Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Pierre]

Ranke? But in essence, doesn't that just mean that you believe in the importance of primary source material? And has anyone on here disputed that?

Just out of interest, didn't Ranke argue that historical research can never be truly objective because the choice of source material is a subjective one?

If you follow Ranke the principle is to abstain from your own moral ideas when doing history. You are pointing to post modern criticism (Lyotard) of history.

[Pierre]

It reminds me of what he said in the 'Pierre and his research' (#9) thread back on 28 October 2015:

"It has been a terrible thing at times just sitting here, knowing that I might have found the Whitechapel killer and not being able to talk about it."

As I said to him in response (#10)

"Forgive me Pierre, but if you have been sitting there knowing that might have found the Whitechapel killer then you must also have been sitting there knowing that you might not have found the Whitechapel killer.

Has this knowledge, that you might not have found him, also been a terrible thing for you?"

His answer (#11) was:

"Well, that is what I still hope for because then I wouldn´t have to tell everybody of a killer nobody will be happy hearing about. So I hope I am wrong."

I wonder if the concept of knowing that one might or might not have found something is structuralistic constructivism in the tradition of Ranke.

Structuralistic constructivism is not in the tradition of Ranke. It is the tradition of sociologists like Bourdieu and, to a certain extent, Foucault.

[David Orsam]

Excellent question. I believe that he thinks he knows the motive, based upon a historical source he has uncovered in "archives", which we don't have access to, most likely because he has guarded the identity of his suspect from us for over one year.

It reminds me of what he said in the 'Pierre and his research' (#9) thread back on 28 October 2015:

"It has been a terrible thing at times just sitting here, knowing that I might have found the Whitechapel killer and not being able to talk about it."

As I said to him in response (#10)

"Forgive me Pierre, but if you have been sitting there knowing that might have found the Whitechapel killer then you must also have been sitting there knowing that you might not have found the Whitechapel killer.

Has this knowledge, that you might not have found him, also been a terrible thing for you?"

His answer (#11) was:

"Well, that is what I still hope for because then I wouldn´t have to tell everybody of a killer nobody will be happy hearing about. So I hope I am wrong."

I wonder if the concept of knowing that one might or might not have found something is structuralistic constructivism in the tradition of sociologists like Bourdieu and, to a certain extent, Foucault.

[Pierre]

It reminds me of what he said in the 'Pierre and his research' (#9) thread back on 28 October 2015:

"It has been a terrible thing at times just sitting here, knowing that I might have found the Whitechapel killer and not being able to talk about it."

As I said to him in response (#10)

"Forgive me Pierre, but if you have been sitting there knowing that might have found the Whitechapel killer then you must also have been sitting there knowing that you might not have found the Whitechapel killer.

Has this knowledge, that you might not have found him, also been a terrible thing for you?"

His answer (#11) was:

"Well, that is what I still hope for because then I wouldn´t have to tell everybody of a killer nobody will be happy hearing about. So I hope I am wrong."

I wonder if the concept of knowing that one might or might not have found something is structuralistic constructivism in the tradition of sociologists like Bourdieu and, to a certain extent, Foucault.

Any researcher knowing that he might or might not have found something who has a self-reflexive thinking about his own research knows that what he knows is dependent on problems discussed in scientific theory and especially in the later traditions of Bourdieu and Foucault, if he is a social scientist or an historian. If he does not know this he can not do any research, since everyone else within the disciplines will expect him to discuss his work from the approach of some post modern perspective(s) like the structuralistic constructivism of Bourdieu of Foucault.

[David Orsam]

Any researcher knowing that he might or might not have found something who has a self-reflexive thinking about his own research knows that what he knows is dependent on problems discussed in scientific theory and especially in the later traditions of Bourdieu and Foucault, if he is a social scientist or an historian. If he does not know this he can not do any research, since everyone else within the disciplines will expect him to discuss his work from the approach of some post modern perspective(s) like the structuralistic constructivism of Bourdieu of Foucault.

Translation please from anyone who speaks the language of Pseudo Intellect.

[John G]

Any researcher knowing that he might or might not have found something who has a self-reflexive thinking about his own research knows that what he knows is dependent on problems discussed in scientific theory and especially in the later traditions of Bourdieu and Foucault, if he is a social scientist or an historian. If he does not know this he can not do any research, since everyone else within the disciplines will expect him to discuss his work from the approach of some post modern perspective(s) like the structuralistic constructivism of Bourdieu of Foucault.

