Choice of Location

[c.d.]

There seems to be a lot of discussion lately regarding Jack's choice of location for the murders. We always seem to be looking at it from Jack's perspective. In doing so, we might be overlooking some basic assumptions. Customers were engaging the prostitutes for quick sex not to act as tour guides. Why would a customer have cause to question the prostitutes choice of location? A more romantic spot? More ambiance? The only reason I can think of would be to feel safer from arrest (for engaging in prostitution) by the police. But wouldn't that also be a prime consideration from the prostitute's perspective who would have chosen that location for that very purpose? She would know from experience that it was a relatively safe place to conduct business. Now once Tabram had been killed and most certainly after Polly had been killed, wouldn't a customer's insistence on choosing a location raise a red flag? Why in the world would a prostitute want to go off with a total stranger when the Ripper was on the loose to a more secluded and darker place than the one she had suggested? What is bad for Jack, i.e., more people around and more light, is better for the prostitute. More people around means a better chance of being able to yell and have someone come to her assistance. Even it means a better chance of being caught in the act, being arrested is much better than being the victim of the Ripper.

Jack may have learned that being too insistent on a choice of location ended up with the deal falling through. Remember that it take two to tango.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

I know a quiet spot, Ducky

Hello CD. I completely agree with you that the prostitute most likely led her client to the spot of her choice.

Beginning with Tabram and ending with Kelly, it seems that the prostitute in question chose a relatively secluded spot in which to fulfill the contract.

In fact, the only genuine exception seems to be Dutfield's yard where things were pretty boisterous and the vicinity well populated. Of course, it is not credible that Liz was turning tricks there, so your original thesis stands up quite well.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Why is it not credible that Liz was turning tricks in Dutfield's Yard? She was a known prostitute. She was by herself late at night. There were a lot of potential clients in the club and there was a privy in the yard where she could freshen up "afterwords."

c.d.

[lynn cates]

privacy

Hello CD. Well, it seems to me that she would have sought out a semi-private place to fulfill her contract. Of course, it's possible that she was past worry about being caught in such a public place.

Of course, she could have been thinking about the stable at the rear of the yard. That would make a great place to horse around.

The best.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Hi CD.

The problem for the prostitute in a sexual transaction is that the customer holds the money and therefore the power. The Ripper's outdoor victims were desperate women desperately seeking a few pennies. So if a customer had expressed reservations regarding a given location, it's likely that a desperate (not to mention drunken) woman would have agreed to an alternative venue.

This 'desperation' factor should not be underestimated. Even at the height of the Yorkshire Ripper murders, many women at the heart of the killer's stalking grounds were prepared to run the risk of accompanying a stranger to a dark and secluded location for the purpose of coitus. This self same pattern was also observed in a more recent series of prostitute killings in Ipswich. It seems to boil down to a case of risk and reward. And for the sake of reward, a desperate woman is apt to run what to the rational mind might appear to be an absurd degree of risk.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

Exactly what reservations would a customer express? How adamant would he have to be before the woman becomes skittish? I am not sure that I agree with your observation that the customer holds the money and therefore all the cards. Women have the ace in the hole (so to speak) and these guys were looking for sex.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi CD.

The 'tripper up' was legendary in the Victorian East End. These women were common prostitutes who lured unsuspecting punters to a location where a waiting henchman would bludgeon the dupe into unconsciousness and steal is money and possessions. Occasionally, the dupe was even stripped naked and his clothes 'popped' at a nearby pawnshop. So the potential dangerousness of a location might be sufficient to engender trepidation in a punter. Equally, he might have claimed to be known at the location and was unwilling to run the risk of his wife or family members finding out that he was consorting with a prostitute. He might even have claimed to have visited the location recently and was almost caught by a policeman. In short, there are any number of excuses that could have been used in order to mediate a change of venue. But the reality is simply that, if the location was adequate for the purpose of prostitution, it was almost certainly apposite for the killing of prostitutes.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Limehouse]

I agree to some extent that the women who died at the hands of JtR, chose the location. For example, wasn't Mary Kelly heard to say something along the lines of "Come along then, you will be quite comfortable?"

Having said that, I don't think the killer would have been willing to wander around for any period of time with the victim, looking for a place to do business. This is because he would have wanted to minimise the amount of time he is seen with a woman. Therefore, I feel that victim and killer were probably quite near to the locations when they met.

I also think that the willingness of the women to go with the killer once it was known a vicious killer was on the loose can be attributed partly to desperation but also to how at ease they felt with that particular person.

This is also true for women who went with Sutcliffe, and died or were injured at his hands. Where he attacted prostitutes he was 'doing business with' (for he also attacked randomly) he seemed to be able to engage with them and reassure them. Possibly the same could be said of the Ipswich killer, Wright. He was known to many prostitutes and didn't seem threatening to them.

[Monty]

Stride & Eddowes

Guys,

It was, and still is, fairly common for prostitutes to 'linger' outside pubs and clubs (some even inside) in order to gain business.

It wouldnt surprise me if Liz wasnt soliciting outside the IEWC nor would it surprise me if Eddowes had located herselfin Church passage, almost outside the Imperial club. It may be the reason for her ascertaining the time with Hutt.

Monty

[harry]

Choice.

The sites were chosen by two people for two different reasons.The male's consideration would be was it suitable for his intentions to kill?,and to escape from when the neccessity arose.That he was correct on both accounts,is history.One thing that each female would not be considering,is, was it a suitable place to be killed.That there was initial trust between all parties,might imply a knowledge of each other,gained not from a five minute or so bargaining,but a familiarity bred over a much longer time.Who suggested where is really immaterial,it is what was decided when they got there that counted.

[FrankO]

Having said that, I don't think the killer would have been willing to wander around for any period of time with the victim, looking for a place to do business. This is because he would have wanted to minimise the amount of time he is seen with a woman. Therefore, I feel that victim and killer were probably quite near to the locations when they met.

Good point, Limehouse, that's what I think too.

I also think that the willingness of the women to go with the killer once it was known a vicious killer was on the loose can be attributed partly to desperation but also to how at ease they felt with that particular person.

This is also true for women who went with Sutcliffe, and died or were injured at his hands. Where he attacted prostitutes he was 'doing business with' (for he also attacked randomly) he seemed to be able to engage with them and reassure them. Possibly the same could be said of the Ipswich killer, Wright. He was known to many prostitutes and didn't seem threatening to them.

I don’t think the victims necessarily felt particularly at ease with their killer, or that their killer, like Sutcliffe, needed to reassure them. I think it may well just have been a matter of him being a familiar face and seemingly inoffensive and that he showed them the money.

Having said that, it may well be that other potential victims led him to spots that he just didn't thought suitable for his 'business' and just settled for the knee-trembler on those occasions. On the other hand, that he settled for the backyard in Hanbury Street at sunrise might tell us that he was willing to take a huge risk.

All the best,
Frank

[Limehouse]

es, Frank, quite right, I agree with your last two points completely. I think it is possible that the risk taking in Hanbury St might even have increased the thrill for the killer.