Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not in the Slightest Bit Interesting...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not in the Slightest Bit Interesting...

    I've been doing a bit of general reading on TWM, here and using other online resources recently. One of the things that really fascinates me about this case is why everything about it has to be so convoluted, over the top and, quite frankly, improbable.

    I know not everyone will agree with me here, but there hasn't been such a dramatic change in humans since the 1800's that we've re-written ourselves - what applies to serial killers now probably, roughly, also applied to 'Jack' back then.

    So, on balance of probabilities, 'Jack' was mostly average. He probably did live in or around Whitechapel, not because of fancy geographic profiling, but because we know that serial violent offenders are usually pretty awful with responsibility and paying rent and other bills. He probably lived day-to-day in terms of housing because he prefered to spend his money on other things.

    There's a reasonable chance that he might have spent a bit of time in debtors prison - assuming that they could catch him, because he was probably not an honest man, and it was so much easier to change your identity back then. He probably didn't have a proper job, and may have supplemented whatever income he had by being a bit of a con-man on the side. He was probably quite charming and convincing when he wasn't brutally murdering people.

    He probably never wrote a letter to the Police or anyone else involved in the case, because that is incredibly rare.

    He didn't necessarily stop because of some dramatic life event or because he chose to kill himself - as far as I'm aware, most unapprehended serial killers eventually just stop, either because of limitations from age, or in some cases because they lose the urge to do it. Although I veer towards thinking he unravelled after he killed Mary Jane Kelly, that's just personal opinion. It would seem that even after that butchery, he was enough in possession of himself to walk out of a fairly enclosed courtyard without being apprehended by anyone so I accept that I'm probably wrong there.

    He probably wasn't incredibly clever, and the Police probably weren't incompetent. It's more likely that he just chose his victims at random because they were in a convenient place, at a convenient time. Like all the other dozens of serial killers who are never caught, there's nothing to connect him to his victims, so there's very little for the Police to investigate in the first place. He was lucky and the Police were not, in other words.

    I think that the other problem that the Police would have had is that the crimes took place in an area where people probably constantly lived on the edge of criminality, because they pretty much had to if they liked eating. People who may have heard or seen something would probably have kept quiet if talking to the Police meant incriminating themselves by having to explain why they were in a certain place at a certain time.

    To be honest, I have no idea where I'm going with this. I just don't believe that everyone who comes up with a Walter Sickert type suspect is in it for the book deal (do people who write about 'Jack' even make that much money?) - I do think that they genuinely believe that they have a valid suspect. I just wonder why it always needs to be a conspiracy of some sort, because really it was probably just dumb luck.

    So there we go. I give you my suspect: Johnny Nobody, of Whitechapel. As I say, not really going anywhere with it, just thought it might be interesting to have a discussion not directly about the minutiae of the case.

  • #2
    Hi Ms W.

    When you reach a destination you don't have to go anywhere...when you refuse to enter rabbit holes the ULM theory is the most plausible explanation.

    When you dismiss the ridiculous, the fantasy and implausible whatever remains no matter how boring, mundane or unfulfilling is probably the truth.

    Dave
    My opinion is all I have to offer here,

    Dave.

    Smilies are canned laughter.

    Comment


    • #3
      I generally agree with what you, but I do have a comment om this point:

      Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
      I know not everyone will agree with me here, but there hasn't been such a dramatic change in humans since the 1800's that we've re-written ourselves - what applies to serial killers now probably, roughly, also applied to 'Jack' back then.
      I don't think that is as obvious as you. Of course, biologically there have been some changes in terms of physique (e.g. average height, weight, breast size), life span (e.g. more humans reach 100 years nowadays), diseases (e.g. cancer rates due to changes in nutrition and physical activity(or perhaps because people live longer so more time to develop cancer)).

      Regarding serial killers, a category that fortunately still remains extremely small, the major sociological change in my opinion is the arrival of mass media.
      The infamous serial killer cases start in the 1960s and 70s, a radically different society from Whitechapel in the 1880s.

      Generalising that "serial killers tend to...." is in my opinion invalid, since there are so few cases, and such a huge difference in society.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
        I generally agree with what you, but I do have a comment om this point:

        I don't think that is as obvious as you. Of course, biologically there have been some changes in terms of physique (e.g. average height, weight, breast size), life span (e.g. more humans reach 100 years nowadays), diseases (e.g. cancer rates due to changes in nutrition and physical activity(or perhaps because people live longer so more time to develop cancer)).

        Regarding serial killers, a category that fortunately still remains extremely small, the major sociological change in my opinion is the arrival of mass media.
        The infamous serial killer cases start in the 1960s and 70s, a radically different society from Whitechapel in the 1880s.


        Generalising that "serial killers tend to...." is in my opinion invalid, since there are so few cases, and such a huge difference in society.
        Respectfully, I'm not sure that I agree with that, to be honest. Serial killings have been going on since the beginning of time, it's just that we started to give them a name and wonder why they happen around the middle of the last century. We could argue all day about whether media coverage influences modern serial killers to actually kill (my personal opinion is that if it does, it's rare - mass killers and school shooters, probably more so).

