Jack the Ripper: Historical overview and case analysis

Criminal Justice

Jack the Ripper

By today's measures of what is wrong, Jack the Ripper would hardly make the news, killing a meager five prostitutes in a massive slum brimming with bad people. He would be seen as just one more brutal bad guy fulfilling his distorted needs on the scum of society. So why do people still talk about it today - for the reason that Jack the Ripper symbolizes the characteristic whodunit. Not only is the instance a continuing unanswered ambiguity that expert and layperson sleuths have tried to resolve for many years, but the tale has a frightening, almost paranormal superiority to it. He comes from out of the mist, murders aggressively and rapidly, and vanishes without a trace. Then, for no obvious explanation, he gratifies his blood lust with mounting fierceness, concluding in the near annihilation of his last victim, and then disappears forever (Bardsley, n.d.).

"Jack the Ripper is the popular name given to a serial killer who killed a number of prostitutes in the East End of London in 1888. The name originates from a letter written by someone who claimed to be the killer published at the time of the murders" (Barbee, n.d.).

The murders occurred inside a mile region and concerned the districts of Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Aldgate, and the City of London proper. Jack the Ripper was not the first serial murderer, but he was almost certainly the first to emerge in a large metropolis at a time when the universal population had become learned and the press was a power for social change. The Ripper also emerged when there were incredible political disorder and both the liberals and social reformers, as well as the Irish Home rule members attempted to utilize the crimes for their own means (Barbee, n.d.).

The press was also partially responsible for producing a lot of legends surrounding the Ripper and ended up revolving a sad killer of women into a bogey man, who has now become one of the most romantic figures in history. The rest of the accountability lies with the Ripper. He might have been a sexual serial killer of a kind all too widespread, but he was also bent on frightening a city and making the entire world become aware of him by leaving his dreadfully maimed victims in plain sight. The Ripper was never captured and it is the ambiguities surrounding this killer that both add to the romance of the story and generating a cerebral mystery that many still want to crack (Barbee, n.d.).

It is vague just how many women the Ripper murdered. It is normally established that he killed five, although some have thought that he killed only four while others say seven or more. The public, press, and even a lot of police officers thought that the Ripper was accountable for nine killings. "The five that are generally accepted as the work of the Ripper are:

1. Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols murdered Friday, August 31, 1888.

2. Annie Chapman murdered Saturday, September 8, 1888.

3. Elizabeth Stride murdered Sunday, September 30, 1888.

4. Catharine Eddowes also murdered that same date.

5. Mary Jane (Marie Jeanette) Kelly murdered Friday, November 9, 1888" (Barbee, n.d.).

All of these women were prostitutes and were murdered between August and November 1888. There is no proof to propose that any of them knew each other and they were diverse in both age and looks. Most were intoxicated or thought to be intoxicated at the time they were murdered (Barbee, n.d.).

A complete perception of the Ripper's technique was not determined until recently. The belief is that the Whitechapel killer and his victim stood in front of each other. When she hoisted her skirts, the victim's hands were engaged and therefore she was vulnerable. The Ripper grabbed the women by their throats and strangled them until they passed out or were dead. "The autopsies continually exposed clear suggestions that the victims had been strangled. The Ripper then lowered his victims to the ground, their heads to his left. This has been confirmed by the location of the bodies in relation to walls and fences that show that there was almost no room for the murderer to assault the body from the left side. No bruising on the back of the heads demonstrates that he lowered the bodies to the ground rather than tossing or letting them fall" (Barbee, n.d.). Because of the bad weather and dirt in the streets it was objectionable that the prostitutes or their client would have tried sex on the ground. He slit the throats when the women were on the ground. Spatter stains demonstrate that the blood collected beside or beneath the neck and head of the victim rather than the front which is where the blood would surge if they had been upright. In one instance blood was found on the fence some fourteen inches or so from the ground and on the opposite side of the neck wound and this demonstrates that the blood spilled from the body while in the flat position. This technique also prohibited the murderer from being excessively blood marked (Barbee, n.d.).

By getting over from the victim's right side to cut the left side of her throat, the blood stream would have been aimed away from him, which would have condensed the quantity of blood in which he would have been present. If the victim was previously dead prior to their throats were cut, then the blood leaked would have not been a lot. With the heart not beating the blood would not have been under pressure, so only the blood in the direct area of the wound would have emptied from the cuts. The Ripper then did his additional mutilations, still from the victim's right side, or perhaps while with a leg on each side of the body or near the feet. In more than a few cases the legs had been pushed up which would have reduced the space between the abdomen and the feet. No sign of sex was ever identified. Generally he took a part of the victim's internal organs. The taking of a prize is a widespread practice by contemporary sexual serial killers. In the judgment of the majority of the surgeons who inspected the victims, most thought that the killer had to have some amount of anatomical acquaintance to do what he did. In one case he took out a kidney from the front rather than from the side, and did not injure any of the nearby organs while doing so. In another instance he took the sexual organs with a single clean stroke of the knife. Given the time conditions of the crimes, outside, frequently in near complete darkness, watching for the advance of others, and under tremendously tight time restraints, the Ripper almost definitely would have had to have some knowledge in utilizing a knife (Barbee, n.d.).