Jack The Creeper

[Chava]

I wonder if perhaps he let his victims lead the way? They, if we accept that all were local, and at least sporadic prostitutes; would have been able to lead him to a suitably secluded spot for sex.

I posted a thread a long time ago on the old board about tunnels and open spaces, because it occurred to me that all of these women with the exception of Nicholls were killed in a broader space that was reached by going through a narrow passage, and the Freudian implications of that struck me forcibly. I wondered if that was how the Ripper's victims self-selected. So, yes, I imagine the women took their clients to places where they habitually took their tricks for some expectation of privacy. However, again this is 'what-if', it's just as possible that they were attacked by someone who followed them. Other sks have operated in this manner and we cannot rule out the possibility here.

[kensei]

I would be surprised if he had to sneak about to avoid the 'drag net'.

It takes about 15 -20 minutes to get to Mitre Square from Berner Street, and he could just stroll there, looking like everyone else on the street. If he went back to his lodgings via Goulston Street (and we all know that I think that he lodged in the Victoria Home), as soon as he got within the immediate vicinity of his lodgings, then he might become a well known face in the area and just stop and chat to people he knew. If he often worked away from the area, he
could just leave the area, as he would normally do, and not even be there when the Police checked the Lodging Houses.

Why would he need to be a 'ninja' to avoid capture ? He could just carry on as normal. As I've said before, without CCT cameras to capture someone at at a specific point of time and place, and given that you can move between places in a very short timespan, it can't have been that difficult to fade into the background.

Sorry- a lot can go by when you're away for 24 hours.
I see the Ripper as having been very stealthy in the time immediately after the Double Event without considering that he might have lived in the immediate area. If he did not, with scores of cops questioning anyone they found walking the streets, a killer with even a small amount of blood anywhere on him and especially with a knife and a couple of human organs stuffed in his pants obviously would have to avoid the police, and yet PC Long's account of how he found the piece of apron in the doorway when it wasn't there the first time he passed by would indicate that the killer was hanging around the area in the midst of the dragnet. But of course, if he did live in the immediate area as you suggest it would have been simple enough to stash the incriminating items at home and even change clothes before going back outside to leave the apron without being quite so ninja-like.

And by the way, for what it's worth I briskly walked from Henriques (Berner) Street to Mitre Square in 14 minutes.

[Sally]

Yes

I agree, yes. I think a scenario of the type you outline above is very likely, Ruby. I personally presume the killer to have been either natively local, or to have had local knowledge - so probably to have resided locally - in which case he could be expected to have some familiarity with the sort of places where prostitution was conducted.

I think it's at least possible that he had already had social, and perhaps sexual intercourse with his victims. Just because he apparently didn't have sex with them when he killed them, doesn't mean to say he never had sex at all.

[Rubyretro]

I wonder if perhaps he let his victims lead the way? They, if we accept that all were local, and at least sporadic prostitutes; would have been able to lead him to a suitably secluded spot for sex.

With the promise of money behind them, they may have been quite willing to lead the way for him.

[/QUOTE]

I expect that he did let them lead the way, but I bet he knew just where they would lead him (I imagine that prostitutes used habitual secluded places..).
Since this is a 'what if...?' thread, well 'what if..' Jack had sometimes worked for Kearley and Tonge and drank in the Roebuck pub, where he had sometimes crossed Polly, who often worked Buck's Row as a prostitute ?
What if he met Polly in the street (freshly out of the Frying Pan and drunk) -and she was totally off her guard recognising a local man whom she recognised, and was happy to lead him dociley to where he knew she would..and he knew the frequentation of the street and the policeman's beat..?..and he knew that if he was seen in the area immediately afterwards, then he could just mingle with the crowd chatting to unsuspecting mates and nobody would ever suspect him ?

I can see that sort of scenario better than Jack being a 'creeper'.

[Defective Detective]

There is a fine old quote by Raymond Chandler, author of the hard-boiled detective novels, about unnecessary complications in the world of murder mystery fiction. It goes something like this:

The boys with their feet on the desks know that the easiest murder case in the world to break is the one somebody tried to get very cute with; the one that really bothers them is the murder somebody only thought of two minutes before he pulled it off. But if the writers of this fiction wrote about the kind of murders that happen, they would also have to write about the authentic flavor of life as it is lived. And since they cannot do that, they pretend that what they do is what should be done. Which is begging the question–and the best of them know it.

And his words apply doubly, I think, to the investigation of ancient murders like those in Whitechapel, as those in the present day who examine them are more storytellers than policemen.

The more intricate a conspiracy to commit murder becomes, the less likely it is to succeed and the greater the risk of leaving behind damning evidence becomes. The killer who stops to chat with his victims - even though, on a literary, storytelling level it may be very appealing indeed, speaking to us as it does the old serial killer cliché of "the monster next door" - is signing his own warrant. Ted Bundy was seen by many witnesses one day that he decided to kidnap two victims at the same time from a well-populated lakefront beach and failed to change up his old leg-in-a-cast-trick accordingly. It took too much time; it was too convoluted. The only thing that saved him was the fact he was at too great a distance from the lake to be seen clearly, or to have his license number recorded, by the vacationers there.

