Tweet
In again looking over (the controversial) “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891, Whitechapel, I found a few items (not concerning the modern application of profiling) interesting with respect to violent crime statistics in Whitechapel, 1889-1890. The text may facilitate a conversation with respect to when the crimes began, opinions concerning the identity of the first victim, etc.
Full document at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf
“The Annual Report of the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel listed no murders in the Whitechapel area in the years 1886 and 1887. The report listed only 71 cases of violent death in the Whitechapel area in 1887; 69 of those deaths were attributed to accidents and the remaining two were suicides.”
I’m certain that there is conflicting information with respect to Whitechapel violent crime rates of this period. As well, I think it’s a certainty that more than a few of those 69 accident victims were, in fact, murdered. I would also be surprised if there were only two suicides in 1887. I’m sure that several accidents were actually suicides, as well. Still, from these numbers, one may be inclined to suggest:
1. No individual (female/prostitutes) had their throats slashed in the two years prior to Jack the Ripper’s presumed activity in London’s east end. My assumption – naïve as it may be – is that if someone’s throat had been cut it most likely would have been classified murder.
2. Jack the Ripper had not yet killed anyone in the area, at least not in the manner for which he would become known in 1888. Perhaps his methods were evolving. Perhaps he was committing his crimes elsewhere and would move to the area shortly before the murders began.
A bit more information is presented with respect to the state of post-mortem examination around the time of the murders.
“Only one murder was recorded for the entire Whitechapel area in 1889 and again in 1890 (Paley, 1996). This suggests that while the Whitechapel area was crime laden, the occurrence of murder was rare. However, other analysts (Emmerichs, 2001) have shown that murders in Whitechapel were likely more common and typical of other high crime rate areas in London. There are a number of reasons for this. Record keeping was not systematic, the classification of cause of death was rudimentary, haphazard, and often inaccurate, the official residence of the victim had to be in Whitechapel to be counted, and the poverty of the residents and victims (referred to at the time as members of the ‘dangerous classes’) militated against any official legal action."
This text casts a further negative light on the statistics. Particularly troubling is this fact:
"Coroners were not required to have a medical background until 1926, so they were often involved in occupations other than medicine. Emmerich’s (2001) examination of hundreds of inquests performed in the nineteenth century in London indicates that the criminal homicide rate was much higher than reported in the sparse and unreliable documents of the time.”
I think it’s safe to assume that murder was much more prevalent in Whitechapel between 1886 and 1890 than these ‘official’ number indicate. Still, can we assume that these part-time coroners would be capable of, or inclined to, classify as a murder victim an individual with their throat slashed (that may or may not have associated mutilation)? Alas, some mitigation may be found in the fact that, based upon what we know of the crimes attributed to Jack the Ripper, no effort was made by the assailant to disguise the crime or to make it look like anything other than murder.
Thus, one may be inclined to ask the following questions.
1. Was murder by slashing the throat (of a prostitute) with no attempt to disguise the nature of the crime so rare in Whitechapel circa 1888 that all victims of this description should be viewed as likely victims of Jack the Ripper (Tabram, Stride, McKenzie, Coles)?
2. Was Jack the Ripper committing smaller-scale, ‘precursor’ crimes in the East End (stopping short of murder) in 1886-1887?
3. Was he committing murders in the East End, but effectively disguising them as accidents or as missing persons (numbers for which are unfortunately not presented in the study) in 1886-1887?
4. Are there any records of crimes in the East End, prior to summer/fall 1888 that may shed some light with respect to crimes that may now be viewed as possibly attributable to Jack the Ripper (crimes that led to what became, ultimately, his signature)?
Full document at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf
“The Annual Report of the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel listed no murders in the Whitechapel area in the years 1886 and 1887. The report listed only 71 cases of violent death in the Whitechapel area in 1887; 69 of those deaths were attributed to accidents and the remaining two were suicides.”
I’m certain that there is conflicting information with respect to Whitechapel violent crime rates of this period. As well, I think it’s a certainty that more than a few of those 69 accident victims were, in fact, murdered. I would also be surprised if there were only two suicides in 1887. I’m sure that several accidents were actually suicides, as well. Still, from these numbers, one may be inclined to suggest:
1. No individual (female/prostitutes) had their throats slashed in the two years prior to Jack the Ripper’s presumed activity in London’s east end. My assumption – naïve as it may be – is that if someone’s throat had been cut it most likely would have been classified murder.
2. Jack the Ripper had not yet killed anyone in the area, at least not in the manner for which he would become known in 1888. Perhaps his methods were evolving. Perhaps he was committing his crimes elsewhere and would move to the area shortly before the murders began.
A bit more information is presented with respect to the state of post-mortem examination around the time of the murders.
“Only one murder was recorded for the entire Whitechapel area in 1889 and again in 1890 (Paley, 1996). This suggests that while the Whitechapel area was crime laden, the occurrence of murder was rare. However, other analysts (Emmerichs, 2001) have shown that murders in Whitechapel were likely more common and typical of other high crime rate areas in London. There are a number of reasons for this. Record keeping was not systematic, the classification of cause of death was rudimentary, haphazard, and often inaccurate, the official residence of the victim had to be in Whitechapel to be counted, and the poverty of the residents and victims (referred to at the time as members of the ‘dangerous classes’) militated against any official legal action."
This text casts a further negative light on the statistics. Particularly troubling is this fact:
"Coroners were not required to have a medical background until 1926, so they were often involved in occupations other than medicine. Emmerich’s (2001) examination of hundreds of inquests performed in the nineteenth century in London indicates that the criminal homicide rate was much higher than reported in the sparse and unreliable documents of the time.”
I think it’s safe to assume that murder was much more prevalent in Whitechapel between 1886 and 1890 than these ‘official’ number indicate. Still, can we assume that these part-time coroners would be capable of, or inclined to, classify as a murder victim an individual with their throat slashed (that may or may not have associated mutilation)? Alas, some mitigation may be found in the fact that, based upon what we know of the crimes attributed to Jack the Ripper, no effort was made by the assailant to disguise the crime or to make it look like anything other than murder.
Thus, one may be inclined to ask the following questions.
1. Was murder by slashing the throat (of a prostitute) with no attempt to disguise the nature of the crime so rare in Whitechapel circa 1888 that all victims of this description should be viewed as likely victims of Jack the Ripper (Tabram, Stride, McKenzie, Coles)?
2. Was Jack the Ripper committing smaller-scale, ‘precursor’ crimes in the East End (stopping short of murder) in 1886-1887?
3. Was he committing murders in the East End, but effectively disguising them as accidents or as missing persons (numbers for which are unfortunately not presented in the study) in 1886-1887?
4. Are there any records of crimes in the East End, prior to summer/fall 1888 that may shed some light with respect to crimes that may now be viewed as possibly attributable to Jack the Ripper (crimes that led to what became, ultimately, his signature)?
).
Comment