To be (known) or not to be (known)

[The Rookie Detective]

That's the question...


Did Jack the Ripper achieve his goals?

That may sound like a bizarre question, but based on the entire timeline of events, did the Ripper see himself as a successful killer?

One of the many aspects of psychopathy is that individuals who commit murders have an overriding need and inert desire...to be known for their work.

There's an irony in that the legacy of his crimes has surpassed the restraints of time based entirely on the fact he was never identified or "known."

We view the Ripper as arguably the most notorious killer in history, but without knowing who he was.

Contextually speaking, does that make him a successful psychopathic killer?

Was the Ripper's biggest achievement, also his biggest mistake?

RD

[Enigma]

It depends. If he was the author of one or more of the letters sent to the press and others, then he likely did seek recognition. If so, on that criterion he failed if his aim was to be identified. If the object of the letter(s) was to increase notoriety then he succeeded. If he didn't send any letters, then the issue is irrelevant.

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, I'm not a big fan of "personality profiling", and so probably should just keep my views to myself given that bias. However, if I were to venture down that road (as I'm going to do, despite my misgivings), I would suggest there's a big difference between wanting to be known "by name; identity" and wanting to be known "for what I did.". I think, if JtR was in any way motivated by "being known", he only wanted to be known in the sense of what he did. He didn't want anyone to connect his actions to him, as a person, but he wanted his actions to be known. He wanted to "hide", if you will, behind the notoriety of his crimes, but he didn't want those crimes connected to him as a person.

His "pleasure", if you will, was private, his "anger", was public. His anger, of course, wouldn't make sense to us, it was twisted, idiosyncratic, and very personal. Not justifying it, but rather, pointing out that I don't think anyone else would really understand it, even if he were to describe it (I doubt he could put it into words).

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

I just do not think we can ever answer that question. It is something we will just never know.

[Azarna]

I am pretty certain that Jack had no concept of becoming famous for the crimes in any way.

It is very hard for us not to be biased. We are looking back on the murders, with the knowledge that there were 5 (or however many you subscribe to). We know that "Jack" was never caught. We are also aware of all the speculation and fantasizing that have surrounded the case.

As we do not know who the murderer was, we can't possibly attribute any motives, goals or intentions on to him, with even a shred of certainty. We can make educated guesses on why he may have done the deeds. We can suggest circumstances that may have led to the crimes. But really we don't know Jack, heh.

Nowadays, it is popular to think of him as a calculating killer, a man with a mission of some sort, a man who was clever and managed to evade the law by local knowledge, cunning and quick-wits.

But he could have equally just been bloody lucky! The further we move in time from 1888, the harder it is for us to understand how easy it may have been to get away with such crimes. Maybe it didn't take a lot of cunning at all. Just sticking to the shadows and being someone who didn't stand out in a crowd, perhaps.

Maybe Jack would look at the newspapers and feel a sense of satisfaction in his "work" and failure to be caught. Maybe that was part of the thrill.

Or maybe he hated seeing his victims discussed publicly or hated knowing that others were looking at his grisly "creations", his fantasies?

We can speculate, as I am here. But without any real idea who he even was, knowing how he felt about the after-effects of the murders is really only ever going to be musings.

[The Rookie Detective]

I am pretty certain that Jack had no concept of becoming famous for the crimes in any way.

It is very hard for us not to be biased. We are looking back on the murders, with the knowledge that there were 5 (or however many you subscribe to). We know that "Jack" was never caught. We are also aware of all the speculation and fantasizing that have surrounded the case.

As we do not know who the murderer was, we can't possibly attribute any motives, goals or intentions on to him, with even a shred of certainty. We can make educated guesses on why he may have done the deeds. We can suggest circumstances that may have led to the crimes. But really we don't know Jack, heh.

Nowadays, it is popular to think of him as a calculating killer, a man with a mission of some sort, a man who was clever and managed to evade the law by local knowledge, cunning and quick-wits.

But he could have equally just been bloody lucky! The further we move in time from 1888, the harder it is for us to understand how easy it may have been to get away with such crimes. Maybe it didn't take a lot of cunning at all. Just sticking to the shadows and being someone who didn't stand out in a crowd, perhaps.

Maybe Jack would look at the newspapers and feel a sense of satisfaction in his "work" and failure to be caught. Maybe that was part of the thrill.

Or maybe he hated seeing his victims discussed publicly or hated knowing that others were looking at his grisly "creations", his fantasies?

We can speculate, as I am here. But without any real idea who he even was, knowing how he felt about the after-effects of the murders is really only ever going to be musings.

One of the most excellent and well thought out comments I've read for a long time.

You make a watertight argument and a valid perspective on my initial question.

This is what I love about Casebook


RD