Was Jack inevitable?

[kensei]

I remember seeing a t.v. program featuring Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, in which he said he viewed Manson as an aberration that could have occurred at any time but that the late 1960s in southern California was an atmosphere that was perhaps uniquely groomed for such a character to arise.

Applying that line of thought to Victorian Whitechapel, I also remember reading a quote somewhere (and I've posted here before asking if anyone remembers who said this and where, with no success) in which someone in an editorial on social conditions in the area before the Ripper murders began said, "Whitechapel is a hell, and mark my words, it will produce a devil." (Quote approximate.)

With conditions as they were in the East End at that time, a hellish pressure cooker that had already produced Bloody Sunday, does anyone think that a single individual rising up to personify all that was wrong in such a personal way was inevitable? In other words, if it hadn't been Jack, would it have been someone else?

[vbede]

I remember seeing a t.v. program featuring Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, in which he said he viewed Manson as an aberration that could have occurred at any time but that the late 1960s in southern California was an atmosphere that was perhaps uniquely groomed for such a character to arise.

Applying that line of thought to Victorian Whitechapel, I also remember reading a quote somewhere (and I've posted here before asking if anyone remembers who said this and where, with no success) in which someone in an editorial on social conditions in the area before the Ripper murders began said, "Whitechapel is a hell, and mark my words, it will produce a devil." (Quote approximate.)

With conditions as they were in the East End at that time, a hellish pressure cooker that had already produced Bloody Sunday, does anyone think that a single individual rising up to personify all that was wrong in such a personal way was inevitable? In other words, if it hadn't been Jack, would it have been someone else?

I've pondered the same questions recently. To paraphrase my Literary Theory discussions from university days: Why Jack the Ripper? Why did this happen at this time in this place?

Clearly, serial killers were not new to the world in 1888. But, in a Foucault-esque manner, I can positively assert that the serial killer came into being in 1888. Before that there were those who killed serially...after, there were serial killers. The difference is in the social construction, not the killers themselves---well, sort of. I believe the social construction alters the killers as well. That is, before Jack a killer could hope to live out his/her fantasies through killing. Those fantasies would have been largely self-contained. If there was a desire to hurt the outside world---to put "them" in fear, it would have been highly localized, and due to the nature of much serial killing would likely be ineffective.

However, with and after Jack it became quite possible to terrorize the a large city, possibly a whole nation, maybe even a continent with one's deeds. This could either draw out new killers, or give extra motivation to those already inclined. Also, how he killed (or what he did after killing) was remarkable. 5 prostitutes dead by strangulation alone would hardly have led to the Jack the Ripper phenomenon and we would not be here today discussing this case. Future killers had a template now. If you want attention...do something unusual. Killing won't be enough in a place like London, NYC, and etc. There is fascinating research being done on memes and semiotics which we can use to theorize about the origins and influence of Jack.

So, did Jack know what the reaction of the public and the press would be? I think he did. I believe he lived in the area of the murders. I am quite sure he knew what the papers were like. He would have been aware of the political, economic, and social climate of his community. I think he had a major problem with women, and possibly prostitutes (though they may have just been easy targets.) I also believe that he had a major problem with society as a whole. It may seem obvious, but it is not really. Not every serial killer is concerned with society and the reactions of same.

But what did give rise to Jack? Why Jack in 1888? It is a fascinating question indeed. I think discussing such aspects is more interesting and probably more fruitful than asking "who" is Jack.

[Mitch Rowe]

I believe I posted this before but Ill post it again.

The only Person I know of so far who ever made such a claim as predicting the appearance of a Monster such as JTR due do Social and environ factors was George R. Sims. In wich he states:

I called attention then to the evil which would certainly result to children reared amid scenes of violence and vice, and familiarised with everything that was loathsome and criminal from their earliest infancy. In "How the Poor Live," these murders which are now horrifying London were clearly foreshadowed.

[Cap'n Jack]

I like this thread, but surely such a concept of social influence purely influencing the behaviour of individuals would have given rise to hundreds of Whitechapel Murderers in 1888, and not one or two?

[Sam Flynn]

I like this thread, but surely such a concept of social influence purely influencing the behaviour of individuals would have given rise to hundreds of Whitechapel Murderers in 1888, and not one or two?

Not if such extremes of behaviour as those exhibited by Jack were comparatively rare in the first place, AP. Even then, the effect would likely only be statistical, rather than purely deterministic - there were many impoverished areas around at the time, and very few of them had anyone emerge in their midst who could remotely rival the Ripper.

[vbede]

Well, I am not thinking that the environment of the East End bred sadistic sexual killers per se. I am pondering why did these murders occur at this location at this time. Yes, it is obvious enough---b/c a murderer decided to kill. I find that conclusion simplistic and unsatisfying.

The murders, or anything else for that matter, were not accomplished without the influences, aid, foibles, hangups, mores, and etc. of the time and place.

We can be sure serial murders occurred before JTR. But none were exactly like JTR, obviously. So, why JTR then and in this manner? It's like the Manson question by the OP...why Manson? Certainly conditions were similar for others, but there was only one Manson...what created him? What "forced" him to inciting murder? Yes, the individual is responsible and committed the acts, but what about the rest of society? No man is an island. Does society create destroyers...and if so, is there an unintentional intention that they do so for a purpose?

