Ada Wilson attacker similar description to Ripper

[GBinOz]

Hi Aethelwulf and Abby,

Funnily enough, I had done the profiles today as I was wondering what would happen if Ada Wilson were added in.

She extend the crime range, which in turn makes the criminal territory area that much bigger (the criminal territory area is estimated by first fiding the smallest circle that encloses all of the offenses, and then expanded by an amount based upon the number of offenses, fewer offenses requires a larger expansion due to the reduced reliability of the offense locations to convey the true extent of the offender's criminal territory). That gives me an "area size" to work with. Then, I do the profile, and just expand it out until the profile's area is as big as that search area circle. Each location in the profile has a score, so I just divide things into 40 zones, each comprising 2.5% of the total profile area. So zone 1 is the 2.5% area with the highest scores, zone 2 is the next highest, and so forth.

I've plotted out to the zone that is required to locate 75% of the offenders in my data set (so don't forget, that means 25% of the offenders are somewhere else - not just anywhere else, but basically just keep expanding the search as plotted and you keep picking up more). 50% of the offenders are found inside of the orange region. When we limit to just the top zone of interest (yellow), comprising 2.5% of the search area, the offender is located 27% (Dragnet), 22% (Rigel), and 26% (Dr. Watson) of the time (out of 100 cases, although not completely, some offenders lived in 2 or 3 locations, so they may appear 2 or 3 times, each time locating a different residence, etc. It's also a mix of arson, murder, and rape cases, - so not ideal by any stretch).

Anyway, before I start digressing too much, the short story is adding Ada doesn't really do much to the overall profiles, other than expand the size of the zones. She's more or less treated like an "outlier" (or non-representative location), and the focus remains more or less where they are without her inclusion. Note, Rigel includes a "buffer zone", so it tends to lower the weight as one gets close to an offense, while Dragnet and and Dr. Watson do not. All 3 routines more or less like around around Commercial Road/Hanbury, with Rigel tending to like the area around Flower and Dean, and also up along Middlesex Street. Dragnet particularly likes the area between the Kelly and Chapman murders (Dorset and Hanbury; that pale area represents 0.5%, so 1/2 of 1%, of the total area) while Dr. Watson (my own routines) favours along Commerical Road. That pale "peak" area, which is 0.5% of the search space, contains the offender 10% (Dragnet), 4% (Rigel), and 7% of the time (note, none of the percentages are statistically different between routines; if I were to grab a new set of offenses, they could easily order the opposite way).

Anyway, Dr. Watson and Rigel both take a wee punt out towards Ada Wilson's crime location, but it's only on the edge of the outter most zone.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I stand absolutely in awe of your research and in no way would I like you to construe my remarks as a criticism of your research. Could you clarify, please, which of the Whitechapel victims you have included in your conclusions. Personally, I have always thought that Nichols was a bit of an "outlier". Not that I think she wasn't a victim, just that her location doesn't quite fit with the other locations for purposes of analysis.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

The crime locations are the red squares. Ada Wilson is the one on the far right, which Aethelwulf and Abby were talking about and were wondering what would happen if her location was included in a geographical profile. So, I've done that in the above. The others are the C5. When you look at the C5 layout, none of them really stand out as separate from the others, particularly in the way that Ada Wilson's location does. However, if you start to include Millwood, Tabram, Coles, and MacKenzie, then yes, Nichols starts to stand a bit alone. Still, one has to remember, these are all walking distances, so none of them are really all that far from each other.

And, all the locations are contribute to an analysis. The more distant ones give you a better idea of the extent to which an offender will travel, while the ones that cluster give you a better idea of where they are spending more of their time. The underlying idea is that there will be a relationship between where they spend their time criminally, and where they spend their time in other activities (daily life). It won't be perfect, and of course, there will be exceptions, but victims usually know their attackers too, so one always starts by ruling out those closest to a victim. If, during that process, you can't rule someone out and they start to attract attention, that often ends up leading to the solution. Same with the spatial analysis of crime locations, it doesn't "solve" a case, it just gives you locations in a priority list, and when one begins an investigation in those areas leads are more likely to turn up. But, of course, there will be exceptions (and as I say, the plots I put up show a 75% range, so 25% of cases would be outside the area indicated by the analysis). Mind you, those numbers are based upon offender residences, and people have more than one major anchor point. I suspect the "hit rate" is much higher once one doesn't focus on the offender residence and recognize that the analysis may be picking up on places of work, or pubs they frequent, and so forth.

