History or True Crime?

[JTRSickert]

Hello, how does everyone think the Whitechapel murders should be studied? In a sociological-historical sense or from the perspective of a criminal investigation? I remember listening to the podcast that the crimes are taught as part of the UK school curriculum; so, in a sense, Jack the Ripper is probably the only serial killer (of the "standard" sense, anyway) to go down in History (as opposed to mass murderers like Hitler and Vlad Dracula, etc.). But, should we study the case from a historical point of view or from a True Crime perspective?

[Mike Covell]

Why not both?

[Jdombrowski89]

Ive always been inclined to notice that in the bookstores its listed as History/True Crime. And as Mike said, why not both? It's dully noted as one of the greatest unsolved historical moment in history that ranks up there with plenty of others.

Regards,
Justin

[looby64]

Whenever I hear the word Whitechapel I immediately think of JTR, he and his crimes are part of its history so yes I think its a should be listed as both.
x Looby

[corey123]

Hey all,

I would say it should be labled as historical crime.

Yours truly

[Edward]

Both, and much, much more ...

Hello All-

It should be seen as both, as its historical value, and as True Crime. In addition, the murders should be viewed as mass speculation/fantasy. Nobody, but nobody knows who Jack was, or the motivations behind the dastardly deeds. On the website, however, there is plenty of speculation and supposition advanced as "fact". Fantasy, in my view. Nobody knows!

Edward

[kensei]

Why should Jack be featured in history texts in England when Ted Bundy is not in America? Bundy played no part in major changes taking place in the culture and society, whereas Jack apparently did. Also, the Queen and Prime Minister both had significant roles weighing in on the Ripper case. We see no such role by Jimmy Carter in regards to Bundy.

Charles Manson on the other hand- The Helter Skelter case was a major part of how the 60s merged into the 70s in America, and Richard Nixon did play a role. I guess we have to take these things on a case by case basis as to how they are viewed.

[smezenen]

We discussed Ted Bundy in my (Utah)State history class when I was in High School. During the class we where having discussion on the topic of the states prison system and its development from the Mormon Pioneer times to the present. Due to the awfull Murder of Sharon Sant the year before by George Hamilton and William Bott, we where discussing killers. Her body was mutilated and dismembered tehn burried in a shallow grave near Cove Fort Utah (about 30 miles from where I lived.) We also discussed Jack the Ripper, Charlie Manson and his family, Zodiac, Son of Sam, and some others.

[Gman992]

From a criminal perspective only. Crimes were committed, and all the evidence should be followed as such until a suspect is taken into custody and justice is done. When you start seeing crimes from a historical/sociological perspective, that only taints the evidence and you form judgements from that. Hence, you have the Royal/Masonic conspiracy, the Jewish conspiracy, the Irish conspiracy, the Russian conspiracy, etc. All of these theories have done nothing but muck up the waters in the case based on the belief that a larger force was at work behind the crimes. They have done everything to perpetuate the "myth" of Jack the Ripper as opposed to the facts of Jack the Ripper. All they do is provide a reason but not the truth. I mean, the Royal/Masonic conspiracies were pushed by people who believed that the rich and upper classes were responsible for the murders to keep the lower classes "down" and rising up to overthrow the status quo. The fact of the matter is that one man killed five women, and everyone from the press to the politicians did nothing, but use the murders to push their own agendas, and quite frankly, destroyed the reputations of good, decent people. For instance, the Cleveland Street raids have absolutely nothing to do with Jack the Ripper, but people include them to point out how homosexuality was perceived in England at the time, and hence, since one of the suspects might have been gay, link homosexuality with murder. Didn't McNaughton consider Druitt to be "sexual insane?" Weren't foreigners--a code word for Jews--considered to be the Ripper?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Don't know what either of those long-worded terminologies mean , but I think a good way to look at the case is to leave suspects out of it altogether and just focus on the crimes themselves. Then maybe look at suspects afterwards; with an unbiased eye.

[protohistorian]

True Gman, but so is the opposite argument. What we "know" or think we know of crime comes from a radically differing context and cannot be placed in the late Victorian context with any degree of security of conclusion. I rather suspect it must be both. One has to conscious of the criminology, but also the historical context. People have the same set of cognitive functions, but radically differing cultural inputs to which they respond. Dave

[YankeeSergeant]

True crime or history

I think both would be appropriate. Jack the Ripper like it or not has become an iconic figure and not just in England. His crimes as shocking as they were gave bigger impetus to the reform movement so passionately embraced by Sir Willam Ewart Gladstone. Jack figures in history but he also figures in true crime and is a case study in what the Metropolitan police and Scotland Yard did right and also what they did wrong
If you have to label Jack the Ripper I would call it criminal history. Thanks to all for a fascinating discussion by the way. Neil