Could the Ripper have led his victims to murder sites?

[YomRippur]

It is commonly believed that the victims themselves led the killer to the spots where they were killed. But could the reverse have happened? This may be all speculative, naturally. If the killer knew the East End surroundings well, he might have opted to bring prostitutes to his spot instead of potentially following someone to unfamiliar places. The killer might have lacked thorough planning, but anyone should realize that you lower the chance of getting caught if you stick to familiar surroundings. When the killer asked Annie Chapman, "Will you?", he might be asking her to follow him. When he was seen with Catherine Eddowes, he might be thinking of taking her to a place where the policeman had just passed by and wouldn't return for several minutes. The murder of Elizabeth Stride, especially the eyewitness account of someone (possibly the killer) pushing Stride into the yard, also makes it seem possible that it was the killer who took her to a spot of his choosing instead of the reverse. He might have preferred to do his deeds in the homes of all his victims, except, of course, that some lived in doss houses.

[Damaso Marte]

Maybe. Or maybe he just lay in wait and ambushed his victims. We don't really have any evidence to determine who led whom to the murder site.

I suppose if we believe that Lawende sighting to be the Ripper and Eddowes, that may rule out the ambush theory, but unfortunately Lawende didn't overhear enough of the conversation to determine who was leading whom.

[YomRippur]

What was the custom in those days? Did the prostitute usually pick the location or did the client have some say? During the Ripper scare, prostitutes might be wary of following strangers to unfamiliar places. So I'm inclined to believe the common belief, that the prostitute usually picked the location.

[Wickerman]

What was the custom in those days? Did the prostitute usually pick the location or did the client have some say? During the Ripper scare, prostitutes might be wary of following strangers to unfamiliar places. So I'm inclined to believe the common belief, that the prostitute usually picked the location.

Look at it this way, the man was the customer ....so he is led to her place of business by the proprietor.
Some prostitutes were members of gangs, they would lead the client down a back alley for him to be mugged by a couple of ruffians lying in wait.

Even in those days prostitutes had a 'patch' where they could sell their wares without infringing on the 'patch' of another prostitute, so the client can't just take the woman wherever he chooses, she would likely resist, they may end up on another 'patch' and the woman could get severely beaten for 'trespassing', so to speak.

For a variety of reasons, the prostitute is the one who takes charge.

[Pierre]

It is commonly believed that the victims themselves led the killer to the spots where they were killed. But could the reverse have happened? This may be all speculative, naturally. If the killer knew the East End surroundings well, he might have opted to bring prostitutes to his spot instead of potentially following someone to unfamiliar places. The killer might have lacked thorough planning, but anyone should realize that you lower the chance of getting caught if you stick to familiar surroundings. When the killer asked Annie Chapman, "Will you?", he might be asking her to follow him. When he was seen with Catherine Eddowes, he might be thinking of taking her to a place where the policeman had just passed by and wouldn't return for several minutes. The murder of Elizabeth Stride, especially the eyewitness account of someone (possibly the killer) pushing Stride into the yard, also makes it seem possible that it was the killer who took her to a spot of his choosing instead of the reverse. He might have preferred to do his deeds in the homes of all his victims, except, of course, that some lived in doss houses.

Hi,

If he had wanted to kill every woman indoors he could easily have used that method.

(The question was a could-have-question).

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Look at it this way, the man was the customer ....so he is led to her place of business by the proprietor.
Some prostitutes were members of gangs, they would lead the client down a back alley for him to be mugged by a couple of ruffians lying in wait.

Even in those days prostitutes had a 'patch' where they could sell their wares without infringing on the 'patch' of another prostitute, so the client can't just take the woman wherever he chooses, she would likely resist, they may end up on another 'patch' and the woman could get severely beaten for 'trespassing', so to speak.

For a variety of reasons, the prostitute is the one who takes charge.

Hi,

And the killer could have been lying in wait for a customer to finish and go away and then attack.

(The question was a could-have-question).

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Hi,

And the killer could have been lying in wait for a customer to finish and go away and then attack.

(The question was a could-have-question).

Regards, Pierre

OMG Pierre posted something I can agree with.

[Joshua Rogan]

There are some stories, possibly apocryphal, of strange men luring women into dark alleys (notably Sarah Lewis/Mrs Kennedy).

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Wickerman.

How do you read ,,polly nicholls,,? Was the middle of Buck,s Row her ,back alley,? Or, did they find Mr. Brown,s Stableyard,s gates closed, and he decided to murder her there...

Hello YomRipper.

It,s the perfection of his acts that has made me consider your same question in the past. Moreso, he is lucky enough to find 4 women who lead him to sites that he deems suitable. What we can never know is how many other times he may have tried and passed on the opportunity, or whether he had frequented these women before and knew where they would take him. I can,t say that his random actions are out of character, but it is worth considering an alternative.

[Wickerman]

There are some stories, possibly apocryphal, of strange men luring women into dark alleys (notably Sarah Lewis/Mrs Kennedy).

