The Ripper and Risk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Yeah good point Sam.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

10. He got a thrill from the risk.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

I agree Fiver!

In film and literature an evil genius serial killer with an over-riding sense of superiority makes a great villain.

The reality is usually far more mundane.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

This is an interesting take on things Tani.

To my mind the murder locations seem ludicrously risky, but perhaps the chance of being caught was less than I imagine.

I do feel though that if he didn't really care whether he was caught, he'd have got sloppy and been nabbed.

[Ms Diddles]

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!

Yep! This pretty much sums up my thinking too.

[Patrick Differ]

Interesting topic and thoughts. Murder was Capital punishment so did the killer care if he hanged? If the killer was a previously convicted lunatic he would still likely get the rope.

Henry Matthews may have gotten lucky that JtR was never caught. :-)

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is an interesting take on things Tani.

To my mind the murder locations seem ludicrously risky, but perhaps the chance of being caught was less than I imagine.

I do feel though that if he didn't really care whether he was caught, he'd have got sloppy and been nabbed.

It’s a good point. Tani feels that the risk was fairly low in Hanbury Street but I guess it’s down to the individual and none of us can assume to know how the killer would view any situation. I’m a bit of a pessimist by nature so I’d have been thinking “knowing my luck someone is bound to want the loo just at that time.” Then I’d be thinking “I bet it will be someone that has the reactions of cat and the speed of a greyhound so that I’ll never be able to catch him and stop him finding a Constable.” And “I bet there will be a Constable about 10 yards away from the front door.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting topic and thoughts. Murder was Capital punishment so did the killer care if he hanged? If the killer was a previously convicted lunatic he would still likely get the rope.

Henry Matthews may have gotten lucky that JtR was never caught. :-)

I’m unsure about that Patrick although you maybe right. James Kelly had already committed murder though and got confined to Broadmoor rather than the gallows. I don’t know how they would have viewed things at the time. He was never considered cured because he’d escaped. I guess that someone like Kelly might have believed that they would only get re-admitted; whether he would or not I don’t know.

I’d be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on this. Would Kelly have faced the gallows if caught as the ripper or would it have been back to Broadmoor? I’m guessing that he would have been re-assessed. Might Doctors have come under some pressure to pronounce him sane so that he could be hanged?