Still, that aside, I think the OP was referring to the sorts of theories that could be used to interrogate the case as a whole, rather than just any particular behavioural pathology that might be applied to the killer himself. Not sure if that's the correct reading of the question, APC?I know this case has been referred to in the past as an example of how the media constructed a moral panic, but I think that requires a little more analysis. In some ways, the rhetoric limited the moral panic--the focus was on the turpitude of the East End, and to that extent, it protected the more affluent west of the city from panic: there's little evidence that women in, eg., Kensington or Chelsea were worried for their safety. By the same token, though (and this may be read both ways), it allowed the more affluent and/or philanthropic elements of society to focus (justify?) intervention in the East End as it drew the extreme levels of poverty and violence to wider attention. As far as the fears of poor women/prostitutes in the East End went, any fear or panic they may have felt was probably quite legitimate. (And we still see this tactic with the media now, in noting victimology in cases where prostitutes are targeted: it operates to insulate other women from fear.)
To be honest, I think you can probably use any theory as a valid tool for interpretation of the case. Managerialism (eg. Garland, via Foucault) can probably be used to analyse the means by which the East End population became subject to greater management (police intervention, for example).
If you're talking about the psychopathology of the killer, I've no idea. Without much confidence in profiling, I think that's open to all sorts of speculation, none of which we can lay appropriate claim to without any hope of identifying the perpetrator.
Leave a comment: