Belief

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In the absence of any evidence to support the 1888 existence of JtR, "the fiend in human form", what are your reasons in 2010 for wanting to believe in him?

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Hi Simon
For some of us(myself included) it's the belief that there's something different about this set of murders.Not the usual lone killer stuff.
Yes we get mocked but I doubt there's another set of killings where 40% of the victims used the same name-especially the last 2!!
Yes ,i've read the coincidence threads but sometimes they're too strong and i suspect that if all 5 had been called Mary Kelly on the night we'd still get 'coincidence' thrown at us-just look at how few Kelly's there are in the a-z or mentioned anywhere as witnesses etc.
Inquests don't usually occur in the wrong region as with Kellys.
Documents dont usually disappear then reappear many years later.
MO's don't usually change so drastically.
The timing of Eddowes murder to fit in with the police beats with everything that was done to her seems to be an impossibility.
Rediculous statements accepted and solid statements virtually ignored.
Probable TOD adjusted by a few

It's a mystery,a proper mystery and it's different.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Packer,

Many thanks for answering my question.

Does his existence satisfactorily explain all the evidential shortcomings you listed?

Regards,

Simon

[Scorpio]

Hi, i cannot say that i want to believe in JtR, but i feel there are compelling reasons to suggest that a number of women in the East End of London 1888 were killed by the same individual, and you can call that person what you like. When considering the interaction ( Ante and Post mortem) with the victim,Tabram,Nicholls,Chapman,Eddowes and Kelly suggest something like a learning curve, expressing the effects of experience motivated by an increasing fetishistic interest in the bodies. This i would argue is typical of a single individual. Well, thats my take on it.
Scorpio.

[lynn cates]

Dr. Samuel Johnson

Hello Simon. Then there's the "Dr. Johnson argument" for free will.

"As for our will, we know 'tis free. And there's an end on't."

Cheers.
LC

[packers stem]

Hi Packer,

Many thanks for answering my question.

Does his existence satisfactorily explain all the evidential shortcomings you listed?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Answer to that has to be no

[Adam Went]

Of course Jack the Ripper existed, but IMO, it's really not about him anymore. Most of us here realise that the chances of ever finding out his true identity are minimal to say the least, and even if it were to happen, it's many decades too late to administer any justice. So instead, it's about the victims (as it should be), and finding out as much about them as we can....likewise, it's about the witnesses, the policemen, suspects, people involved with the case in whatever way....the citizens of London and what their day to day lives were like. Today, Jack is really just the glue that holds it all together - the gateway to a bygone era, if you will.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Rubyretro]

it's about the victims (as it should be), and finding out as much about them as we can....likewise, it's about the witnesses, the policemen, suspects, people involved with the case in whatever way....the citizens of London and what their day to day lives were like. Today, Jack is really just the glue that holds it all together - the gateway to a bygone era, if you will.

Beautifully put Adam -I so agree with you !

I've nearly given up telling friends that I go on this site all the time, because in 100% of cases they sneer and say 'waste of time' and think that I must be obsessed with the blood and guts (which funnily enough is the only thing that THEY want to know about) -yet 'Jack' is only the 'glue' as you say.
Thinking about 'Hutch' (my favourite Suspect) has really only been an excuse to (at various times) trawl through documents on the lives of Victorian grooms, The history of Newmarket, the Army in the late Victorian era and the colonies, Victorian clothing, the rise of anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century, let alone reading all the Posts on the doss houses, food habits
etc of Whitechapel. And articles such as the Princess Alice ! -or the Mrs Beeton page under 'Housekeeping'. oh, I forgot to mention all those interesting Posts on the Socialists..(I could go on and on).

It's the biggest pleasure after a day at work in a routine, to unwind with a great 'debate' and communicate with some incredibly interesting and knowledgable people living all over the world -not to mention the 'funnies'
under Pub Talk. I don't know why people think it's 'better' or 'more normal' to get in and vegetate in front of brain dead telly ,

I suppose that it is morally dubious though, that all this 'pleasure' comes from the horric deaths of those poor women at the hands of a particularly vicious killer..? But without a central peg to give you the reason to look for info, there wouldn't be a focus to it, and I'd probably never do it.

