Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

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

  • #16
    The reason Liz Sitride is "doubted" by most people interested in this case was that there was no MO . The sole reason is that the killer was interrupted. If he hadnt been , the mutilations would have carried on. And why, pray tell, would he go to the risk of being interrupted ?

    Because this was a site-specific murder. Both hits of the Double Event were site-specific.

    And victim-specific.

    Anyone still believing these were random selections ignores the thousand factors of risk and uncertainty that come with random killings. This is a highly deranged person but not stupid.

    Victims were hand-picked -- and probably acquainted with all (or most) of them on a personal level -- creates trust and clears off suspicion , even when the ripper frenzy was at its peak around the Double Even and MJK 's murder.

    The Double Event features site-specific and victim-specific hits, as does MJK's murder, for different reasons.

    Sites on the DE night are part of a decoy towards Antisemitism with convenient "sightings" and "cries".

    Site of MJK murder brings the battle "at home" right at the heart of the blackmail schemers/landlords. And how conveniently conflicting sightings from "eager witnesses" who rose to the occassion -- or did they?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Lipsky View Post
      The reason Liz Sitride is "doubted" by most people interested in this case was that there was no MO . The sole reason is that the killer was interrupted. If he hadnt been , the mutilations would have carried on. And why, pray tell, would he go to the risk of being interrupted ?

      Because this was a site-specific murder. Both hits of the Double Event were site-specific.

      And victim-specific.

      Anyone still believing these were random selections ignores the thousand factors of risk and uncertainty that come with random killings. This is a highly deranged person but not stupid.

      Victims were hand-picked -- and probably acquainted with all (or most) of them on a personal level -- creates trust and clears off suspicion , even when the ripper frenzy was at its peak around the Double Even and MJK 's murder.

      The Double Event features site-specific and victim-specific hits, as does MJK's murder, for different reasons.

      Sites on the DE night are part of a decoy towards Antisemitism with convenient "sightings" and "cries".

      Site of MJK murder brings the battle "at home" right at the heart of the blackmail schemers/landlords. And how conveniently conflicting sightings from "eager witnesses" who rose to the occassion -- or did they?
      the only victim we have any evidence for that the ripper knew her was mary Kelly

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        the only victim we have any evidence for that the ripper knew her was mary Kelly
        What is that evidence, Abby?

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by c.d. View Post

          What is that evidence, Abby?

          c.d.
          well three possible suspects seemed to know her-Barnett, Hutch and Blotchy. and she was the only one who was killed in her own house which seems to indicate her killer knew her. or they knew each other.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hello Abby,

            Well being a suspect doesn't make them the Ripper. And I would say the three names mentioned were more persons of interest rather than suspects.

            I do agree that I think she knew her killer but in what capacity it is hard to say. It could have been someone she just recently met. And that is all speculation not evidence.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Lipsky View Post
              The reason Liz Sitride is "doubted" by most people interested in this case was that there was no MO . The sole reason is that the killer was interrupted. If he hadnt been , the mutilations would have carried on.
              Carried on, or commenced?

              Maybe 'would have commenced', is what we're supposed to think would have happened - so that we also think he must have been interrupted. The purpose being to take suspicion off the club, as it was one of the club members who (supposedly) did the interrupting, and therefore the club cannot have been responsible for the crime.

              However, you apparently just know what he was thinking, though. Okay.

              And why, pray tell, would he go to the risk of being interrupted ?
              You tell us. You're the one that knows what he intended to do and just about everything else of relevance.

              Because this was a site-specific murder. Both hits of the Double Event were site-specific.
              If the sites of the DE were designed to arouse antisemitism, are you effectively saying that these murders were politically motivated?
              What about the other murders - were Nichols and Chapman killed and mutilated with politics in mind?

              Victims were hand-picked ...
              On what basis?
              How did he choose Kelly? Her good looks? What about (respectfully) Chapman?

              The Double Event features site-specific and victim-specific hits, as does MJK's murder, for different reasons.

              Sites on the DE night are part of a decoy towards Antisemitism with convenient "sightings" and "cries".

              Site of MJK murder brings the battle "at home" right at the heart of the blackmail schemers/landlords. And how conveniently conflicting sightings from "eager witnesses" who rose to the occassion -- or did they?
              You make it sound like it was one big conspiracy!
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #22
                I have an elderly friend who was a prostitute (street-walker) in Liverpool for much of the 60s and 70s.