- Jeff

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf and Abby,

Funnily enough, I had done the profiles today as I was wondering what would happen if Ada Wilson were added in.

She extend the crime range, which in turn makes the criminal territory area that much bigger (the criminal territory area is estimated by first fiding the smallest circle that encloses all of the offenses, and then expanded by an amount based upon the number of offenses, fewer offenses requires a larger expansion due to the reduced reliability of the offense locations to convey the true extent of the offender's criminal territory). That gives me an "area size" to work with. Then, I do the profile, and just expand it out until the profile's area is as big as that search area circle. Each location in the profile has a score, so I just divide things into 40 zones, each comprising 2.5% of the total profile area. So zone 1 is the 2.5% area with the highest scores, zone 2 is the next highest, and so forth.

I've plotted out to the zone that is required to locate 75% of the offenders in my data set (so don't forget, that means 25% of the offenders are somewhere else - not just anywhere else, but basically just keep expanding the search as plotted and you keep picking up more). 50% of the offenders are found inside of the orange region. When we limit to just the top zone of interest (yellow), comprising 2.5% of the search area, the offender is located 27% (Dragnet), 22% (Rigel), and 26% (Dr. Watson) of the time (out of 100 cases, although not completely, some offenders lived in 2 or 3 locations, so they may appear 2 or 3 times, each time locating a different residence, etc. It's also a mix of arson, murder, and rape cases, - so not ideal by any stretch).

Anyway, before I start digressing too much, the short story is adding Ada doesn't really do much to the overall profiles, other than expand the size of the zones. She's more or less treated like an "outlier" (or non-representative location), and the focus remains more or less where they are without her inclusion. Note, Rigel includes a "buffer zone", so it tends to lower the weight as one gets close to an offense, while Dragnet and and Dr. Watson do not. All 3 routines more or less like around around Commercial Road/Hanbury, with Rigel tending to like the area around Flower and Dean, and also up along Middlesex Street. Dragnet particularly likes the area between the Kelly and Chapman murders (Dorset and Hanbury; that pale area represents 0.5%, so 1/2 of 1%, of the total area) while Dr. Watson (my own routines) favours along Commerical Road. That pale "peak" area, which is 0.5% of the search space, contains the offender 10% (Dragnet), 4% (Rigel), and 7% of the time (note, none of the percentages are statistically different between routines; if I were to grab a new set of offenses, they could easily order the opposite way).

Anyway, Dr. Watson and Rigel both take a wee punt out towards Ada Wilson's crime location, but it's only on the edge of the outter most zone.

- Jeff

Excellent work Jeff. Of course, the key question about Bury and the geoprofile - a question that is probably impossible to answer - is whereabouts in Whitechapel was he stabling his horse when he was drinking and potentially 'out all night'? Wherever it was, that could well have been his base. He did sleep in a stable at James Martin's place. Before he came to the east end he'd also done a stint inside for vagrancy, so he could well have been adept at sniffing out a lair to hide/shelter in. There is also the lodging house option, but I doubt he would have spent potential drinking money on a bed for the night.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Still, one has to remember, these are all walking distances, so none of them are really all that far from each other.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

It appears that I need reminders of this consideration. Living in the wide open spaces of Australia it is easy to overook this aspect.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Aethelwulf and Abby,

Funnily enough, I had done the profiles today as I was wondering what would happen if Ada Wilson were added in.

She extend the crime range, which in turn makes the criminal territory area that much bigger (the criminal territory area is estimated by first fiding the smallest circle that encloses all of the offenses, and then expanded by an amount based upon the number of offenses, fewer offenses requires a larger expansion due to the reduced reliability of the offense locations to convey the true extent of the offender's criminal territory). That gives me an "area size" to work with. Then, I do the profile, and just expand it out until the profile's area is as big as that search area circle. Each location in the profile has a score, so I just divide things into 40 zones, each comprising 2.5% of the total profile area. So zone 1 is the 2.5% area with the highest scores, zone 2 is the next highest, and so forth.