[Barnaby]

So instead, it's about the victims (as it should be), and finding out as much about them as we can....likewise, it's about the witnesses, the policemen, suspects, people involved with the case in whatever way....the citizens of London and what their day to day lives were like. Today, Jack is really just the glue that holds it all together - the gateway to a bygone era, if you will.
Cheers,
Adam.

I respectfully disagree. From a lay-person emotional standpoint, few really care about the victims and the backdrop of Whitechapel interests most as simply staging for the crimes. From a historical standpoint, the victomology is very interesting and valuable but it will remain a side story. This website, this genre, first and foremost is all about the mystery of Jack the Ripper.

[Graham]

I believe it's basically the good old human fascination with a genuine mystery; and in this case one which will almost certainly never be solved.

Even a cursory study of the case will show anyone that History (with a capital 'H') isn't just about kings and queens and wars and battles and great deeds of derring-do, but about very ordinary people, too. I think I learned more about social history from JtR than I ever did from school or standard text-books on the subject.

Graham

[protohistorian]

Damn well said sir! Dave

[The Good Michael]

Graham,

And the social history is just as fascinating as any war history. It is war history in its own way.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

But what about the leading question asked in the first post?

In the absence of any evidence to support the 1888 existence of JtR, "the fiend in human form", what are your reasons in 2010 for wanting to believe in him?

No evidence, Simon?

Wanting to believe?

I would turn the question round and ask why you are in denial, when faced with overwhelming evidence that a serial mutilator was active in the district, and no evidence for any other rational explanation.

Here's a clue - start with the victims and the reaction of the ordinary people to the far from ordinary circumstances of their deaths. They didn't have the term for it yet - serial offending - but they knew what it was.

One day they will look back at 2010 and shake their heads in disbelief that anyone could even have asked the question you pose with a straight face.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scorpio]

Hello, in an earlier post i stated some of my reasons for believing that a serial murderer was at large in Whitechapel 1888, but now i wonder if a person called Jack the Rippers existence really matters. The women were undoubtedly murdered either by one or various hands, in the greatest city in the world, at the birth of the truly modern era, that is, our era. Whether your interest is forensic,psychological,sociological,historical or enjoy a gossip, its all there.

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"I would turn the question round and ask why you are in denial, when faced with overwhelming evidence that a serial mutilator was active in the district, and no evidence for any other rational explanation."

Evidence, Caz, is very hard to come by 122 years later. When I argue that Strides killer would not have been Jack, but instead a probable, as yet unidentified lover/aquaintance of hers, you normally raise the same demand - show me the evidence.

I think that the evidence lies in, for example, her very "unsoliciting" behavior together with Marshallīs man and the fact that she had spoken of a man she lived with in Fashion Street. No proof, of course - nowhere even near it - but it does belong to the testimony and thus the evidence.

This aside, I believe that one factor that must be weighed in when trying to understand the 1888 deeds, is the factor of copycat behaviour. Only today, Swedish newspapers are reporting about a right-wing politician, who was assaulted in his home and had a swastika cut into his forehead. I see little reason to doubt that this action was lead on by Brad Pittīs figure in "Inglorious Basterds", the Tarantino movie, where this precise action is reproduced in a very graphic manner.
To be honest, I do believe that these kinds of things are much more the products of our society today, than what was the case back in 1888, but I donīt think that we can rule it out categorically nevertheless. Maybe Alice McKenzie is a useful reminder to that end, a woman that most Ripperologists do not ascribe to Jack, but who would certainly have made the list if she had been cut in late August 1888.

A final remark that can be made in relation to the discussion, is that it is interesting to see how those who are very much in favour of just the one mutilating serial killer stalking the East End in 1888, also seem to be fervent defenders of the wiew that Stride was a Ripper killing, whereas the ones who think Jack a myth, more or less, take the other stance. In that regard, I am an anomaly, since I am just as convinced as you are that Jack was very, very real - but I donīt think he killed Stride.

The best,
Fisherman