Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[MrBarnett]

The simple fact is that there are numerous things about Smith's account of the attack that don't add up.

Firstly, she was apparently violently assaulted in a busy thoroughfare by more than one person and yet nobody witnesses the attack.

How busy would Osborne Street have been at that time in the morning?

Secondly, even though she was bleeding profusely not one drop of blood was found in the area where she claimed the assault took place.

She was bleeding internally and used a shawl to soak up the blood.

Thirdly, Inspector Reid, who was in charge of the investigation, was clearly perplexed by the fact that, "she would have passed a number of PCs en route but none was informed of the incident or asked to render assistance." And why did none of these constables notice a woman who was bleeding heavily-not just from between the legs, her face was cut as well, and her ear almost cut off-and finding it difficult to walk?

Did H Div PC's stop every women they saw walking unsteadily through the streets of Whitechapel?

Fourthly, she claimed that she was attacked at 1:30 am, but didn't get back to her lodgings, just 300 yards away, until between 4 and 5am. Assuming she was lying unconscious for over 3 hours, why wasn't she not noticed by a single individual?

The answer to this and point six could be that she arrived much earlier at her lodging house than was said and was initially reluctant to describe her injuries. And because of her previous, the seriousness of her injuries wasn't at first realised/believed.

Fifthly, why was she unable to say exactly how many men had attacked her?

Was she? Did she say so? Or is that an assumption based on the fact that she didn't specify a number?

Sixthly, why did she initially inform Mary Russell, upon returning home, that she'd just "fallen down"? No mention of any gang assault.

Interestingly, Tom Westcott points out in his book that there was a storage area close to where Smith claimed to have been attacked, the entry of which resrmbled Miller's Court, and an ideal place for a prostitute to take a client: See Westcott, 2014.

Presumably there was nothing valuable in the storage area, otherwise it would have been secured by gates. The topography of London really isn't Tom's strongest point.

Much of this seems to come from Tom's book.

[MrBarnett]

Apologies if my responses are indistinguishable from John G's (or John H as Batman likes to call him) original points.

I'm sure you can work it out.

[Abby Normal]

Apologies if my responses are indistinguishable from John G's (or John H as Batman likes to call him) original points.

I'm sure you can work it out.

No clear as day Gary, and saved me the time.

I would just add, that emma had just got the **** beat out of her, and assaulted so violently that she would die from her injuries.

I think its reasonable to assume she probably wasnt very clear headed when she got home.

JohnG also seems to take whatever he happens to read from whomever he considers an expert as gospel for some reason.

[MrBarnett]

No clear as day Gary, and saved me the time.

I would just add, that emma had just got the **** beat out of her, and assaulted so violently that she would die from her injuries.

I think its reasonable to assume she probably wasnt very clear headed when she got home.

JohnG also seems to take whateveri he happens to read from whomever he considers an expert as gospel for some reason.

Abby,

I think the main problem with a lot of this theorising is that it ignores the immense complexity of the people we are interested in and their environment. Aha! Someone says, I've found a few minutes discrepancy in this witness's timings. Aha! Says another, I haven't found a record of a similar attack on a woman in the area, so this one must be unique.

Also, many people seem to be wedded to their modern day source material, some of which leaves a lot to be desired. I can sort of understand it if it's the A-Z or the ultimate, but...

Glad to see we're on the same page on this.

Gary

[John G]

Much of this seems to come from Tom's book.

What is the relevance of this post? Are you questioning any of the information as being inaccurate?

[John G]

The wests are classic example of torture rape serial killers, like the others i mentioned. The post mortem aspect is all MO, in dismemembering in ease of disposal, hiding bodies.

There's a high degree of overlap between different types of serial killer. For instance, serial killers categorised as lust murderers also commit rape and torture: see Canter 2004.

[John G]

Abby,

I think the main problem with a lot of this theorising is that it ignores the immense complexity of the people we are interested in and their environment. Aha! Someone says, I've found a few minutes discrepancy in this witness's timings. Aha! Says another, I haven't found a record of a similar attack on a woman in the area, so this one must be unique.

Also, many people seem to be wedded to their modern day source material, some of which leaves a lot to be desired. I can sort of understand it if it's the A-Z or the ultimate, but...

Glad to see we're on the same page on this.

Gary

This has to be a candidate for Ironic Post of the Year. Have you really not been paying attention? I have constantly argued against the uniqueness argument. In fact, I even posted that it isn't that difficult to find unique events when you're the one determining the crireia. For instance, both Abby and Fish have used this argument when arguing that the Torso crimes and Whitechapel murders are linked, something I've always strongly opposed. So not exactly on "the same page" then.

I've even questioned whether Kelly was a Ripper victim, considering that she was aggressively mutilated, unlike the earlier murders.

