Tweet
There is a fine old quote by Raymond Chandler, author of the hard-boiled detective novels, about unnecessary complications in the world of murder mystery fiction. It goes something like this:
And his words apply doubly, I think, to the investigation of ancient murders like those in Whitechapel, as those in the present day who examine them are more storytellers than policemen.
The more intricate a conspiracy to commit murder becomes, the less likely it is to succeed and the greater the risk of leaving behind damning evidence becomes. The killer who stops to chat with his victims - even though, on a literary, storytelling level it may be very appealing indeed, speaking to us as it does the old serial killer cliché of "the monster next door" - is signing his own warrant. Ted Bundy was seen by many witnesses one day that he decided to kidnap two victims at the same time from a well-populated lakefront beach and failed to change up his old leg-in-a-cast-trick accordingly. It took too much time; it was too convoluted. The only thing that saved him was the fact he was at too great a distance from the lake to be seen clearly, or to have his license number recorded, by the vacationers there.
Should we assume it is any different with Saucy Jacky? Aside from Catherine Eddowes, who was slaughtered in a nearly abandoned Mitre Square, Jack's victims were all taken in relatively well-populated environs. Even Mary Kelly, killed as she was in her own home, had neighbors who were quite awake when the event occurred. If Jack were a logical being - which I admit fully to the possibility that he was not - he would not have wanted to dally with any of them. He would have offed them as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Which is part of the reason I find almost all of the witness statements dubious at best, particularly those, such as Albert Cadosch, who suggest by implication that the Ripper had loudly quarreled with his victims before murdering them. Would Jack have been so indiscreet as to draw attention to himself in occupied quarters before doing the deed? If so, then he was an idiot and lends greater credence to the theory that the killer was an uneducated ruffian. Which isn't to suggest that murderers don't often loudly argue with their victims, enough even to attract attention. They do. But these killers are typically jilted lovers, aggrieved family members, or quarrelsome frienemies. They are not serial killers.
No, I think that, if we operate under the assumption that Jack the Ripper was a sane psychopath, as opposed to a drooling lunatic, we must also accept that he operated as logically as the circumstances of his urges permitted him. He would have wanted to keep the possibility that he would be seen to a minimum - this is the first requirement of a 'premeditated murder' charge, as his killings would surely fall under if he were apprehended for them today. He would have behaved accordingly.
The boys with their feet on the desks know that the easiest murder case in the world to break is the one somebody tried to get very cute with; the one that really bothers them is the murder somebody only thought of two minutes before he pulled it off. But if the writers of this fiction wrote about the kind of murders that happen, they would also have to write about the authentic flavor of life as it is lived. And since they cannot do that, they pretend that what they do is what should be done. Which is begging the question–and the best of them know it.
The more intricate a conspiracy to commit murder becomes, the less likely it is to succeed and the greater the risk of leaving behind damning evidence becomes. The killer who stops to chat with his victims - even though, on a literary, storytelling level it may be very appealing indeed, speaking to us as it does the old serial killer cliché of "the monster next door" - is signing his own warrant. Ted Bundy was seen by many witnesses one day that he decided to kidnap two victims at the same time from a well-populated lakefront beach and failed to change up his old leg-in-a-cast-trick accordingly. It took too much time; it was too convoluted. The only thing that saved him was the fact he was at too great a distance from the lake to be seen clearly, or to have his license number recorded, by the vacationers there.
Should we assume it is any different with Saucy Jacky? Aside from Catherine Eddowes, who was slaughtered in a nearly abandoned Mitre Square, Jack's victims were all taken in relatively well-populated environs. Even Mary Kelly, killed as she was in her own home, had neighbors who were quite awake when the event occurred. If Jack were a logical being - which I admit fully to the possibility that he was not - he would not have wanted to dally with any of them. He would have offed them as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Which is part of the reason I find almost all of the witness statements dubious at best, particularly those, such as Albert Cadosch, who suggest by implication that the Ripper had loudly quarreled with his victims before murdering them. Would Jack have been so indiscreet as to draw attention to himself in occupied quarters before doing the deed? If so, then he was an idiot and lends greater credence to the theory that the killer was an uneducated ruffian. Which isn't to suggest that murderers don't often loudly argue with their victims, enough even to attract attention. They do. But these killers are typically jilted lovers, aggrieved family members, or quarrelsome frienemies. They are not serial killers.
No, I think that, if we operate under the assumption that Jack the Ripper was a sane psychopath, as opposed to a drooling lunatic, we must also accept that he operated as logically as the circumstances of his urges permitted him. He would have wanted to keep the possibility that he would be seen to a minimum - this is the first requirement of a 'premeditated murder' charge, as his killings would surely fall under if he were apprehended for them today. He would have behaved accordingly.
Comment