Jack Invented by Journalists?

[Bulldog]

That's the question raised in an article in this morning's (1 May 2009) Times.

Here's the link:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6201628.ece

Bulldog

[Crystal]

Hi Bulldog

Thanks for posting the link.

It's an interesting take on things - not one I think I subscribe to myself. I'm of the camp that says 'more' not 'less' when it comes to JTR victims.

Having said that, I think there can be no doubt that 'Jack The Ripper' as a character in the popular consciousness is by and large a media invention. The same is true, to some extent of course, of most modern serial killers (and by this I probably mean from Jack onwards).

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between Jack of myth, and the actual Whitechapel Murderer(s). I haven't seen this book - how well does it draw that distinction - do you know?

[Pinkerton]

Just read the article. The name of the book by the author is "Jack The Ripper: Case Closed". You have to admire the humility of the author...

You will not find THAT many women killed in such a short period of time, in such a limited geographical area, all with throats cut from a knife, all prostitutes, and it NOT be the work of a serial killer. This is one of the most asinine theories out there. I would sooner believe it to be the work of the Royal Family or one of the other ludicrous conspiracy theorists before I would believe this.

[babybird67]

i agree

i'm another one who thinks there were more rather than less Ripper victims. I would definitely include Tabram as an early prototype sort of kill.

While the myth etc was encouraged by the Press, one can't say they invented him as such...if there were no serial killer out there murdering prostitutes then no press coverage would have responded to it...unless the writer is suggesting a journalist committed the murders in order to support more sales?

[The Good Michael]

A parallel theory that Dan Norder and I have talked about is the creation of jack by the press, rather than the invention. This means that the press reports kept him going and elevated his butchery by suggesting more of a slaughter each time than what really happened. It was almost as if he had to live up to what was required of him by the reports. The theory needs tweaking, but it is interesting, though that doesn't belong here, and I apologize for the stroll into misdirection.

Mike

[truebluedub]

It's a similar theory to Turnbull's Man or Myth which covered the c5 murders. It is also supported in theory by Jan Bondeson's London Monster in the short section on Jack the Ripper. The basic argument is that it was a moral panic, a well established scientific concept, where the press linked unconnected murders together before running out of steam for the most part after the Kelly murder. There is some empirical evidence to back this, we know some murders were connected to the series for example Emma Smith. Professor L. Perry Curtis has established that there was a reduction in coverage following the Kelly murder.
Several established Ripper theories rely on a watered down version of the concept and exclude Kelly and/or Stride.

Chris Lowe

Edit: Turnbull's theory argues none of the killings were linked, Cook allows for three.

[Limehouse]

The idea that 'moral panic' was caused by linking a series of unconnected murders together and attributing them to one maniac is rather quaint to me.

Personally, I would be much more alarmed by the idea of several brutal murderers picking women off the streets in a small geographical area than I would by one such maniac. Surely that would be a sign of greater moral decline than if one person was responsible?

[Pinkerton]

The idea that 'moral panic' was caused by linking a series of unconnected murders together and attributing them to one maniac is rather quaint to me.

Personally, I would be much more alarmed by the idea of several brutal murderers picking women off the streets in a small geographical area than I would by one such maniac. Surely that would be a sign of greater moral decline than if one person was responsible?

Well said Limehouse. A book with the theme that the Ripper was a manifestation of "moral panic" in the Victorian era...This sounds like a paper written during the 60's or 70's when it was all the rage for academics to view history through the lens of Freudian analysis based on overly simplistic stereotypes of the Victorian era. Quaint is right!

[truebluedub]

From Bondeson, 2000.

[perrymason]

I dont think the Press was to blame by themselves, I believe the loose lips of some of the police let rumor and innuendo factor in as well. And the local gossip.

Truth is we dont even know if there was a single serial killer running amok,... all Canonical deaths are Unsolved Murders, we therefore dont know which if any Canonicals were killed by the same man that killed Annie, (likely the least contested Ripper attribution, and as such the start point or baseline for a profile, she is the quintessential Jack victim),...and we can say that the two most prominent Ripper letters, flogged as legitimate examples of the killers handwriting by the creation of posters sized reproductions of them, were actually thought by Police to be hoaxes.

I dont know that a concerted effort was made to deceive....but I do believe that most people have been deceived for the last 120 years believing Jack the Ripper had any credible victims list based on the evidence available.

So, no more intent to deceive than any Ripper author who has actually named a Ripper, but no less damaging to the search for the reality.

Best regards.

[Christine]

I'm going to have to read this book, covers aside. There are just way too many things happening here to say "there was no ripper." Does anyone truly believe that people were slashing up women just because they read about someone else doing something similar in the newspapers? Copycats are one thing, MJK is quite another. And I don't believe that there has ever been a rash of unrelated killings inspired by newspaper coverage, ever.

