Pure Freakin Luck

[clark2710]

Hi everyone, thank you for taking the time to read and answer my posting here, if it's been asked before i apologize.

How much of the legendary Jack the Ripper was brilliance versus just pure luck. i understand that some of the removal of the organs was quite surgical and seemed to indicate that the perpetrator had some knowledge of it. But honestly, judging by where he killed, how he killed, with the patrols all over the place he or she still gets away, etc. How much is Talent and Skill and how much is just plain luck?

[Barnaby]

Given the police disadvantage, it was always in the killer's favor to get away with any specific murder. That he could string 3-5 killings together without getting caught begins to move the advantage to the police but not enough to even the odds. Basically, it is a low probability event to kill a stranger and get caught. If he strung 40 of these together then he probably would have been caught. But given that there were only a handful of victims, the probability is that he wouldn't be caught.

Note that this logic assumes that the probability of getting caught on any given murder is low. I argue that this is a fair assumption and that the murderer was not a blithering idiot. So, "he got away by chance" doesn't necessarily mean that the murderer was covered in blood running through the streets with a knife in one hand and a piece of chalk in the other. It simply means he was to some extent skillful and he wasn't observed because luck was on his side. By no means was he a mastermind, just a competent killer with the advantage.

[Errata]

I think of it as the tale of my two cats. I have a giant fluffy cat named Mary. She has killed an Airedale. She has not, on the other hand ever caught prey in the backyard. Oh she tries, but really it's embarrassing. My siamese named Jeannie on the other hand, hates going outside. But whenever she is actually forced to, she kills something. She has never missed. Mary goes after everything, and gets nothing. We call her Mary Mocked By Squirrels. Jeannie only attacks what she knows she can kill. She doesn't go after birds, she doesn't try to catch things in trees or on fences. It's like she only hits things in a ten foot radius.

It doesn't require intelligence or skill or planning to do what Jeannie does. But it isn't luck either. It's knowing your limits. Don't chase what you can't catch, don't start what you can't finish, and above all trust your gut. If your gut says no, even though there is no obvious reason for concern, don't do it. Your gut is telling you that you picked up on a subtle cue. Good advice for potential victims too. But it's about being a successful hunter. Now I live in Tennessee, so I know for a fact that there are any number of successful hunters who are neither smart nor lucky. Just observant, and judicious.

[Wade Aznable]

My appreciation of Errata's post is two-fold:
first, as a cat person myself, I enjoyed the feline anedoctes ("the tale of two kitties"? )
second, because as usual it was extremely insightful and well written. To be honest I appreciate her posts also when I don't completely agree with her opinions.

I tend also to agree to Barnaby's "statistical" approach, which keeps into account a perspective that sometimes we don't consider carefully enough.

As a consequence, I think Jack was good at his job, but not as good as, say, the Torso killer. Therefore, I think luck played a not-so-little role in his antics (and I say this going against all of the mythical desires of all of us for Jack to be smarter, faster and more cunning than anyone else in his business).

Best regards,
W

[Phil H]

I think "Jack's" success (if it can be called that) derives from three related elements:

a) the infancy of police methods - especially forensic ones - in 1888. Almost the murderer had to be caught in flagrante - in the act;

b) his cunning, detailed knowledge of the area (as demonstrated IMHO by going into the hidden backyard of No 29 Hanbury St) and his opportunism; and

c) the fact that he worked much faster than is usually recognised. IMHO there is a strong possibility that what is sometimes perceived as surgical knowledge, was luck, aided by some slight experience of simple surgery. His elegance was luck, and a reflection of the speed with which he worked. His work was done and he was gone in a very few minutes. (Unless something is very wrong with the evidence we have, Mitre Square shows that.)

On (a) I think "Jack" would now be caught quite quickly with a combination of DNA tests, surveillance cameras; and other scientific practices and procedures from profiling to finger-prints.

On (b) I believe that "Jack" seized an oportunity with Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman - in the small hours (contrary to many I think Annie was killed much earlier, in the dark). He did not take risks, struck when there was no one about and used secluded places known as such by the prostitutes.

I think others may also have been "lucky", in that it is possible that two, maybe more, separate killers were able to hide their victims as "Jack's" - Stride's killer and Kelly's (maybe Eddowes too).

I don't think "Jack" was clever (in the intellectual sense) or a game-player, or a "toff" writing anagrams or someone who wrote to the press or left unintelligible graffiti on entry walls. The killer of Nichols, Chapman and maybe eddowes (whom I believe to be Jack's victims - with McKenzie as a later possible add-on) was, in all probability local, spoke bad English because he was foreign. But his mental derangement did not make him careless or reduce his animal cunning. He was swift, silent and fortunate.

Phil H

[caz]

Hi All,

I agree with Phil (don't faint) that if "Jack" were operating today, he'd be much more likely to be identified sooner or later thanks to modern forensics.

Having said that, serial offenders remain particularly hard to catch when there is nothing to connect them to their victims, ie when they prey on perfect strangers, or kill outdoors, or in places they are not known to frequent.

In 1888, therefore, a "Jack" would have had it pretty much all his own way, and been nigh on impossible to pin down, as long as he didn't confess, wasn't caught in the act or while escaping with spoils from a victim, and nothing incriminating was found during the local searches.

One-off murders, committed by people with clear motives and connections to their victim, tended to get cleared up as quickly back then as they do today. That's what the police were used to dealing with - not stranger killings with few if any clues that could have pointed to the individual responsible. The very fact that none of the Whitechapel Murders even came close to being solved using the tried and tested methods of the age would in my view only support the understandable belief at the time that they were looking for the hardest of all criminals to find, from that day to this - the lone predator - of precisely the type we have seen time and time and time again over the subsequent decades, accounting for literally hundreds of victims between them.