Of course, if you were really clever you would have pointed out that if Smith wasn't attacked where she claimed-as I have suggested-then that somewhat undermines the geo profile.

Damn! I'm even providing you with arguments to support your own position now, kind gentle soul that I am!

The fact is there was a huge number of rare murders during this period and they can't all have been killed by the same person.

However, my position is that Smith, like Kelly, cannot be ruled out, particularly as Smith's testimony cannot possibly be regarded as reliable, and I am not at all convinced that she was attacked by a two-person gang.

[harry]

What time was Smith attacked? Statements have her meeting the gang at 1.30am,and going to the hospital after 4am,where it is reported that she was still bleeding from the face and ear injuries.That is she was bleeding some three hours after being attacked?Wouldn't the blood have congealed enough to have stopped the facial bleeding in that three hours,if the gang attack was as reported?
What do you think Fisherman?

[Fisherman]

I have constantly argued against the uniqueness argument. In fact, I even posted that it isn't that difficult to find unique events when you're the one determining the crireia. For instance, both Abby and Fish have used this argument when arguing that the Torso crimes and Whitechapel murders are linked, something I've always strongly opposed.

This is not the thread for a discussion about the joint origin of the two murder series, but since you say that I have put forward a "uniqueness argument" as a ground for my belief in a single killer, I´d like to point out where you get derailed.

I have not said that the uteri was plucked out in a similar fashion in all the cases I speak of (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, Jackson). What I HAVE said is that we know for a fact that the uteri WERE plucked out in these case, and that is a similarity per se - and a similarity attached to a very rare matter, since taking out the uteri from murder victims is anything but a common matter. Therefore, on the surface of things, it MUST be considered a very strong possibility that the driving force and the culprit behind it was the same man.

I have also said that we know for a fact that the abdominal walls of three victims (Chapman, Kelly and Jackson) were taken away to a significant extent. Here too, it applies that we do not know the exact shapes of the flaps or the exact extent to which the abdominal walls were removed. But, just as is the case with uteri being plucked out, it applies that the taking away of the abdominal wall in sections is an extremely rare occurrence, and guess what? Therefore, on the surface of things, it MUST be considered a very strong possibility that the driving force and the culprit behind it was the same man.

Furthermore, the very fact that we have three women on record who BOTH had their uteri plucked out AND their abdominal walls taken away in sections, makes the already very strong case for a single killer immensely more so: We now have TWO extremely rare inclusions present in THREE cases of murder in the same town and at the same time.

So, you see, far from claiming that the measures of taking the uteri and the abdominal walls from these victims were carried out in any unique fashion that is recognizable from case to case, I actually argue that it is the matters as such - that are factually proven and on record - that are enough to make the call of a single killer.

If we move on from there to your take on things, we suddenly face the exact same problem of relying on uniqueness that you claim on my behalf: You seem to entertain the idea that the MO:s of the (supposedly) two killers were so UNIQUE that the two series cannot be joined together - what the Ripper did, the Torso man could not have done and vice versa.

That, John, is a shining example of how a faulty argument will always bite your own behind.

The suggestions thrown forward of uniqueness are always on your side of the argument, and all they involve in terms of suggested uniqueness is always something that rests on conjectural ground only:

Yes, it MAY be that the Torso killer took away the abdominal wall on account of Jacksons pregnancy - but it is not a proven point by any standards.

Yes, it MAY be that the flaps differed in sizes and shapes inbetween the victims - but it is not a proven point by any standards.

Yes, it MAY be that the Torso killer was a planner and the Ripper a raving madman - but it is not a proven point by any standards.

And you know what, John? The second similarities like plucked out uteri and taken away abdominal walls surface in BOTH series, it applies that these suppositions on your behalf are in all likelihood faulty. This is when humble pie is served in lashings, and when any researcher worth his salt would grab the spoon and start munching away. Because this is how basic police work is done, it is even a textbook example of it. The evidence implores us to accept that there were not two serial killers with eviscerations on their agendas on the loose at the same time and in the same city in late 1888.

And I am not the one making false arguments about uniqueness. Somebody else is, John.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

[Fisherman]

What time was Smith attacked? Statements have her meeting the gang at 1.30am,and going to the hospital after 4am,where it is reported that she was still bleeding from the face and ear injuries.That is she was bleeding some three hours after being attacked?Wouldn't the blood have congealed enough to have stopped the facial bleeding in that three hours,if the gang attack was as reported?
What do you think Fisherman?

Why ask my opinion, Harry - you never listen to it anyway.

PS. Blood that has not excited the body will not congeal. Ergo, people can bleed for hours, as long as they stay alive. If, however, you take a look at the blood that excited the body first (in this time supposedly three hours earlier), then THAT particular blood will have coagulated long ago. I had an operation a month ago, leaving me with three smallish scars. The largest one, about inch-long, leaked blood for many days. That was due to how the wound was not completely closed until many days after having been opened.

