A Charming, Personable Jack vs A Violent Maniac

[DVV]

Having recently watched Alfred Hitchcock's 1972 movie 'Frenzy', I began to think about the possibility of Jack the Ripper being somewhat like the killer at work in the film: an outwardly friendly, happy-go-lucky, even helpful chap who, much like Jekyll, successfully hides his monstrous 'other side'. Certainly, the notion of a friendly, charming killer (known in the area) would explain both his ability to go unsuspected and his victims' trust (assuming he accosted them rather than sprung from the shadows).

However, in researching a little on precedents for serial killers who displayed an outward charm and high level of sociability, I found that (as in 'Frenzy'), such killers tended to strangle, beat or shoot their victims, usually with a rape involved (Ted Bundy or Rodney Alcala, for example). This has led me to question whether a killer like Jack, whose crimes showed an overwhelming ferocity and bloodthirst, COULD successfully maintain an outward air of charm and friendliness. His main goal seemed to be to eviscerate, tear and otherwise rip and disfigure his victims beyond recognition; any sexual motivation can only be guessed at. Thus, I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether a killer of such barbarity could follow the mould (or rather, have set it!) of people like Bundy by maintaining an air of affability despite his intentions being so singularly violent, and his motives centring purely on savagery.

Hi Steven,

but nah, JtR was a badman, something ruff, trust me.

Bestest
Dvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Possibly thee principal reason, aside from not being caught in the act, that Jack was never caught.
No-one saw him, yet everyone saw him.
He was nowhere, yet he was everywhere.
He did not disappear into the crowd, he was the crowd.
The press created a monster, while the police looked for madness, yet no-one thought to question the quiet, polite & charming,.. man next-door.

I agree with the above.
He was an average-looking man at pains not to stand out in the crowd. Just look at the contradictory witness statements. JtR could have been anyone!
He was pleasant enough yet conniving enough to convince prostitutes (who knew there was a killer on the loose) that he was not Jack the Ripper.

Take a look at the photos of well known serial killers - most of them are unremarkable or not very good looking average Joes; one exception would be Bundy who was handsome. On the other hand, Charles Manson had creepy eyes and when young, had what might be described as "the look of a killer" but he didn't actually murder anyone - he convinced others to do the job.
Which only affirms that outward appearances tell us little about the contents of a person's character - evil or not.

The ferocity and escalation of JtR's attacks on his later victims seems to indicate that he had begun to throw caution to the wind - that his (rehearsed?) outward persona had started to disintegrate somewhat.
Siobhán

[The Grave Maurice]

Just reading Professor David Wilson's book regarding British serial killers....

MF,

I didn't know about that book. Thanks very much for pointing it out. I've now got a copy on its way to me.

Back to the thread: Did JtR have enough charm to chat up his victims and put them at ease during a time when every woman in the East End must have been on her guard? Obviously.

[curious4]

I agree, ChrisGeorge, that Jack would have seemed a reasonable man; not only to gain his victims' trust, but to 'pass' in his everyday life as a normal man. I wonder, though, if the police were really naive enough to be hunting solely a drooling, maniacal monster. Despite having presumably little experience of serial killers, surely they would have reached similar conclusions about the Ripper's ability to engage with his victims and escape detection.

As to the victims themselves, I wonder just when exactly the climate of fear reached fever pitch. If it was evident after the Chapman murder that a rabid killer of prostitutes was on the loose, I wonder what Jack would have had to have done to gain the trust of Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. Were the rumours of a well-dressed, genteel man around at such an early stage? If so, surely such an alien character approaching them would have immediately aroused suspicion? Even his offering something out of the ordinary (like rescue from their impoverished lives) would have struck a false note, in my opinion. Far more likely was he to come across as a genial, local fellow, who wanted 'the usual' and seemed no different / offered nothing more than their usual clientele.

With regard to his mind being so compartmentalised, I would have to agree. Indeed, he must have been a master! The 'trigger' is perhaps somewhat more curious, however, as he must have switched in a moment from the genial 'punter' to the sadistic and remorseless killer. I can only imagine that the seething rage must have always been there, but bubbling away under the surface, and only released at the moment he knew he had the unfortunate woman totally within his power.

The "slummers" usually dressed down when visiting the poor. I believe the Prince of Wales had a room, either in Wentworth St. or Watling St. where he would change clothes.

[Brenda]

.

Another area where I think the police were wrong in their thinking was regarding a potential suspect's class. Time and again in the reports you see where someone was taken in for questioning, but "he showed himself to be a respectable man" and was released, usually very quickly.

[Ben]

According to one newspaper, when the Police gave out that they were looking for a taxi which was a dark green estate car, he voluntarily went to the Police and offered to give his DNA in order to be eliminated from the enquiry

Indeed, Ruby.

