Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The psychological aspect and some other thoughts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The psychological aspect and some other thoughts

    Hello there!

    It's my first post, so I should warn you that I am in no way deep into the topic. I'm interested since the last Covid lockdown here in Germany - I was very bored. But it got me hooked since then.
    I've read a few books, skipped most of the documentaries and skipped everything like "I *know* who JTR was - let me tell you everything".

    I had to and sometimes still have to fight depression and because of that, the human psyche became interesting to me. Considering the possibility that JTR may have lived in an overcrowded Whitechapel with all that misery and distress around him - maybe one of the inhabitants had no other choice than to lose it under these circumstances at some point.

    But even if he was mentally ill, he wasn't a mindless, crazed maniac with a knife, right? It seems, he had some self control left, he was able to plan his murders and he managed to stay nearly undetected. He came out of nowhere and vanished afterwards as if he never existed.
    I'm very skeptical if he wrote the graffiti and the letters. He didn't have to. He displayed his victims as some kind of message, but he didn't leave a note or anything else furthermore, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also not sure if anything he had done was aimed to be an intentional "message". He could as well have acted just as he thought was the "right" way to go.

    I don't care which suspect fits the most. In the end, maybe it was just some random man who no one took notice of. I'm more interested in what kind of person in general would fit.
    So, my take on who he was: someone at least with issues towards women or, more specific, towards prostitutes, probably with a serious mental health problem. And if he had these issues, he still was able to act normal around them.
    I think he was, in that time, too determined to be an alcoholic. Someone who lived or has lived in the area, because he killed in a considerable small radius. Maybe someone who knew one or more of the victims?
    I'm not sure if he craved for attention or validation, or the opposite.
    Also, even if he wasn't a butcher or surgeon, he knew at least rudimentary what he was doing. I couldn't locate a human kidney within the body, not to speak of taking it out.

    What do you think?



  • #2
    Thanks for your post, Matthias. You touched a lot of buttons there. I believe that your opinions probably represent the majority who have studied this case. Of all the 'clues' left during the murders, the obviously deliberate extraction of Catherine Eddowes' kidney, considering the apparent haphazard way she was otherwise mutilated, has always been a conundrum to me.

    Good to see someone with inquisitive enthusiasm. Hope you enjoy your quest for knowledge regarding this subject. Don't be surprised if your horizons expand along the way to encompass many aspects related to what first struck your interest.
    Best Wishes,
    Cris Malone
    ______________________________________________
    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

    Comment


    • #3
      A very thoughtful first post, Matthias. Welcome aboard.

      Comment

      Working...
      X