Ah yes, Pierre Bourdieu.

[Michael W Richards]

Tangents aside for the moment, I believe this thread asks a pertinent question, do we have reasons to conclude the killer(s) chose the time and place in all Five cases?

I think so.

In Pollys case anyone can see that the choice was spontaneous and poorly chosen...I believe the killer chose, in Annies case it would be reasonable to assume she took someone into that yard through the house....but the killer chose the basic scenario, Annie chose the place,.... in Liz Strides case...she may well have entered the yard alone and of her own volition, if Schwartz didn't lie then maybe she was led into the passageway, but I could see killers choice there either way. In Kates case, Sailor Man could have been there to take Kate somewhere, or he might have encouraged her to enter the square to conduct business, but either way the killer is choosing the scenario. In Marys case I believe its undeniable that the killer chose the venue. She was not in motion and in her own bed.

I think that you can say that some women helped facilitate better venues for the post mortem privacy, but you can also say that the scenario that is most consistent in the above is one that has the killer posing as a potential client. In how many cases is that clearly evident? In Pollys, in Annies...both essentially admitted to soliciting on their respective murder nights. In Kates case...doesn't seem clear, and it would seem by her history that solicitation, while with John Kelly, was not conducted,.. in Strides case, no evidence of clients, just chance meetings with a few men,...and in Marys case, she is at home, undressed and in bed, likely asleep when he arrives.

I think that what the killer showed us about his comfort zone and preferable process is that he preferred women unknown to him and ones that were working the streets at the time. Those were also the ONLY women who would encourage strange men to dark places that Fall.

One last thing....Id like to wish everyone a Very Merry Holiday, beit Chanukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa or whathave you. The best of the Holiday Season to a stubborn group of highbrows that Ive very much enjoyed discussing these matters with over the past 10 years.

[Wickerman]

Tangents aside for the moment, I believe this thread asks a pertinent question, do we have reasons to conclude the killer(s) chose the time and place in all Five cases?

I think so.

In Pollys case anyone can see that the choice was spontaneous and poorly chosen...I believe the killer chose,

Yes, agreed. Not so much the place (it was only the recess of a gateway), but the time was right - the street was quiet. The opportunity presented itself and he took advantage of it.

.. in Annies case it would be reasonable to assume she took someone into that yard through the house....but the killer chose the basic scenario, Annie chose the place,....

Yes, if I recall it was suggested Annie had used that location before.

.. in Liz Strides case...she may well have entered the yard alone and of her own volition, if Schwartz didn't lie then maybe she was led into the passageway, but I could see killers choice there either way.

If Stride was one of his victims then I'm of the opinion the killer was with her in that yard, neither chose the spot it was just another scenario similar to Bucks Row - time & opportunity.

In Kates case, Sailor Man could have been there to take Kate somewhere, or he might have encouraged her to enter the square to conduct business, but either way the killer is choosing the scenario.

This is where we may disagree. I'm inclined to think Kate was more familiar with the spot and this is the only murder where knowing the police beats was more critical.

In Marys case I believe its undeniable that the killer chose the venue. She was not in motion and in her own bed. [edit].... she is at home, undressed and in bed, likely asleep when he arrives.

Again, we have examples of these women sleeping in their clothes.
I think our modern view of undressing for bed is misguided - it was cold, these women did not have a wardrobe of clothing to choose from. In fact many did not even have a bed to sleep on/in.
The fact Kelly was undressed & there was a fire in the grate, indicates to me she was entertaining - if she was just going to sleep, like the rest of her kind she would have been fully dressed.
Kelly was killed by her last client.

One last thing....Id like to wish everyone a Very Merry Holiday, beit Chanukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa or whathave you. The best of the Holiday Season to a stubborn group of highbrows that Ive very much enjoyed discussing these matters with over the past 10 years.

And a Merry Christmas to you & everyone. Have a safe & happy holiday.

[Abby Normal]

Tangents aside for the moment, I believe this thread asks a pertinent question, do we have reasons to conclude the killer(s) chose the time and place in all Five cases?

I think so.

