Best solution?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi All,

Just a crass notion, but Best couldn't have profited financially or enhanced his career prospects by writing DB without letting someone else in on the wheeze.

Also, if Jack the Ripper was nothing but a press invention cooked up to boost newspaper circulation, why years later were assorted top cops pretending he was real?

Regards,

Simon

So are you telling me and the rest of the world that people like me around the world have spent years chasing a FICTITIOUS killer?

Mr Holmes

[Phil H]

So are you telling me and the rest of the world that people like me around the world have spent years chasing a FICTITIOUS killer?

Well, a couple of serious books have been written on that theme:

AP Wolf "Jack the Myth" (1993 - which is, I think, available on this site); and

Peter Turnbull "The Killer Who Never Was" (1996).

After an initial shock, I found the ideas in both thought provoking and they set me off into new avenues.

I would date my tendency to question the truth of the "five canonicals" to reading those two books. I am now much more willing to consider the inclusion of other victims - Mckenzie - and to exclude others - Stride, MJK even Eddowes.

I suppose the idea behind the idea of no single killer is that the successive creation of a single "identity" (initially Leather Apron, then JtR) created a "frenzied", super-charged atmosphere in which press, public and police were all minded to think in terms of a SINGLE killer and may have conflated murders that were actually the work of other hands (Stride, MJK notably).

Since the question of method remains controversial it is not an idea that we can dismiss lightly, I feel. It sings in my head all the time nowadays, when I contemplate posts on here, read a new Ripper-related book, or consider a theory being put forward.

Phil H

[Sherlock Holmes]

So are you telling me and the rest of the world that people like me around the world have spent years chasing a FICTITIOUS killer?

Well, a couple of serious books have been written on that theme:

AP Wolf "Jack the Myth" (1993 - which is, I think, available on this site); and

Peter Turnbull "The Killer Who Never Was" (1996).

After an initial shock, I found the ideas in both thought provoking and they set me off into new avenues.

I would date my tendency to question the truth of the "five canonicals" to reading those two books. I am now much more willing to consider the inclusion of other victims - Mckenzie - and to exclude others - Stride, MJK even Eddowes.

I suppose the idea behind the idea of no single killer is that the successive creation of a single "identity" (initially Leather Apron, then JtR) created a "frenzied", super-charged atmosphere in which press, public and police were all minded to think in terms of a SINGLE killer and may have conflated murders that were actually the work of other hands (Stride, MJK notably).

Since the question of method remains controversial it is not an idea that we can dismiss lightly, I feel. It sings in my head all the time nowadays, when I contemplate posts on here, read a new Ripper-related book, or consider a theory being put forward.

Phil H

That is all well and good Phil but I asked what YOU think on the matter. Are we chasing a fictitious killer or not?

Mr Holmes

[Phil H]

I don't think "Jackthe Ripper" existed in the classic form, no.

I don't think the popular image of opera hat, cape and Gladstone bag is tenable, no.

I think MJK was probably killed by a separate hand and I am unsure (still) about Stride.

I think one killer may have killed Nichols and Chapman, maybe McKenzie.

Does that mean I no longer believe in JtR - as the man in the street would define him? I guess so.

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sherlock Holmes,

I realise it goes against the Ripperological grain, but, yes, we have been chasing a fictitious killer.

Thinking about this antithetical proposition doesn't immediately solve the mystery, but it does allow us to start making proper sense of all the various rot history has handed down to us.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Sherlock Holmes,

I realise it goes against the Ripperological grain, but, yes, we have been chasing a fictitious killer.

That should not come as a surprise to anyone.
When we don't have a name, nor know what he looked like, or how many he killed. No matter what the mind conjures up, the image must be largely fiction.

Like chasing smoke...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

You appear to be suggesting that, whilst the persona of JtR may have been fiction, a "serial killer" operating independently of the name was hard at work.

That's a rose by any other name.

Try setting the Whitechapel murders mystery into the context of there having been no common perpetrator.

I promise that it will prove to be an illuminating experience.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You appear to be suggesting that, whilst the persona of JtR may have been fiction, a "serial killer" operating independently of the name was hard at work.

I've always accepted, right or wrong, that at the very least three victims fell by the same hand.

Try setting the Whitechapel murders mystery into the context of there having been no common perpetrator.

I promise that it will prove to be an illuminating experience.

I think that interpretation only creates more problems, too many killers in the same area emulating a pattern. Or lets ask the question, why should that perspective make things easier to understand?

What is the benefit to having a dozen different killers from Smith through to Coles?

Regards, Jon S.

[caz]

I agree Jon. I've been asking this ever since the first converts began to appear, suggesting these 'unfortunate' murders could more easily be solved if we presumed each was by a different hand, and presumably committed for a variety of motives.

I have seen no attempts to explain the reasoning behind this speculation, or to provide any real evidence that a serial mutilator was not abroad in Whitechapel. Serial killing was and is a rare enough phenomenon as it is, but we are being asked to consider something that would apparently be unique in the long history of crime.

What's it all about? Nobody ever actually says.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

utility

Hello Caroline.

