Jack the Ripper: Man or Myth?

[Hunter]

Yeah, these dollymops must have been a real threat to the brothels.

[lynn cates]

flexible

Hello Harry. Thanks for starting this thread.

You are right that I don't see all by the same hand. My point of departure is that:

1. Polly and Annie were a series of two.

2. Kate was a TRUE copycat.

Other than that, I am quite flexible. In particular, I am excited about Tom Wescott's work on the earlier murders and the notion of a violent thug. Even better if he were associated with a brothel.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Under modern terminology, Jack would be considered a spree killer, not a serial killer. Besides, the reason that modern serial killers operate over a much larger area than Jack did is because they now all have cars, which was not the case in 1888.

I do believe that one man killed at least four, probably five, maybe even six or seven prostitutes in London in 1888-89. I don't think he ever called himself Jack the Ripper...if he did, he didn't come up with that name. I don't think any of the letters are genuine and I don't think the GSG was written by the killer.

So I believe that "Jack the Ripper" was a man, but admit that there is also a lot of myth that has grown up around him.

[Rosella]

Yes I certainly agree there. I don't think he was a toff either, and he probably never owned a top hat or a Gladstone bag. All part of the legend.

My view is that Jack was a youngish local, not Jewish in fact probably anti-Jew. He was probably in regular employment, at least in the second half of 1888, and had lodgings somewhere in Whitechapel. I don't believe Jack inhabited doss-houses but I don't think he was prosperous either.

[John Wheat]

Harry

I would say that the real Jack was probably some loser and not the cape wearing top hated toff that he is so often portrayed as in works of fiction.

Cheers John

[kensei]

My two cents' worth would be that Nicholls, Chapman, and Eddowes were such similar crimes that it would be unlikely in the extreme that they weren't all done by the same person, and that Kelly was an expansion of what was done to all of them due to it being sheltered and the killer having the luxury of time. Surely what was done to MJK is not something a person only does once.

And as to the question of man or myth, well I would say he is both. The Ripper has become a mythical figure but that doesn't mean he wasn't real. Many myths contain an element of truth.

[Wickerman]

P.S. and yes, he was real.

Real, in the sense that there were at least three victims, likely four, and possibly five, who all fell to the same hand.

[c.d.]

Geez, Harry, you are one of my favorite posters on here but you should know better than to post something like this. For certain people (yes, we know who you are) it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. And they will be off and running. Bet on it.

c.d.

P.S. and yes, he was real.

[Harry D]

I was reading an extract from Peter Turnbull's book where he posits that all of the Whitechapel murders were a series of unrelated killings. Apparently, 'Jack the Ripper' was merely an invention cooked up by the media and Coroner Baxter soaking up the limelight. Supposedly Dr. Bagster Phillips cottoned onto what was happening and falsely stated that the killer must have great anatomical knowledge in order to deter any would-be Rippers from emulating the murders.

Turnbull argues that most serial killers (e.g. Sutcliffe, Nilsen, Ridgway) pace themselves over a period of years, seemingly oblivious to the idea that the Ripper's "reign" was curtailed by incarceration or death. He goes on to say that serial killers typically branch out and don't operate within a restricted area like Whitechapel. Again, I think the author's being deliberately obtuse here and has a modern day sensibility in mind. For one, that patently isn't true for all serial killers, and secondly the Ripper didn't have access to the kind of transport that someone like Ted Bundy did.

I know we have people on here, notably messieurs Lynn and Michael W Richards who believe there are enough discrepancies between certain murders to question the one-killer theory, but I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who believes most of the canonical murders, let alone ALL of them, were simply a string of copycat murders. It defies all sense to believe that a neighborhood with a low homicide rate like Whitechapel was the sudden breeding-ground for a slew of murderers, all of whom never killed again and gave up because Bagster Phillips called their bluff?

Is this guy for real? Or have I been trolled hard?