cannot be proven, B is?

Maybe I can use it for the Lechmere theory? Since it has not been disproven, it is proven, sort of?

No, actually what Ive said is that the very foundation of a Canonical Group requires having established linkage, at the very least by killer, from each victim to the others. And that has not been done. Many attempts have been made, and as I said, 130 years plus later that is still the baseline. So when an alternative idea is presented, having some foundations in the known physical and witness evidence, it should be considered as an equal proposition to the C5. At this point in time, they are all just theories.

In this particular case I suggested that the anomalies in the cuts and the stories by witnesses may indicate something else was at play here, other than the Ripper himself. Or, maybe it was him but this kill represented something other than his traditional act like a client with random women shtick. There was a very stupid miscalculation severing the colon section..messy. That alone doesn't seem to match the type of cutting done by Annies killer. Nor does the facial cutting.

Ive always subscribed to the premise that things that don't appear to be similar to a sample are usually different than the sample. In my case, Annie is the sample.

[Michael W Richards]

As I mused the other day: "Before crime fiction really took off, is there any evidence that real-life criminals purposely leave clues behind? It strikes me that the idea of leaving a deliberate trail of clues is a device employed by crime writers so that their star detective can (a) prove their brilliance; and (b) catch the villain. Might it be the case that, owing to the popularity of detective stories - in books, TV, radio and movies - what was originally a fictional conceit has leached out into the real world?"

My guess is that this is precisely what we're dealing with. As in the vast majority of criminal cases, I strongly suspect that there was nobody leaving a breadcrumb trail of cryptic clues behind him in Whitechapel 1888.

I would agree with that Sam. No matter what personal beliefs I have about these cases I don't see anyone that would purposely leave a trail. With one exception maybe...I think the apron section "placement" was intended to mislead people about his path home.