I've plotted out to the zone that is required to locate 75% of the offenders in my data set (so don't forget, that means 25% of the offenders are somewhere else - not just anywhere else, but basically just keep expanding the search as plotted and you keep picking up more). 50% of the offenders are found inside of the orange region. When we limit to just the top zone of interest (yellow), comprising 2.5% of the search area, the offender is located 27% (Dragnet), 22% (Rigel), and 26% (Dr. Watson) of the time (out of 100 cases, although not completely, some offenders lived in 2 or 3 locations, so they may appear 2 or 3 times, each time locating a different residence, etc. It's also a mix of arson, murder, and rape cases, - so not ideal by any stretch).

Anyway, before I start digressing too much, the short story is adding Ada doesn't really do much to the overall profiles, other than expand the size of the zones. She's more or less treated like an "outlier" (or non-representative location), and the focus remains more or less where they are without her inclusion. Note, Rigel includes a "buffer zone", so it tends to lower the weight as one gets close to an offense, while Dragnet and and Dr. Watson do not. All 3 routines more or less like around around Commercial Road/Hanbury, with Rigel tending to like the area around Flower and Dean, and also up along Middlesex Street. Dragnet particularly likes the area between the Kelly and Chapman murders (Dorset and Hanbury; that pale area represents 0.5%, so 1/2 of 1%, of the total area) while Dr. Watson (my own routines) favours along Commerical Road. That pale "peak" area, which is 0.5% of the search space, contains the offender 10% (Dragnet), 4% (Rigel), and 7% of the time (note, none of the percentages are statistically different between routines; if I were to grab a new set of offenses, they could easily order the opposite way).

Anyway, Dr. Watson and Rigel both take a wee punt out towards Ada Wilson's crime location, but it's only on the edge of the outter most zone.

- Jeff

stellar stuff as usual Jeff!

[Michael W Richards]

Ive been reading previous threads about whether Ada Wilson was an earlier victim of JTR.

One of the main reasons why it could be plausible is Adas description of the man is similar to the respected witness descriptions from the Ripper murders.

Adas attacker was described as from 25 to 30 years of age, medium height (about 5ft. 5in.), sunburnt face, fair moustache, and wore light trousers, a dark coat, and a wideawake hat.

Credible witness descriptions from Ripper killings is he was 25-35 y.o, 57 tall, English, fair, had a moustache, stocky.

To refresh what we know

Ada claimed to be a seamtress , but evidence she was a prostitute. She claimed she was living a home at 19 Maidman Street and answered a knock on the door, a man forced himself into the room, demanded money, then stabbed her twice in the throat when she refused, and ran away leaving her for dead.

It would appear that the claim about being robbed may have been fabricated.

Rose Biermann, who also lived at that location said in her statement, that I knew Mrs. Wilson as a married woman, although I had never seen her husband and I noticed a young, fair man rush to the front door and let himself out. He did not seem somehow to unfasten the catch as if he had been accustomed to do so before.

This suggests the attacker had previously visited Ada.

One of the reasons why this was not the Ripper is Maidman Street is not in the same zone as the accepted Ripper murders. Maidman Street (which no longer exists now) was off Burdett Road, Bow.

Im interested in what others think about Ada as an early victim of the Ripper.

Craig

How many men in London at that time fit that general description I wonder. Hundreds? Thousands? 10's of thousands?

[Aethelwulf]

How many men in London at that time fit that general description I wonder. Hundreds? Thousands? 10's of thousands?

No offence, but try reading the rest of the thread first. From post #11:

What is the most recent thinking on Ada Wilson’s attack (I notice this post is a bit dated)? I read somewhere that the man might have been known to her but that seemed to be based on little more than the man knowing how to unlock the door.

The main problems I see with accepting Ada Wilson as an early ripper attack are the geography (Mile End) and financial motive.

The points of similarity seem to other suspected victims are use of a penknife (Tabram & Millwood) and height, age and wide-awake hat description of the attacker.
I don’t think it is out of the question to envisage JtR as doing something like this. He was a very bad man and probably had other nasty habits (assault, robbery etc) in his bag. I’m sure there are lots of examples of individuals who went from no previous minor form to something horrendous, but out of the global population of such cases, surely this must be on the ‘less likely’ side?

