Tweet
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.
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.
Comment