Kates Cuts

[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

[Fisherman]

Let´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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.

[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.

[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]

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.

We could just as easily speculate that the killer(s) of the other canonical victims wanted to silence them, too. Not everyone who wants to shut someone up signifies their motivation by cutting off part of their victim's nose.

The elephant in the room with the majority of the C5 is the opening up of the abdomen, with the obvious intent (not always successful) of obtaining one or more internal organs. There was no earthly need for the purported "silencer" of Catherine Eddowes to do anything more than cut her throat, precisely as happened to Liz Stride. Wasting time on an alfresco "hysterectomy" in a dark public square patrolled by no less than two policemen was an absurd and risky luxury that anyone other than a determined Ripper could ill-afford.

[Michael W Richards]

I agree that none of what was done other than the deep throat cuts was needed to silence her Sam, but many people including yourself have said you feel there was little time needed to cut Kate up, so whats a few minutes in the big scheme of things. And for me the opportunity to put this murder on the unknown man who was then known as The Ripper...might be very attractive. If he is a killer anyway, some extra cutting might not be a problem.

I will say again though, Im not thoroughly convinced that Kate wasn't killed by Polly and Annies killer. I am with Stride, and in the case of Mary Kelly, pretty much so. In the latter case it appears as if she was killed by someone she knew and trusted enough to be in her room while she was drunk and or hungover, and almost undressed in the middle of the night. A man who seeks out strangers randomly, by opportunity, doesn't seem to be the same fella in room 13.

[Leather_Apron]

Its possible that the Ripper had intended to send the piece of apron to Lusk in lieu of an ear. Maybe he cut it such a way as to be absolutely sure police could match it up. Later he may have seen the GSG by chance or knew it was there or just decided it wasnt worth holding on to the apron piece. Or was frightened enough to ditch it. Why not ditch the kidney also? Maybe the kidney was the most important thing to him. If he sent half a kidney to Lusk and ate the other half then it certainly was more important than the apron piece.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I believe Fisherman that the strongest arguments are for someone who lived in that same area, not someone who came and went each day. The killer in some of these cases had to have specific street/lane knowledge, and most probably could get off the street quickly.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree that none of what was done other than the deep throat cuts was needed to silence her Sam, but many people including yourself have said you feel there was little time needed to cut Kate up

Indeed, but a non-Ripper wouldn't necessarily know that, whereas whoever eviscerated Annie Chapman would know pretty well what he could get away with in a given time. Why would a non-Ripper "hitman" bother with wasting any more time than was absolutely necessary?

[Leather_Apron]

Im confused about the Geographic Profile. Doesnt the algorithm assume JTR chose the murder locations?

[Observer]

Im confused about the Geographic Profile. Doesnt the algorithm assume JTR chose the murder locations?

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

[Fisherman]

I believe Fisherman that the strongest arguments are for someone who lived in that same area, not someone who came and went each day.

I don´t agree, however. The presence in the area as such is what counts. Being resident there does not in any shape of form lead to a wish to kill and eviscerate, as you will surely understand if you give it some little afterthought; it all boils down to an urge that does not go away just because you move to a different address.

The killer in some of these cases had to have specific street/lane knowledge, and most probably could get off the street quickly.

That is another matter - and it does not predispose that you live in the area, only that you are well aquainted with it. Take a cab driver, for instance; he will certainly be better versed in area geographies where he works than many people who actually live in the areas.

[Fisherman]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

It is actually not a fact that he DID live in the area, Observer.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

Of course, if the killer and his victims were based in the same small area, then whoever chose the locations becomes somewhat academic. Unless he had private transport, the murders were always likely to happen within easy walking distance of where both killer and victim lived.

[DJA]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

Reckon he once resided in the area and was very familiar with Hanbury Street,Spital Square,Primrose Street,etc as it was his way home at the time.
The expertise shown and the locality of the first two C5 suggests he worked at the London Hospital.
Reckon the victims chose the first three locations.
When he worked late and couldn't get home to his wife in Kent,a bolt hole in Mitre Street would have been handy.Alternatively a stay in one of the pubs in Hanbury Street,depending on his mood.