Not 'Why "Unfortunates" ' but why not others?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

We all know that the killer(s) attacked the poorest of the poor streetwalking women, and there have been varying reasons proposed for why exactly this type of victim, including how easy it was to prey on this type of woman.

It occured to me that other, not so downtrodden, lived and walked around and amongst these poor women, even late at night. They drank in the same pubs, ate food bought from the same shops and walked along the same streets. Some may even have worked in those same pubs.

There were nurses (all single in those days) walking the streets late at night going home from the London Hospital after work to their digs, and some factory workers too no doubt, shop workers too.

Given the multitude of possible victims, the question I ask then is not 'why "unfortunates" but why not others? Other people got drunk too. Other people walked home. So why not them?
It isn't easy to answer it without reversing the answer into reasons FOR unfortunates.

What it does do is tell me that the killer(s) actually chose NOT to attack other types of women.

Best wishes

Phil

[waterloo]

Hello Phil,

To my mind one of the best questions to be asked. There appears to be a simple but very important answer and that is the JTR was very close to his victims. Living amongst them for sufficient periods of time to be able to ascertain who was an unfortunate. To say he new his victims would probably be a step too far for most but he certainly new the difference between a factory worker and an 'unfortunate'. I personaly think jack new his victims.

Regards

Waterloo

[kensei]

Seems to me to bolster the idea that Jack always approached his victims as a potential client rather than attacking them without talking to them first. He wouldn't have to "know them" in advance I don't think in the sense of seeing them around for long enough to know that they were prostitutes, although that is possible. He could just pick likely looking victims at random and make them an offer. Any answers of "Sorry mate, that's not my game" insured the woman would make it home safely, and that probably happened many times.

[S.Brett]

In my opinion Jack the Ripper was a man suffering from hallucinations. He must have been sick. Seriously ill from a dangerous mental disease. The commanding to kill prostitutes was caused from voices in his head.

[jason_c]

The most likely(but not only) explanation is that unfortunates were easier to attack in undisturbed locations. A nurse walking home wouldnt enter the back yard of Hanbury Street, the darkest corner of Mitre Square or inside Dutfield's Yard.

[lynn cates]

Ducking the issue.

Hello Phil. Interesting question.

From what I can gather, IF a lady was killed, she was automatically labeled an "unfortunate." The reason? Well, she was out late at night and may have talked to a man. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Phil

We can extend the list of people at risk to include the sick, the elderly, children and animals. I don't remember hearing of a spate of attacks on these groups, though the animals may simply have gone unreported. So I thnk Jack targeted specifically women. That need not mean, of course, that his motives were sexual.

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil,

I think Lynn hints at what I'm thinking myself on this. The prevailing attitude in the LVP was strictly hierarchical. It was an "honour and shame" mindset. Some people were worth more than others and "unfortunates" were at the bottom of the heap. They had brought shame upon themselves and their lives were seen as inconsequential. I am not, for one moment, arguing that the police weren't interested in bringing the offender to book, but there may well have been that perception in the mind of the killer.

Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Interesting and differing replies so far- thank you all for taking the time to answer.

As regards nurses, they would be living relatively near the immediate area, but obviously in a better class of accomodation. However, nurses starting their shifts in the early hours of the morning, unless living in accomodation within the hospital itself, would be at risk in the dark.

Robert brought up a good point in that there are no reports of any other types of attacks on other members of society, and this indicates either the attraction to or knowledge of, the lowest dregs of womanhood in the area. What interests me however, is the 'other' women. The women who went to the pubs in the area that were NOT in need of 'streetwalking' to obtain money for a bed for the night. They may well have been both drunk and alone walking back to their 'home' in the very same area. So why NOT them?

One can speculate that the killer(s) knew precisely that the most vunerable in the community were the easiest target- but in order to do this, the killer(s) would know the difference between the 'have and the have nots'.