More on this here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/25/sian-o-callaghan-murder-suspect-chris-halliwell-gave-dna-to-police-before-he-was-arrested-115875-23014144/

[ChrisGeorge]

There is a certain truth that raving lunatics are not particularly successful serial killers. No one gets in the car with them.

There's no doubt that one of the flaws in the police investigation in 1888 is that they thought they were looking for a madman. This partly came from the notion that only a madman or, er, a foreigner would be capable of such bloody murders and mutilations. Even the people that they named as possible suspects, such as Kosminski, Druitt, and Tumblety, got labeled with such tags as "sexually insane" or "lunatic."

Chris

[curious4]

Charming Jack

Hello,

The prevailing view at the time was that any kind of insanity was due to "a taint in the blood", that is, that it was hereditary, something in the family. I think that the reason so many people wanted to take syphilis as the cause of madness was that there they could find a reason for someone losing their mind. Also any suggestion of madness in the family was considered very shameful and a bar to marriage, so it was probably better to blame any such illness on a disease.

I have actually seen someone with syphilis-related madness and the patient was not violent in the least, but I suppose all cases are not the same.

As for Jack having two distinct sides to his character, it is almost certain that he was unable to keep his sadistic and violent side a secret from his family - incidents in childhood and "odd" behaviour would have been well known. Actually this rather points towards a "posh" Jack because in the crowded East End children with deviant behaviour would have stood out, while a family with money and position would be able to keep it "under wraps" more easily.

C4

[Ben]

Hi C4,

Whether or not the killer was able to contain his sadistic urges in childhood is difficult to determine, but the chances of any such deviant behaviour being "well known" by the time he reached adulthood are very remote. A very hefty portion of the East End's population in 1888 was comprised of transient lodgers, many of whom had little or no connection with their families. If the killer belonged to this group - as seems likely to my mind - it wouldn't have made any difference if his unusual behaviour during childhood had been kept "under wraps" or not. I consider it very unlikely that the killer was "posh", or had money and/or position.

All the best,
Ben

[curious4]

Good point Ben. O.K. Although there were permanent residents such as Sergeant Thick and the residents of Hanbury street.

Still hanging on grimly to my "posh" theory, though. And remembering the cartoon of Jack loooking into a mirror, people did seem to think that Jack could have been a vicar or someone like that. (Have absolutely no visual memory so can´t remember exactly who the others were without looking it up.)

Best wishes,
C4

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

TV programme on Victorians tonight

BBC 2 - 10 pm (GMT) The Victorians tonight Wednesday April 13 2011

Jeremy Paxman explores how the era's artists portrayed domestic life, and contrasts paintings of pampered middle-class children with those depicting the poor. He also investigates sexual double standards, discovers some of the bizarre ways in which desires were kept in check, and visits an anatomy museum containing waxwork replicas of flesh diseased by syphilis.

The programme doesn't discuss JtR but it does take an in depth look at Victorian society. It might be of interest to some.

Best,
Siobhán

[FrankO]

Back to the thread: Did JtR have enough charm to chat up his victims and put them at ease during a time when every woman in the East End must have been on her guard? Obviously.

Hi Grave M,

Even though they knew they could walk into the Ripper, the women of the East End - or at least part of them - kept plying their trade out in the streets of the district. They were either too desperate or too confident they would ‘recognize’ the Ripper when they met him – possibly a combination of the two.

With that in mind, I’m not sure if the Ripper actually needed to have been actively charming to get his victims to go with him. In other words, I wonder if (besides not looking out of place) it wasn’t enough for the Ripper to look inoffensive, act accordingly and show ‘m the money.

All the best,
Frank

[Phil H]

With that in mind, I’m not sure if the Ripper actually needed to have been actively charming to get his victims to go with him. In other words, I wonder if (besides not looking out of place) it wasn’t enough for the Ripper to look inoffensive, act accordingly and show ‘m the money.

On the whole this would be my own view.

Nichols and Eddowes were both in various stages of intoxication (and in Chapman's case probably appeared to be drunk even if she was not). It would surely not have been impossible for "Jack" to remain in the shadows and relatively unseen and for him to allow his victims to lead him to a known place where they could complete their business in relative privacy. He might have flashed some money to show he could pay, but Nichols and Chapman would hardly have been likely to put up much resistance, even had they wanted too. Rather, Nichols might have been actually eager to earn the price of a bed and not have looked at her trick too closely.

In all three murders, it was probably dark - I have come to the conclusion that Chapman was killed some time before the usual post 5.00am timing, when it was still dark. [The "No!" and the thud heard by Cadosche may well have been someone discovering the body - perhaps Richardson, maybe someone else unknown. I seem to recall a dissertation here than put me on that track.]

Thus these befuddled women may never have noticed more of their killer than a presence and a voice. I think the women did the work, knowing "safe" places and "Jack" let them lead him.

Phil