I also see another potential point of connection with Millwood and Tabram. He attacks Millwood and she doesn’t die (initially anyway, and later of something unrelated). He resolves next time to carry out a more lethal attack (to the throat – Wilson). To his horror, this also fails. When the next opportunity arises (Tabram), he makes sure and goes completely over the top.

Ada Wilson’s attack becomes particularly interesting when you realise the one suspect who fits the FBI profile of JtR in virtually every way was living only a mile away. He matches the description given quite well (though not sure about the sunburn - seems odd in March). He used a penknife (to murder) and slept with one under his pillow. Obviously, lots of other men of a similar physical description could have lived nearby and carried out this attack.

However, the geography and description become more interesting when you consider his known behaviour fits this attack. He assaulted his wife when she refused to give him money. On one occasion, five days after they were married, he pins her down and holds a knife to her. Again, this was said to have resulted in from an argument about money. He is also known to have used prostitutes and there is a suggestion that Wilson was such. The fact that he was chased and almost caught could well explain why he didn’t attack nearish to home again. Fear of recognition.

There is also the financial motive. Obviously, this has no relevance to JtR, but a quick feel in the dark revealed rings, which were taken, possibly in the hope of raising cash, not knowing they were of no real value. The Mrs took her jewellery with her in case he stole it to raise funds.

This is before you get to the fact that he inflicted an incredibly specific wound on his wife that is found on only one other C5 victim.

[Michael W Richards]

The points of similarity seem to other suspected victims are use of a penknife (Tabram & Millwood) and height, age and wide-awake hat description of the attacker.
I don’t think it is out of the question to envisage JtR as doing something like this. He was a very bad man and probably had other nasty habits (assault, robbery etc) in his bag. I’m sure there are lots of examples of individuals who went from no previous minor form to something horrendous, but out of the global population of such cases, surely this must be on the ‘less likely’ side?

You are not alone in your beliefs, and thats why I have to argue with so many posters on this kind of thinking. Jack the Ripper acted as a client to working prostitutes so they would take him into the dark where he could then kill and mutilate them. Their occupation, the time they work and the fact that very few people were about at that time is precisely what he needed to reach his goals. Thats the only bad habit we know he had. He could have been a high functioning member of society or the community and have only this aberration. No evidence he stole from anyone, no evidence he used a pen knife at any time, and no evidence he had crimes that "led up to" Pollys murder.

For the record Martha Tabram was stabbed 38 times with a penknife...Jack never used one on any Canonical....she was stabbed once with a dagger...Jack never used a dagger, nor did he use 2 different weapons. The attack on Martha was high passion and almost certainly done with anger. The attack on Annie was clinical and focussed.

By assuming Jack had traits other killer had or have had since is a dead end venture. You have to find the truth with real evidence and fact, not with "profile" comparisons and assumptions. Lets put it this way.......IF Jack the Ripper, who was the man nicknamed because of the way he killed the first victims of the later formed Canonical Group, did not actually kill more than 2 women, all the serial comparatives become useless. 2 may constitute a series, but its essentially just multiple murder, and those happen for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of everyday people. Not a desire to act out violent fantasies.

[Aethelwulf]

You are not alone in your beliefs, and thats why I have to argue with so many posters on this kind of thinking. Jack the Ripper acted as a client to working prostitutes so they would take him into the dark where he could then kill and mutilate them. Their occupation, the time they work and the fact that very few people were about at that time is precisely what he needed to reach his goals. Thats the only bad habit we know he had. He could have been a high functioning member of society or the community and have only this aberration. No evidence he stole from anyone, no evidence he used a pen knife at any time, and no evidence he had crimes that "led up to" Pollys murder.

For the record Martha Tabram was stabbed 38 times with a penknife...Jack never used one on any Canonical....she was stabbed once with a dagger...Jack never used a dagger, nor did he use 2 different weapons. The attack on Martha was high passion and almost certainly done with anger. The attack on Annie was clinical and focussed.

By assuming Jack had traits other killer had or have had since is a dead end venture. You have to find the truth with real evidence and fact, not with "profile" comparisons and assumptions. Lets put it this way.......IF Jack the Ripper, who was the man nicknamed because of the way he killed the first victims of the later formed Canonical Group, did not actually kill more than 2 women, all the serial comparatives become useless. 2 may constitute a series, but its essentially just multiple murder, and those happen for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of everyday people. Not a desire to act out violent fantasies.

