Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Ripper have led his victims to murder sites?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    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.
    Maybe he needed the attention at Goulston Street at that moment so he could flee more easily after killing Eddowes. But the attention also meant that he couldn't use that location again for his original purpose: as a murder site.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    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.
    But if the killer had scouted out Mitre Square, he probably wouldn't have picked a location patrolled by two policemen, one of which even walked up the edge of the opening to the square that was mere feet from the murder spot. Mitre Square and Buck's Row were two locations furthest away from the other murder sites, so it's possible those were two of the less ideal locations for the Ripper. Note that Buck's Row was also less concealed than the other locations, and it also had a gate that could've been used but wasn't, just like in Mitre Square. That may be yet another indication of the killer's less thorough scouting of those two locations. If he had been more thorough, he probably would have made sure those gates could be opened (maybe they were both locked and he didn't know it). Or maybe they were not locked, but he decided not to open them because he didn't want to go inside places he hadn't scouted carefully.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Yabs View Post
      Probably a coincidence but I always found it weird that all the murders took place next to either a door or gates.
      But wouldn't it be hard to find a secluded spot, in that overcrowded area, that wasn't near one of those.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #18
        I always thought seclusion was part of the "service", and in more populated area's I always consider the time, very low light if any at all, that would cast deep shadows, populated by people that see but don't see, its a slum area after all near perfect hunting ground for Mr "J".

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by PC Fitzroy-Toye View Post
          I always thought seclusion was part of the "service", and in more populated area's I always consider the time, very low light if any at all, that would cast deep shadows, populated by people that see but don't see, its a slum area after all near perfect hunting ground for Mr "J".
          One venue doesn't match the above scenario PC...The backyard at Hanbury at around 5:15am was neither a secluded area...(17 people living in that same house, and numerous neighbor's overlooking the yard), nor was very dark..with daylight coming on quickly. I would think on the sidewalk right on Bucks Row wasn't very "secluded" either.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #20
            I have always thought that maybe jack took the victims more than once and possibly took them to the murder sites to gain there trust on previous occasions . Just a opinion with little or no relavance

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by paul g View Post
              I have always thought that maybe jack took the victims more than once and possibly took them to the murder sites to gain there trust on previous occasions . Just a opinion with little or no relavance
              Interesting. I think it would make more sense Jack had picked his victims ahead of time and knew he wanted these particular women. But that leads us into the realm of conspriacy theories, so perhaps we could say he had patronized other women in the areas, had learned of the murder sites, then used this knowledge when chance allowed him access to each victim.
              Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
              ---------------
              Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
              ---------------

              Comment


              • #22
                Quite so Paul.Which might suggest each victim knew her killer.He was not a stranger to her.It was not a random selection.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by harry View Post
                  Quite so Paul.Which might suggest each victim knew her killer.He was not a stranger to her.It was not a random selection.
                  Not chance? Why do you think Jack had preselected them? Or do you agree with DJA in his suspect?
                  Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                  ---------------
                  Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                  ---------------

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am not trying to say that there was a reason for choosing the unfortunate victims. , I am not qualified to offer that . However trying to think like Jack and what would be better than to gain the trust of a street worker during the height of the ripper scare than take the lady to the intended murder site on more than one occasion, becoming a regular and gaining trust.
                    Advantages for Jack is he gets to no the layout the police beat timings etc etc and when the time is right commit his crime .

                    I realize times have changed but I cant think that during the scare even street girls no matter how desperate they were would not go willingly with a stranger to a site they had not been to before.
                    Also the police would have advised known street workers to stick to regular clients and regular clients only.
                    It is conceviable that maybe the first time jack used the girls services they took him to the seclude sites and later on another visit thats when he struck.
                    As for Jack selecting the victims for some sort of conspiracy theory That is beyond my thinking .
                    Depending on who you think is the first victim a case could be made that each murder is commited in a secure/safer site than the previous .

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      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.
                      The difficulty with this argument is that it hasn't been established that all of the victim's were prostitutes. And even if they were, say, casual prostitutes, it doesn't mean they were soliciting on the night they were murdered.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by John G View Post
                        The difficulty with this argument is that it hasn't been established that all of the victim's were prostitutes. And even if they were, say, casual prostitutes, it doesn't mean they were soliciting on the night they were murdered.
                        I commend you for the common sense perspective above.

                        I suggest that an "opportunity" killer might have had more than just an Unfortunate as his target. He might have wanted all the odds in his favor...maybe preferring ones that were weakened by sickness or ones that were inebriated. Interesting that the first 2 Canonical victims were killed within 10 days, they were killed almost identically, and they met the criteria above in that they were compromised in some fashion by either illness or booze. Also interesting is that they are the ONLY 2 women in the Canonical Group that can be fairly stated as "working the streets' on the nights they were killed. They admitted so to other witnesses.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          PcDunn,
                          Not preselected,just that the killer,by chance,met a victim already known to him. On 5 occasions? Yes.Coincidence? Yes,if the killer socialised that neighbourhood.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by harry View Post
                            PcDunn,
                            Not preselected,just that the killer,by chance,met a victim already known to him. On 5 occasions? Yes.Coincidence? Yes,if the killer socialised that neighbourhood.
                            Thank you, I think I understand...
                            Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                            ---------------
                            Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                            ---------------

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John G View Post
                              The difficulty with this argument is that it hasn't been established that all of the victim's were prostitutes. And even if they were, say, casual prostitutes, it doesn't mean they were soliciting on the night they were murdered.
                              Technically, yes.
                              Though if any of them were not prostitutes, or not prostituting themselves on those nights, then he is not a client, and she is not available, so he isn't leading them nor they him, anywhere.
                              Which in turn suggests they were killed where he met them. So, how to explain the Chapman & Kelly murders?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi,
                                In my opinion, these murders were committed by someone who had witnessed women soliciting, and this fuelled his rage,
                                In the case of Tabram, it is not disputed that she was out on the game that night she met her end.
                                Nicholls was also..''Look what a jolly bonnet I have'' i will soon have my doss.
                                Annie Chapman, also was on the lookout for money, after telling the lodging house attendant, ''Keep my bed for me''.
                                Stride was openly plying her trade , and Eddowes was seen talking to a man dressed as a sailor.
                                We know Mary Kelly was on the pick up, she remarked to Mrs Prater.''I wonder what tonight will bring?'' also seen with Blotchy, and Mr A [ if Hutchinson is believed,?].
                                I would suggest that Martha Tabram, was killed as she was resting on the first floor landing after her soldier had finished his business, and was accosted by her killer there,.
                                Nicholl's was soliciting in Whitechapel high street, and was initially accosted in Brady street, before killed where she was found
                                Annie Chapman entered the back yard of 29 Hanbury street with a client, and the killer entered the passage , after the client had left , finding the weak Chapman in the yard. she only had the chance too utter ''No'' before meeting her end.
                                Stride was clearly doing the rounds in Berner street, and was killed either the Broad shouldered man, or the man rushing to her .
                                Eddowes was I believe unfortunate, as she was not an intended victim, but was seen standing with a man, apparently soliciting, when the killer was intending to make his way home through Mitre square.
                                Mary Kelly had been seen by the killer entering the court , with a man[ most likely Mr A] and as the man did not exit, caught up with her in the morning posing as a man open for business.
                                I believe the killer resided in a Dorset street lodging house.
                                Regards Richard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X