Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[barnflatwyngarde]

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?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

How about this excerpt from Daily Telegraph 10th Nov?

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character. Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."

[MsWeatherwax]

Just thinking...if the women chose the spot, I wonder how many 'near misses' there were because the woman that Jack selected didn't take him to a location he was comfortable with?

It's possible that there were none, of course, but I do wonder about all of the women who interacted with him daily who didn't have a clue who he was.

On balance, I think it's more likely that they did chose the location...I think one of the key points is that he did not draw attention or make these women suspicious. I think that if they were approached and the client tried to move them off somewhere of his own choosing it would have raised alarm bells. Unless, of course, they knew him - then it would be an entirely different story.

[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?

Hi,

My hypothesis is that the killer selected the sites and that the most important factor in the selection model was the police beats.

Pierre

[DJA]

Hi,

My hypothesis is that the killer selected the sites and that the most important factor in the selection model was the police beats.

Pierre

Stride,Chapman and Kelly were not found on a police beat.

Nichols and Eddowes were.

[Bridewell]

Stride,Chapman and Kelly were not found on a police beat.

Nichols and Eddowes were.

Stride?

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

[GUT]

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?

The killer chose the murder site, the victim may well have chosen a site to transact some business, but only Jack decided if it was a suitable place to murder.

[DJA]

Stride?

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

He did not stick his head in the Club's yard as part of his beat.

Ditto the other two.

[Joshua Rogan]

He walked past the yard, so I'm sure he would have had a nose if he'd seen anything suspicious....especially if the club was suspected of being the haunt of anarchists.

It seems likely that Miller's Court was part of a police beat. Maurice Lewis decided to leave the court and go to the pub rather than continue his (illegal) game of pitch and toss, when a policeman was spotted in Dorset Street.

[Wickerman]

Macdonald, at the Kelly inquest, asked Cox if the footsteps she heard in the court could have been a policeman, she replied that it could.
She could have replied, "not likely, as coppers do not come down the court", if that had been the case.

There is some understanding that a policeman's beat does not cover private property, unless specifically requested.
Was Millers Court regarded as private property?

I'm inclined to believe it was not, based on the fact the sign over the passage (Millers court) was a municipal street sign implying the court was part of the municipality and not private property.
The municipality does not (I believe) create signs to indicate private property, that is the owners expense.

The above likelyhood and Cox's reply taken together suggest to me the court was not private and therefore patrolled by police, however regularly is another question entirely.

[Ginger]

I'd never really given the question much thought before. My unexamined assumption was that Jack would let his victims pick the spot, since they almost certainly knew better than he where they'd be uninterrupted.

[Fisherman]

Buck´s Row was a deserted street at the murder time, more or less, as witnessed about by many of the people involved in the drama.
Mitre Square was off the beaten track in many respects, a dark, quiet little square nobody had any reason to visit in the middle of the night.
The backyard of 29 Hanbury Street was basically empty during the night.
Berner Street was not exactly Champs Elysées.
These were not places where somebody would go, looking for prostitutes.

There were areas in the East End where the prositutes flocked and where a punter would be able to pick and choose. In these areas, there was no possibility to do the business, so the prostitutes would have to be knowledgeable about where to find spots where the transactions could be finished. Generally speaking, the closer to the where the deal was agreed upon these spots were, the better - no prostitute would want to spend significant amounts of time walking the streets with their punters.
Returning to Bucks Row, it is reasonable to suggest that the deal was struck in Whitechapel Road, where there was a lot of prostitution traffic. We also know that Nichols was walking Whitechapel Road in an easternly direction as Emily Holland met her.
From Whitechapel Road up to the murder spot in Bucks Row, there were the fewest of minutes to walk, but these few minutes would take the couple from a fairly crowded street into full seclusion.
So if the killer was the one who suggested the spot, we can see how it follows the pattern a prostitute would work to herself.
And it applies that f the prostitute was not familiar with the spot suggested, I think she would be less likely to accept it, no questions asked, since she ran the risk of getting caught if she was not cautious.
On balance, the likelier suggestion must be that the prostitute chose the spot. But as Gut wisely points out, the ultimate decision whether it was to be turned into a murder spot or not, was taken by the killer.

[Joshua Rogan]

To my mind - not that I've much experience of either - locations suitable for alfresco sex and for murder would seem to have the same requirements. The only difference, perhaps, being whether one would require more or less time than the other.

[Fisherman]

To my mind - not that I've much experience of either - locations suitable for alfresco sex and for murder would seem to have the same requirements. The only difference, perhaps, being whether one would require more or less time than the other.

Exactly - and since the prostitutes were on offer on a spot where alfresco sex was not an opportunity, it stands to reason that the punters were engaged in business and whisked away into the back streets and alleys where the prostitutes had intimate knowledge of places suited for completing the deals.

[Pierre]

Buck´s Row was a deserted street at the murder time, more or less, as witnessed about by many of the people involved in the drama.
Mitre Square was off the beaten track in many respects, a dark, quiet little square nobody had any reason to visit in the middle of the night.
The backyard of 29 Hanbury Street was basically empty during the night.
Berner Street was not exactly Champs Elysées.
These were not places where somebody would go, looking for prostitutes.

There were areas in the East End where the prositutes flocked and where a punter would be able to pick and choose. In these areas, there was no possibility to do the business, so the prostitutes would have to be knowledgeable about where to find spots where the transactions could be finished. Generally speaking, the closer to the where the deal was agreed upon these spots were, the better - no prostitute would want to spend significant amounts of time walking the streets with their punters.
Returning to Bucks Row, it is reasonable to suggest that the deal was struck in Whitechapel Road, where there was a lot of prostitution traffic. We also know that Nichols was walking Whitechapel Road in an easternly direction as Emily Holland met her.
From Whitechapel Road up to the murder spot in Bucks Row, there were the fewest of minutes to walk, but these few minutes would take the couple from a fairly crowded street into full seclusion.
So if the killer was the one who suggested the spot, we can see how it follows the pattern a prostitute would work to herself.
And it applies that f the prostitute was not familiar with the spot suggested, I think she would be less likely to accept it, no questions asked, since she ran the risk of getting caught if she was not cautious.
On balance, the likelier suggestion must be that the prostitute chose the spot. But as Gut wisely points out, the ultimate decision whether it was to be turned into a murder spot or not, was taken by the killer.

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, doesn´t it?

Regards, Pierre