Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[DJA]

Hi Fisherman,

Transactions made in X street and prostitutes leading clients to Y place are not established historical facts for the serial killer.

They are rather well established facts for a couple of the victims. So what does this imply?

It implies that the killer might have been anywhere, doesnīt it?

Regards, Pierre

What established facts for which victims?

You simply make this BS up as you go.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Transactions made in X street and prostitutes leading clients to Y place are not established historical facts for the serial killer.

They are rather well established facts for a couple of the victims. So what does this imply?

It implies that the killer might have been anywhere, doesnīt it?

Regards, Pierre

What are you saying here, Pierre? That there is no research establishing that serial killers will follow prostitutes the their chosen venues?

If so, you may have noted that I did not say that there was any such research - I said that the murder venues were generally not spots where prostitutes would hang out to sell themselves, but instead spots where the clients would be taken after the affair had been struck.

I have no idea what is it you regard as "rather well established facts for a couple of the victims", and how that would imply that the killer may "have been anywhere", so maybe you would care to explain that to me.

There is of course the possibility that the killer may have sought out empty streets and that he may have lain in wait there for any prostitute to show up. The problem is that if and when that happened, the prostitute would in all probability arrive with a punter.

It therefore remains that the more useful suggestion is that the killer followed the victim to a spot chosen by the latter.

[Fisherman]

What established facts for which victims?

You simply make this BS up as you go.

Should have noted this post before I answered Pierre - it seems I am not the only one to be a bit baffled by how his post was worded...

[c.d.]

If prostitutes regularly worked a certain area it would be reasonable to assume that they used certain locations in that area to conduct their business. It would probably not have been to difficult for Jack to ascertain where those locations were and to determine whether they were suitable for his purposes. Thus he could be reasonably assured that if the woman picked the location it would be to his liking. On the other hand, he might have found it exciting to be randomly led somewhere where he would have to take his chances.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

If prostitutes regularly worked a certain area it would be reasonable to assume that they used certain locations in that area to conduct their business. It would probably not have been to difficult for Jack to ascertain where those locations were and to determine whether they were suitable for his purposes. Thus he could be reasonably assured that if the woman picked the location it would be to his liking. On the other hand, he might have found it exciting to be randomly led somewhere where he would have to take his chances.

c.d.

That works very well with my own thinking. In my universe (parallel to that of a number of others), Charles Lechmere was the killer. And he would have traversed the streets of Whitechapel en route to work, during work and on his way home. Arguably, he will have stumbled on a good many sex encounters for money, and he will have been able to establish where these transactions took place.
The same, I imagine, will have been true for a number of people traversing Whitechapel from one side to the other for causes of walking to work.
As you know, I also favour a picture of the killer as a psychopath, and psychopaths very much enjoy playing games involving risks, so I find myself agreeing with you about the suggestion of him taking his chances on a more haphazard ground too.

[barnflatwyngarde]

That works very well with my own thinking. In my universe (parallel to that of a number of others), Charles Lechmere was the killer. And he would have traversed the streets of Whitechapel en route to work, during work and on his way home. Arguably, he will have stumbled on a good many sex encounters for money, and he will have been able to establish where these transactions took place.
The same, I imagine, will have been true for a number of people traversing Whitechapel from one side to the other for causes of walking to work.
As you know, I also favour a picture of the killer as a psychopath, and psychopaths very much enjoy playing games involving risks, so I find myself agreeing with you about the suggestion of him taking his chances on a more haphazard ground too.

Fisherman,
I note your comment that Lechmere "would have traversed the streets of Whitechapel en route to work, during work and on his way home. Arguably, he will have stumbled on a good many sex encounters for money, and he will have been able to establish where these transactions took place"

If Lechmere (or anyone else going to and from work) could have seen prostitutes engaging in sex with clients, the same clearly goes for beat policemen in the area.

Are there any figures as to how many prostitutes were arrested by local beat beat policemen in the Whitechapel area for 1887 and 1888?

If the murderer was interested in killing rather than sex, would he take the risk of letting his victim choose the location where there was a very real chance that he would be seen by other prostitutes and their clients?

Prostitutes of today who work the streets are all too aware of the risks they run. They look out for one another and often take such precautions as writing down the licence plate of a car that their friend got into.
They will also write down physical descriptions of men their friends went off with, just in case!