The killer(s) therefore targeted specific types of female. It has been speculated (wrongly imho) that the victims may have known each other. But if we expand that thought to not WHO the victims were, but WHERE they tended to reside ( here I tentatively mention common lodging houses) then the killer(s) modus operandi becomes far clearer. 'streetwalking unfortunates' who tended to 'live' in well-known common lodging houses. The odd one out being the next rung up the ladder, her own hovel of a room, MJK.

In order to know the clientel to choose, the killer(s) would therefore know not necessarily who was who, but what 'group' belonged where. Now THAT isnt as easy as one would imagine.
It would take observation. Careful observation with eyes AND ears open, whilst remaining completely unsuspected by that group of people. They wouldn't, I suggest, be in fear of the 'killer(s) at all. Perhaps even trust them. That would be significant, I suggest, as ANY man who was in any way 'strange' 'odd looking' 'known violent' 'frightening' would be so NOT trustworthy that this group of women would know them well, and purposely avoid all contact if possible.

The killer(s) were deliberate in their choices it seems, because the killers KNEW they were safe from suspicion from that group of women. That is on one condition of course- that the killer(s) were that familiar with the subtle social differences living in the area.

Thoughts anyone?

Best wishes

Phil

[DGB]

As Jason mentioned, prostitutes were simply the easiest target.

There have been various theories as to why these women: were they involved in some sort of conspiracy, was Jack's mother a prostitute etc.

You see it time and time again: Peter Sutcliffe, Arthur Shawcross, Gary Ridgway. Men who want to kill usually kill women, the easiest women to approach, isolate and kill - without them being missed as quickly - are prostitutes.

It's a sad state of affairs but the fact is, if nurses, the elderly, children were targeted they wouldn't have been as easy to isolate in dark, quiet places. They would also have been missed much mre quickly.

[Robert]

One thing about prostitutes, as compared with other women, is that they did some of the work for Jack - they took him to a secluded spot, and thus gave him the maximum chance of getting away with it.

They would also have identified themselves to him. I don't think Jack had to walk around looking for a prostitute, asking women if they were 'for hire' - the women would have propositioned him. All he had to do was walk around long enough, have his fourpence ready to show them, and be prepared to call off a job if he didn't like the look of the venue that the prostitute led him to.

[K-453]

Maybe only the poorest of the poor were desperate enough to accost a grumpy looking man who was walking around in Whitechapel at three in the morning.

[bolo]

Hi Phil, all,

the simplest answer seems to be that the murderer was an East End local (or at least had superior knowledge of the area) who was out to kill and mutilate women. He selected his victims from a class of women who were out on the streets at his preferred time, easy to accost and willing to lead or follow him to a dark spot without making a fuss.

Having said that, I still ponder on the question wether the victim type is a viable starting point for an assessment of the murderer's motive or mindset. I think it is relatively safe to say that his victims had to be female but that's about it. I am unsure if it is valid to add "...and (casual or full-time) prostitutes" here. What do you think?

Regards,

Boris

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil, all,

the simplest answer seems to be that the murderer was an East End local (or at least had superior knowledge of the area) who was out to kill and mutilate women. He selected his victims from a class of women who were out on the streets at his preferred time, easy to accost and willing to lead or follow him to a dark spot without making a fuss.

Having said that, I still ponder on the question wether the victim type is a viable starting point for an assessment of the murderer's motive or mindset. I think it is relatively safe to say that his victims had to be female but that's about it. I am unsure if it is valid to add "...and (casual or full-time) prostitutes" here. What do you think?

Regards,

Boris

Hello Boris,

This is partly the angle I was getting at.
There is a subtle difference in the victims themselves.
It seems, for example, that Eddowes would not be 'classed' as a prostitute in the sense the others may have been (Chapman, Nichols). She had a regular boyfriend in Jokn Kelly, and up until very near to her murder, so did Kelly. Stride falls between the first two and the last two in this respect,

best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

I feel that even if his motivation was to punish or get revenge on prostitutes, he wouldn't have been too choosy. To a woman-hater, all women are prostitutes.