        If you look at any list of serial murderers, they do share quite a lot of the 'standard' characteristics, which is why, I assume, that they became standard.

        It's interesting that, in the year our friend Jack started killing (as far as we know!), a man named Francisco Guerrero was incarcerated in Mexico, having murdered 20 prostitutes by strangulation and/or slitting their throats. He killed far more women than Jack, (as far as we know!) yet few people would know his name today. He perfectly fits the profile of an 'average' serial killer except for the fact he wasn't particularly unassuming - he was pretty bloody awful and apparently quite liked to showboat.

        Sadly, serial murder is not quite as rare as people like to believe either - meaning people who have murdered three or more people with a 'cooling off period' between murders. Of the top of my head, I can think of two people in the UK who are by definition serial killers but didn't get more than a column or two in the papers, not to mention the number of serial killers who are currently operating unhindered. It only appears so rare because we only get to hear about the killers that are a) caught and b) deemed worthy of press coverage.

        I am not, of course, suggesting that serial killers are common - they're not. I'm just suggesting that the murderers who do not reach the infamy of Dahmer and Bundy are not as rare as people think.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
          Hi Ms W.

          When you reach a destination you don't have to go anywhere...when you refuse to enter rabbit holes the ULM theory is the most plausible explanation.

          When you dismiss the ridiculous, the fantasy and implausible whatever remains no matter how boring, mundane or unfulfilling is probably the truth.

          Dave
          I hate it when I take 47 paragraphs to say what someone else says in 11 words.

          *Please insert joke about how much women talk here*

          Comment


          • #6
            No evidence really just a thought that Jack might have been interviewed after the Mary Kelly murder, not as a serious suspect but part of general enquires and that it spooked him a bit so he decided to lay low for a while and maybe something happened to him in that period. Didn't the Yorkshire ripper get interviewed nine times and where there not gaps in the killings after one or two Police came a calling ? Also i believe that one Policeman had reservations about Sutcliffe after he interviewed him but it wasn't followed up. Maybe just maybe a similar thing happened to Jack. And perhaps he suspected the Bobby wasn't totally satisfied with him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
              No evidence really just a thought that Jack might have been interviewed after the Mary Kelly murder, not as a serious suspect but part of general enquires and that it spooked him a bit so he decided to lay low for a while and maybe something happened to him in that period. Didn't the Yorkshire ripper get interviewed nine times and where there not gaps in the killings after one or two Police came a calling ? Also i believe that one Policeman had reservations about Sutcliffe after he interviewed him but it wasn't followed up. Maybe just maybe a similar thing happened to Jack. And perhaps he suspected the Bobby wasn't totally satisfied with him.
              If you subscribe to the theory that he lived in Whitechapel, it's as likely as any other idea, Darryl.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                Respectfully, I'm not sure that I agree with that, to be honest. Serial killings have been going on since the beginning of time, it's just that we started to give them a name and wonder why they happen around the middle of the last century.
                I disagree; I believe serial killing is a distinctly modern phenomenon, inextricably tied to a society of anonymity, material ease, meaninglessness and mass media.

                I believe that is why Jack the Ripper interests us: he was the first modern killer. That's also why I agree with you: he was just a nobody, an unknown.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  I disagree; I believe serial killing is a distinctly modern phenomenon, inextricably tied to a society of anonymity, material ease, meaninglessness and mass media.

                  I believe that is why Jack the Ripper interests us: he was the first modern killer. That's also why I agree with you: he was just a nobody, an unknown.
                  Serial killers and media live in symbiosis to a large extent, so I´m inclined to agree with you about that part: these serialists are a modern day plague.

                  However, there are those who would do what they do regardless of the media. The ones who have been around since the beginning of mankind. In that respect, I´m with Ms Weatherwax.

                  If it had not been for the media, I believe that serialists would - on the whole - be a much rarer breed than what the case is today.

                  If I was to define the difference, I would say that the ones who aspire to be the cruelest or the most proliferate killers, are to a very high degree the products of modern society.
                  An interesting aspect of the Ripper/Torso case, is that it seems the killer may well have started out as an "old-school" serialist, to then develop an appreciation for the twisted fame that comes with being a multiple killer, a bogeyman, as it were.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 10-16-2016, 02:22 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                    If you subscribe to the theory that he lived in Whitechapel, it's as likely as any other idea, Darryl.
                    Yes, i think that's more than likely

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting post. I personally think Bury was Jack the Ripper a total loser. And if you ask me there is more circumstantial evidence that Bury was the Ripper than any other suspect. Plus Bury is a proven violent murderer and mutilator.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "Netley: Is it finished with?
                        Gull: It is beginning Netley. Only just beginning. For better or worse, the twentieth century. I have delivered it."
                        These are not clues, Fred.
                        It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
                        They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
                        And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral them into meaning when we will not.
                        We will not.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X