Now the question of whether the ripper was following himself in the papers and going back and forth with them is something quite different, and quite possible, but then that would imply that there was, in fact, a Ripper. I find it impossible to believe that the C5 were killed by five different people--it's just too unlikely.

[perrymason]

I'm going to have to read this book, covers aside. There are just way too many things happening here to say "there was no ripper." Does anyone truly believe that people were slashing up women just because they read about someone else doing something similar in the newspapers? Copycats are one thing, MJK is quite another. And I don't believe that there has ever been a rash of unrelated killings inspired by newspaper coverage, ever.

Now the question of whether the ripper was following himself in the papers and going back and forth with them is something quite different, and quite possible, but then that would imply that there was, in fact, a Ripper. I find it impossible to believe that the C5 were killed by five different people--it's just too unlikely.

Hi Christine,

I doubt that many people would assume that all 5 deaths are mutually exclusive,.. the evidence does suggest links with at least 2 or three to one killer. How would 3 killers sit with you for the 5 deaths....or how about 3 killers for more than just the Canonical Group?

For me, Annie is the Ripper murder standard. Almost no-one suggests she was not one of Jacks. Her murder looks a lot like Polly's murder, but with added injuries to Annie being the result of a more private setting, and quite a bit like Kates in style and character.

Liz Stride appears to be a street crime victim, and there is a lot of suggestive characteristics of the Kelly murder that indicate some personal relationship between killer and victim. Something the killer of Polly, Annie or Kate wouldnt have needed to get close enough. They were outdoors likely seeking clients when they meet Jack....Mary may have been sleeping in her own bed.

Best regards Christine.

[Christine]

Hello Michael.

I don't have a time machine, but I am inclined to believe in the C5. The police had information we do not. For example, they were able to talk to both Schwartz and Lawende, and compare what they said. They evidently knew something about Hutchinson that we don't know. They could have looked directly at Stride's and Eddowes' wounds, and experimented with different sorts of knives. They were able to question Micheal Kidney (the man usually blamed for killing Stride by people who think she was not a ripper victim). They certainly knew, or suspected, a great deal about Tabram. So there's so much of this that we don't know, that I am inclined to believe that the police did in fact seriously consider alternate theories and then came up with the C5.

And as I have said elsewhere, I really don't see that MJK could be a copycat--very few people are capable of doing such a thing, and the likelihood that two such men were involved is slim.

Now all that said, given the limited information, I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility of a C3. How does this turn into a press frenzy? We still have to have Nichols as the first of a series that is somehow inspired by Smith and Tabram. Fair enough, but is there not then, a single person known as Jack the Ripper? He's not a press invention, even if he was trying to impress the newspapers.

Is even MJK a press invention? The assumption is that it was a copycat murder, designed to look like a Ripper killing, but motivated by personal animosity towards MJK. That's not motivated by desire to be in the newspapers. It's not an "invention" if it was in fact a copycat--the press thought the crimes were related, because they were related.

My understanding is that the book claims that these were five separate murders by five men, and that only the press thought they were related, and that the only connections between them is that the killers copied each other. A C3 still is a canon--still is a real Jack. A C3 and a deliberate copycat is not a press invention. I could be wrong about the book's theory, which I why I said I want to read the book.

[smezenen]

yes Jack the Ripper was invented by the media and the holocaust never occured either (sarcasm).

I think that as time goes by, After years and years, tragic events like these lose thier shock and eventually become legend or fairytale to those that cant believe human nature is actually very ugly.

[perrymason]

In all likelihood the name of this killer came from a journalist. Thats not an insignificant contribution to the whole "Ripper" mythology.

The name is created using a series of acts strung together by conjecture, showing us a profile of a man who kills many ways...and angrily. When this name was made public, Emma, Martha, Polly and Annie were thought to be by the same man or men, and its immediately after he supposedly kills two women on one night.

However, we can easily see now that at least 1 of those victims was attacked by multiple assailants and died from injuries she received at their hands. Another did not even have a trademark deep throat cut....in fact, she had no obvious "cutting" wounds at all....just stabbing wounds. And Liz Stride presents us with a single wound, without any interest in her after that.

The press created the "monster" hype, so did the police.

What few people seem to realize is that at that time, the East End was a safe haven for monsterS. Isnt the area of the lowest income almost always also the highest in violent crime?

The Whitechapel Murderer was one of them. there were others....not opinion, fact. Ask the families of the Torso's found in 1888 and 1889...and some a few years earlier. The press didnt invent deaths....they invented "A" ghoul responsible for all violent murders during that Fall in that area. From my seat....there were likely plenty of ghouls available there at the time.

Just like Macnaugten and Bond did with the Canonical Group.

Best regards all.