Tweet
the other night, for the first time, I read the Ripper section from Dew's book here on the casebook. it is, quite honestly, one of the best things I've ever read on the subject. why it's not talked about more, I don't understand. If you've not read it, I strongly encourage it.
I believe he most definitely got some dates wrong, which he apologizes for in the beginning of the writing. but it's understandable since it was written and edited 50 years after the fact. and others have criticized it for him seeming to pat himself and the police on the back or maybe trump up how much of a role he actually played in the investigation. I don't care about any of that. there are several points that really stand out to me:
1. instead of writing as someone on the outside looking in, like a documentary, he writes from the point of view of someone who was actually there on the streets.
2. whether or not he trumped up the role that he played in the investigation, one thing is clear.....where many of his contemporaries were arrogant enough to say they KNEW who the Ripper was, Dew was man enough to say that he had no earthly clue who the Ripper was and that it was one of his greatest disappointments.
3. He painted a fantastic picture of the East End. The story of "Squibby", who was mistaken as the Ripper and nearly lynched before the police saved him. The story of the policeman who was not afraid to go into any part of the East End to get a wanted suspect. the clergyman who went into a lodging house and was stripped naked and sent out into the streets. these stories are classic when trying to imagine the times and situations.
4. Dew put the whole "Ripper frenzy" into a better perspective. with almost any Ripper book you read, you'll see that nothing much was thought of a killer on the loose until after Chapman was killed. that's the impression I've always gotten. when in actuality, according to Dew, the public were already getting nervous after the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram. and after the Nichols and Chapman murders, the public went into an all out panic. I put most of the blame for my previous misconceptions on MacNaughtenn, who so brazenly said there were only 5 Ripper victims. and I think a lot of modern Ripper writers go by this same thing and paint it that way. but as violent as the East End was, murders weren't as common as you'd think. So Dew really hits it home that there was already a little bit of unease before the first "canonical" was even killed.
5. Emma Smith. I had never even remotely considered her to be a Ripper victim until reading Dew's book. for one thing, the MO didn't match. for another, I've always been led to believe that she told the police that she was attacked by 3 men. Now, I don't know if Dew is right or not, but he says that she arrived at the hospital in a state of bleeding to death and that once inside, she never regained consciousness. He also states that she made no statements whatsoever to police. He points out also that the site where she was attacked was almost at the precise location where Nichols body was found.
6. the wall graffitti. he appears to not believe that the "Juwes are the men" graffitti had anything to do with the Ripper and says there were wall graffitti close to all the murder sites. He also does not seem to believe that any of the letters were real either.
so what do you think about it? I think you really have to forgive some of the smaller points that he may have gotten wrong. but do you think he got most of it right?
to me, he seems to have been a very good and knowledgable cop. it's important to wonder if he got most of it right or wrong. because he seemed to believe that the Ripper was being helped or hidden by his family, but never actually comes out and accuses anyone.
I believe he most definitely got some dates wrong, which he apologizes for in the beginning of the writing. but it's understandable since it was written and edited 50 years after the fact. and others have criticized it for him seeming to pat himself and the police on the back or maybe trump up how much of a role he actually played in the investigation. I don't care about any of that. there are several points that really stand out to me:
1. instead of writing as someone on the outside looking in, like a documentary, he writes from the point of view of someone who was actually there on the streets.
2. whether or not he trumped up the role that he played in the investigation, one thing is clear.....where many of his contemporaries were arrogant enough to say they KNEW who the Ripper was, Dew was man enough to say that he had no earthly clue who the Ripper was and that it was one of his greatest disappointments.
3. He painted a fantastic picture of the East End. The story of "Squibby", who was mistaken as the Ripper and nearly lynched before the police saved him. The story of the policeman who was not afraid to go into any part of the East End to get a wanted suspect. the clergyman who went into a lodging house and was stripped naked and sent out into the streets. these stories are classic when trying to imagine the times and situations.
4. Dew put the whole "Ripper frenzy" into a better perspective. with almost any Ripper book you read, you'll see that nothing much was thought of a killer on the loose until after Chapman was killed. that's the impression I've always gotten. when in actuality, according to Dew, the public were already getting nervous after the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram. and after the Nichols and Chapman murders, the public went into an all out panic. I put most of the blame for my previous misconceptions on MacNaughtenn, who so brazenly said there were only 5 Ripper victims. and I think a lot of modern Ripper writers go by this same thing and paint it that way. but as violent as the East End was, murders weren't as common as you'd think. So Dew really hits it home that there was already a little bit of unease before the first "canonical" was even killed.
5. Emma Smith. I had never even remotely considered her to be a Ripper victim until reading Dew's book. for one thing, the MO didn't match. for another, I've always been led to believe that she told the police that she was attacked by 3 men. Now, I don't know if Dew is right or not, but he says that she arrived at the hospital in a state of bleeding to death and that once inside, she never regained consciousness. He also states that she made no statements whatsoever to police. He points out also that the site where she was attacked was almost at the precise location where Nichols body was found.
6. the wall graffitti. he appears to not believe that the "Juwes are the men" graffitti had anything to do with the Ripper and says there were wall graffitti close to all the murder sites. He also does not seem to believe that any of the letters were real either.
so what do you think about it? I think you really have to forgive some of the smaller points that he may have gotten wrong. but do you think he got most of it right?
to me, he seems to have been a very good and knowledgable cop. it's important to wonder if he got most of it right or wrong. because he seemed to believe that the Ripper was being helped or hidden by his family, but never actually comes out and accuses anyone.
Comment