Surely this same "support network" would have been in place in the 1880's.

To avoid that very real risk, the killer could insist that the transaction would be completed at a place of his choosing?

The victim may have had very real misgivings about going off her usual beat with a stranger, but after all, the customer is always right.

By the way, I like your line about parallel universes.

[c.d.]

There might have been a few zealots among the police force who absolutely loathed the idea of a woman selling herself and looked to enforce the law but I would have to imagine that most of the force had priorities other than looking for locations where the prostitutes conducted their business.

As for letting the client choose the site that might have been acceptable to the women prior to Jack making headlines but once he appeared on the scene they might have been a little more reluctant to do so. What rationale would the client have for doing so if the assumption was that the prostitute chose that site for its privacy and to stay out of sight of the police? The client was there for sex not the ambience. Insistence upon another sight might make them suspicious and reluctant to go along with what the client wanted.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

There might have been a few zealots among the police force who absolutely loathed the idea of a woman selling herself and looked to enforce the law but I would have to imagine that most of the force had priorities other than looking for locations where the prostitutes conducted their business.

As for letting the client choose the site that might have been acceptable to the women prior to Jack making headlines but once he appeared on the scene they might have been a little more reluctant to do so. What rationale would the client have for doing so if the assumption was that the prostitute chose that site for its privacy and to stay out of sight of the police? The client was there for sex not the ambience. Insistence upon another sight might make them suspicious and reluctant to go along with what the client wanted.

c.d.

Once again agreed, C. D.

[Errata]

I think the most compelling argument for the killer picking the site is that he had very particular requirements.Which makes me think that the murder sites were not necessarily the destination the prostitutes had in mind, but were en route. Because he is somehow subduing these women and getting them to the ground to cut their throat, and to me that sounds like he needs an opportunity to do something. Grab their throats, trip them, tackle them, whatever... that is difficult to achieve on a woman who is steady and facing you. Far easier on an unsuspecting moving target than a stationary expectant one. So I think even i f the women were picking where to go to have sex or whatever, that is not where they died. He is choosing where they die by when the opportunity presents itself.

[Fisherman]

I think the most compelling argument for the killer picking the site is that he had very particular requirements.Which makes me think that the murder sites were not necessarily the destination the prostitutes had in mind, but were en route. Because he is somehow subduing these women and getting them to the ground to cut their throat, and to me that sounds like he needs an opportunity to do something. Grab their throats, trip them, tackle them, whatever... that is difficult to achieve on a woman who is steady and facing you. Far easier on an unsuspecting moving target than a stationary expectant one. So I think even i f the women were picking where to go to have sex or whatever, that is not where they died. He is choosing where they die by when the opportunity presents itself.

A very common position for a prostitute to have sex in would have been to bend over forwards and throw the skirt up over the bottom, allowing the customer access from behind. That may well have been when the opportunity presented itself.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;389806]

What are you saying here, Pierre? That there is no research establishing that serial killers will follow prostitutes the their chosen venues?

Did you read my post? If you did, you know what I am saying. I am saying that: "Transactions made in X street and prostitutes leading clients to Y place are not established historical facts for the serial killer.

They are rather well established facts for a couple of the victims. So what does this imply?

It implies that the killer might have been anywhere, doesnīt it?"

As you see, I do not speak of serial killers. Why? For two reasons. 1. Because the material we have from 1888-1889 is more important than new research about serial killers. And 2, we can not deduce from large data samples to one serial killer for actions on a micro level. I.e., when we want to say something about how the killer and victim ended up at the murder sites, we must use data from 1888-1889, since that issue is purely on a micro level and therefore it is very idiographic. Idiographic data should be connected to one specific person and not to big populations. Do you understand this?

If so, you may have noted that I did not say that there was any such research - I said that the murder venues were generally not spots where prostitutes would hang out to sell themselves, but instead spots where the clients would be taken after the affair had been struck.

OK. And from were do you have the hypothesis about the post-business-spots? Is there any relevant data from the years of the murders?

I have no idea what is it you regard as "rather well established facts for a couple of the victims", and how that would imply that the killer may "have been anywhere", so maybe you would care to explain that to me.

Two of the victims might have been soliciting on the nights they were killed. There is poor evidence of all of the victims having done so. So an historical fact saying that the killer acted as a client can not be well established. And therefore, he might have been anywhere, i.e. waiting for clients to disappear, waiting for policemen to disappear, waiting for a victim to come along.

