JTR - Cunning, Careful, or Lucky?

[D.B.Wagstaff]

I'm interested in hearing opinions more learned than mine. Was Jack particularly cunning - that is, capable of hiding himself or going unnoticed, careful - that is, carefully planning his methods of killing, or just plain lucky in getting away with his crimes. Or some combination of any/all?

Personally, I see Jack as one who waited in the shadows unnoticed, so to speak, for the right opportunity, then striking quickly. I don't think Jack really planned the murders, but learned to improve his tactics with each kill. I also think he may have had a bit of luck on his side - he may have barely gotten away in the nick of time on at least a couple of occasions.

I also tend to think he is none of the usual suspects, and probably none of the individuals observed and described by witnesses, at least not more than once.

Could Jack have used disguises to change his appearance, and if so, could he have been an actor?

[Ginger]

Personally, I see Jack as one who waited in the shadows unnoticed, so to speak, for the right opportunity, then striking quickly.

In the case of Annie Chapman, at least, I think there had to be at least some planning and advance intent to be able to get her into the backyard. That applies to Mary Kelly as well.

[GUT]

G'Day D.B.

A bit of all three.

[GUT]

Though I'm not sure that there is a difference between cunning and crafty.

[Boggles]

Hi I can tell you what i think

Was Jack particularly cunning - that is, capable of hiding himself or going unnoticed, careful

He most likely fitted into the local environment, that is to say - he did not appear unusual. Even though these women were in desperate circumstances everyone knew there was a manic on the loose and so they would have been cautious, more so with the last three.
While he must have had some knowledge of the locality, the women helped him by leading him to areas where they were vulnerable. He was a man who would regularly use prostitutes, and it is quite possible that it was not the victims first encounter with Jack.

I also think he may have had a bit of luck on his side

Most certainly. I believe that he was seen by several people. In one instance (Stride) someone actually stumbled on him as he was in the act of murder. Another occasion (Chapman) someone was standing a few yards away while he was killing.
This is someone who is disorganised, impulsive, with a his hatred and fetish fuelled by drugs & alchohol. It is not someone who is a criminal mastermind.

[Barnaby]

Cunning, I used to think so but really how much intelligence / social manipulation does it take to target a vulnerable population who unwittingly participate in their own demise? I suppose he was cunning enough to hide his knife.

Lucky, a bit but the odds were on his side. Still, he always ran the risk of being caught in the act.

I don't see any evidence of him being careful. If these murders represent Jack taking precautions against being caught, I'd hate to see what he'd do free from such worry!

[Sunbury]

I don't think he was crafty or cunning, more opportunistic. Each victim would have taken him somewhere quiet to have sex. Somewhere close by they knew to be safe from prying eyes and the police.

[RockySullivan]

Careful

In my opinion I think the Ripper planned out the murders. To me it seems like he stalked out a victim, perhaps someone from a local pub and he likely used their services. I think he scouted out a particular spot and studied the police beats. It's possible the girls introduced him to the killing sites but i think for him to feel safe, and have a route away in which he maybe he wouldnt be seen. The Ripper knew these streets and these spots possibly from growing up in the area? He could have asked the girls to meet him but he runs the risk of them telling anyone.
He would also have to know the police beats, and I think because he knew them he felt comfortable and planned his attacks down to the minute. He knew what his window was so he could have studied the police beats or he had access to a profession that allowed him to know. On the night of the double event the beats had been changed, correct? So he very likely was privy to this information and knew the updated beats. He could have planned the double event by asking both girls to meet him.
I just dont these as victims of chance, especially when you figure in Kelly. No one is brazen enough to commit these attacks without carefully planning. And everything about the Ripper leads me to believe these attacks were verry well planned.

As for how the ripper got the girl to comply without at much sign of a struggle or much noise...one drug has not been considered. Datura or its chemicals atropine, scopolomine, hysocamine, are used in South America as a kind of zombie powder. In india thieves use it my simply blowing a concentrate into a victims face, and the effects of the drug could lead to complete compliance and submission. Perhaps a sailor or traveler who had been to South America and obtained the drug maybe thru a shaman or someone involved in magic. I know this datura theory is unlikely..

[Penhalion]

I think JtR must have had quite a bit of cunning/street wisdom but not the type of intelligence we usually associate with fictional master criminals. A mix of this cunning and some luck would be enough for him to succeed in the circumstances already mentioned of the victim effectively leading her killer to the perfect spot to be murdered.

