The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Batman]

Batman: I don't know why you argue he goes to work after murdering Eddowes at all?

I donīt. I am saying that he goes to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up, not that he commences working. He goes to his place of work, not to work.

Also, why don't you just didn't argue that he took the apron for the same reason they used in the contemporary? To send them a message in chalk.

No. I donīt think the killer wrote that message in the first place. I never did. Maybe you just got that wrong ... too?

Why does he need to go to Broad St.?

I didn't know if you accepted the graffiti or not but it seems you could.

Just not have him going to Broad St. and writing the graffiti resolves a lot of problems.

[Fisherman]

Why does he need to go to Broad St.?

I didn't know if you accepted the graffiti or not but it seems you could.

Just not have him going to Broad St. and writing the graffiti resolves a lot of problems.

We all have our problems, Batman. You seem not to define them the way I do.

He does not "need" to go to Broad Street per se, but it seems to me that if he does not want to stash trophies at home, Broad Street is a logical alternative choice.

You fail to describe what you men by "accepting" the graffiti. My own take is that it was probably not written by the killer, but it is in no way impossible that he WAS the originator. My vote is against, however.

[Sam Flynn]

I wish you'd think things through.

Why? It would put you and me on totally contrary sides of the thinking process.

Don't be silly.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, they - and Queeen Victoria - COULD "fan out" in any direction.

No, NOT Queen Victoria, because she didn't live anywhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders. Neither did your favourite suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

you are so entrenched in your Lechmere theory hatred that you cannot bring yourself to say "Yes, you are right, Lechmere is the suspect who has the most geographical factors going for him".

No, I can't, and won't ever, accept that he's "the suspect with the most geographical factors going for him", because it's not true. It's not true because there were thousands and thousands of other men who were geographically better placed than him to commit the murders.

For a man living near the "hot zone", for example, a murder expedition would amount to little more than a stroll around their neighbourhood, with all the canonical sites accessible within 12 minutes - and most of them much closer than that.

[John G]

No, NOT Queen Victoria, because she didn't live anywhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders. Neither did your favourite suspect.

Well he lived only 1.3 miles from Mitre Street, via a very direct route, so I'm not sure that can be defined as nowhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders (not that we can be certain as to who was a victim.)

In fact, on such a narrow basis who on earth did live within the "epicentre" of the murders? I mean, with respect, it's not as if Bucks Row was a stones through away from Mitre Square (it's 1.1 miles to Mitre Street, just 200 yards less than the distance between Mitre Street and Doveton Street) and neither was, say, Berner Street from Dorset Street.

[Batman]

Well he lived only 1.3 miles from Mitre Street, via a very direct route, so I'm not sure that can be defined as nowhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders (not that we can be certain as to who was a victim.)

In fact, on such a narrow basis who on earth did live within the "epicentre" of the murders? I mean, with respect, it's not as if Bucks Row was a stones through away from Mitre Square, and neither was, say, Berner Street from Dorset Street.

Fisherman is presenting his own geographic profile which has different parameters to Rossmo. Rossmo's parameters in a very basic sense are that some serial killers will travel away from their home, but not too far away, just enough to appear not connected (don't poop where you eat, so to speak). Fisherman's parameters are that serial killers can sometimes kill along their routes to work. That's the geographic profile there.

The question is what does the distribution of the murder victims suggest is more viable?

The answer is the Rossmo, because it's a classic radial distribution whereas Fisherman's model is composed of several pathways involving current work routes, old work routes and relations nearby. It is the more complex answer with the C5. Parsimony suggests Rossmo.

[John G]

Fisherman is presenting his own geographic profile which has different parameters to Rossmo. Rossmo's parameters in a very basic sense are that some serial killers will travel away from their home, but not too far away, just enough to appear not connected (don't poop where you eat, so to speak). Fisherman's parameters are that serial killers can sometimes kill along their routes to work. That's the geographic profile there.

The question is what does the distribution of the murder victims suggest is more viable?

The answer is the Rossmo, because it's a classic radial distribution whereas Fisherman's model is composed of several pathways involving current work routes, old work routes and relations nearby. It is the more complex answer with the C5. Parsimony suggests Rossmo.

Ah, Occam's razor so to speak. I suppose if, in your profile, you're going to take into account wide-ranging factors, such as residence, former residences, work location, former job locations, relatives' addresses, friend's addresses etc, then virtually any Whitechapel resident could be connected to the murder locations.

