The Ripper and Risk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was wondering about what the ripper’s attitude was toward risk? What did he think about it; how did he deal with it? There’s no such thing as a risk-free murder of course but some appear to have been riskier than others although options differ on this as we would expect.

Nichols - Killed in a street with various ways that some unsuspecting passer-by might emerge whilst the killer was with his victim.

Chapman - Killed in a backyard with only one exit as far as we know. At any time some member of the household might have decided to visit the outside toilet.

Stride - Killed in a driveway next to a partially open door where a member might exit at any time (to go home or to use the outside toilet) and with a gate open to the street a very few feet away with the possibility of someone (possibly a Constable) passing by and looking in.

Eddowes - Killed in a square with three entrances where someone might pass through at any time (even a Constable)

Kelly - Killed in a room with one exit. Someone knocking at the door and confidently believing that she was inside might not have accepted the lack of an answer to their knock.


So what was the killer’s attitude to risk? How did he approach it? Some suggestions..


1. It’s almost a cliché but did he feel that he was on some kind of mission and that he was protected by higher powers?

2. Did he feel confident that he would be able to deal with any situation as it occurred? For example, would he have planned to kill anyone that opened that backdoor of number 29 Hanbury Street? And at other locations was he confident of escape? In Bucks Row and Mitre Square for example was he confident of hearing someone approaching in enough time for him to escape in the opposite direction? Was he athletic; a fast runner? In addition may he have gained confidence from having local knowledge?

3. Did an element of superiority come into play? Did he just think “these idiots will never catch me, I’m too clever for them”?

4. Did he take a more fatalistic approach, accepting that he was going to get caught at some point so he just continued as long as it lasted?

5. Did he have some form of death wish?

6. I was reminded of my final point when I was thinking about James Kelly. Tully suggested in his book that Kelly was already adjudged a ‘lunatic,’ albeit an escaped one, so maybe the killer thought that he’d just be sent back to Broadmoor and not to the gallows?


Thoughts and suggestions?

[Geddy2112]

What if he had a lookout/partner?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What if he had a lookout/partner?

I didn’t think of that one Geddy. I think the killer worked alone but that one would certainly have to be added to a list of possibles.

[Geddy2112]

I didn’t think of that one Geddy. I think the killer worked alone but that one would certainly have to be added to a list of possibles.

I mean I'm not talking Netley or anything, but sometimes, depending on the month/full moon/wind direction etc I often wonder if there were two of them or a gang.

[c.d.]

That is certainly possible but keep in mind that this is not a purse snatching ring we are talking about. I simply can't imagine the Ripper saying to his friend/fellow gang member "hey Bob, would you mind standing watch while I cut a woman's throat and rip out her intestines?"

c.d.

[Geddy2112]

That is certainly possible but keep in mind that this is not a purse snatching ring we are talking about. I simply can't imagine the Ripper saying to his friend/fellow gang member "hey Bob, would you mind standing watch while I cut a woman's throat and rip out her intestines?"

Convince the little man I guess stranger things have happened throughout history. So Robert Paul and Charles Cross are the Ripper(s)

[Ms Diddles]

I've always suspected that there was an element of compulsion to the murders.

The high-risk locations and the fact that the murders continued even when half of London was out looking for the killer imply this to my mind.

I'm not saying that I think he was completely out of control.

If that was the case, it's probable that he'd have been caught.

More that he was compelled to take risks which most others would avoid.

[Tani]

Because I think the possibility of being caught was actually fairly low.

For instance, the lock on the toilet door in our houseshare was broken for nearly a year and I would confidently go in and do my business several times a day. Not once had anyone actually tried to come in, not even try the handle. This is even when guests are over who don't know the lock didn't work. It's simply that the possibility that someone needs to go as desperately as you at exactly the same time is actually very low.

Maybe you can't size this up to London but with our hindsight this risk did pay off, even with Liz Stride (he completed the murder and wasn't caught). If Ripper only takes 5-8 minutes doing what he does then the chances of being caught, especially if you're familiar with police beats, may be minimal. This isn't to suggest there was no risk, there most certainly was, but he judged the time factor and the situation worth it. If this risk keeps paying off he may be more inclined to keep doing it; especially as he gets better and faster at cutting bodies up. There's also a thrill there, I imagine. I think as well that if he so much as puts a scarf around his face he can run off even if he's clearly seen murdering someone. This may tell us that he considered himself a good sprinter, perhaps?

I also think like Ms Diddles that he felt a compulsive urge do to this; a desire much like the need to eat or sleep. Whether this were sexual, psychotic or traumatic we may never know, but it strikes me that he can't help himself to some degree; I think Stride and Eddowes exemplify this. The murder of two women on one night also suggests that the risk factor didn't mean much to him; especially as he takes longer with Eddowes than with Stride, when he knows he's actively being searched out.

I also think he doesn't much care if he's caught, for one reason or another. There's a predetermined outcome to that. If the reason for his killing is mental illness then being hanged may be an out that's not suicide, but that possibility seems remote. I think these are sex crimes.

He also lived a life, presuming he's a native East Ender, that lacked privacy in general. Bed sharing was common, catching others having sex, bathing, sharing other people's stuff, etc. This would have been commonplace.

I think, ultimately, that Jack was prepared to take the risk, taking the time factor and location into account, had an idea about the police beats, and perhaps didn't care if he were caught/had the ability to run quickly. He also carried organs with him, which are smelly and wet, so he's taking a risk by carrying those around too. All of this also suggests to me that he lives very close to the Whitechapel Road and Commercial Street areas.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks to Ms D and Tani for the comments. I’ve added to the list after reading them.


