Could the Ripper have led his victims to murder sites?

[Wickerman]

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?

[Pcdunn]

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...

[harry]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[John G]

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.

[paul g]

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 .

[Pcdunn]

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?

[harry]

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

[Pcdunn]

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.

[paul g]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

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".

[GUT]

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.

[YomRippur]

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.

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.

[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.