Recognition

[Pierre]

I am slightly bemused that the only reason given for 'did not care if he was caught' is apparently due to knowing the Police would not charge him.

I'm afraid I find mental illness a more likely scenario than Police conspiracy for this possibility.

Hi,

But the problem is that there is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario". That scenario is a theoretical construction based either on hypotheses about some persons having been placed in asylums and therefore hypothesized as having been Jack the Ripper - a tautological theory, which per se is no problem, sometimes events in the past can be tautological - or on a general idea that a serial killer must be mad.

Even if some persons were living in asylums, there was never any evidence for those persons having been at any of the murder sites.

And even if serial murderers today sometimes get a psychiatric diagnosis, there is no evidence of such a person having been at any of the murder sites in 1888-1889.

And whether one scenario is likely or not is something that you as a subject feel, probably on the basis of the above. But the feeling of subjects is no evidence for someone being a serial killer.

I am not merely trying to contradict you, just trying to make things clear from a historical point of view.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Wow, Sleuth! You really think that going to his own home/hideout with victims, and then single-handedly lugging out, transporting, and dumping their corpses would've demonstrated a greater concern not to be recognised or apprehended?

Sure, because effectively quadrupling the amount of time he spends with the victims would carry no risk. And spending time manhandling and transporting butchered corpses would've been almost risk-free, sure.

I would guess that killing at his bolt hole and then transporting the corpses would increase his chances of capture at least five-fold.

[Sleuth1888]

Personally I believe that after the first murder he likely didn't care about getting caught.

The reasons for my opinion are below;

1. He wasn't caugh/recognised after the first murder and he grew in confidence.

2. He killed in high risk areas which were well frequented until early in the morning, e.g. Berners Street, off Commercial Road. Com. Road was busy until the very early hours of the 30th September.

3. He knew that he was 'above' the police and that he was ubiquitous and could strike anywhere. He had confidence in his ability to evade capture going forward in his spree as he knew the challenge the police were up against. He had the upper hand most if not all of the time and could strike literally when and where he pleased.

4. The most convincing point for me to believe he didn't care about capture/recognition was that he didn't kill in his own home/hideout and move the bodies when nobody was around. He killed randomly in the open, probably not at his own leisure, may have felt rushed.

[Henry Flower]

I always love the way Pierre seeks to give the impression of being the most rigorously logical analyst of 'data', and yet, as Ms Weatherwax's comment demonstrates, there always seems to be some agenda bobbing beneath the surface of his fishing expeditions.

[MsWeatherwax]

I am slightly bemused that the only reason given for 'did not care if he was caught' is apparently due to knowing the Police would not charge him.

I'm afraid I find mental illness a more likely scenario than Police conspiracy for this possibility.

[David Orsam]

Evidence: Monro: “Jack the Ripper should have been caught”.

What is the source of this Pierre?

Please don't tell me it's Monro's grandson, Christopher, who was born a year after his death.

[Mayerling]

Hi Wickerman,

Some problems with you statements that I see:

1. Much greater class differences in that century compared to our time meant that men from the lower and upper classes dressed very differently.

2. The widespread professionalization of menīs dresses in that century compared to our time meant that men were recognizable from their dress by profession.

3. Ethnical-religious attributes in menīs dresses in that century were highly recognizable.

4. A serial killer could have assimilated to avoid recognition.

5. Men had faces in those days too.

Regards, Pierre

Actually you are off. In the second, modern picture, everyone is dressed the same way - casually. The actual fashion decisions are their own, but nobody is in "fancy dress", and only a handful of the men wear sports jackets. To me anyone in the mood could blend into either picture (and "in the mood" means anyone who wants to explore the street bazaar presented in both pictures).

If Jack had wanted to get caught he would have attacked victims the same way in the daytime hours, and would have gone after prominent social female figures (like actress Lily Langtry, or Lady Randolph Churchill) and attacked them in carriages in the street or when they were at public social events. My guess is he would have been caught, and possibly torn limb from limb!