1. It’s almost a cliché but did he feel that he was on some kind of mission and that he was protected by higher powers?

2. Did he feel confident that he would be able to deal with any situation as it occurred? For example, would he have planned to kill anyone that opened that backdoor of number 29 Hanbury Street? And at other locations was he confident of escape? In Bucks Row and Mitre Square for example was he confident of hearing someone approaching in enough time for him to escape in the opposite direction? Was he athletic; a fast runner? In addition may he have gained confidence from having local knowledge?

3. Did an element of superiority come into play? Did he just think “these idiots will never catch me, I’m too clever for them”?

4. Did he take a more fatalistic approach, accepting that he was going to get caught at some point so he just continued as long as it lasted?

5. Did he have some form of death wish?

6. I was reminded of my final point when I was thinking about James Kelly. Tully suggested in his book that Kelly was already adjudged a ‘lunatic,’ albeit an escaped one, so maybe the killer thought that he’d just be sent back to Broadmoor and not to the gallows?

7. Did he have someone as a lookout?

8. Did his compulsion to kill outweigh the risks?

9. Were the risks lower than we might have assumed?

[Enigma]

I too believe he had a compulsion that overrode the thought of risk. As I said in another
thread, he was particularly brazen at Hanbury Street where the possibilities of being seen and trapped were the greatest. We know he was handy with a knife and was probably quite prepared to use it to escape if necessary. He had nothing to lose by attacking a witness or policeman.

[Fiver]

3. Did an element of superiority come into play? Did he just think “these idiots will never catch me, I’m too clever for them”?

That is common with criminals of all types, not just serial killers. The more they succeed in not getting caught, the more they assume that it's due to personal cleverness and/or police stupidity and the more they discount the role luck played in their not getting caught. Which often leads to carelessness or additional risk taking.

Fictional serial killers are often portrayed as geniuses. Real serial killers tend to be on the dim side.

[Abby Normal]

I was wondering about what the ripper’s attitude was toward risk? What did he think about it; how did he deal with it? There’s no such thing as a risk-free murder of course but some appear to have been riskier than others although options differ on this as we would expect.

Nichols - Killed in a street with various ways that some unsuspecting passer-by might emerge whilst the killer was with his victim.

Chapman - Killed in a backyard with only one exit as far as we know. At any time some member of the household might have decided to visit the outside toilet.

Stride - Killed in a driveway next to a partially open door where a member might exit at any time (to go home or to use the outside toilet) and with a gate open to the street a very few feet away with the possibility of someone (possibly a Constable) passing by and looking in.

Eddowes - Killed in a square with three entrances where someone might pass through at any time (even a Constable)

Kelly - Killed in a room with one exit. Someone knocking at the door and confidently believing that she was inside might not have accepted the lack of an answer to their knock.


So what was the killer’s attitude to risk? How did he approach it? Some suggestions..


1. It’s almost a cliché but did he feel that he was on some kind of mission and that he was protected by higher powers?

2. Did he feel confident that he would be able to deal with any situation as it occurred? For example, would he have planned to kill anyone that opened that backdoor of number 29 Hanbury Street? And at other locations was he confident of escape? In Bucks Row and Mitre Square for example was he confident of hearing someone approaching in enough time for him to escape in the opposite direction? Was he athletic; a fast runner? In addition may he have gained confidence from having local knowledge?

3. Did an element of superiority come into play? Did he just think “these idiots will never catch me, I’m too clever for them”?

4. Did he take a more fatalistic approach, accepting that he was going to get caught at some point so he just continued as long as it lasted?

5. Did he have some form of death wish?

6. I was reminded of my final point when I was thinking about James Kelly. Tully suggested in his book that Kelly was already adjudged a ‘lunatic,’ albeit an escaped one, so maybe the killer thought that he’d just be sent back to Broadmoor and not to the gallows?


Thoughts and suggestions?

Hi Herlock
Interesting thread. Like most serial killers, the impulse overrides the risk. But the ripper absolutely, no question did not want to be caught. He seemed to have been one step ahead of being caught red handed on several occasions, apparently bolting at the first sign of someone approaching and or interrupting him, to the point of stopping before he could carry out his true goal on at least a couple of occasions.

Incredible impulse, incredible risk, incredible escapes and yes incredible luck!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
Interesting thread. Like most serial killers, the impulse overrides the risk. But the ripper absolutely, no question did not want to be caught. He seemed to have been one step ahead of being caught red handed on several occasions, apparently bolting at the first sign of someone approaching and or interrupting him, to the point of stopping before he could carry out his true goal on at least a couple of occasions.

Incredible impulse, incredible risk, incredible escapes and yes incredible luck!

Hi Abby,

Yes there probably isn’t one neat answer. More likely a combination of factors came into play.

[John Wheat]

Hi Herlock
Interesting thread. Like most serial killers, the impulse overrides the risk. But the ripper absolutely, no question did not want to be caught. He seemed to have been one step ahead of being caught red handed on several occasions, apparently bolting at the first sign of someone approaching and or interrupting him, to the point of stopping before he could carry out his true goal on at least a couple of occasions.

Incredible impulse, incredible risk, incredible escapes and yes incredible luck!

Great post Abby and one I agree with.

[Sam Flynn]

The risk of being caught might have enhanced the kick he got out of doing it.