"I have seen no attempts to explain the reasoning behind this speculation, or to provide any real evidence that a serial mutilator was not abroad in Whitechapel. Serial killing was and is a rare enough phenomenon as it is, but we are being asked to consider something that would apparently be unique in the long history of crime."

Permit me. If we take the canonical five and one slayer, we must explain why Liz is not mutilated and Polly has organs intact. The best we can come up with is the deus ex machina, "Oh, well, he was interrupted."

We must explain why we are/are not looking for a thief--Polly was not pilfered, Kate was.

Also we can propose a weak but barely passing suspect like Barnett as the killer of "MJK" without the silly attempts to explain why he HAD to kill Kate.

It is what Mr Evans reminded us of in his "Ultimate Companion"--keep seriality in the back of your mind but treat each as a case in itself.

Serial killing? No, not even one serial killer in the Autumn of 1888--unless the torso killer were such.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

What's it all about?

If I knew that I'd probably be stonkingly rich and peeling you a grape on some sun-kissed tropical island.

However, back in the real world, it has become fairly obvious [to me at least] that there was no lone JtR to catch and bring to justice. Just as there was no lone homicidal maniac known as Leather Apron, a myth squashed in quick-smart time following the murder of Annie Chapman, the real game-changer in the Whitechapel mystery.

That there was no JtR is best illustrated by the contradictory reports of his fate.

Dead, committed to an asylum, doing a stretch in prison, got away from London, dead again, back in an asylum, fled to America, committed suicide, about to meet the hangman . . . the list of anecdotal rumours goes on and on, each attributable to various police sources.

Imagine if two or more of these police sources had agreed.

Somebody might have demanded to see their evidence.

And so the Ripper mystery rumbled on inconclusively until such time nobody really cared any more and the matter of his identity became little more than a cosy parlour game.

I have abandoned any search for a non-existent serial-killing JtR and am instead concentrating on what might really have been going on in the East End of London at the time, which involves why this mythical personage was so heavily promoted by the police.

Therein, I believe, lies the real answer to the mystery behind the Whitechapel murders.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

I have abandoned any search for a non-existent serial-killing JtR and am instead concentrating on what might really have been going on in the East End of London at the time, which involves why this mythical personage was so heavily promoted by the police.

Was this "mythical personage" not in fact promoted in letters to the police, rather than by them?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,

You appear to be suggesting that, whilst the persona of JtR may have been fiction, a "serial killer" operating independently of the name was hard at work.

That's a rose by any other name.

Try setting the Whitechapel murders mystery into the context of there having been no common perpetrator.

I promise that it will prove to be an illuminating experience.

Regards,

Simon

Simon/all
or perhaps the opposite and also illuminating experience of placing ALL the unsolved murders, including the torso murders, into the context of there being a common perpatrator.

Leaving the police/gov/royal conspiracies out of the picture, consider the following.

If you beleive there are several, or seperate killers for each/most of the WC murders-do you also beleive there are seperate killers for each/most of the torso murders? If not-whats the difference? They are both a series of unsolved murders.


Whats more probable- that there are a gaggle of murderers running around killing women of the same class at the same time or just two seperate serial killers operating? Take it one step further-Is it more probable that two serial killers are operating at the same time (at a time when serial killing was extremely rare) or one man perpetrating both the WC and Torso murders?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

It was the Metropolitan Police who did the promoting, by enlarging the JtR correspondence to poster size and splashing it across London.

And everyone bought it—hook, line and sinker.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Where do I start?

Permit me. If we take the canonical five and one slayer, we must explain why Liz is not mutilated and Polly has organs intact. The best we can come up with is the deus ex machina, "Oh, well, he was interrupted."

The best is more than adequate in the circumstances. It would have been a bloomin' miracle for any murderer to have lingered moments longer with any one of the victims without someone coming upon the scene. This wasn't exactly happening far from the madding crowd.

We must explain why we are/are not looking for a thief--Polly was not pilfered, Kate was.

No killer is a robot, and no two crimes by the same hand are ever identical. I expect if Bundy had not been caught you could have pointed to differences in every single one of his murders and argued against a lone killer for all. In any case, how do you know something was not taken from each Whitechapel victim, without necessarily being missed? If by 'pilfered' you mean the organs, then Polly was not pilfered, but Annie was.

Also we can propose a weak but barely passing suspect like Barnett as the killer of "MJK" without the silly attempts to explain why he HAD to kill Kate.

Or we can go with the police verdict at the time that Barnett could safely be eliminated. No explanation needed as to why a serial mutilator might have killed Kate and MJK. It would have been rude not to, when they were handing their vulnerability out on a plate.

It is what Mr Evans reminded us of in his "Ultimate Companion"--keep seriality in the back of your mind but treat each as a case in itself.

Absolutely fair enough, except that some profess no interest in exploring seriality as a phenomenon, and have banished it entirely from their mind, allowing no comparisons to be made with the WM.

Serial killing? No, not even one serial killer in the Autumn of 1888--unless the torso killer were such.

I rest my case.

Love,

Caz
X