Was Jack a family man?

[Harry D]

How do you rate the chances of Jack having been married with (or without) kids, cohabiting with a partner or rooming with family? Do you think a family man would've been able to cover up his early hour activities? Some Ripperologists believe the nature of the murders suited the loner-type, someone withdrawn from society perhaps, who was able to come and go as he pleased without arousing suspicion. How do you feel about this?

[Errata]

How do you rate the chances of Jack having been married with (or without) kids, cohabiting with a partner or rooming with family? Do you think a family man would've been able to cover up his early hour activities? Some Ripperologists believe the nature of the murders suited the loner-type, someone withdrawn from society perhaps, who was able to come and go as he pleased without arousing suspicion. How do you feel about this?

Statistically he was. More serial killers have family connections than wander about as lone drifters. I heard an interesting argument once that family connections were vital to the serial killer mindset, that the "Jekyll and Hyde" act they needed to have a family was an integral part of the high they got from killing. Which at first blush makes sense, but since this was an office chat, there is no proof and no real research to it. The vast majority of serial killers are accountable to someone. Wife, parents, roommates, girlfriend, friends, whatever. Even if they don't live together, they have enough contact with these people to have to really put on an act. Unless Jack was a homeless drifter, there were people he had to hide himself from.

[Harry D]

Depends what you mean by "connections", Errata. Obviously, Jack would've had family, but he could've been estranged from them or not particularly close, even if they lived in the local area, which is what I was really driving at. If he did, however, live with a partner or with relatives, how difficult would it have been for him to cover-up his dirty deeds?

[No Luck Yet]

Begging your pardon, but doesn't that depend quite a bit on a lot of different things?

I mean, depending on whether he was actually bringing pieces home and then had to hide them, or whether he chucked them in the river or something where they would cause him no further trouble.

It'd depend on who Jack was. If he was well-off enough to afford a house with an extra room he could keep private, whatever the late Victorian version of a Man Cave would be, he could keep some things hidden. If he was a doctor, he may have a plausible excuse to keep, say, a jar full of wombs. If he were a butcher, he'd have an excuse for getting his clothes bloody. Joe Schmoe the shipping clerk, sharing a single room with his wife and twelve kids, would have a harder time.

It'd depend on the wife, too, I should think. She could have been so totally subjected to him that he needn't even take the trouble to hide anything. She could have been unshakably loyal. She could have been so horrified by the possibility that her husband was the Ripper that she consciously or unconsciously blinded herself to anything that might cause further suspicion.

It's even possible that he had no need to be concerned at all. There was the Ken and Barbie killers. While I doubt it happens often that two people so very deeply screwed up find their way into each others' arms, it's at least possible that he found someone who was turned on by what her sweetheart was up to. More plausibly, she might have realized something of Jack's inclinations and figured, "Better them than me." It's not hard to imagine someone that cold-hearted.

So, I can easily enough think of situations where Jack could keep a family and not alert them, but I don't think you could ever conclude either way. Too much depends on stuff we can never know.

[pinkmoon]

Call me old fashioned but I think if a husband turned up in the small hours of the morning looking a bit worse for wear complete with bloodstained clothing and a large knife or knives and some human organs with him I think the missus might well ask some questions.I think this aspect of these horrible crimes has been forgotten about over the years the extra time our killer took removing these organs increased his chances of capture so it was special to him so he must have had some place he could stash them.

[Errata]

Depends what you mean by "connections", Errata. Obviously, Jack would've had family, but he could've been estranged from them or not particularly close, even if they lived in the local area, which is what I was really driving at. If he did, however, live with a partner or with relatives, how difficult would it have been for him to cover-up his dirty deeds?

I mean close connections. Someone they would have checked in with at least once a week. Jeffrey Dahmer's family found out he had been arrested because he didn't show up for his weekly visit with his grandmother, to whom he was devoted. He also saw his father and step mother fairly regularly. Ted Bundy lived with girlfriends except when he was on the run, so he did come home to a mate after a killing. John Wayne Gacy was married. Dennis Rader was married with children. I mean, statistically it is the norm for serial killers to have these kinds of family obligations. And I can only speculate based on some interviews, but I would imagine it would be difficult to hide his murders, but not impossible. Many serial killers have managed it. Most in fact have managed it. For many it's part off the thrill. For others it's because they are ashamed of what they did. And there are even some who push the boundaries to see how observant their friends and family really are. The "why" is kind of a crap shoot, but the fact remains that the majority of serial killers do manage to hide it from people they are close to.

And at this wee hour I have to admit that I can't think of a single case where a serial killer has bee turned in by family or friends, but some instances will probably come to me when I actually wake up.

[sepiae]

family guy

Hi Harry D., everyone.

That's an intriguing one, thanks for the thread.

Haven't really seriously thought about it, and I think because the loner-image had nested in my brain. One of the many appearances that seem so convincing that they're possibly questioned by few.

Statistics: yes, well. I value statistics, I'm not sure they're of help here. Too many 'exceptions' for making a rule.