Best wishes,

Jeff

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

My idea is that the ripper cared about not being caught nor identified but was confident that none was going to be alarmed by see him dealing with a prostitute before going to the place where the murder was to be committed...which is exactly what may have happened.

About being recognized by someone he may know...there is the possibility that the ripper was reasonably sure that none he knows was going to walk the streets at night. Assuming he was indeed from Whitechapel, of course. He may have been familiar with the district even without living there, after all; maybe, before he became the ripper, he was already the kind that used to go there looking for prostitutes.

[DJA]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Brown_work.jpg

[Pierre]

Being "recognised" was not the issue then as it is today. In Victorian times men typically wore the same clothing, very little choice, - caps, jackets, pants & boots, and usually black or dark brown, not like today. In those days it was more of a concern to avoid being seen committing the crime than to bother about witness descriptions - which could indicate anybody.

Look at any crowded market scene in the East End and you can see that most men are dressed the same.



Compared with today..

Hi Wickerman,

Some problems with you statements that I see:

1. Much greater class differences in that century compared to our time meant that men from the lower and upper classes dressed very differently.

2. The widespread professionalization of menīs dresses in that century compared to our time meant that men were recognizable from their dress by profession.

3. Ethnical-religious attributes in menīs dresses in that century were highly recognizable.

4. A serial killer could have assimilated to avoid recognition.

5. Men had faces in those days too.

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Being "recognised" was not the issue then as it is today. In Victorian times men typically wore the same clothing, very little choice, - caps, jackets, pants & boots, and usually black or dark brown, not like today. In those days it was more of a concern to avoid being seen committing the crime than to bother about witness descriptions - which could indicate anybody.

Look at any crowded market scene in the East End and you can see that most men are dressed the same.



Compared with today..

[Pierre]

Hi everyone,

In 1888 there were witnesses describing different men seen in the areas where the murders to place.

But would Jack the Ripper have taken the risk of being recognized?

If you think there is some evidence for it (you do not have to publish it if you prefer not to) what evidence do you think there is for:

A) An hypothesis that he avoided the risk of recognition?

B) An hypothesis that he did not care about the risk of recognition?

C) An hypothesis that he wanted to be recognized?

Here are some suggestions to start with. I bet you have more:

A) Jack the Ripper avoided the risk of recognition.

1.Since he was not caught when he killed the C-5 he managed to avoid recognition, so that was his strategy.

Evidence: The historical fact that they did not catch him.

Problem: Could he have managed to avoid being caught even if he did not care about being recognized?

2.Killing in the street could imply B or C. Therefore he was not a local man from Whitechapel and therefore he knew that no one would recognize him there.

Evidence: The historical fact that he killed in high risk places.

3.He chose Whitechapel for his murders and used a base in the area since he knew that he would not be recognized there.

Evidence: A 2, among other things.


B) Jack the Ripper did not care about the risk of recognition.

1.He knew the police would not put him to trial and therefore he did not care about being caught.

Evidence: Monro: “Jack the Ripper should have been caught”.

Problem: Low validity and reliability of the source.

2. Killing in the street.

Evidence: Victims were found in the street.


C) Jack the Ripper wanted to be recognized.

1. Killing in the street.

Evidence: Victims were found in the street.

Problem: If he wanted to be recognized, he did not manage it, because then he would have been caught, and he wasnīt.

This (as well as in B above) is also a good hypothesis for discarding Lechmere as Jack the Ripper.

If Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the policemen at the inquest of Polly Nichols knew who he was after the inquest. Killing in the same area after the inquest implies in this hypothesis that Lechmere would have wanted the police to recognize him.

Evidence: Jack the Ripper killed in the same area.

Problem: Lechmere was never recognized in the area around any other crime scene or at any other crime scene.

Regards, Pierre