As for the information surrounding the Smith murder, please don´t hold me responsible for whatever detail of it you find untrustworthy. It is not my fault. Over to you now, so that you can ask why I don´t think Nichols would have bled for hours on end, when Smith seemingly did.

[MrBarnett]

This has to be a candidate for Ironic Post of the Year. Have you really not been paying attention? I have constantly argued against the uniqueness argument. In fact, I even posted that it isn't that difficult to find unique events when you're the one determining the crireia. For instance, both Abby and Fish have used this argument when arguing that the Torso crimes and Whitechapel murders are linked, something I've always strongly opposed. So not exactly on "the same page" then.

I've even questioned whether Kelly was a Ripper victim, considering that she was aggressively mutilated, unlike the earlier murders.

Of course, if you were really clever you would have pointed out that if Smith wasn't attacked where she claimed-as I have suggested-then that somewhat undermines the geo profile.

Damn! I'm even providing you with arguments to support your own position now, kind gentle soul that I am!

The fact is there was a huge number of rare murders during this period and they can't all have been killed by the same person.

However, my position is that Smith, like Kelly, cannot be ruled out, particularly as Smith's testimony cannot possibly be regarded as reliable, and I am not at all convinced that she was attacked by a two-person gang.

Irony is my stock in trade.

You may be surprised to know that I too don't entirely rule out Smith as a JTR victim, I just think it highly unlikely.

Thank you for you tip. Unfortunately, if Smith wasn't attacked on Osborn Street then the most likely alternative is nearby George Street.

[Batman]

Just a point here. Neither Smith or Tabram is actually part of the geographic profile formula. It is only based on the C5. They enter the picture because of the hot zone landing on them as a result of the formula derived from the other C5. Basically, C5 geographic profile gives us Smith, Tabram and Nichols.

With a geographic profile, one expects to find a zone where there is nothing happening at all. That is because the offender doesn't poop where they eat, so to speak. They radiate out from this point to avoid being identified. This means the hot zone should be able to identify them in principle but all of this is just based on probabilities and may be quite wrong... but quite right too, so we go look which is how to deal with it.

In this case, a very strange thing has happened. The hot zone, isn't devoid of interests. The hot zone, gives us...

• Satchell’s lodging House, last addr. Of Martha Tabram.
• Willmott’s lodging House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• White House, Public House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• Frying pan, Public House

So it gives us Tabram and Nichols. Just off from the hotzone is the murder area of Tabram. Close to this is Smith residence and her claim of place of attack.

None of these should be appearing in the hotzone.

There are two models to explain things.

Maruader model.

Commuter model.

In both of these models one doesn't expect to find anything at the hot zone.

Yet we have victim places of abode, homicides and attacks. This is a big clue. A lead.

So in the Maruader model because everything radiates out from this area, we have to conclude that all these initial attacks in this area are JtR pooping where he eats and having to start operating away from this zone to draw attention away from himself.

The JtR series appears to open close to the hotzone (Tabram/Smith).
It appears to end close to the hotzone (Kelly).

This seems like he radiated out because it was too close to home and then stopped when he got too close to home again.

The commuter model tells us that when he arrived at the hot zone he assaulted and murdered there, but then returns to this exact same spot and radiates outwards to murder away from this zone. An example would be a train station. The commuter gets off the train and kills near the train station. They still take a train to the same station but they then radiate outwards from the station rather than murder there again. That's the commuter model.

So say someone was living in... oh East Indian Dock Rd., they could be commuting to the hotzone by foot. Why the hotzone? Because that is where their clients might be inclined to point to where they live because its a place they can meet them again. It's also not as if they can't be followed home. Anyway, it appears that JtR, if commuting, knew about the hot zone and used it.

The dropping of the apron piece and the GSG suggest Marauder model.

[MrBarnett]

Just a point here. Neither Smith or Tabram is actually part of the geographic profile formula. It is only based on the C5. They enter the picture because of the hot zone landing on them as a result of the formula derived from the other C5. Basically, C5 geographic profile gives us Smith, Tabram and Nichols.

With a geographic profile, one expects to find a zone where there is nothing happening at all. That is because the offender doesn't poop where they eat, so to speak. They radiate out from this point to avoid being identified. This means the hot zone should be able to identify them in principle but all of this is just based on probabilities and may be quite wrong... but quite right too, so we go look which is how to deal with it.

In this case, a very strange thing has happened. The hot zone, isn't devoid of interests. The hot zone, gives us...

• Satchell’s lodging House, last addr. Of Martha Tabram.
• Willmott’s lodging House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• White House, Public House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• Frying pan, Public House

So it gives us Tabram and Nichols. Just off from the hotzone is the murder area of Tabram. Close to this is Smith residence and her claim of place of attack.

None of these should be appearing in the hotzone.

