Soliciting or night attack.

[Chava]

I'd disagree. All we know about what Sutcliffe did with his victims before he killed them comes from Sutcliffe himself. I agree that he wasn't only a killer of prostitutes, however the first four women he killed were prostitutes and of the first nine victims, only one wasn't. I believe Sutcliffe killed women, and chose women who were the most vulnerable to him. There is no reason to believe that the Ripper was any different. You can't say that, just because he killed prostitutes, that prostitutes were the only women he would have killed. That's why I asked about 'straight' women murders in and around this time.

[Sox]

Sutcliffe varied his attack methods though, some were blitz attacks, and during others he conversed with his victim. I would contest that Sutcliffe was a killer of prostitutes to be honest, I think that was something he concocted so that he could justify his actions to himself.

William Suff is most likely closer to our killer.

[Chava]

Well there is no doubt whatsoever that, at the height of the Yorkshire Ripper terror, prostitutes were working in all the areas where prostitutes were killed despite the fact that the police begged them to move indoors if they could. If those women worked during that time then it makes sense that the women of Whitechapel did as well. And Sutcliffe started out by murdering prostitutes but ended up murdering at least three 'straight' women as well. Have murders of straight women ever been considered as part of the Ripper series?

On another topic, I checked Lewis's original statement via the invaluable Handbook. She does not mention a drunken couple in her police statement or in the inquest statement. However she does describe a young man and a woman walking in Dorset Street as she went into Millers Court. It does not sound like this couple went into the court, so as far as I'm concerned that is another nail in Kudzu's coffin.

[Hunter]

Though I would like to comment on the previous threads, I will try to keep this post on topic. The other discussion may warrent its own thread.

Garry,

Your point about Bundy is valid and I stand corrected. Indeed, a serial killer can change his MO, as Bundy did. If I am to believe that a single murderer was responsible for the C5- and I would probably add Tabram to that list- I would have to accept the obvious deviations in the way these women were dispatched and their post mortem injuries. We are fortunate, in analyzing Bundy's behavior, that he was caught and interviewed. Of course we don't have that with JTR. All that we do know is that these women were killed without an apparent motive; the murders were sudden and furious and that they were either full or part time prostitutes. I believe there was a reason that he chose prostitutes and that reason has previously been stated. As far as I know, Bundy didn't kill this type of woman. But, some other serial killers did choose protitutes and I would be curious if there is evidence that their killers stalked and subsequently attacked their victims as opposed to using the inherant vulnerability of these women-i.e- seeking customers- to locate and murder them.

Since we don't know anything about the Whitchapel murderer, we can only present theories about his behavior. Any one could be possible, for sure. I have only tried to propose what, to me, is probable. Even at the peak of the Ripper scare these women were still plying their trade. We can correctly assume that Mary was as well.

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

Let's place that quotation in its proper context. OK?

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

… these two being, of course, contradictory; but each being a 'Ripperological' convention, in its own right.

Either way; …

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

…

I would, if I felt that way inclined, point you towards the numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution. But since you are so adamant that there are none, I must have dreamt the whole thing.

How does, 'get off your arse and find out' sound?

Please! Please educate me!

Please "get off your arse", and point me toward one of the "numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution" that will provide me specifically with this 'intelligence' …

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

I'll bet you can't! Actually, … I know you can't!

Another one for the ignore list methinks.

I would have thought that I was already on your ignore list!

I recently addressed a mistake that you had made, while discussing Emma Smith, …

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

... but you ignored me; and then proceeded to address David (i.e. DVV), by stating that he was being "utterly" ignorant.

You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area on December 8th 1887, …

I then addressed your mistake, once more; …

You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area on December 8th 1887, and that she even lodged in the same place as Smith, and that she was so badly injured she spent over two weeks in hospital. You also ignore the fact that Hames was attacked again, on the same night as Smith, by two men, a mere thirty minutes or so before the assault on Emma Smith.....and no PC reported that either.