Should we assume it is any different with Saucy Jacky? Aside from Catherine Eddowes, who was slaughtered in a nearly abandoned Mitre Square, Jack's victims were all taken in relatively well-populated environs. Even Mary Kelly, killed as she was in her own home, had neighbors who were quite awake when the event occurred. If Jack were a logical being - which I admit fully to the possibility that he was not - he would not have wanted to dally with any of them. He would have offed them as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

Which is part of the reason I find almost all of the witness statements dubious at best, particularly those, such as Albert Cadosch, who suggest by implication that the Ripper had loudly quarreled with his victims before murdering them. Would Jack have been so indiscreet as to draw attention to himself in occupied quarters before doing the deed? If so, then he was an idiot and lends greater credence to the theory that the killer was an uneducated ruffian. Which isn't to suggest that murderers don't often loudly argue with their victims, enough even to attract attention. They do. But these killers are typically jilted lovers, aggrieved family members, or quarrelsome frienemies. They are not serial killers.

No, I think that, if we operate under the assumption that Jack the Ripper was a sane psychopath, as opposed to a drooling lunatic, we must also accept that he operated as logically as the circumstances of his urges permitted him. He would have wanted to keep the possibility that he would be seen to a minimum - this is the first requirement of a 'premeditated murder' charge, as his killings would surely fall under if he were apprehended for them today. He would have behaved accordingly.

[Sally]

I think I tend to the idea that he probably did have social intercourse with his victims before striking, although the idea of a suprise attack lurker is an interesting one to consider.

I agree that social intercourse before striking would be the easiest way to get his victims where he wanted them; presumably somewhere he judged to be low risk in terms of being caught in the act.

I wonder if perhaps he let his victims lead the way? They, if we accept that all were local, and at least sporadic prostitutes; would have been able to lead him to a suitably secluded spot for sex.

With the promise of money behind them, they may have been quite willing to lead the way for him.

[Chava]

Also, with the exception of Kelly, the lack of defence wounds mediates against a leap from the shadows, blitz style mode of attack.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

But that's where I disagree with all of you. I think a surprise attack would have been more easily carried out than otherwise. A prostitute picks up a client. She knows there is a possibility he's a rough trick and she is at least a little bit on the watch, even though she might be drunk. Yes, she's easily overpowered. And, yes, if she has her back to the client for anal sex or whatever she's extremely vulnerable. But a woman who is taken completely off-guard is just as vulnerable in my opinion, if not more so. I don't believe in any of the letters except From Hell, but the one who said he gave the lady no time to scream was accurate. If he grabbed her out of the blue and throttled her/cut her throat, she really would have no chance to struggle or cry out against him. She's more likely to be on her guard while she is with a client than she is when she's on her own.

I'm not positing a killer who just kind of hangs around waiting for a possible victim to stroll along. In fact I'm not positing anything, because this is a thread dedicated to the 'what if'. But a killer who creepy-crawls around at night like a Peeping Tom, a killer who notices a likely victim and stalks her without approaching her directly cannot be ruled out.

[Garry Wroe]

Also, with the exception of Kelly, the lack of defence wounds mediates against a leap from the shadows, blitz style mode of attack.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

It's obviously not impossible that he did just pounce on the victims from the shadows without having any social intercourse of any kind with them, but I think it seems very unlikely in my opinion for various reasons.

Firstly in the case of some of the victims, they shouldn't have logically been where they were when they were killed.

For instance if a killer was looking for a prostitute to murder, using the method of jumping out on a passing victim from the shadows, he wouldn't have been standing in the corner of Mitre Square at that time of the morning. He'd have more chance of mugging a passing Wilder Beast.

The square was absolutely deserted at that time of the morning, and there would have been little or no through traffic of any kind, let alone a prostitute, who just happened to fit into the same demographic as the most of the other victims. It's far more likely that he picked her up somewhere around Aldgate High Street or St Botolph's and walked through with her to the square for some privacy.

The same is true of Polly Nichols really. There was no reason for a prostitute to be in Buck's Row at that time, and the chances of finding a victim up there accidentally are pretty slim. The killer certainly wouldn't have been hanging around there waiting for a pick up. He would have gone to somewhere he knew he could pick up a victim easily and quickly, like the area along Aldgate High Street, and the main roads, where they were literally ten a penny - or at least one a fourpence. He may have been in the area anyway, spotted her, followed her and jumped her, but I don't think he was waiting there specifically for one to come along, like a number 9 bus.

Liz is a much stronger case for a Jack the Pouncer.The killer could have seen Liz go into Dutfield's Yard with the intention of using one of the loos at the back of the yard and followed her, waiting for her to return and jumping her. There was a small recess just along from the kitchen door, which would have made a fairly good place for someone to wait and it was literally just by where she was killed, so that is possible, although as Rubytro pointed out, bloody risky.

With Annie, if the killer just followed Annie through, then he must have been quite certain of what he was going through to, as he could well have been walking into anything. I do think it more likely though that Annie led him through to the back, because she knew the property and had been inside before. There are a couple of newspaper reports that indicate that Annie used to sell her crochet work at the house, and that the homeless used to use the passage to sleep in, so that's got some support.

