Did the Ripper want to be caught?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi all...I'm with Dale and Tom on this...of course he didn't want to get caught, and as Dale comments, it's not as if most students even believe the letters originate with the killer (except, just possibly, "From Hell").

All the best

Dave

[JTRSickert]

Hi Nick,

One thing we have to remember about these murders is that, while JTR intended to murder his victims, it was not he who lured them in the spots where his victims were murdered; rather, it was the victims themselves.

Thinking they had secured a client, they would take him to a spot that was secluded so that they could complete their "transaction" in a spot where they were not likely to be disturbed. JTR took advantage of this and used it to take the lives of his victims...and still get away with it.

Would this kind of killer be able to get away with this today? Probably not, due to the advances in criminal investigation we have at our disposal. But back then, JTR probably knew , at the very least, the cops were gonna have a tough time catching him ("Catch me when you can."

[Damaso Marte]

I think Whitechapel was so crowded he tried very hard not to get caught in an area that was not easy to do this. In killing late at night in dark alleyways it seemed he tried very hard to avoid capture, and he did. We're racking our brains to this day trying to find the guy.

I have often thought, as I watch my cats kill birds and yet remain innocent of a heinous act, that there is a part of the brain in some people who kill without recognizing the wrong of it.

Some call it the cave man part of the brain, or call it crazy but sometimes I wonder what if it is just some kind of instinct, like animals have, that has nothing to do with civilized progress, or taught morals.

What if some brains have the same instinct to kill as an animal does. What if these people have no ability to ever recognize it as wrong morally, emotionally. They may know what others think and the consequences society lays on them, so they hide it for their own survival.

I'm confident that the killer knew that what he was doing was wrong...or at least that it would be seen as wrong by the rest of the world. I think this is why he was never caught, and why this forum exists...because he knew he would be punished if caught and took steps to avoid being caught.

Again, even if you believe in a suspect who was eventually captured, it was never red-handed at a murder scene.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Nick,

While the Ripper was clearly willing to take serious risks, it's likely he also took great precaution to not get caught. So the short answer would be 'no, he/they didn't want to be caught'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Not just the first 2, what about the others, particularly Stride and Eddowes, catch me if you can!

There is a thrill in the killing a sexual thrill and the thrill of being caught may have been part of this.

cheers

Nick

The first 2 murders took place at very risky venues....the first being in a street open at both ends, the second took place where several windows containing neighbors and residents were open and could view that yard....in near daylight.

Liz Stride was killed inside a dark passageway almost behind the open gate, and Kate was killed in a deserted square with very little available light.

I would say the riskiest murders were the ones that were publicly displayed.

And when you add the evidence in the Stride case into the mix, its hard to pin that murder on the same man who killed Polly and Annie anyway....there is not nearly enough evidence that might link those killings together.

Cheers

[RavenDarkendale]

I think the short answer is no. Most people don't accept that any of the letters actually came from the killer. Now if JtR had written the taunting letters, you might have a case for wanting to be caught...

[Beowulf]

I think Whitechapel was so crowded he tried very hard not to get caught in an area that was not easy to do this. In killing late at night in dark alleyways it seemed he tried very hard to avoid capture, and he did. We're racking our brains to this day trying to find the guy.

I have often thought, as I watch my cats kill birds and yet remain innocent of a heinous act, that there is a part of the brain in some people who kill without recognizing the wrong of it.

Some call it the cave man part of the brain, or call it crazy but sometimes I wonder what if it is just some kind of instinct, like animals have, that has nothing to do with civilized progress, or taught morals.

What if some brains have the same instinct to kill as an animal does. What if these people have no ability to ever recognize it as wrong morally, emotionally. They may know what others think and the consequences society lays on them, so they hide it for their own survival.

[Nick Spring]

If you judge the first 2 murders as the most likely to have been committed by the same lone individual... who late in September became Jack the Ripper, then you would have to see the acts as attention seeking on the part of the killer. Whether that translates to a desire to be caught isn't clear, but the acts themselves, the manner in which the victims were left and of course the locations seem to indicate either a lack of comprehension of the risks or the attention seeking as I mentioned.

I don't believe that getting caught and judged for his crimes would have been any great deal to him though.

Cheers

Hi Michael,

Not just the first 2, what about the others, particularly Stride and Eddowes, catch me if you can!

There is a thrill in the killing a sexual thrill and the thrill of being caught may have been part of this.

cheers

Nick

[Michael W Richards]

If you judge the first 2 murders as the most likely to have been committed by the same lone individual... who late in September became Jack the Ripper, then you would have to see the acts as attention seeking on the part of the killer. Whether that translates to a desire to be caught isn't clear, but the acts themselves, the manner in which the victims were left and of course the locations seem to indicate either a lack of comprehension of the risks or the attention seeking as I mentioned.