"You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area …" (my emphasis)

Again; …

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

"two miles"

As David has just stated …

YOU ignore the fact that it didn't happen in Whitechapel.

"… didn't happen in Whitechapel."

That being the two attacks reported by Margaret Hames.

… but when there came no reply, I thought that perhaps you had put me on your 'ignore' list.

What's that? You didn't have the courage to publicly acknowledge your mistake? I see!

[Sox]

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

I would, if I felt that way inclined, point you towards the numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution. But since you are so adamant that there are none, I must have dreamt the whole thing.

How does, 'get off your arse and find out' sound? Another one for the ignore list methinks.

Maybe I am one who has bought into some worthless "Rpperologists" myths, …

I described each of the following assertions …

The price of a trick was roughly the same as a large glass of gin--3 or 4d.

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

So a fair assumption is that they did the deal, and then led the client to a place of their own choosing.

The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

as …

... 'Ripperological' conventions, for which there is no historical basis: ...

Not as "myths"!

It is distinctly possible that each one of these assertions (excepting either one of the two, which are contradictory) is accurate. Therefore, they cannot possibly qualify as "myths"!

What is, in fact, mythical; is the notion that we know anything at all about the manners, in which Victorian 'dollymops' 'TYPICALLY' conducted themselves.

Maybe I know nothing about the behaviors of Prostitutes in the East End in 1888.

You don't!

Neither do I!

Neither does anyone else who posts to these boards; and neither do the likes of Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg and Martin Fido!

Consider this, If any witnesses are to be believed, Polly Nichols was last seen walking in the direction of Buck's Row. Annie Chapman was seen outside No. 29 Hanbury St. Liz Stride was seen by PC Smith outside Dutfields Yard. Kate Eddowes was seen at the entrance to Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. Mary Kelly was seen in and out of 13 Miller's Court. All of these women's bodies were found not far from the last place they were seen alive. With the exception of Nichols, they were seen talking to men. If the killer was the one who chose the location to kill, and not the woman choosing the place to do business, his good fortune went far beyond his ability to evade the police.

He was really fortunate on the night of the double murder- to take two women to his chosen spot within 45 minutes.

I truly do not understand the point that you are trying to convey.

Oh ! that's right though, scratch that last comment because he didn't kill Stride anyway. I let that old "Ripperologist " myth slip out.

I don't recall having ever suggested that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by someone other than 'Jack the Ripper'. Considering my inclination to believe that she and Catherine Eddowes were indeed murdered by the same person, …, I seriously doubt that I ever …

[Hunter]

All right. Maybe I am one who has bought into some worthless "Rpperologists" myths, passed down to their heirs like the canonized books of the Bible. Maybe I know nothing about the behaviors of Prostitutes in the East End in 1888.

Consider this, If any witnesses are to be believed, Polly Nichols was last seen walking in the direction of Buck's Row. Annie Chapman was seen outside No. 29 Hanbury St. Liz Stride was seen by PC Smith outside Dutfields Yard. Kate Eddowes was seen at the entrance to Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. Mary Kelly was seen in and out of 13 Miller's Court. All of these women's bodies were found not far from the last place they were seen alive. With the exception of Nichols, they were seen talking to men. If the killer was the one who chose the location to kill, and not the woman choosing the place to do business, his good fortune went far beyond his ability to evade the police.

He was really fortunate on the night of the double murder- to take two women to his chosen spot within 45 minutes. Oh ! that's right though, scratch that last comment because he didn't kill Stride anyway. I let that old "Ripperologist " myth slip out.



'

… The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

This is far from proven. It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations.

Indeed, it is! It is "equally possible", and perhaps somewhat probable that "the killer chose some if not all of the locations".

Why, after all, would we assume that 'Jack the Ripper' employed a 'hit-or-miss' strategy of waiting to see where each of his hopeful 'targets' led him, before knowing that the time was right, to carry out his 'mission'?