                In the absense of records about the actual business habits of Victorian London's prostitutes, I asked her about who chose the location for sex, the punter or the woman, in her personal experiences.

                She said that it was nearly always the prostitute. They knew the best locations in their area, where they were unlikely to be spotted, would not be encroaching on anyone else's patch, and were they felt relatively safe. She said that during her time the punter suggested a location just a handful of times, and then it would always be a location that she was already aware of and probably used. In other words, the punter was suggesting somewhere he had been before and felt safe etc.

                Bearing in mind that after the first couple of murders the Whitechapel prostitutes would surely have been more on guard than usual, they also may have preferred to choose the location. Though if Jack was leading them to well known locations (such as 29 Hanbury Street, apparently) then they may have gone along anyway.
                Last edited by Azarna; 10-09-2020, 04:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                  The killer was present of mind enough to allow the women to lead him to places they felt comfortable and safe. This was high risk on his behalf but it put them at ease and allowed them the sense of still being in control. As prostitutes they would know where the most convenient and discreet places would be to conduct business. If it was discreet enough to conduct their business it was discreet enough for him to conduct his.

                  1) Polly Nichols chose the long dark road behind Whitechapel station, plenty of courtyards and side alleys and it was very poorly lit. Seems he didnt allow her to take him to her preferred spot and acted quite quickly.
                  2) Annie Chapman knew that the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street was accessible and she led him to the spot where she died.
                  3) Elizabeth Stride was interesting in the sense whilst she was found down an alleyway, it was right beside quite a busy and noisy club. A sense of impatience here which (in my view) almost led to him being caught. I imagine Liz was not as forthcoming as Jack would have liked and hence the high risk approach he took here.
                  4) Catherine Eddowes knew Aldgate relatively well and the fact the spot where she was found was in the darkest corner of Mitre Square would suggest she selected this spot for discretion.
                  5) Mary Jane Kelly was pure luck from his perspective. I believe he may have had some prior awareness of MJK (purely my speculation) but when he saw her on the street he most likely assumed she would lead him to an alley somehwere, only to take him to a private lodging room - something he probably was not expecting but happy to take full advantage of.

                  I don't see how reasonably in any of those scenarios could Jack have scoped any of those locations out in advance and the women most certainly would have been street smart enough not to be led by the client. Regardless of Jack there were many other dangers to prostitution that required due care.
                  I understand your point. And I think it's entirely possible that the victims self-selected in that way--leading the killer through narrow passageways into broader and sometimes enclosed locations. The Freudian implications of that are very hard to miss. But I don't think I made myself clear. I don't believe he selected a location; chose a likely night; hung out there and waited to get lucky. I think it's more that he may have scouted numerous locations very carefully. So at any given time he picks a woman up he knows exactly where he is and how to get out of there quickly. I think he is a very prepared & focussed killer.

                  Abby, who is 'BS man?' Are you a Mr Blotchy fan as I am?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I believe that the evidence here suggests that the man who is identified as Jack the Ripper "scoped" out slightly less than 1 square mile in the East End. The most heavily populated segment of the city, the portion of the greater Met with the most street people out at night, not any particular location within that area. He was a wolf looking for unaccompanied weak sheep.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      I believe that the evidence here suggests that the man who is identified as Jack the Ripper "scoped" out slightly less than 1 square mile in the East End. The most heavily populated segment of the city, the portion of the greater Met with the most street people out at night, not any particular location within that area. He was a wolf looking for unaccompanied weak sheep.
                      And if he didn't know the area really well, he runs the risk of being apprehended by the police if he was lucky or by a lot of very angry citizens if he wasn't. Our Boy knows how to disappear. And even in that part of the East End it's not as easy it it might appear.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I've always wondered just how safe was murdering MJK in her own room.
                        I always got the impression that people would come and go as they please, even in the early hours....or at least, likely to turn up unannounced.
                        Unless of course the murderer knew his victim, her surroundings and circumstances quite well.

