So why did "Jack" reach near mythical status?

[Barnaby]

Hi Errata,

That Heroes and Villians class sounds interesting! Discussing the popularity of Jack in this context makes me start thinking of things like "Which serial killer would you most like to have a beer with?" etc. It's also how we pick our Presidents in the U.S.

[DrummondStreet]

In addition to what everyone else has said about the gruesomeness of the crimes, its unsolved status, and the creepy setting of London's rundown East end....

There were the series of letters to the police and newspapers and don't forget the piece of kidney. The killer was taunting the police and public (if we believe any of the letters to be from the killer, himself), warning them of future murders and planned mutilations. Most serial killers don't do that.

[Errata]

I'm not sure that I fully agree your thesis, Errata.

Phil

Perfectly fair. But we studied Bonnie and Clyde, Starkweather, Dillinger and Capone in my Heroes and Villains class (fun class) and we studied them in the heroes section because of public perception of the American Outlaw. Don't get me started on our cowboys. The people did terrible, violent, insane things. And evidently we love them for it. It's all about attitude and presentation. Who doesn't love Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham, when we know he kills, rapes, maims... I can't speak for the British, but Americans have a long standing love affair wit the brash, confident, witty villain.

Which may be the difference. The British tend to appreciate discipline more than attitude. I'm sort of curious how the breakdown in Jack's popularity with Americans and British comes down. It may be the resurgence in the 60s had a great deal to do with the American market.

[Steve S]

I will add that I think the London setting plays a part...If the same sequence had happened in.........Dubrovnik,would we be as interested...?

[Phil H]

I'm not sure that I fully agree your thesis, Errata.

But you are right about the letters - whether they were from the Ripper or not (and I firmly believe he knew nothing of them - indeed, probably could not write in English at all) - in public consciousness they became attached to him and influenced perceptions of his being a taunting almost mischievous figure.

But I think without the highly effective name "Jack the Ripper" being applied to him, that might not have happened. "Jack" - in itself - in English culture has a ring and an evocative side - playful, cocky, Jack Ketch (ironic for a hangman); Jack Tar (the sailor lad); and as I mentioned Spring-Heeled- Jack.

Phil

[Errata]

Jack the Ripper, Robin Hood, Bart Simpson, Bugs Bunny, Even Dr. Who owe their amazing longevity in popular culture to one thing. Total lack of respect for authority. Doing what they want, taunting their betters, their elders, and figures of authority. Nobody would have cared about Robin Hood so many years later if all he had done was rob from the rich and give to the poor. That has all the sexiness of a church parable. But Robin Hood tricks, steal from under peoples noses, swings in on ropes, schmoozes the ladies, throws off a few dashing lines of bravado, pantses the sheriff and gets off scott free. Jack does the same thing in his own legend. He kills, he taunts, he wears a smart suit and a dapper hat, probably twirls his moustaches while chuckling maniacally, and makes fun of the police who can't catch him. He would have been nothing without the letters. But with the letters he is the anti Robin Hood. The romantic villain of a bygone age who does what we want to do. Not murder prostitutes, but tell the police where they can shove it without paying the consequences.

[Phil H]

Yes. For those expecting a happy ending, it was a crushing blow.

[lynn cates]

movie

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Yes, and after watching the ending, some of us were slightly suspicious of lifts.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

And me, Lynn. Just seeing the trailer for the 1959 film (aged about 10/11) gave me nightmares and directly led to my later interest.

But my point was not about individual impact.

So far as I am aware, the films are not regarded as classics. "Study" is know a bit but probably because it is also a Sherlock Holmes film. Even the Hammer "Hands of the ripper (eric Porter and Angharad Rees as I recall ) is not usually mentioned as one of the studios major successes. I don't see either film as having the impact that later ones did (Murder by Decree and from Hell, particularly).

For the record, I specifically mentioned the Caine series as reinforcing the royal conspiracy theory on the wider public psyche.

On a separate point, about the impact of "Jack's" split second timing - if true, but it's the myth we are discussing - I think this ties in with the cleverness of the invented nom de plume. Spring-heeled-Jack was already a name to conjure with.

The name (JtR) is, to me, an all important factor, since I don't think a killer remembered as "Leather Apron" or "The Whitechapel Fiend" would stirred the emotions in so deep a way.