Horses for courses

Yes he did use a penknife on one of his victims:

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Different knife, same hand. Is any one seriously suggesting Bury just plucked that out of thin air? A wound so specific it is only found on Eddowes and Ellen Bury. Of course they are.

The fundamental flaw with Bury as a suspect is that he is just too inconvenient. No one wants the great ridiculous mystery to be over when the answer was so simple all along and connected to miserable little alchy.

[Abby Normal]

Horses for courses

Yes he did use a penknife on one of his victims:

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Different knife, same hand. Is any one seriously suggesting Bury just plucked that out of thin air? A wound so specific it is only found on Eddowes and Ellen Bury. Of course they are.

The fundamental flaw with Bury as a suspect is that he is just too inconvenient. No one wants the great ridiculous mystery to be over when the answer was so simple all along and connected to miserable little alchy.

great posts wulf! those are very specific and rare wounds. and i like the similarity between the financial snuffing as the trigger on both ellen and ada. good stuff

[Michael W Richards]

Horses for courses

Yes he did use a penknife on one of his victims:

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Different knife, same hand. Is any one seriously suggesting Bury just plucked that out of thin air? A wound so specific it is only found on Eddowes and Ellen Bury. Of course they are.

The fundamental flaw with Bury as a suspect is that he is just too inconvenient. No one wants the great ridiculous mystery to be over when the answer was so simple all along and connected to miserable little alchy.

So, a non-Canonical victim has a cut similar to one made on a Canonical and youve drawn the conclusions that Eddowes cut was made with a penknife and that Ellen was killed by Jack the Ripper? Thats your proof for Bury? That no similar wounds could be created by different hands or knives? You are familiar with the fact that Eddowes other wounds were caused by a knife that isnt characterized as a penknife, so youve added to your assumptive by including 2 knives in the Eddowes murder? Which no medical expert suggested?

I can see why Bury is considered so convenient for you....there is no actual evidence that connects him even remotely to any Canonical murder so you conveniently create it. Youve got this "Ripperology" bit down pat.

[Guest]

No one wants the great ridiculous mystery to be over when the answer was so simple all along and connected to miserable little alchy.

Its funny you mention this but a few weeks ago i was drinking in this pub in Woolwich, outside looking across the market and this short guy started to make conversation with me. And i thought funny little fellow and didnt pay him much mind at the time, as i was precoocuiped thinking about work.

Then about an hour later suddenly these two guys and started shouting at each other and kicking off, and this same little guy steps in and pushes one out of the way and then tells the other to go back inside and then grabs this other guy, much taller than himself and tells him to pisss off. And it all happened within a few seconds and i thought to myself that this guy was a right little powerful unit.

And i thought to myself he must be about 5 foot 4 about Burys height, and suddenly i thought he looked well sinister.

[Aethelwulf]

Its funny you mention this but a few weeks ago i was drinking in this pub in Woolwich, outside looking across the market and this short guy started to make conversation with me. And i thought funny little fellow and didnt pay him much mind at the time, as i was precoocuiped thinking about work.

Then about an hour later suddenly these two guys and started shouting at each other and kicking off, and this same little guy steps in and pushes one out of the way and then tells the other to go back inside and then grabs this other guy, much taller than himself and tells him to pisss off. And it all happened within a few seconds and i thought to myself that this guy was a right little powerful unit.

And i thought to myself he must be about 5 foot 4 about Burys height, and suddenly i thought he looked well sinister.

Word of warning Wiggins- don't post on this thread or you'll end up with Michael W Richards sitting on his lonely and chilly little patch of the moral high ground pouring totally irrelevant scorn on you. Have you seen what he replied to my post #26 - he obviously can't read.

[Guest]

I don't care mate, in fact I kind of like it.

Regards the geographic profile work, I love it
But do you think we need to ask Mr Jeff to do another one with Rose Mylett included, possibly on the appropriate thread?

Also I just clarify the analysis is assuming a specific offender profile: the so called hunter type? Is that right? Whereas our murderer would have fallen into the so called poacher type as catergorised by some analysts? Being someone who would travel outside their home area to do their crimes. I understand is less common but not uncommon?

But another point as far as Ada Wilson, irrespective of the stereotype the tendancy is for the first victim to be much closer to home.