I think that's really a 50/50-one. If I'd be forced to do the dangerous one and go with own intuition I'd probably say, this one not. Not so much because of mental disturbance, because that can remain hidden even to close ones for a long time. Rather because of the requirements, the hours, the uteri, the blood. This said, there was an interesting suggestion in one of the podcasts regarding the possibility that he might have eaten what he took [which I somehow doubt]. Forgot who suggested it, but if he lived at one of the lodging houses like VH Commercial St. others there might not notice what it is he's cooking in the communal kitchen, simply because the meat people would bring would be generally very gross.
I doubt this would work with a home and wife. That said, he might not have taken organs to bring them home. But to find another relatively safe place to be preoccupied with them for a while.

The weekends as preferred for the attacks might suggest someone employed, working [might...]. Which would mean economically at least little better off than his victims. Which would, in case of a family life, at least for a while support greater anonymity towards the outside, as he'd be able to uphold a minimum standard.

Am pretty torn about it, as it fits in the fog. It's hard to see him as married, perhaps with children, but that's very much the impression one is bound to have when seeing only the victims, the savagery. And after all, the best answer to why he was able to get away from the crime scenes without being noticed in the aftermath - all witnesses stating about moments preceding the crimes - is still that he was probably of utterly inconspicuous appearance.
How likely is it that he'd be able to keep it completely hidden from close ones, how likely is it, if not, that they wouldn't come forward?
Perhaps it's really the hours that suggest that he was more independent, not bound to having to explain anything to anyone.

That'd be about whether he was in any relationship during the period of the attacks. How about before? Had there been anything different? Had anything changed?
There are people [too many] who live pretty much on their own, never forming anything above the most cursory relationships. I'd guess [again, the dangerous thing] that even where relationship might have appeared more 'normal', to him they might have been cursory, shallow, including possible marriage. And it might have been the same with siblings.

Guessing-game, at this stage.

[MayBea]

...Statistics: yes, well. I value statistics, I'm not sure they're of help here. Too many 'exceptions' for making a rule.
I think that's really a 50/50-one....

The only stat I found was 43% married or divorced, with only 17 percent married, at time of arrest, but that would probably include homosexual killers, those who keep bodies or body parts at home, those not long into or not close to marrying age, killers who spent long periods in jail, and who knows what else that shouldn't be included.

The 57 percent 'single' might also includes those living with partners.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=5P7H5kdyDnoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

So 50/50 is probably close enough, with majority if any going to married or divorced and/or living with a partner.

[GUT]

I think he had been married, that'd drive any man to kill.

Says he who has been with one woman for almost 35 years.

[MayBea]

Ha ha!
Says the Lord of the Wedding Ring!

...If he was well-off enough to afford a house with an extra room he could keep private,... he could keep some things hidden...

The "Maybrick scenario", with the family in another city, starts to make sense, doesn't it? Uptown or out of town?

[pinkmoon]

I think Druitt makes much more sense

[MayBea]

Both make practical sense in terms of getting away with it, one a loner and one a family man. Druitt was still uptown 7.5 miles away.

Uptown still makes sense for a family man, although he'd need a good reason to be away for so long. Out of town, not so much because I'm sure he'd already have one or he wouldn't be there.

[Wickerman]

How do you rate the chances of Jack having been married with (or without) kids, cohabiting with a partner or rooming with family? Do you think a family man would've been able to cover up his early hour activities?...

Russell Williams, ex-Colonel of Canadian Forces Base, Trenton, was also married, without kids.
He saved hundreds of articles of women's clothing plus photo's of his victims as they were tortured & raped.

It was always assumed that his wife knew nothing about her husbands nocturnal activities, yet more recently others have come forward and accused her of turning a blind eye, that she knew all along.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

How do you rate the chances of Jack having been married with (or without) kids, cohabiting with a partner or rooming with family? Do you think a family man would've been able to cover up his early hour activities? Some Ripperologists believe the nature of the murders suited the loner-type, someone withdrawn from society perhaps, who was able to come and go as he pleased without arousing suspicion. How do you feel about this?

I think most witness put him around 25-35. Not sure if a single man that age would stand out in Victorian era. But there were also lots of estranged spouse.

Hey! Maybe that's why he stopped! Maybe he found love!

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Call me old fashioned but I think if a husband turned up in the small hours of the morning looking a bit worse for wear complete with bloodstained clothing and a large knife or knives and some human organs with him I think the missus might well ask some questions.I think this aspect of these horrible crimes has been forgotten about over the years the extra time our killer took removing these organs increased his chances of capture so it was special to him so he must have had some place he could stash them.

I'm currently reading a very interesting non fiction book called "At Day's Close".
It's a study of how people spent their nights in times before homes had electricity.

Apparently, people slept in two phases. Two 4-5 hours phases. They could be separated by 1 hour to as much as 5 hours. People would often come home after work, eat and go to bed. They would wake up, do some chores, be naughty or work.

I'm not so sure the early morning coming home that Jack would do could create suspicion that much in his home.

This said, I believe he was a loner.