The killer (or killers, who collectively became known as Jack, thanks to the unknown author of "Dear Boss") could have been virtually anyone with the same access to unfortunates in that tiny Spitalfields area as the hundreds of unidentifiable men who would have used their services without anyone being the wiser. The only difference (albeit a whacking great one to the handful of unlucky women who went off with the wrong man during this period) was in the special service that "Jack" was after, which meant that only one person emerged alive from the encounter to tell the tale. And that person wasn't telling.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Nice post Caz and full of wisdom.

In modern terms, I think an area search, as was done in 1888, with a request for all males in an age bracket to give a DNA sample - would locate the culprit quite quickly, certainly narrow down the field if he declined to co-operate.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

Do my eyes deceive me?

Hello Caroline.

"The killer (or killers, who collectively became known as Jack . . .) . . ."

'Ere now, what's all this then?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Whilst , like Caz, I agree with most of what Phil has has posted, I have a slight query on this section:

The killer of Nichols, Chapman and maybe Eddowes (whom I believe to be Jack's victims - with McKenzie as a later possible add-on) was, in all probability local, spoke bad English because he was foreign.

(my emphasis)

How do we know that 'Jack' spoke bad English or, indeed, that he was foreign? It seems to me that. for the most part, the Jewish witnesses saw a Gentile, whereas the Gentile witnesses saw a foreigner or a man of 'foreign' appearance.

On the subject of the thread, I'm perhaps a bit unconventional on these boards in seeing the killer as frenzied in his killing but 'organised' in his approach. At Mitre Square he was either very lucky or the risks / timings involved were not as they appear, on paper, to be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

I think one of the problems with the idea of "Luck" is that by definition, it occurs without external data concerning the situation. For example, If I beat someone to death in a crowded mall and escape, that's not luck. That is profiting from the inaction of others. If I play Russian Roulette three times, and don't blow my head off, that is also not luck. That's recklessness combined with statistics. If I get out of my car to grab a burger one second before a meteor lands on my poor little Toyota, THAT'S luck. There is no possible way I could have know about the meteor, where it would land, or what kind of damage it could do.

Humans almost never experience luck when it comes to their surroundings. We process thousands of details without realizing it. Even if we don't know it, we react to those details. Most people with a decent sense of direction can be dropped in the suburbs of any city in the middle of the night and make their way to the center of nightlife. They subconsciously seek light and sound. We can also avoid rough neighborhoods in the same way. Jack the Ripper(s) consciously or not, chose environments suited to his needs. Private, if not isolated, dimly lit, away from immediate traffic, and places where he would be able to hear or see someone coming before they would see or hear him. Which is why I think that Annie Chapman's murder was the riskiest of all. Yes it was protected, but if someone was coming, he had nowhere to go. Even if his victims chose the sites, he was aware of his surroundings enough to realize that their needs for privacy were similar to his own.

[Phil H]

How do we know that 'Jack' spoke bad English or, indeed, that he was foreign? It seems to me that. for the most part, the Jewish witnesses saw a Gentile, whereas the Gentile witnesses saw a foreigner or a man of 'foreign' appearance.

Bridewell - that phrase came in part of my post erelating to how I personally perceive the killer, in contrast the anagramatist or puzzle leaver. I realise we know nothing about his race or language skills

Yes it was protected, but if someone was coming, he had nowhere to go.

Which is why I concluded some time ago that "Jack" probably knew that yard and had been there before. It would have been foolhardy to go into a palce he could not see (even if he had the excuse of "business with Chapman").

It is also why I believe the murder took place in full darkness - "Jack" would have to have been a risk taker extraordinaire to kill under so many windows when people were already stirring.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

Bridewell - that phrase came in part of my post relating to how I personally perceive the killer, in contrast the anagramatist or puzzle leaver. I realise we know nothing about his race or language skills

Hi Phil,

In that case, my apologies for making a point which didn't need making.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

No problems, Bridewell. I was typing as I thought, so maybe my post was a bit more disjointed than I'd intended.

Aren't we all being polite?

Phil

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"The killer (or killers, who collectively became known as Jack . . .) . . ."

'Ere now, what's all this then?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I was just being polite to those who see multiple murderers acting independently to create an uncannily accurate impression (for anyone back in 1888) of a lone "Jack" (or lone "Ted Bundy" if you will; or lone "Blackout Ripper"; or lone "Yorkshire Ripper"; or lone "Gay Slayer"; or lone "Suffolk Strangler"; or... well you get the drift).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Nice post Caz and full of wisdom.

Cheers, Phil! Must have been a freak event.

In modern terms, I think an area search, as was done in 1888, with a request for all males in an age bracket to give a DNA sample - would locate the culprit quite quickly, certainly narrow down the field if he declined to co-operate.

Only if he co-operated by being in the area of the search to begin with. I'm not sure the culprit would have had one foot nailed to the floor of this rich victim pool by the direst poverty, preventing him from walking in or out of the search area at any time. I don't know too many serial offenders who couldn't beg, borrow or steal their way out of the gutter, so I imagine the culprit more as someone who may have done just that - begged, borrowed or stolen his way out of Spitalfields, then returned to the familiar territory, with familiar prostitutes in familiar haunts, just to act out the murderous fantasies that had been grabbing at his soul.

Love,

Caz
X