[Sam Flynn]

Well he lived only 1.3 miles from Mitre Street, via a very direct route, so I'm not sure that can be defined as nowhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders

It was certainly nowhere near as close as someone who lived in Commercial Street or one of its tributaries.

(not that we can be certain as to who was a victim.)

Well, there were precious few victims out Bethnal Green way, that's for sure.

In fact, on such a narrow basis who on earth did live within the "epicentre" of the murders?

Anyone who lived in Commercial Street or one of its tributaries, for example. I'd guess, for starters, that those streets alone contained a good few thousand men who'd have been far better placed than Cross to reach Hanbury St, Dorset Street and Mitre Square. From a similar starting point, even the furthest sites, Bucks Row and Berner Street, would have been easily reachable within a brisk walk of ten minutes or less.

[Batman]

Ah, Occam's razor so to speak.

That's exactly what it is.

[Fisherman]

No, I can't, and won't ever, accept that he's "the suspect with the most geographical factors going for him", because it's not true. It's not true because there were thousands and thousands of other men who were geographically better placed than him to commit the murders.

For a man living near the "hot zone", for example, a murder expedition would amount to little more than a stroll around their neighbourhood, with all the canonical sites accessible within 12 minutes - and most of them much closer than that.

These "thousands and thousands of men" are not even suspects in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, you should begin in that end? Instead of claiming that anybody who lived in the centre of Spitalfields is by automation more likely to be the Whitechapel killer on geographical grounds, regardless if they were in any shape or form ever suspected?

James Scobies words: "...there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, to which he is linked geographically and physically..."

Thatīs how a barrister sees it. And he goes on to say that there is a prima faciae case to answer that suggests that he was the killer.

One has to wonder why Scobie did not realize that somebody living in the centre of Spitalfields would be an immediate and much better suspect.

Balderdash. That is what your efforts amount to. Charles Lechmere has been shown to have had reason to pass each and every of the murder sites at the relevant hours. Whether you can think up one ten or thousands of other men who had as good reasons and as relevant reasons to be present there on the correct hours is something that is more directed to the scrapheap of ripperology than anything else. A person who lives on the outskirts of a killing field and traverses it on a daily basis is every inch as good a suspect as somebody living in the heart of that field, if not better. Why? Because he would have a host of nitwits thinking that the killer shouold be sought after as close to the center of the murders as possible, allowing himself to go free, thank you very much, masterminds.

[Fisherman]

Don't be silly.

And how is it not silly of you to claim that I do not think things through? I do so to a larger degree than you, that much is apparent.

Not that such a thing necessarily amounts to any proficiency.

[Fisherman]

No, NOT Queen Victoria, because she didn't live anywhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders. Neither did your favourite suspect.

No, he lived a full ten to fifteen minute walk away from it and a seven minute walk away from the Nichols murder, and he traversed the district on a daily basis, taking him AT MOST two or three minuteīs walk away from the murder sites.

Any killer living in the epicenter would actually have a longer distance to the extreme sites from his starting point.

I will rub it in if I have to.

[Fisherman]

Well he lived only 1.3 miles from Mitre Street, via a very direct route, so I'm not sure that can be defined as nowhere near the epicentre of the Ripper murders (not that we can be certain as to who was a victim.)

In fact, on such a narrow basis who on earth did live within the "epicentre" of the murders? I mean, with respect, it's not as if Bucks Row was a stones through away from Mitre Square (it's 1.1 miles to Mitre Street, just 200 yards less than the distance between Mitre Street and Doveton Street) and neither was, say, Berner Street from Dorset Street.

And, as I said, Lechmere will have come as close as a two or three minutes walk from every murder site on his route, whereas a man living in the epicenter would have longer routes to walk to most sites, some of them being twice that distance away and more.

Donīt mind Gareth, his dislike of the theory has gotten the better of him.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman is presenting his own geographic profile which has different parameters to Rossmo. Rossmo's parameters in a very basic sense are that some serial killers will travel away from their home, but not too far away, just enough to appear not connected (don't poop where you eat, so to speak). Fisherman's parameters are that serial killers can sometimes kill along their routes to work. That's the geographic profile there.

The question is what does the distribution of the murder victims suggest is more viable?

The answer is the Rossmo, because it's a classic radial distribution whereas Fisherman's model is composed of several pathways involving current work routes, old work routes and relations nearby. It is the more complex answer with the C5. Parsimony suggests Rossmo.

Rossmo does not factor in the idea of a person killing en route. He works from a model that presupposes that the murders are all matters that begin and end at home.
Guess what happens when we do not factor in all the relevant material?

As if georaphical profilers were always right...