Yes, this is the "Britannia-man", a character who's bold actions should have made him a prime suspect. Macdonald did show particular interest in him via his questions to Sarah Lewis.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman.

How do you read ,,polly nicholls,,? Was the middle of Buck,s Row her ,back alley,? Or, did they find Mr. Brown,s Stableyard,s gates closed, and he decided to murder her there...

The attack on Nichols appears to have commenced before they arrived at a suitable location. That being the case we cannot determine who was leading who, nor what their destination was.
Given the M.O. of the Britannia-man and his method of trying to lure prospective victims into a secluded spot closed by wooden gates, the Nichols murder is certainly not inconsistent with him being the perpetrator.

It is necessary to draw attention to the apparent fact that this Britannia-man acted against accepted convention. Given that he appears to have chosen to lead his victims to a location of his choosing (through a wicket-door in closed gates), may hi-lite the probability that sexual activity was not his intent.
The difference in this move just might reflect the fact that the killer knew the police do not patrol private yards, plus from the victims point of view, a private yard closed by gates is unlikely to be on the patch of another prostitute.

[Yabs]

Probably a coincidence but I always found it weird that all the murders took place next to either a door or gates.

[YomRippur]

Hello Wickerman.

How do you read ,,polly nicholls,,? Was the middle of Buck,s Row her ,back alley,? Or, did they find Mr. Brown,s Stableyard,s gates closed, and he decided to murder her there...

Hello YomRipper.

It,s the perfection of his acts that has made me consider your same question in the past. Moreso, he is lucky enough to find 4 women who lead him to sites that he deems suitable. What we can never know is how many other times he may have tried and passed on the opportunity, or whether he had frequented these women before and knew where they would take him. I can,t say that his random actions are out of character, but it is worth considering an alternative.

Or perhaps he did both: led some victims to his spots, and was led by other victims. The double event might indicate this. The killer might have led Stride to his chosen spot. But in the second killing that night, he apparently acted in such haste and abandonment that he didn't have time to get to his preferred location and was willing to follow Eddowes. After killing Stride, he fled to the city area and might have ended up somewhere less familiar to him. Thus, he might have deemed it safer to let Eddowes pick the spot.

The Goulston Street location might have been his preferred location for a killing that night (or a future date). He fled there after Mitre Square, showing that he deemed it a safe place to flee to. He even carried a chalk, showing that he had planned to write something. It's possible he had scouted out the Goulston Street location and deemed it a good spot at which to murder someone, write his riddle, and leave the dead body right next to it. But his plan was upset, and he had to kill somewhere else. So he did the next best thing and left only the victim's partial apron next to his riddle. (Of course, the killer might not have written the graffito at all.)

Let me digress a little by saying that if Goulston Street was indeed his scouted-out location for a potential killing, it would explain why there was a hiatus between the Stride/Eddowes and Kelly murders. He might have planned to murder someone at Goulston Street soon after the Dutfield's Yard murder, but he obviously couldn't do that after the attention he had brought to that place with his graffito. So he had to look for another location for his next murder, hence the delay.

Mitre Square also seemed the unsafest place of all the Ripper murder sites. Martha Tabram was killed inside a building, Stride and Chapman both inside a yard, and Kelly in her home. Mary Nichols was perhaps supposed to be killed inside the gated stable; perhaps the killer couldn't get the gate to open. So all these locations, including the Goulston Street stairwell, offered some degree of concealment. All except Mitre Square, which was a wide open area. This would indicate that Mitre Square might not have been one of the killer's pre-planned locations.

[Wickerman]

Let me digress a little by saying that if Goulston Street was indeed his scouted-out location for a potential killing, it would explain why there was a hiatus between the Stride/Eddowes and Kelly murders. He might have planned to murder someone at Goulston Street soon after the Dutfield's Yard murder, but he obviously couldn't do that after the attention he had brought to that place with his graffito.

You seem to be suggesting he inadvertently sabotaged his own plan by dropping that piece of apron where he did.
Are you saying he didn't realize the attention that would cause for this location? Surely, the whole point of dropping that apron in Goulston St. was to draw attention to that place, assuming it was intentional.

Mary Nichols was perhaps supposed to be killed inside the gated stable; perhaps the killer couldn't get the gate to open.

Quite so, but Nichols may have been too drunk/tired, or the wicket-door too small for her to climb through.

So all these locations, including the Goulston Street stairwell, offered some degree of concealment. All except Mitre Square, which was a wide open area. This would indicate that Mitre Square might not have been one of the killer's pre-planned locations.

The murder spot in Mitre Square was adjacent to a gate giving access to houses by a private passage. The gate is drawn on Frederick Foster's diagram of the murder site drawn at the time.

[Pierre]

Probably a coincidence but I always found it weird that all the murders took place next to either a door or gates.

Or a wooden partition. A dysfunctional door.