---------

I fail to understand our widely-spread adherence to certain 'Ripperological' conventions, for which there is no historical basis:

The price of a trick was roughly the same as a large glass of gin--3 or 4d.

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

… these two being, of course, contradictory; but each being a 'Ripperological' convention, in its own right.

Either way; …

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

So a fair assumption is that they did the deal, and then led the client to a place of their own choosing.

And again, …

The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

Why do we presume to know these things? We might as well presume to know whether these women preferred to hang each of their blouses with the front facing the left of their closet, or the right; … or whether they preferred to unroll their toilet paper over the top / from the front, or instead down the bottom / from behind!

There is no historical basis for any of the aforementioned tidbits of 'Ripperological' conventional wisdom: None, whatsoever!

It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations.

… both a prostitute and a prostitutes' killer need the same kind of spots.

Again; …

Are we to assume that 'Jack the Ripper' employed a 'hit-or-miss' strategy of waiting to see where each of his hopeful 'targets' led him, before knowing that the time was right, to carry out his 'mission'?

I mean they could easily share the same knowledge regarding dark alleys and corners, etc.

Why should 'Jack the Ripper' have been any less familiar with Buck's Row, than was Polly Nichols; … any less familiar with the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, than was Annie Chapman; … etc …?

[Garry Wroe]

Just to endorse one of Ben’s earlier observations, I would point out that Bundy’s final victim was a twelve-year-old girl who was killed and disposed of, then revisited and subjected to fresh indignities. Bundy not only decapitated her, but used the severed head to facilitate fellatio.

Unlike clockwork toys, the sadosexual serialist’s motivations and behaviours evolve over time. Techniques are adapted and refined, sometimes for practical purposes, but often simply to elevate the excitement of the killing experience. Some posters have questioned the logic of the notion that the Whitechapel Murderer might have stalked Mary Kelly, entered her room uninvited, then commenced the attack as she slept. I would suggest that those posters familiarise themselves with the case of Jose Marcelino, a Mexican serialist for whom killing simply wasn’t enough. He required the additional frisson of physical and psychological torture, and delighted in instilling terror in his victims as he described in graphic detail what was about to unfold. For other serialists, it is the act of stalking that really excites them. Some have even intimated that, when compared to the thrill of shadowing of a victim, killing came as something of an anticlimax.

Jack the Ripper was neither a clockwork toy nor a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out. His killing episodes were enactments of a deep-seated fantasy that was not only years in the making, but subject to refinement as the killing episodes progressed. It is only when this element of his psychopathology is understood, I would suggest, that one can begin to make informed judgements as to his motivations and behaviour relating to the death of Mary Kelly.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations.
Ben

Hi Ben,

yes, it's possible.

In fact, both a prostitute and a prostitutes' killer need the same kind of spots.
I mean they could easily share the same knowledge regarding dark alleys and corners, etc.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

That is correct. But the pattern of the Whitechapel murders was different. The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

This is far from proven. It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations. Time and again, we learn that serial killers revise their strategy to suit new circumstances. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, that "new circumstance" could easily have been an increased police and vigilante committee presence on the streets, thus prompting him to be more selective in his type of victim and seek an indoor target. If he was capable of revising the location type, he was certainly capable of altering his pre-crime approach. Bear in mind that some theorists wish to exclude Kelly as a ripper victim based on the difference in location. This is argued against, quite rightly, because the "difference" is not sufficient to surmount the many similarities with the earlier crimes. I suggest we should make similar allowances for the possibility of another minor "difference".

We can assume that Bundy only had an intention to kill because his method varied between victims. With the exception of Stride- and that is a whole 'nother thread- JTR was intent on mutilation to suite his purpose; otherwise, he would have cut their throats and walked away.

Bundy did a good deal more than simply cut his victims' throats and walk away. He engaged in mutilation, evisceration, theft of body parts and even decapitiation. He clearly shared Jack's preoccupation with post-mortem activity, and yet he proved more than capable of altering his victim approach to suit the circumstances and location.

