Jack the Ripper

The other night they aired this show on The Science Channel about Jack the Ripper which purported to have "new evidence" concerning the century-and-a-half old mystery of the serial killer's identity.  I tuned in to watch it with a fair amount of skepticism.  Most Jack the Ripper theories seem to revolve around the idea that there's some Earth-shattering revelation or twist behind the identity itself.  They generally assume that Jack the Ripper was someone important or famous who's name pops up elsewhere in the historical record.  The only real justification for this assumption is the fact that it would be extremely anti-climactic to find out that Jack the Ripper was just "some guy."  But yet, that's probably just what he was.  Who, really, were David Berkowitz or Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or any other known serial killers aside from the horrible things they've done?  We expect intriguing mysteries to have intriguing answers, but that isn't necessarily always the case.  This is just yet another instance where people fall for the most irrational fallacies in their quest to believe in something exciting, and they ignore more level-headed approaches at the truth.   

Unfortunately, level heads are usually in short supply in these sort of documentaries.  The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and other cable networks run these shows from time to time, where some so-called expert with questionable credentials pursues some personal theory.  Sometimes, such as the recent Apocalypse Island, these documentaries can be a complete disaster.  This one on Jack the Ripper was more modest in its scope and its failures.  The problem isn't always with the theories themselves, and this guy's Jack the Ripper theory was at least within the realm of plausibility.  No, the problem is usually with the way they approach the theories.  There's always something, that one fatal touch, that undermines their image as the professional scholar and puts them firmly in the category of a crack-pot.  I've engaged in plenty of my own crack-pot theorizing, of course, so I can't really throw stones.  But then again, The History Channel isn't supplying me with a camera crew and financing my expedition to the ends of the Earth.  These shows always leave me feeling a little outraged when I think that there are people out there working on genuine research projects which are probably grossly underfunded, while these jack-asses are grandstanding on cable TV.  

This Jack the Ripper documentary followed this same familiar pattern.  The theory was that  Jack the Ripper was a mortician named Robert Mann who worked in the Whitechapel area where the Ripper murders were committed.  As I said, it's a plausible theory, more plausible than most of the ones I've heard and I'm not going to completely dismiss it.  The problem here is the logic behind most of the guy's "new evidence."  If you were to follow this guy's line of thought, then any mortician on the planet would look like a murder suspect.  He pointed out such gems as the fact that Mann had access to the bodies after the murders.  Well...yeah, he was the mortician.  He pointed out the fact that Mann spent a lot of time around dead bodies.  Well...yeah, he's a mortician.  He pointed out the fact that the murders all happened in the area surrounding Mann's mortuary.  Well...yeah, he was the mortician for that area.  Starting to see a pattern here?  The term "circumstantial evidence" would be an understatement if the term "evidence" wasn't already a ludicrous exaggeration.  Why not point the finger at the investigating police officer?  Why was he so interested in the murders?  Wasn't he at all the crimes scenes?  Hmm, sounds suspicious to me. 

It wasn't all a complete wash.  He did point out the Ripper's surgical skill with the knife.  But this only suggests the possibility of a medical background and is hardly conclusive.  The only really solid fact that he had that could possibly link Mann to the murders was that Mann had gotten tuberculosis and died around the same time the murders stopped.  Now, that's pretty good, but since I don't know more about the murders and the time frame they covered, and since people were probably dropping like flies from tuberculosis every other day, I can't really draw any firm conclusions from this.

And there was one interesting statement made by a criminal profiler that the guy consulted.  He said that Jack the Ripper didn't cut to kill; he killed in order to cut.  The excessive nature of the incisions showed that the killer really relished the use of the knife.  This was considered as a further consistency with Mann's occupation as a mortician.  The only thing I could think was, "Geez, doesn't the guy get enough of that at work?"