Rather than derail the "Recognition" thread, I thought it appropriate to start another on the reason why a motley collection of unfortunates were persuaded to allow a man to take them to one side and quietly assassinate them. These women may have been down on their luck but they were not stupid. They were middle-aged, savvy, streetwise women who, by the very nature of their 'work', had probably all survived violent encounters of one sort or another. Yet someone, somehow (even at the height of the Ripper scare), persuaded them to lower their guard to such an extent that they went with him willingly and placed themselves in circumstances where he was able to achieve his ghastly aims with little or no resistance.
Suggestions invited as to what sort of man would have been able to do this. Perhaps someone who was familiar to all of them. I'm suggesting (with no suspect in mind) someone like Steve Wright, the so-called "Ipswich Ripper" who used the services of the local prostitutes over a period of time and so gained their trust. My view is that, if there was a single "Jack the Ripper" entity, he was such a man - a regular - a man who had been a safe customer in the past and in whose company they therefore presumed, fatally, that they were completely safe.
interesting and quite possible.
i tried to do an exercise of locating on a map the place of residence of the victims at the time of their deaths. I even included, for fiction purposes, some other unfortunates murdered. I'm not certain the map would be reliable, and I'm sure someone made a better one before, but it looks like they were all located in the same 500 meters radius. I like to think Jack was from there too, and a stalker.
only Eddowes doesn't fit the pattern.
Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy Lee
"They were middle-aged, savvy, streetwise women who, by the very nature of their 'work', had probably all survived violent encounters of one sort or another. Yet someone, somehow (even at the height of the Ripper scare), persuaded them to lower their guard to such an extent that they went with him willingly and placed themselves in circumstances where he was able to achieve his ghastly aims with little or no resistance. "
My opinion.They got used to a routine for years and why would that night be different?
Plus they did not have money for doss and booze,they need to drink, right there and then - possibly a strong need,they had no other alternative to make money,and that situation could easily make people stupid and gullible.
Do you have a specific named distillery carman in mind?
Apologies for a very late reply to this. Kind of! In the 1881 census there are 2 butchers (half brothers) listed as living at 3, Buckle Street. The younger of the two, Joseph William Haines having been then 21 years of age (so 28 in 1888). Haines had moved up to Finsbury Park by 1888 and was working as a distillery carman, but his brother was still on Buckle Street. Haines eventually succumbed to cirrhosis of the liver and so may well have had problems with alcoholism. He had trained as a butcher but wouldn't have been on the police radar as one in 1888. There is no evidence whatever to link him the the murders, but it wouldn't surprise me if the killer turned out to be someone from this kind of background.
Kate had got drunk on the pawned boot money so when she had sobered up went to find a trick to see if she could get some more money or Kelly would have given her a beating, seems the most likely explanation.
Kelly may have had a room, but she had no money since Joe left, being a prostitute was her choice. I believe the ripper was a local, probably known to some of them, or just seen around, no one out of the ordinary. There was so much speculation in the papers about the identity of the ripper being a foreigner that it is possible that they felt safer with a local.
Also when your desperate you are acting on impulse, rather than worrying about the remote chance of meeting a murderer. The murder rate in the East End was very low.