There are two models to explain things.

Maruader model.

Commuter model.

In both of these models one doesn't expect to find anything at the hot zone.

Yet we have victim places of abode, homicides and attacks. This is a big clue. A lead.

So in the Maruader model because everything radiates out from this area, we have to conclude that all these initial attacks in this area are JtR pooping where he eats and having to start operating away from this zone to draw attention away from himself.

The JtR series appears to open close to the hotzone (Tabram/Smith).
It appears to end close to the hotzone (Kelly).

This seems like he radiated out because it was too close to home and then stopped when he got too close to home again.

The commuter model tells us that when he arrived at the hot zone he assaulted and murdered there, but then returns to this exact same spot and radiates outwards to murder away from this zone. An example would be a train station. The commuter gets off the train and kills near the train station. They still take a train to the same station but they then radiate outwards from the station rather than murder there again. That's the commuter model.

So say someone was living in... oh East Indian Dock Rd., they could be commuting to the hotzone by foot. Why the hotzone? Because that is where their clients might be inclined to point to where they live because its a place they can meet them again. It's also not as if they can't be followed home. Anyway, it appears that JtR, if commuting, knew about the hot zone and used it.

The dropping of the apron piece and the GSG suggest Marauder model.

Ah, so the killer could have come from anywhere and killed where he did because that's where he could find his preferred type of victim?

All very interesting (no irony), but did we need geoprofiling to tell us that?

I hate to be a pedant, but you do get so many small details wrong. For instance, you give us 2 last known addresses for Polly Nichols, neither of which is the one that appeared on her death cert. You call the White House a pub and you talk about the East Indian Dock Road. It's East India, not Indian and wasn't Chapman's connection to the West India Dock Road? I may be wrong about that, I don't know much about the chap.

[etenguy]

Just a point here. Neither Smith or Tabram is actually part of the geographic profile formula. It is only based on the C5. They enter the picture because of the hot zone landing on them as a result of the formula derived from the other C5. Basically, C5 geographic profile gives us Smith, Tabram and Nichols.

With a geographic profile, one expects to find a zone where there is nothing happening at all. That is because the offender doesn't poop where they eat, so to speak. They radiate out from this point to avoid being identified. This means the hot zone should be able to identify them in principle but all of this is just based on probabilities and may be quite wrong... but quite right too, so we go look which is how to deal with it.

In this case, a very strange thing has happened. The hot zone, isn't devoid of interests. The hot zone, gives us...

• Satchell’s lodging House, last addr. Of Martha Tabram.
• Willmott’s lodging House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• White House, Public House, last addr. Of Mary Anne Nichols.
• Frying pan, Public House

So it gives us Tabram and Nichols. Just off from the hotzone is the murder area of Tabram. Close to this is Smith residence and her claim of place of attack.

None of these should be appearing in the hotzone.

There are two models to explain things.

Maruader model.

Commuter model.

In both of these models one doesn't expect to find anything at the hot zone.

Yet we have victim places of abode, homicides and attacks. This is a big clue. A lead.

So in the Maruader model because everything radiates out from this area, we have to conclude that all these initial attacks in this area are JtR pooping where he eats and having to start operating away from this zone to draw attention away from himself.

The JtR series appears to open close to the hotzone (Tabram/Smith).
It appears to end close to the hotzone (Kelly).

This seems like he radiated out because it was too close to home and then stopped when he got too close to home again.

The commuter model tells us that when he arrived at the hot zone he assaulted and murdered there, but then returns to this exact same spot and radiates outwards to murder away from this zone. An example would be a train station. The commuter gets off the train and kills near the train station. They still take a train to the same station but they then radiate outwards from the station rather than murder there again. That's the commuter model.

So say someone was living in... oh East Indian Dock Rd., they could be commuting to the hotzone by foot. Why the hotzone? Because that is where their clients might be inclined to point to where they live because its a place they can meet them again. It's also not as if they can't be followed home. Anyway, it appears that JtR, if commuting, knew about the hot zone and used it.

The dropping of the apron piece and the GSG suggest Marauder model.

Doesn't the activity you found within/close to the hot zone suggest that the Smith and Tabram murders were not committed by the C5 murderer (if the theory holds). If they are implicated, should they not be included within the geoprofiling - in which case the hot zone will change?

[MrBarnett]

Why would a perp living in Limehouse travel all the way to Whitechapel, Spitalfields, the City and STGITE when there were plenty of 'unfortunates' closer to hand? Not so close that it might put him off his grub, but close enough to save considerable shoe leather?

Perhaps he was particular about the type of prostitute he targeted, and the rough women of the docks with their strong armed bullies were not what he was looking for? And perhaps the sort of women he was looking for lived in the greatest concentration in the hot zone and when the need arose they sallied forth from it into the nearest main thoroughfares to look for customers.