In Pollys case anyone can see that the choice was spontaneous and poorly chosen...I believe the killer chose, in Annies case it would be reasonable to assume she took someone into that yard through the house....but the killer chose the basic scenario, Annie chose the place,.... in Liz Strides case...she may well have entered the yard alone and of her own volition, if Schwartz didn't lie then maybe she was led into the passageway, but I could see killers choice there either way. In Kates case, Sailor Man could have been there to take Kate somewhere, or he might have encouraged her to enter the square to conduct business, but either way the killer is choosing the scenario. In Marys case I believe its undeniable that the killer chose the venue. She was not in motion and in her own bed.

I think that you can say that some women helped facilitate better venues for the post mortem privacy, but you can also say that the scenario that is most consistent in the above is one that has the killer posing as a potential client. In how many cases is that clearly evident? In Pollys, in Annies...both essentially admitted to soliciting on their respective murder nights. In Kates case...doesn't seem clear, and it would seem by her history that solicitation, while with John Kelly, was not conducted,.. in Strides case, no evidence of clients, just chance meetings with a few men,...and in Marys case, she is at home, undressed and in bed, likely asleep when he arrives.

I think that what the killer showed us about his comfort zone and preferable process is that he preferred women unknown to him and ones that were working the streets at the time. Those were also the ONLY women who would encourage strange men to dark places that Fall.

One last thing....Id like to wish everyone a Very Merry Holiday, beit Chanukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa or whathave you. The best of the Holiday Season to a stubborn group of highbrows that Ive very much enjoyed discussing these matters with over the past 10 years.

Happy Ramachanukwanzamas to you too!

[Harry D]

According to Mr. Richards, Eddowes and Kelly were killed and mutilated for ulterior motives, presumably to subsume their murders into the Ripper investigation and cover up the real killers. This is despite the fact that they could've been bumped off in standard fashion and the police would've been none the wiser to figuring out who did it. All of the Whitechapel murders were investigated individually even if the authorities recognised a pattern at play. Also, Eddowes and Kelly were two of the most violent and frenzied attacks, when one would come to expect a copycat to be tamer than the preceding murders, particularly if the motive was political and not driven by some kind of deviant lust. I'm afraid the idea that the killer stopped at Chapman and the rest were down to a "confluence of evil" is one that belongs in the realms of fiction and not real life.

[Michael W Richards]

According to Mr. Richards, Eddowes and Kelly were killed and mutilated for ulterior motives, presumably to subsume their murders into the Ripper investigation and cover up the real killers. This is despite the fact that they could've been bumped off in standard fashion and the police would've been none the wiser to figuring out who did it. All of the Whitechapel murders were investigated individually even if the authorities recognised a pattern at play. Also, Eddowes and Kelly were two of the most violent and frenzied attacks, when one would come to expect a copycat to be tamer than the preceding murders, particularly if the motive was political and not driven by some kind of deviant lust. I'm afraid the idea that the killer stopped at Chapman and the rest were down to a "confluence of evil" is one that belongs in the realms of fiction and not real life.

Harry, please... Mike is fine.

Lets address the above with a question, if someone is found murdered in conventional fashion in London in 1888 during the months of Sept thru Nov, who would the police look at first? They would look for motive. If a woman is found mutilated in the Fall of 1888 in East London, who gets the blame? Correct...the motiveless, nameless, faceless unknown criminal who kills for recreation.

When it comes to opinions, I don't really care who agrees with mine,...I have no books to flog, no suspect to drag through mud, no professional insights to share about Victorian London or Serial killers. I have a perspective.... and any disappointment that I might feel because you or others disagree with me about how many victims can be legitimately grouped under 1 killer is soothed somewhat by the fact that my unprofessional opinion is shared by a former London policeman who is an expert in this field and who has written and sold many books on these crimes.

You don't have to agree with me, you just need to prove your own theory before slagging someone elses. Your theory, (and many share your belief), is that one man committed at least all 5 of the Canonical murders. You and others have had almost 130 years to provide any proof that your theory is sound. In other words, your theory has been without any validation for much longer than mine.

[Pierre]

Folks,
I’ve had a quick trawl through the “Scene of the Crimes” thread and can’t see anything re the topic I am about to raise, so apologies if I am going over a topic previously raised.

My query is, who chose the murder sites?

Was it the victims choice of location for sex, or could the location have been selected by the killer?

