Not 'Why "Unfortunates" ' but why not others?

[Robert]

Hi Phil

No but she's killed more easily if she is.

[jason_c]

Originally Posted by Bridewell

Hi Robert,

Your post got me thinking. If the killer was a local man from a (relatively) poor background - as opposed to the whole toff idea, he presumably wouldn't want to waste his fourpence too often on potential targets he had to reject at the last moment. So did he go through with the attack, come what may, in order to ensure that he got his money back? If not, were there any reports of clients being scammed by a punter who refused to pay?

If Jack had little money and decided that Stride was too dangerous, might he have been compelled to kill her anyway in order to get his money back for another victim - Eddowes? If all he had was fourpence, he'd have had to do that or call it off altogether for that night, surely? If he was a psychopath with no money at all, he might well have had no compunction about killing one prostitute, who had just turned a trick, in order to get the money to pay another. To a psychopath that would possibly be entirely logical.

Regards, Bridewell.

I've often wondered about this, particularly on the night of Annie Chapman's murder. The murder happened so late. Did the killer have difficulty finding a victim that night? Perhaps whilst in the middle of negotiating a fee someone walked by who would have identified the killer. This would lead to a client suddenly fleeing. I feel a few women had a lucky escape the night of the Chapman murder.

[Cogidubnus]

I think also there was a story of polished farthings being passed off as something else - I can't remember now.

Half sovereigns I think Robert, but that's a totally different scam...you wouldn't pay half a sov for one of these ladies Robert!

Dave

[Robert]

Absolutely, Dave. Not even if they threw in the flying helmet and the stick of celery.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Robert

One thing about prostitutes, as compared with other women, is that they did some of the work for Jack - they took him to a secluded spot, and thus gave him the maximum chance of getting away with it.

That I take as the crucial point, they unwittingly helped the killer to stay out of sight.

Although single women did walk the streets at all hours, nurses, cleaners, midwives, just women going about their business. In order to approach a stranger to whom you are not known you need to engage the woman.
Simply assaulting her out on the main street is too obvious, leaves him open to any number of witnesses. It may even be that after a certain hour single women walking about at night might have stuck to the main roads and not taken short cuts through the dark streets.

Unfortunates though, intentionally allow themselves to be engaged by strangers, they do take the backstreets, they are quite willing to look for a secluded spot away from the public.

Unfortunates are the perfect victim.

Regards, Jon S.

[S.Brett]

In all probability prostitutes speaking to him clearly and explicitly and demanding money. Most likely it belongs to his Modus Operandi. Other woman (without this kind of speaking and demanding money) failed to appear in his fantasy of murdering.

[Ginger]

My first reaction was that Jack just wanted to kill women in general, and was picking those who'd agree to go to isolated, out of the way places with him, which means that his victims are naturally going to be prostitutes just by the way his selection process operates.

That doesn't really account for Buck's Row, though, does it?

-Ginger

[caz]

The simple answer for me is that the killer identified his prospective victims in exactly the same way a punter would have identified a prostitute at that time: by her body language, attitude and appearance.

Any woman walking with a purpose and minding her own business would soon have made it clear if a stranger's attentions were unwelcome, whereas an unfortunate desperate enough to be out begging or selling herself for doss money in the early hours could not have been too choosy.

So much easier for punter and killer alike to establish the willingness of a woman to 'engage' with him before taking the plunge with his weapon of choice.

Stride could well have been misidentified as a willing participant, by her body language, attitute, appearance and location, and maybe she wasn't having any of it. As it was relatively early, maybe she could afford to be a wee bit choosy and rejected one or two less wholesome specimens who tried it on. I doubt her killer would have taken kindly to rejection, whoever he was.

But when Eddowes and her killer set eyes on each other within the hour (near Aldgate?) it was presumably a match made in heaven that quickly turned to hell.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Stride could well have been misidentified as a willing participant, by her body language, attitute, appearance and location, and maybe she wasn't having any of it. As it was relatively early, maybe she could afford to be a wee bit choosy and rejected one or two less wholesome specimens who tried it on. I doubt her killer would have taken kindly to rejection, whoever he was.

"Not tonight - some other night" is certainly suggestive of that interpretation. I've been wondering if Liz was waiting for someone in particular and, if so, for whom.

Regards, Bridewell

[Cogidubnus]

"Not tonight - some other night" is certainly suggestive of that interpretation. I've been wondering if Liz was waiting for someone in particular and, if so, for whom.

Hi Colin

Yes...I know we've discussed this before, (ad infinitum) but I've still got a feeling she was on some sort of assignation that night...hence the flower, the refusal and the cachous, (should I mention the other item just to wind up Tom? Perhaps not!)...

Dave