It's sort of like inventions, to my mind. Inventions are often thought of as the result of individuals building a better mousetrap. The genius of the individual. Such is rarely, if ever, the case. Inventions are societal...I hesitate to say inevitable, but they are nearly so. So too are our actions, opinions, and feelings----so I believe. We are never outside of ideology to paraphrase Althusser. Indeed...we are formed from birth by the signs and signal we encounter and the instructions we receive. We are bombarded by society before we can even think about what it is we are being bombarded with. That is inevitable.

Asking why JTR is the same as asking why vbede? Why am I on this message board right now? Because I want to be is a good enough answer on the surface...but it hardly tells the real story.

[sdreid]

I doubt that is was any more inevitable that there was a Ripper in Whitechapel as it was there was a Green River Killer in Seattle. A sociopath has to live somewhere and sometimes it happens to be in either the East End or Seattle.

[Doctor X]

Indeed, it is very tempting to look back and find inevitability in events in history.

There were far more vicious killers in the past, but Jack had the "advantage" of a media that could reach beyond the region relatively quickly.

--J.D.

[Cap'n Jack]

Fair enough then, Sam, but what happens if we take a more modern example, like Richard Chase?
I would imagine that at the same time that Chase was flunking school, experimenting with first soft drugs then moving onto harder stuff, having problems with his folks at home, not working, being cruel to beings smaller than himself... that there were thousands of American kids in exactly the same position as Chase.
Just normal, rebellious teenage kicks.
So what made one of these thousands turn into the 'Vampire of Sacramento'?
Was it the special atmosphere of Sacramento in that particular year?
I don't think so.
He was a bit odd and quirky, that's true. But then again so are many others of that age group.
It strikes me that the more we look into the behaviour of these killers before they started killing, and here I mean behaviour going back five or ten years, rather than just a year or two, then the more we find that they were totally normal kids.
Then suddenly they wake up one day and start ripping folk to pieces.
As if they have had the frequency of a signal changed, and hear something different to the rest of us.
I don't see Whitechapel in 1888 being any different in these terms.

[Observer]

Hi

What if we take an example like Peter Sutcliffe and believe him when he said that the only reason he started killing prostitutes was that one of them conned him out of a few quid. Lets now consider the case of Annie Millwood, and speculate that the reason for her being stabbed was down to the fact that she was a prostitute, and had tried to conn one of her customeres.

Observer

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes, Observer, but surely in the incident you mention with Sutcliffe, the prostitute took his money in good faith, and it was Sutcliffe who was incapable of sex?
Hence his nickname.
It is the sort of magical thinking that these killers use all the time to somehow justify the unjustifiable.
It is usually at this point that God starts talking to them from out of open graves.

[sdreid]

Hi Wolfman Jack,

The main difference between Chase and the Ripper is that there's been a good movie made about the former.

[Observer]

Hi Cap'n Jack

Yes, Observer, but surely in the incident you mention with Sutcliffe, the prostitute took his money in good faith, and it was Sutcliffe who was incapable of sex?
Hence his nickname.
It is the sort of magical thinking that these killers use all the time to somehow justify the unjustifiable.
It is usually at this point that God starts talking to them from out of open graves.

Who's to say same didn't happen with Ada Wilson and the sun-burned gent?

If Sutcliffe was being totally honest, and he truly murdered and mutilated all those women because a prostitute taunted him because he was incapable of sex, then it dosn't take much for these black hearted villeins to tip opver into the twilight zone does it?

These people (serial killers) seem to be a disaster waiting to happen, the slightest thing seems to trigger the most drastic of actions. Here, just prior to the whitechapel atrocities, we have a man who savagely assaults a woman with a knife, also notice the location, White's Row, slap bang ion the middle of subsequnt attacks. Now It would be interesting to know what Wilson did to warrent such an attack. All I'm saying is that Ada Wilson might just of tipped our Jacky over into the said twilight zone.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Again Cap'n Jack

Of course one need only look to the local press of the time to realise that assaults upon women were pretty common in that locale. It could well be that the attack meted out to Ada Wilson faslls into that catagory.

Observer

[Cap'n Jack]

Indeed, Observer, such murderous attacks against women in Whitechapel were far more common place than was previously thought.
Some years ago I researched the situation and posted my results under a thread titled 'Murder & Mutilation in the LVP'; and I think it is fair to say that those results gave some very well-established authors and researchers pause for thought, as they had previously maintained that such attacks were rare.
I don't know whether that material is still available or not, but it makes for compelling reading.
I'm not adverse to the idea of the killer tripping into his later more murderous crimes in a softer mode; and this is where I think the release of the Old Bailey trials of the period will prove a great boon. Not just because they might provide us with new suspects, but perhaps more importantly may allow us to check through crimes that appear to be linked to the progressive career of a criminal who seems destined for far more serious crimes.
In this regard it is interesting to trace the criminal career of one Timothy Donovan before he became more widely known to history as a 'bouncer' at 35 Dorset Street in 1888. If I remember rightly he started off with minor assaults, progressed to picking pockets, then robbing folk at knife point, knocking out a woman with - of all things - a sheep's head... and it is thought that he might have ended his criminal career by murdering his wife.
I am absolutely certain that when the new Old Bailey trials are finally ready, we will find out a lot more about Timothy Donovan, and many others.