We know from the evidence of John Richardson that 29 Hanbury Street had been used in the past by prostitutes entertaining clients, but what about the other murder sites?

Mary Ann Nichols was killed in Bucks row, on the pavement, hardly a suitable place for her to have an assignation with a client.

Elizabeth Stride was murdered just inside the entrance of the International Working Men’s Club in Berner Street. The wonderful 1900 photograph of Dutfield’s Yard in Philip Hutchinsons book “The Jack the Ripper Location Photographs” makes it clear that the site of the murder site was entirely unsatisfactory as a location for a Prostitute to entertain a client.

Even if the intention was to wander further into the yard, it seems an illogical place to choose, bearing in mind that the Working Men’s Club was fairly busy with 20-30 members engaged in talking and singing that night.
Mitre Square on the other hand was an ideal spot for an assignation.
Dark, secluded, and very little chance of being spotted by anyone passing by.

Millers Court on the other hand is a bit of a puzzle.
I am not aware of any evidence that Mary Jane Kelly ever took any clients back to Millers Court.

If she had been caught doing so, there was a very real risk that John McCarthy would have evicted her, unless of course he knew exactly what Mary was up to and was benefiting in some way from her activities.

Bearing in mind that there is no evidence that the killer engaged in any sexual activity with any of the victims, is it possible that the murder sites were chosen not by the victims, but by the killer?

Is it possible that he chose the locations for their suitability as a killing ground?

The killings of Mary Ann Nichols and Elizabeth Stride seem to me to be “blitz” attacks.

The killer simply couldn’t wait any longer, and decided to attack them there and then, and to hell with the very real risks he was running.

The other murder sites were suitable for sexual assignations, and also suitable for murder and mutilation, so there is no reason why those particular locations would set alarm bells ringing for the victims.
I have no particular axe to grind with this post, I am just curious as to what other people think of the points raised.

If the locations, or some of them, were chosen by the killer, does that tell us anything that may lead to other speculations?

That is a strange question. The killer chose the murder sites. He chose to murder the victims. He chose how to do it. He chose where to do it. That is obvious, since they all died where he killed them.

Pierre

[barnflatwyngarde]

It takes you 265 posts to comment in regard to my original question re the murder sites?
Come on!

I think you are just being pedantic, so let me simplify it.

Why was Mary Ann Nichols in Bucks Row?
Did she bump into her killer there, or had they already met up somewhere and headed into Bucks Row?

If the latter, who chose that location?
Was it the victim or the killer?

The same question applies to the next 3 victims.
Did the killer have an input into the location of the proposed assignation?

I am one of those boring people who are happy to confess that there is much in regard to the murders that I simply do not know.

I don't know who the killer is (but on the evidence of Mrs Cox, I lean toward Blotchy)

I don't know for sure if the Goulston Street graffiti is relevant to the murders, and if it is who wrote it.

And on, and on, and on............

So Pierre, for all the bluster and rudeness on these boards, there is also a strong spirit of humility among people who are fascinated by this extraordinary case.

They have the humility and common sense to realise that perhaps by asking open ended questions and by taking an idea "for a walk" we may be able to advance the case.

I respect your right to post on these boards with your own unique style, but as I said above, some of us are just plodding along.

Reading the posts, posting occasionally, engaging in debate occasionally, but always trying to be constructive.
Not hiding behind cryptic, teasing posts with a strong element of perceived superiority.

Just ordinary women and men trying honestly to contribute to the knowledge of the case.

[c.d.]

"Why Mary was killed I believe had something to do with someone dangerous that she knew. She became a liability, as I believe Kate became a threat. Loose lips. There were a few men in that area at that time who had secrets, lucrative ones when kept secret. Alternate identities, dual loyalties, ...people who could be linked to the Parnell Commission going on that Fall."

Hello Michael,

Then why not simply slit their throats? Why the mutilations? Added incentive for others to keep their mouths shut?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello Michael,

Then why not simply slit their throats? Why the mutilations? Added incentive for others to keep their mouths shut?

c.d.

I've already posed Michael this question. He asserts that the mutilations were a deliberate red herring to divert the authorities from the real killer. Because an assassin is going to faff about in the dark, mutilating the victim and groping for organs when there's a copper right around the corner. Obviously this is a much more plausible and natural explanation for any perceived differences in skill than a serial killer simply having an off day.