There is of course the possibility that the killer may have sought out empty streets and that he may have lain in wait there for any prostitute to show up. The problem is that if and when that happened, the prostitute would in all probability arrive with a punter.

Or the victim may have been finished with the punter.

It therefore remains that the more useful suggestion is that the killer followed the victim to a spot chosen by the latter.

I think the best hypothesis for you theory would be one that is connected specifically to the rest of the hypotheses you have for Lechmere. You hypothesize that he was on his way to work. Nichols was killed in an open street, were Lechmere was passing. It is far fetched to hypothesize that he went to another street to strike a deal with Polly Nichols and then came back, or went to, Buckīs Row to kill her. It is much more in line with your theory and the small set of idiographic data you have interpreted for Lechmere to hypothesize that Nichols accosted Lechmere and he "reacted".

But of course, then there is the problem of using the same explanation for all the murders (a problem the theory already has for other variables in you explanatory model for Lechmere).

Anyway, if there is a pattern in the data at hand, I think it is important not to import ad hocs into the theory. Your pattern is minutiae in Buckīs Row. Expanding the carmans killing zone as well as the explanatory model is difficult, with the data, and lack of data, at hand.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

Did you read my post?

Yes, indeed.

If you did, you know what I am saying.

No, I am sorry, but I donīt. You expressed yourself too poorly.

I am saying that: "Transactions made in X street and prostitutes leading clients to Y place are not established historical facts for the serial killer.

"The" serial killer? The Ripper? Or any serial killer? Regardless, I fond that uninteresting.

They are rather well established facts for a couple of the victims. So what does this imply?

What are "rather well established facts" for a couple of the victims? And how can facts be only rather well established? Facts are not partially established.

It implies that the killer might have been anywhere, doesnīt it?"

I still donīt know what you are talking about.

As you see, I do not speak of serial killers.

I thought you did? You did mention them.

Why? For two reasons. 1. Because the material we have from 1888-1889 is more important than new research about serial killers.

Really? Is that "rather well established"?

And 2, we can not deduce from large data samples to one serial killer for actions on a micro level. I.e., when we want to say something about how the killer and victim ended up at the murder sites, we must use data from 1888-1889, since that issue is purely on a micro level and therefore it is very idiographic. Idiographic data should be connected to one specific person and not to big populations. Do you understand this?

I understand that you are talking out of the wrong body opening. Sorry, but this is the same kind of dogshite you are all too prone to produce. I donīt buy it for a split second, and I completely resent that you should ask me what I understand when you cannot make yourself understood on any level. Micro or not.

Now I feel ashamed of myself. I really should not let myself into any form of debate with you.
My mistake. It wonīt happen again.

Just one final question, if you donīt mind: Could you please go away?

[Ginger]

I think the most compelling argument for the killer picking the site is that he had very particular requirements.Which makes me think that the murder sites were not necessarily the destination the prostitutes had in mind, but were en route. Because he is somehow subduing these women and getting them to the ground to cut their throat, and to me that sounds like he needs an opportunity to do something. Grab their throats, trip them, tackle them, whatever... that is difficult to achieve on a woman who is steady and facing you. Far easier on an unsuspecting moving target than a stationary expectant one. So I think even i f the women were picking where to go to have sex or whatever, that is not where they died. He is choosing where they die by when the opportunity presents itself.

Chapman was killed in an enclosed back yard, and Kelly in her room, though. It's hard to imagine that either was passing through on her way to somewhere else.

[jerryd]

Stride?

Pc 452H William Smith passed through Berner Street in the course of his beat.

There was also a PC patrolling Dorset Street on the night of the 8th. PC 63L

See post #33 here; http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5932&page=4

[DJA]

Chapman was killed in an enclosed back yard, and Kelly in her room, though. It's hard to imagine that either was passing through on her way to somewhere else.

Which Vestry Medical Officer would have a working knowledge of lodging house sanitation and walked home along Hanbury Street at night time!
Same guy who treated Nichols and Eddowes as inpatients together in 1867/8.
Chest specialist who might have treated Chapman.
Expert in Stride's genetic disease.
Member of the Church Mary Ann Kelly was baptised in.

Those who already know,kindly keep Mum.