I don't believe that getting caught and judged for his crimes would have been any great deal to him though.

Cheers

[Varqm]

Hi,

Whitechapel/Spitalfields was a crowded area, he adjusted and took his chances.The ripper most likely knew these neighborhoods and had a good idea what he could get away with. To me there are no signs he wanted to get caught. I don't know if he choosed the best times under those circumstances, I mean compare the Hanbury to the Bucks Row murder,the latter was relatively safer and there was no witness passing by ie, Elizabeth Long and not in a house with people in it. Maybe he was in a time constraint, with family or work or not a local and did not have all the time in the world. But then again the urge to kill.

[K-453]

Was it skill, cunning, daring? Was it just plain dumb luck?

We should also not forget the place was pitch dark at night.

I know from my own experience how difficult this is to imagine. When I think of "streets at night", what pops into my mind is an image of modern streets, that is, lined with street lights, one of them every ten meters or so.

But, cycling home from work, I am confronted each evening with how hard to spot passers-by are in the dark even under modern conditions.

Most parts of Whitechapel / Spitalfields / and so on were as dark as a fairy tale forest back in 1888. No lamps in the houses. No lamps in the backyards. No lamps in the cul-de-sacs. And the few gas lights that illuminated the streets were as weak as candle flames. Then, the neighbourhood was full of niches and passages and cellars, and overcrowded with people who were roaming around at all hours. The Ripper was just another shady figure.

See also here: "STREET LIGHTING IN THE EAST END" http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881005.html
(You have to scroll down to the last part of the article.)

That said, I don't think there was a desire to be caught. I think this was an overwhelming compulsion to kill. I think JTR was an opportunist, albeit one who was more concerned with satisfying his urges than he was with his own safety. My opinion: He was lucky, knew the terrain, unconcerned with consequence, unflinching when it came to murder, quick about it, and completely insane.

Pretty much my own idea of him.

[Patrick S]

I have pondered this for a while and I cant find any discussion about it.

The murders seem to have a pattern of extreme risk involved in all of them.

This can included others than the C5.

But if you look at Chapman, Stride(who I would included) and Eddowes it is utter madness to attempt killings in these situations.

It is almost as if Jack wanted to get caught and or this is was part of the thrill. This implies some sort of planning on his behalf to get maximum kicks out of the whole thing.

Or is it these were just opportunist killings by some nutter.

Just some thoughts.

Nick

Excellent question! In fact, I think that you've hit upon one of the most compelling aspects of the case. Along with the fact that the identify of the killer has eluded us for more than a century, the fact that the murders were committed, in many cases, under the noses of PCs (Mitre Square, Buck's Row), potential witnesses who had only to gaze out a window (Hanbury Street), and near a relatively busy club (Dutfield's Yard) and yet never solved makes them that much more interesting (and confusing). Was it skill, cunning, daring? Was it just plain dumb luck?

That said, I don't think there was a desire to be caught. I think this was an overwhelming compulsion to kill. I think JTR was an opportunist, albeit one who was more concerned with satisfying his urges than he was with his own safety. My opinion: He was lucky, knew the terrain, unconcerned with consequence, unflinching when it came to murder, quick about it, and completely insane.

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by pinkmoon:
Did Eddowes know that the beat policeman who patrolled mitre square always popped in for a cup of tea and skive with the warehouse watchman?.

A patrolling police officer would check up on the well-being of a night watchman. It's not necessarily a 'skive', although it might be seen as such if he prolonged the visit to an undue degree.

[Nick Spring]

Hi Nick ,These poor women would know the best place to take a client a place where they wouldn't be disturbed.Did eddowes know that the beat policeman who patrolled mitre square always popped in for a cup of tea and skive with the warehouse watchman?.

Hi Pinkmoon,

Yes I believe that's true and perhaps the murderer had been there before too.

Best

Nick

[pinkmoon]

Yes perhaps not wanting to be caught but definitely the thrill heightened by the possibility.

I just think the Chapman and Eddowes murders are just so risky and with limited time to achieve.

Just maybe he didn't care of he was caught which introduces non rational thinking into the uquation.

cheers

Nick

Hi Nick ,These poor women would know the best place to take a client a place where they wouldn't be disturbed.Did eddowes know that the beat policeman who patrolled mitre square always popped in for a cup of tea and skive with the warehouse watchman?.