Phil

[Nic1950]

Hi

I agree with the media having a massive influence on the popularity of Jack, like you the first time it drew me in was in 1988 (I was 12) and it was with Michael Caine as Abberline. That was the start for me but it shows how many versions have been televised and how many people from that point took an interest in the case.
Thanks
Nic

[lynn cates]

Baker and Berman

Hello Phil.

"The films of the period, the 1959ish JtR and a Study in Terror being examples were sensationalist but I don't think had huge success. But they kept JtR in the public eye as something special."

Indeed. Had a huge impact on me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

escape

Hello Tom. Interesting idea for a thread.

I wonder if his "split second timing" (say, in Mitre sq) played a role? A hair breadth escape make for a good story.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

1st serial killer (at least to be recognised as such)
The soubriquet of JtR
The fact he was never caught or named
Memories of the fear generated by the autumn of terror
The fact that the press latched on to the case (and may indeed have "created" a single murderer out of several) in such a big way
The savagery of the attacks ( aided in memory by the "Ripper" tag)

Theses are just a few reasons.

I don't believe that JtR can be said to have become a "sensation" between the 1880s (when it was all new) and 1960 - when I believe the modern Ripper craze was conceived.

We then find the modern style of Ripper book, beginning with MacCormick, and going through Farson ansd Cullen. (there were always "serious" Ripperphiles around, Colin Wilson and Richard Whittingto-Egan being examples at this period.

The films of the period, the 1959ish JtR and a Study in Terror being examples were sensationalist but I don't think had huge success. But they kept JtR in the public eye as something special.

The "classic" Ripper book of the era had the following format:

a) long or short summary of the case and events

b) summary of suspects to date

c) rubbishing all previous suspects

d) why this author's suspect is the real deal.

Repeat in entirity on publication of next JtR book!!

Knight created a genuine sensation with his "royal conspiracy" - fascination having been fuelled by the Barlow & Watt documentary drama (c 1973).

Since then we have had the centenary and the birth of modern "scientific Ripper studies, starting with Rumbelow, and proceeding through Fido, Begg, Evans, Skinner, and Sugden, with many serious researchers emerging along with serious journals, the first I think being Nick Warren's Ripperana. Along with Knight, the Michael caine TV mini-series of 1988 helped imprint the conspiracy in the wider public imagination.

It has been a long process, taking 150 years, and concentrating in the last few decades. It has been aided by the iconic figure in opera hat, cape and with Gladstone/medical bag in hand. I believe that stereo-type of jack is long outdated, but ask most people and that is, I suspect, what they will describe.

Not a simple answer, I'm afraid, but that is my response to your question.

Phil

[Nic1950]

Hi

Jack is as huge as the bogeyman! I think there many factors that have contributed to this mystery. The fact that it is a mystery, the way the victims were mutilated and also the environment at the time. The dark foggy streets and alleyways spell eerie and scary to me. I'm aware of the torso murders at that time but to carefully mutilate someone as opposed to chopping limbs off is a lot more interesting. The suspects who been put forward over the years have created more interest (royalty), not only that but we have a name, a name that says it all and I know the letters aren't thought to be from him but that title has stuck.
Thanks
Nic

[TomTomKent]

So why did the press turn The Whitechappel murders into a sensation that still resonates today, while the likes of the Torso murders though infamous at the time seem to have had less of an impact on history.

I know it is something of a vague, airy question and one that has been discussed before, but given how many of us are on this forum, and how many works of fiction, films, books (novels and those claiming to be factual despite their absurd narratives) and tv shows draw their fodder from the history of these very real, very unfortunate, very tragic deaths and the lives touched by them, the spate of recent spree shootings and high profile murders on the other side of the Atlantic (and this is not intended as a pro or anti gun rant) has made me wonder what exactly it is about the emotional response of society to the Autumn of Terror that made Jack part of lore and mythology so quickly.

I am sure there is no less shock, no less digust, fear, or terror, generated in response to more recent events on either side of the Atlantic (or anywhere else). So is it that Jack was not identified, leaving the eerie illusion he may still be out there, even after all these decades? We know who the Washington Sniper or Crossbow Cannibal were, and we know the consequences of their actions. Or is it the savagery of his actions? The way the officials handled events?

Or is it so simple as the idea that "Jack" was so quickly seperated from his actions in the public mind, as a generic ghoul and embodiment of our fears that like Robin Hood or Dick Turpin we see him as a figure of stories, not facts, despite any real events that may bare a passing resemblance?