DDT - Deambulações DeMentes Teóricas 53

The Serial Killer - Part XXXIII

So we reach the end of the road in antiquity concerning serial killing, and enter the modern era of the trade. What separates these two eras are two details:

1. Notoriety

and

2. Investigative knowledge

Because as far as violence, creativity and numbers are concerned, the ancient killers are not very different from the modern ones.
The modern era of serial killing was, of course, born with the Ripper. Why him? For one very particular reason - the media coverage of the case.

Jack was not much different from some of the killers we have seen here. He didn't kill in any very odd way, nor did he kill in numbers superior to those of some of his most prolific colleagues. His choice of victims did not deviate from the average statistical norm: young or middle aged white females, poor and trading in the sex business is not anything new. They are usually very seeked out because they are the most vulnerable and easy to get, apart from not being as much missed by relatives or friends as would women of a higher social condition and decent occupation. Even the much discussed ease with which he proceeded to kill his unfortunate victims - in the middle of the street in 4 of the 5 official Ripper murders - has a perfectly logic explanation to it: in Jack's time London was drowned in a heavy, thick, oppressive fog, a combination of cold weather and the polution coming out of the factories that were starting to invade the city like mushrooms on account of the Industrial Revolution. They even gave it a new name - smog, because it was fog mixed with smoke. It was said that sometimes even during the day people had to cough to mark their presence and avoid being bumped by another passerby. Trolleys had to drive with a man walking in front of it with a light and a horn, to warn unwary passers who would otherwise risk being run over.

Jack, then, had it easy. He could kill right in the midst of everyone's wanderings without being detected. He had time, balls and knowledge to do it, according to the numerous investigators and schollars who studied the case then and later. He had it easy for another very important reason: the investigative knowledge of the time was very limited - there was no DNA analysis, of course, but worse than that, no one had even invented fingerprinting yet. Jack was a needle in the midst of the huge, dark, foggy, dangerous and cold hay that London was in the late XIXth century.

The only thing differente about the Ripper and the thing that made him officially the first serial killer of modern history and very probably the most infamous of us all, was Fleet Street. That's right, the newspapers which publicized the case like no other before it or even, I dare say, after. Think of serial killing and the first and sometimes only name that pops into anyone's mind is Jack the Ripper. He was discussed, proded and analysed like no other subject in the history of serial killing. He has been depicted in movies again and again and every now and then someone comes up with a whole new theory about who of the 20 or so official suspects, is most surely the London ripper or about why he commited the crimes the way he did and how. There are even those who call themselves Riperologists.

Jack became the demon every lay men believes in and fears, the monster hiding underneath the sewers or lurking in the shadows of all modern cities. He became a legend, a myth, I would even venture to say he has become a sort of attractive symbol of the dark forces that sometimes lay dorment in some men's souls, a rock rebelious idol of murder.
Unfortunately or maybe not, Jack also became the epitome of all of us who deal in this trade. We are constantly compared to him. Because he could never be found, he became the God of evil, the Prince of deception, the ultimate role model to follow.
And so we enter modern serial killing, carrying the weight and responsibility of a huge ghost - the unknown Ripper, author of several perfect murders.