As for controlling the victims once he had them alone, my thoughts are that he approached from behind (undoubtedly the easiest way to engage in the act while standing up and who would lay down in those places??!!) and strangle the inebriated women which would pretty quickly render them unable to fight back in anyway. And if he was behind them, it would be difficult (not impossible) to effectively fight him off- inebriated and partially strangled does not allow you to be at your fighting best.

[Michael W Richards]

The idea of planning suggests an organized type of killer in the Canonical murders, but the available evidence in the Canonical deaths neither confirms or refutes that idea. Because it seems that both spontaneous and likely opportunistic crimes and ones that required some pre-planning are in that group.

1.Mary Ann: attacked and killed on an open ended street.
2.Annie: attacked and killed in a backyard with windows overlooking the murder scene and unfettered access to the backyard via the passage in the house.
3.Liz Stride: attacked and killed feet from the street, near a side door to the club that was ajar, and on the property of Socialists, of whom some 30 or more men were still in attendance.
4.Kate Eddowes: attacked and killed in a semi deserted square, with few tenants and in a spot with little visibility.
5.Mary Kelly: attacked and killed while in her own bed, undressed. Inside a small courtyard with a single entrance via an arched stone walkway some 20 feet in length.

Based only on the above it would seem probable that 1 was likely an opportunistic kill, 2 may include a killer leading his victim to an intended spot, so undecided, 3 was opportunistic, 4 may include a killer leading the victim to a intended spot,so undecided, and 5 was likely, to some extent, a planned event.

Careful not to leave traces of himself...for sure. Careful not to let his grip slip and the women scream for help...certainly. But I dont think he planned on the beat cops and their schedules in Mitre Square, or that no-one would look out their windows onto the Hanbury backyard, or that no-one would catch him in Millers Court, or Bucks Row..I think those things just happened.....so, yes, the killer was lucky too.

Cheers

[elleryqueen74]

I don't think there can be any doubt the killer was definitely cunning or smart and organised. He went out knowing he was going to kill and mutilate so there is definitely some premeditation. He may not of known who he was going to kill or exactly how it was going to happen but he knew he was going to do it and how he was going to do it and what he wanted out of it.

The fact that with each murder he was able to disable the victim, rip them, take away organs in the dark and without making a sound or attract attention in a very short amount of time then get away cleanly covered in blood, carrying the murder weapon and body parts and not just once or twice shows he was more than lucky, luck obviously played some part but I believe it small. He knew what he was doing how to do it and how not to make any noise or draw attention to himself and how to do all in a matter of minutes then he knew how to get out of there fast again without drawing attention to himself as if he were stopped by a policeman or some other concerned citizen or vigilante member while trying to get away he would be hard pressed explaining the blood that would of been all over him, plus the knife he would of had with him and not to mention the organs he would of been carrying too.

[Barnaby]

I just think we have a difference of opinion. I grant that he worked quickly and quietly and knew the area, but I don't really think any of that constitutes being cunning or careful. He's a local proficient with knife use and disabling victims, for sure, but I just don't see anything that necessarily entails high cognitive powers here. I think he was lucky. In all probability he was observed several times with the victims before the murders, he killed in places where he easily could have been trapped, and was possibly interrupted on several occasions. We tend to forget the sample size is low. If he kept this up, he would have been caught red-handed. It would only be a matter of time.

[elleryqueen74]

Lucky one, twice, sure I could buy that not 5 times or more if you believe he was responsible for more than just the C5. No he certainly was not lucky at all.

[Barnaby]

He also was playing with a stacked deck. All the odds were in his favor. He literally would have to be caught in the act in order for a case to stick. We can quibble over the numbers but for the sake of argument assume that on any given crime, he has an 80% chance of getting away with it by chance assuming he is not an idiot. The probability of him committing five murders in a row without getting caught is about 0.33 (.8 raised to the 5th power). Less than 50% granted, but a third of the time this is what we would expect. Eventually, yes, he would get caught if he kept this up. But it is quite reasonable to assume that, in these murders, he just got lucky.

Now if you postulate he killed substantially more than five and never got caught then my argument would not apply.

[Michael W Richards]

The murders all took place within a single square mile and while the Metro police were on the streets in vastly increased numbers. In an area that was full of dead end streets, convoluted lanes and major well lit thoroughfares. Many vigilance committees and private citizens also were out looking for him.

To say he stood a good chance of getting away with committing murder outdoors, under those circumstances, is naive.

But I think its also a bit naive to imagine that the evidence confirms that all the Canonical murders represent the actions of a single mad killer, so ... he really likely had only the few murders he committed to worry about, not 5, or 6, or 8, or 11.

If he slipped away unseen from just 2 or three sites, its not so hard to imagine his good fortune.

Cheers