Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[Chava]

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?

[Azarna]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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!

[c.d.]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[c.d.]

the only victim we have any evidence for that the ripper knew her was mary Kelly

What is that evidence, Abby?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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

[Lipsky]

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?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I see what you mean but I meant (and perhaps didn’t explain very well) that I didn’t think that the killer would risk being seen in an area where he might have been known. Of course we don’t know where BS man came from but my comparison was that I’m doubtful that he’d have killed after being seen. I could be wrong of course Abby but it was just a case of me doubting whether the killer would have killed after being seen or if he’d have killed in an area where he was known.

got it thanks for clarifying

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with Caz and Erobitha.

The Stride Murder is the one that I’ve had most doubts about recently (purely on location) All of the murders carried a level of risk of course but Stride seems a singularly poor choice of location for a killer (inherent risks accepted) who wanted to avoid capture. Singing and loud voices would have told him of a packed club. The time of night tells him that it was around the time when customers would have been heading home via a door that was a very few feet away. An area at the back of the yard where someone might emerge and a gate opening onto a street with people passing or even entering the gateway.

Im certainly not ‘decided’ but the above plus the lack of mutilation and the witness altercation is tending me toward an angry/drunken punter or maybe someone she knew?

Ask me next week and I might say ‘ripper’ though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey herlock
but what about bs man makes you think he was familiar with that location?

Hi Abby,

I see what you mean but I meant (and perhaps didn’t explain very well) that I didn’t think that the killer would risk being seen in an area where he might have been known. Of course we don’t know where BS man came from but my comparison was that I’m doubtful that he’d have killed after being seen. I could be wrong of course Abby but it was just a case of me doubting whether the killer would have killed after being seen or if he’d have killed in an area where he was known.

[caz]

I agree with everything you say above, erobitha.

Such murders were very rare, despite what some would have us believe, so after Martha Tabram's murder [regardless of who killed her - I do suspect it was Jack], it would have been more important for the killer to let subsequent victims make the initial approach and lead him to their preferred location, where they could both expect to have enough time alone and undisturbed to do what they came for. If the woman did the picking up, she'd have trusted her instincts that he wasn't a monster, and he'd have been able to strike when the moment was right, without giving her the least warning of what was to come. As the murders continued, and potential victims were more on their guard - or as much as they could afford to be, in desperate times - it would have become more important to let the woman walk into her own trap, without trying to force the pace.

I see the killer as an opportunist, who always kept his wits about him, because he had so little control over who could witness an initial encounter. I do suspect things didn't go to plan with Liz Stride because the location appears to have been of her own choosing, and was far from ideal from his point of view. If she wasn't going to take him anywhere quieter, his agitation may have shown, alerting her to his real intentions and giving him little option but to cut quickly and run off to find another, more obliging and unsuspecting victim.

In any series of murders, I would expect the killer to have at least one such close shave, and this one was doing his thing outdoors, in the streets of London, where he could expect to be seen before and after any of his encounters, if not during. The second he was away on his toes unseen, he was relatively safe - as long as he could avoid being searched before he could dump any incriminating evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

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.

[Curious Cat]

It's not so much the location of where the victims are killed but that the killer clearly wants them to be found, possibly specifically by those who do.

There is no attempt whatsoever to either cover, disguise or hide the bodies. They are deliberately left to be found and at the soonest opportunity after the killer is at a safe distance. There is a gradual pattern.

Polly Nicholls - found by a passer by on the way to work.
Annie Chapman - found by someone living/working at 29 Hanbury Street.
Elizabeth Stride - found by Diemschutz when returning from a day at Crystal Palace (apparently a regular trip).
Catherine Eddowes - found by PC Watkins who's beat was familiar to those in the area around that time of night.
Mary Kelly - found by Thomas Bowyer on the morning he was due to come to her room to collect the rent.


Of course it may be a coincidence but the killer does appear to know when and how the bodies are likely to be found. They do not appear to be left much longer than necessary, almost as if the killer wants them to be found before rigor mortis has a chance to properly take hold. Either way, it's certainly seeking a reaction. And the apron piece is certainly upping the ante. No-one but the killer could possibly drop it at Goulston Street and again it is meant to be found. For the killer it's all about the response and reaction that manifests after the murder has been discovered rather than the kill itself.

[harry]

Practically the whole of Whitechapel,in the early hours,was a safe place to kill.Moving on foot,a problem to face was how long was it safe to be on the streets ,or in a public place,after a killing?