Was Jack a family man?

[sepiae]

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=5P7H...page&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.

Hi MayBea,

and thanks for the stat. Somehow it makes sense, having said this, though, I wonder to what degree this could also relate to other groups - to what extent this says anything about serial murderers. It'd be interesting to compare this with a stat about marriage per se.
I haven't had a moment yet to read into the link you posted -
'those not long into or not close to marrying age' - juvenile serial killers? That'd be a rare one, I'd guess.

[sepiae]

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.

Hi Sir John,

that's something, who's the author? I'd be really keen on this one. Not last because, it seems, I'm keeping Victorian sleeping hours.
Was there any mention of the 'water-clock'?

[sepiae]

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.

Hi Wickerman,

yes that's a phenomenon often to be found with domestic child abuse, e.g. the rape of a child by its own father. People tend to think that it's fear that has the spouse keeping quiet, but at least as often there might be reason to suggest that it's a profound conflict of loyalty, as strange as this might sound, profound enough to go into, let's call it a selective stupor in regards of the abuse, resulting into denial, even if it's plain and obvious.

[sepiae]

author

Hi Sir John,

that's something, who's the author? I'd be really keen on this one. Not last because, it seems, I'm keeping Victorian sleeping hours.
Was there any mention of the 'water-clock'?

Ah, ok, found it:

A.Roger Ekirch, 'At Day's Close - Night in Times Past'
one cover reading 'At Day's Close - A History of Night in Times Past'

[Paddy]

Statistics

Interesting regarding the statistics.
Would there be one for how many practised Andersons "unmentionable vices" at the time of there murders, or anytime in their lives?
I ask this becase I think he would have needed a room or place alone for this, wouldn't you think?
Unless he had an extremely disfunctional family.

Pat................

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Ah, ok, found it:

A.Roger Ekirch, 'At Day's Close - Night in Times Past'
one cover reading 'At Day's Close - A History of Night in Times Past'

Yes. That's the one.

Putting the Amazon.com link, hopefully you will find it in your area. It's very affordable.

http://www.amazon.com/At-Days-Close-Night-Times/dp/0393329011/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409962926&sr=1-1&keywords=at+day%27s+close

[markmorey5]

The generaly psychological consensus by the mutilations he did was that he was a misogynist, which is contrary to being a married, family man. I know other serial killers of women have had wives and partners, or at least one did, but we have to put the 1888 murders in the context of the mutilations performed. Regardless of that the residents of Whitechapel did stay up late, such as McCarthy talking with his tenants in the early hours of the morning, and no doubt many others on the streets at the time.

I don't know how many single men aged 25 to 35 there were, but Mary Kelly found two or three to live with so there probably were enough around not to attract suspicion. As far as 'unmentionable vices' go it's hard to say. Naturally men and women do, but many strange afflications were attributed to masturbation, and if anyone took notice of what was attributed to the practice then maybe they didn't. So if they were not in a relationship their only 'safe' sexual outlet was thruppence or sixpence with a woman who probably had venereal disease. Very strange.

One possibility for this serial killer was that he was sexually dysfunctional, physically or psychologically.

[sepiae]

Yes. That's the one.

Putting the Amazon.com link, hopefully you will find it in your area. It's very affordable.

http://www.amazon.com/At-Days-Close-...+day%27s+close

Thanks, Sir John, definitely seems a promising read.

[sepiae]

unmentionable in the streets

Interesting regarding the statistics.
Would there be one for how many practised Andersons "unmentionable vices" at the time of there murders, or anytime in their lives?
I ask this becase I think he would have needed a room or place alone for this, wouldn't you think?
Unless he had an extremely disfunctional family.

Pat................

Hi Paddy,

that really depends where he got the information from, by means of witness statements or personal observation. I'm not trying to be sarcastic about how masturbation was seen, but it isn't at all unheard of someone masturbating in public, here, if so, perhaps not quite understanding the social faux pas, due to severely progressed mental illness.
It is most likely that the - faulty, no need to mention - connection was made after admission to the asylum, there onlooker-spiting masturbation being observed, and possibly corroborated with family members, which would explain the 'lifelong'. They seem to have taken this seriously, we can laugh today, but we're laughing at something very repressive [I'm not suggesting that you do]. All this, ofc, referring to Kosminski.
As for the room/place to himself needed for this, it kinda pales compared with what he [our perp now] did out in the streets, not needing the privacy. In any case, people will wait for others to sleep, even if lying next to them, when the need overpowers.

[Errata]

The generaly psychological consensus by the mutilations he did was that he was a misogynist, which is contrary to being a married, family man. I know other serial killers of women have had wives and partners, or at least one did, but we have to put the 1888 murders in the context of the mutilations performed. Regardless of that the residents of Whitechapel did stay up late, such as McCarthy talking with his tenants in the early hours of the morning, and no doubt many others on the streets at the time.

Misogyny is not contrary to marriage. It is very likely contrary to a healthy marriage. Gacy was a gay misogynist pedophile, and he still had a wife and kids. People get married for a lot of reasons. In 1888, people got married for even more reasons that we do today. And to be frank, it's generally a perfect cover. An unhealthy marriage explains a lot of things. Like not coming home until the wee hours of the morning. Or being secretive. The assumption would be that he had a mistress. Not that he was a serial killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

Here is how Sir Robert Anderson felt about this:


One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal ... was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice.

During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.


Any reasonably intelligent investigator would make the following observations:

(1) the removal of organs suggests that the murderer lived alone

(2) the fact that a search (if such a search took place) failed to discover a murderer living alone does not prove that the murderer was not living alone

(3) even if it had been proven that the murderer did not live alone, there is no reason to conclude that he must have been a Polish Jew


Anderson was obviously wrong and seriously prejudiced.


There are two questions about his reliability as a witness to what really happened during the investigation:

(1) Did the house-to-house search really target single men living alone, to the exclusion of men who were not living alone?

(2) Did Scotland Yard as a whole really come to the conclusion Anderson claimed it came to?