With Mary, I think it more likely that she either just let her killer in, or fell asleep and forgot to lock the door in her drunken stupor and he simply walked in. Of course he could have seen her use or know of the window trick, but he must have been pretty certain that she was alone, or out like a light before he attempted to break in.

If the farthing dip candle was still alight at the time, (and I've spent hours trying to work out how long that candle was alight for that night!) then he might have been able to see in - if not, I don't think much of his chances of seeing anything inside that room. He must have known she was in there alone and asleep.

Incidentally, there was a gas lamp alight right outside Mary's door until 3 am, so if he did break in, then I think that it would likely have been after it was put out. I wouldn't fancy breaking in with a spotlight on me.

All in all though, although he may have been an opportunistic killer and just picked victims at random when he saw a likely candidate, I do think that in most of the cases he did have some interaction with the victim before he killed them.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Rubyretro]

There would be alot more risk attached in jumping someone from the shadows , Chava..

Imagine that you were approached -let alone jumped -by a man whilst having a quiet piss..?

There would be a strong chance that you would scream or call out if you got an inkling that someone was stealthily approaching in the dark

Much less risk in getting the women to unwittingly collude in going somewhere hidden and dark with you, with a false sense of security, I'd say..

[Rubyretro]

As an afterthought, I should add that in the police dragnet immediately following the Double Event the Ripper did pour on the stealth practically to the level of a ninja in how he avoided capture, but I feel that would not have been his method in approaching his victims.

I would be surprised if he had to sneak about to avoid the 'drag net'.

It takes about 15 -20 minutes to get to Mitre Square from Berner Street, and he could just stroll there, looking like everyone else on the street. If he went back to his lodgings via Goulston Street (and we all know that I think that he lodged in the Victoria Home), as soon as he got within the immediate vicinity of his lodgings, then he might become a well known face in the area and just stop and chat to people he knew. If he often worked away from the area, he
could just leave the area, as he would normally do, and not even be there when the Police checked the Lodging Houses.

Why would he need to be a 'ninja' to avoid capture ? He could just carry on as normal. As I've said before, without CCT cameras to capture someone at at a specific point of time and place, and given that you can move between places in a very short timespan, it can't have been that difficult to fade into the background.

[Chava]

It has always been my strong impression that the Ripper did approach his victims pretending to be a client, and walked and talked with them for a time prior to attacking them, rather than stalking them and then pouncing like a leopard. And I think the witness descriptions in the cases of Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes of the men they were with are similar enough considering the conditions- a man not too young and not too old in a dark overcoat and a peaked cap- that they most likely all refer to the same man who was wearing the same general outfit in at least those three cases. If any of the witnesses in the Kelly case saw the killer then he was wearing something different that night (and if he was Astrakan Man, VERY different) but basically I don't think Jack was a skulking prowler but instead someone who blended into the Whitechapel night life.

You're right, and I've recently thought that the descriptions could have matched Blotchy-Face, who is my main 'named' candidate. However we don't know how those women were approached and that was my point in the starter post. We've always assumed that the Ripper approached his victims as a trick, or maybe even as a friendly face. He could have known and done business with all of them. There are certainly enough precedents for that including the Ipswich killer who was done for killing 5 women a few years ago. All of his victims had had prior safe dealings with him.

However we only assume this. We don't know for sure. It's possible he ambushed them, and there is nothing in the files to prove otherwise. I was simply pointing out that Chapman, for example, could have gone up that yard by herself and been followed. Likewise the others. Stride could have gone into Dutfields Yard for a quiet piss. Nicholls was in Bucks Row which may well have been deserted at the time. Eddowes was found in Mitre Square beside a warehouse I believe, and again, could have been jumped from the shadows. An attacker who does this does not risk being seen with the woman ahead of time.

[kensei]

As an afterthought, I should add that in the police dragnet immediately following the Double Event the Ripper did pour on the stealth practically to the level of a ninja in how he avoided capture, but I feel that would not have been his method in approaching his victims.

[Rubyretro]

I think that jack just blended in, rather than creeping around.

It brought it home to me watching the film of Petticoat Lane 1903 on another
Thread http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...7FSg&vq=medium
just how impossible it would be to pick out a man glimpsed fleetingly in the dark, from another East End man.

[kensei]

[QUOTE=Chava;152831]

He could have picked them up in the normal way and chatted for a while. Or he could have simply followed them until they arrived at a quiet and private enough area and jumped them.

QUOTE]

It has always been my strong impression that the Ripper did approach his victims pretending to be a client, and walked and talked with them for a time prior to attacking them, rather than stalking them and then pouncing like a leopard. And I think the witness descriptions in the cases of Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes of the men they were with are similar enough considering the conditions- a man not too young and not too old in a dark overcoat and a peaked cap- that they most likely all refer to the same man who was wearing the same general outfit in at least those three cases. If any of the witnesses in the Kelly case saw the killer then he was wearing something different that night (and if he was Astrakan Man, VERY different) but basically I don't think Jack was a skulking prowler but instead someone who blended into the Whitechapel night life.