Did the 5 canonical victims know each other?

[Sam Flynn]

One thing I learned in childhood-lot of puzzles are easy to solve backwards.

This is no childish puzzle. It's an historic series of events that took place in the real world, a world which - like it or not - is governed by certain physical and mathematical constraints.

Abstract thought coupled with constructive reasoning are amazing tools.
You seem to lack both

Lateral thinking is one thing, simply conjuring up bollocks and then reading, or distorting, the evidence to suit your agenda is quite another.

The latter is not constructive reasoning. It's the adult equivalent of a child smearing its own faeces over the nursery wall and squealing with delight as it does so.

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Wikipedia tells me 121,000 spread over a surface area of 15 square miles, or 8 persons per square mile. Contrast that with Spitalfields, whose population of circa 20,000 was crammed into an area of roughly 1.5 square miles - that's 13,000 people per square mile, or a population density 1,600 times greater than modern-day Ipswich.Because they were a small number of professional women, regularly working the same confined "strip", at specific times of day in a well-lit modern-day town. The casual unfortunates of Spitalfields were numerous, worked sporadically, at all hours, wandering the streets until they found someone to sponge off in one form or another, and did so in semi-darkness.

This is another reason why using the term "prostitutes" to describe the unfortunates of Spitalfields is misleading. Conditions were unimaginably different back then. The good news is that you don't need your imagination to begin to understand how different it must have been - you can "do the math", as they say.

Your Eminence,
Your "math" is pathetic,
Dave.
PS.Seems to be a long standing trend.

[Sam Flynn]

We do know though Sam that some of the Canonical Group were known to frequent locations or areas to solicit

We don't though, Mike. The only "reliable" information we have on that point is about Kelly - with her "beat" down at Leman Street/Commercial Road, whatever. Unless I've missed something, we have no such information about where the others hung out - if, as "unfortunates", they had any particular "hangouts" at all.

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Well, they would, wouldn't they - if you're working backwards from a preconception. That's not the proper way to go about things.

Your Eminence,
One thing I learned in childhood-lot of puzzles are easy to solve backwards.
Abstract thought coupled with constructive reasoning are amazing tools.
You seem to lack both,
Dave.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, what's the population of Ipswich?

Wikipedia tells me 121,000 spread over a surface area of 15 square miles, or 8 persons per square mile. Contrast that with Spitalfields, whose population of circa 20,000 was crammed into an area of roughly 1.5 square miles - that's 13,000 people per square mile, or a population density 1,600 times greater than modern-day Ipswich.

Then divide that by the number of streetwalkers, 'unfortunates' if you like, and then tell me how in the recent murders of five 'unfortunates' they were all known to one another?

Because they were a small number of professional women, regularly working the same confined "strip", at specific times of day in a well-lit modern-day town. The casual unfortunates of Spitalfields were numerous, worked sporadically, at all hours, wandering the streets until they found someone to sponge off in one form or another, and did so in semi-darkness.

This is another reason why using the term "prostitutes" to describe the unfortunates of Spitalfields is misleading. Conditions were unimaginably different back then. The good news is that you don't need your imagination to begin to understand how different it must have been - you can "do the math", as they say.

[Sam Flynn]

Put the "odds" away for the moment.
Consider the idea that these five women knew each other.
Things then fall into place.

Well, they would, wouldn't they - if you're working backwards from a preconception. That's not the proper way to go about things.

[anna]

My Hyde...

Exactly!

ANNA.

[Malcolm X]

Put the "odds" away for the moment.
Consider the idea that these five women knew each other.
Things then fall into place.

you have a point, because everything falls into place if you believe it's the occult too................the Ripper seems to fit so many theories

[Mr.Hyde]

Put the "odds" away for the moment.
Consider the idea that these five women knew each other.
Things then fall into place.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, what's the population of Ipswich?
Then divide that by the number of streetwalkers, 'unfortunates' if you like, and then tell me how in the recent murders of five 'unfortunates' they were all known to one another?
But we would not have known that if the police had not caught Wright for the murders.
It was only through Wright that the fact emerged that the victims were all known to one another.
As the Whitechapel Murders remain unsolved it is entirely possible that our reluctance to link the victims through familiarity is based on the lack of a viable killer.
So get the killer and then get the link that binds the victims.
It is also worth pointing out that the victims in the Ipswich murders were in exactly the same position as the victims of the Whitechapel Murders, as streetwalkers in search of substance... just the substance was different, but the victims in both crimes are identical.

We do know though Sam that some of the Canonical Group were known to frequent locations or areas to solicit, which in and of itself suggests that they would see some people in that area semi frequently.

As you pointed out once on here, Dock workers are the single largest occupational category at that time for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases in local clinics. When they left work, they likely walked in all directions North from the Waterfront, most, probably using the same route home.

A whore might place herself at a station along a route such men might travel..thereby enhancing the chances that she would see the same people often.

I think it would be a mistake to imagine that the bulk of the men they serviced they did so only once. Likely many had "regulars."...sometimes like our pensioner story.

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I realize that the numbers are large Sam, but when you have a culture that involves some of the people within it being out on the streets 24 hours a day...

... they'd be mixing with up to 20,000 others in the same boat, Mike.

the possibility that they served some of the same clients, in the same areas.

This is another example of how the "prostitute" notion kicks our logic in the nuts. We're not talking about regular clients or regular beats - we're talking about "fourpence a grope" for any drunkard desperate enough, on those occasions when an "unfortunate" was short of the price of a bed or a glass of rum. It's not as if most of these women's appearance lent itself to "call-again" customers, either - there were younger women, comparatively less ravaged by time and place, to cater for those.

I realize that the numbers are large Sam, but when you have a culture that involves some of the people within it being out on the streets 24 hours a day...and in these cases, perhaps regularly out all night, common "employment", common fondness for drink, the possibility that they served some of the same clients, in the same areas.

If we were talking about a modern city core, with the monied tenants living in high rises, you hardly ever see them as foot traffic in that same area. They use elevators, and underground garages, and shop in shopping areas perhaps outside the immediate area where they live.

In 1888, in Whitechapel, the streets are full daily....all the local residents had to exit their domiciles and seek or attend work locally. Similarly at night, when the women who had to solicit or chose to solicit came out...thats a different socio economic group than the working poor, but no less a society unto itself.

I would think just like a man or woman might see someone a few times a week when off to work, or at the train, these women might have encountered each other when their world took to the streets, after dark.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Threadwise though, I do think for at least 4 of these women, it would be a safe guess that at some point some might have encountered each other....being as their circumstances were the same, and we are talking about less than a square mile of land....

... in which twenty thousand other people lived - and that's just Spitalfields. That doesn't include Poplar and St George's East where Stride had spent most of her time. The victims might have breezed past one another on a fairly frequent basis, but when they did so, they'd have done so in a crowd. The chances of them knowing one another on a "sight-only" basis would therefore be comparatively low in itself, and the chances of their being personally acquainted is vanishingly small.

It seems to me Sam that the booze problem for many of them wasnt always escapism, or forgetting their woes...but a legitimate way to stave off the cold on some nights as well. Ive enjoyed some scotch in the wine sack while skiing before, for the same reason.

It seems that "drunk" and "prostitute" come up lots in these threads, and I tried to address that recently in a thread of my own.

Threadwise though, I do think for at least 4 of these women, it would be a safe guess that at some point some might have encountered each other....being as their circumstances were the same, and we are talking about less than a square mile of land.

Best regards