                        Regards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chava View Post

                          I understand your point. And I think it's entirely possible that the victims self-selected in that way--leading the killer through narrow passageways into broader and sometimes enclosed locations. The Freudian implications of that are very hard to miss. But I don't think I made myself clear. I don't believe he selected a location; chose a likely night; hung out there and waited to get lucky. I think it's more that he may have scouted numerous locations very carefully. So at any given time he picks a woman up he knows exactly where he is and how to get out of there quickly. I think he is a very prepared & focussed killer.

                          Abby, who is 'BS man?' Are you a Mr Blotchy fan as I am?
                          bs man is the broad shouldered man seen assaulting stride by schwartz.

                          yes i think blotchy along with a handful of other suspects are the least weak.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                            Carried on, or commenced?
                            Maybe 'would have commenced', is what we're supposed to think would have happened - so that we also think he must have been interrupted. The purpose being to take suspicion off the club, as it was one of the club members who (supposedly) did the interrupting, and therefore the club cannot have been responsible for the crime.
                            However, you apparently just know what he was thinking, though. Okay.
                            You tell us. You're the one that knows what he intended to do and just about everything else of relevance.
                            If the sites of the DE were designed to arouse antisemitism, are you effectively saying that these murders were politically motivated?
                            What about the other murders - were Nichols and Chapman killed and mutilated with politics in mind?
                            On what basis?
                            How did he choose Kelly? Her good looks? What about (respectfully) Chapman?
                            You make it sound like it was one big conspiracy!
                            It has been suggested and discussed thoroughly that all of the victims knew each other. They shared the streets and .. the landlords?
                            But let us say that Eddowes giving the "Mary Kelly" alias was a coincidence (amidst the many in this case...if you choose to regard them as such).

                            In the murder of MJK you have a self-proclaimed eye witness who claims to have seen MJK with someone of her acquaintance.
                            They eye witness himself maintains he knew the victim. There's no other way round it - the eye-witness is making things up, therefore is related to the murder, or is actually telling the truth , which means he witnessed MJK talking to someone she knew.
                            I wont go into the shady aspects of Hutchinson's description of the man he (allegedly) saw, the far-too-detailed ornaments etc.
                            We have two scenarios: she was talking to the killer and they seem acquainted according to the last eye witness or he is somehow involved in the killing and making things up, while admitting he knew her.

                            Addresses, shared landlords and other circumstancial evidence provides a degree of correlation that renders the possibility of the women knowing each other more likely than not. It's as simple as that.

                            The fact that Stride was located outside her murder site confirms that their (1) bs man is the killer (2) she was waiting for her killer there.
                            It was a designated meeting. Agreed by both parties, suggested by the killer (the degree of correlation that two consecutive victims each and independently suggested two Jewish-related sites of their murders is extremely unlikely), and both victims agreed, because they knew the man, at least they knew him well enough to agree upon meetings in "public places" (as a club is supposed to be), amidst the "autumn of terror"/leather apron scare.

                            I do not know what he was thinking. But it makes sense if he wanted to create a scapegoat, and put a "scary" face on that faceless leaher apron, to employ Antisemitism. Not for political reasons, but for decoy reasons. Jews were always a target of the uneducated mob -- the roots of Antisemitism in Europe and Russia were deeply sowed by many different reasons (that is not the present topic of discussion), amids the lower classes and the wretched unfortunates.

                            The killer got to know the victims so as to infiltrate and exterminate. This was a brutal "clearing house" process. 'conspiracy' in this cased is used for the royal family bollocks and is usually reserved for flat-earthers and such scum, so i wouldnt like it related to what i am suggesting -- lets call it a scheme. As a retaliation to another (blackmail) scheme.

                            120 years later, suggestions, and speculations are what we can offer.
                            At least let's make em cohesive.
                            Last edited by Lipsky; 10-10-2020, 06:29 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The fact that Stride was located outside her murder site confirms that their (1) bs man is the killer (2) she was waiting for her killer there.
                              It was a designated meeting.


                              Sorry, Lipski but we have no way of knowing what Stride was doing there at the murder site. So no confirmation of what you suggest.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The murder sites were not all similar. Nichols is killed on the street, Chapman and Stride in yards, Eddowes in a square, Kelly indoors. Martha, if you include her, was killed in an even more fundamentally different kind of location.

                                If the killer were selecting the scene of the crime, would you expect them to be more similar to each other?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X