Mrs. Prater lived alone. Why didn't he choose her?

Any number of reasons. Her room wasn't as conveniently located as Kelly's, which would have been the first room upon entering the passage, or she may have had company. As for speculation, there is really no more it required then there is for the premise that she emerged from her room after 1:30 and procured a killer client. They're both highly plausible explanations.

That her killer stalked her, and then waited until he knew she was alone before going to her room, is one of them....but why bother?

Because a sleeping victim is easier to dispatch that a victim who is up and about, and/or because he considered it too dangerous at that stage to carry out his "usual" approach to the letter, especially given widespread awareness that this was exactly how he procured his victims.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sox]

In the end, I'm all for speculation, especially when there's evidence that's wanting, but I don't want to overlook the obvious.

Amen to that.

There are, of course, many possibles in the case of Mary Kelly. That her killer stalked her, and then waited until he knew she was alone before going to her room, is one of them....but why bother?

Mary Kelly was a prostitute, to gain access to her room, all he had to do was show her the money.

[Hunter]

Hi Ben,

Again, you make some good points. Please forgive me if I itemize your points individually as they usually should be taken as a whole.

None of the serial killers who stalked their victims needed to resort to that strategy. They could have launched a blitz attack or adopted a false guise, but they chose to stalk some of their victims because they felt it afforded them a better opportunity to pull off an efficient crime. It makes particular sense for indoor crime scenes as it offers the offender the opportunity to attack a sleeping victim.

That is correct. But the pattern of the Whitechapel murders was different. The women led their killer to the place they were killed. It is logical to assume that Kelly was no different since she fit the pattern of previous victims.

We cannot state that Bundy only had an intention to kill anymore than we can assert that JTR was only interested in post-mortem mutilations. If the increased awareness of the presence of a serial killer on the streets on East London prompted the killer to revise his methods through fear of capture, it isn't at all difficult to envisage him diverting from his pre-crime approach to suit the new circumstances and location.

We can assume that Bundy only had an intention to kill because his method varied between victims. With the exception of Stride- and that is a whole 'nother thread- JTR was intent on mutilation to suite his purpose; otherwise, he would have cut their throats and walked away.

You talk about the "enlightened awareness of the potential victims, as well as the police", but these are precisely the sort of factors that could have influenced a change of tactics of the order that we encounter time and again when studying serial killers. And no, incidentally, he was very unlikely to have been in a position to know how many women were living alone and where, and single women living in single accomodation would have been very hard to come by.

Mrs. Prater lived alone. Why didn't he choose her? He couldn't have known that she had barricaded her door any more than he could have known whether Mary had secured the spring latch to her door. He chose prostitutes because they chose him- saved him alot of trouble... kinda like why married men choose prostitutes over having an affair- saves them alot of trouble- in a different way, of course.

In the end, I'm all for speculation, especially when there's evidence that's wanting, but I don't want to overlook the obvious.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

He didn't have to stalk them. He didn't have to stake them out. If he chose to go to that trouble, he could have picked any woman living alone

None of the serial killers who stalked their victims needed to resort to that strategy. They could have launched a blitz attack or adopted a false guise, but they chose to stalk some of their victims because they felt it afforded them a better opportunity to pull off an efficient crime. It makes particular sense for indoor crime scenes as it offers the offender the opportunity to attack a sleeping victim. We cannot state that Bundy only had an intention to kill anymore than we can assert that JTR was only interested in post-mortem mutilations. If the increased awareness of the presence of a serial killer on the streets on East London prompted the killer to revise his methods through fear of capture, it isn't at all difficult to envisage him diverting from his pre-crime approach to suit the new circumstances and location.

You talk about the "enlightened awareness of the potential victims, as well as the police", but these are precisely the sort of factors that could have influenced a change of tactics of the order that we encounter time and again when studying serial killers. And no, incidentally, he was very unlikely to have been in a position to know how many women were living alone and where, and single women living in single accomodation would have been very hard to come by.

Best regards,
Ben