How realistic was it for JTR to disguise himself as a PC?

[Leanne]

I still think that Jack may have changed hats during the murders, but I'm not sure about a complete change of clothing.

If he was a wealthy man, why wouldn't he have dressed-down when visiting Whitechapel to protect himself from eyewitness sightings, and if he was a local why wouldn't he have disguised himself with a coat, a moustache, an upmarket hat to pull down over his made-up eyes?

Why is everyone expecting him to look like himself during his reign of terror? He may have been very well known to Mary Kelly, but in disguise. Mary was drunk.

[Busy Beaver]

If he was a wealthy man, why wouldn't he have dressed-down when visiting Whitechapel to protect himself from eyewitness sightings, and if he was a local why wouldn't he have disguised himself with a coat, a moustache, an upmarket hat to pull down over his made-up eyes?

Why is everyone expecting him to look like himself during his reign of terror? He may have been very well known to Mary Kelly, but in disguise. Mary was drunk.

Jack was not performing a Panto. His murders were done in a short space of time as possible with little to spare. And we don't know what kind of money Jack had. He could have been a pauper. Considering he was about between 12.30AM and 0.530AM he obviously felt safe enough to know he would get seen by those he knew and he turned out to be right.

[Sam Flynn]

If he used disguises, then he probably had a selection of clothes. If he had a selection of clothes, then it's likely that he had a wardrobe. If he had a wardrobe, then it's likely that he had a place he could call his own. If he had his own place, then why didn't he lure the victims onto his own premises, instead of killing them on the open streets?

[Leanne]

Jack was not performing a Panto. His murders were done in a short space of time as possible with little to spare. And we don't know what kind of money Jack had. He could have been a pauper. Considering he was about between 12.30AM and 0.530AM he obviously felt safe enough to know he would get seen by those he knew and he turned out to be right.

I know he wasn't performing a Panto, but he wanted to would have wanted to hide his identity as much as possible and confuse eyewitnesses. It wouldn't take much to dress-down (if he had money) and if he was a pauper who somehow acquired (stole / found) a nice hat, a nice coat), he would have been 'safer'. He would have been able to make the prostitutes feel safer and like they were onto a good thing.

[Leanne]

If he used disguises, then he probably had a selection of clothes. If he had a selection of clothes, then it's likely that he had a wardrobe. If he had a wardrobe, then it's likely that he had a place he could call his own. If he had his own place, then why didn't he lure the victims onto his own premises, instead of killing them on the open streets?

Provided he stored his disguises at his home. I guarantee that all suspects had a home. If he lured the victims to his own premises to kill them then evidence would have been all over his house. He probably didn't live alone!

[Sam Flynn]

Provided he stored his disguises at his home. I guarantee that all suspects had a home. If he lured the victims to his own premises to kill them then evidence would have been all over his house. He probably didn't live alone!

The thing is, he'd have needed to change into his disguise, assuming he used one. If he wasn't alone, wouldn't the others have noticed? ("Goin' to yet another fancy-dress party, Tom? That police outfit must need a good wash by now".) Or, if he didn't change before setting out, he'd have to go somewhere to get changed into his costume. Whatever his disguise might have been, none of this seems logistically easy, and inherently unlikely in my view.

[APerno]

If he used disguises, then he probably had a selection of clothes. If he had a selection of clothes, then it's likely that he had a wardrobe. If he had a wardrobe, then it's likely that he had a place he could call his own. If he had his own place, then why didn't he lure the victims onto his own premises, instead of killing them on the open streets?

So as to terrorize the entire city? -- There was something special about those girls appearing right there, right where people would commonly go, street corners, stoops, a back yard with a privy, a square . . . places where they once thought they were safe. There is a special kind of terror in that; who ever again could peacefully use the privy at 29 Hanbury Street?

Thought two . . . those that think his was also the torso killer believe he was doing both. I am still ambivalent on the whole torso thing.

In regards to the wardrobe; me thinks, if he has a wardrobe he's not a local boy. I think he was a local boy. No wardrobe! I don't even buy into my own OP theory about being a disguised as a cop. That was just thinking out loud. I think Saucy Jacky was dirt poor.

[Sam Flynn]

In order to terrorise a city, he has to put himself at a ridiculously high risk of being caught and hanged? He could have murdered the women in safety and dumped their mutilated bodies in the streets later, mutilating them further just before he left the scene for even greater effect. That he didn't do this reinforces the idea that he really had no safe place in which to kill.

[Joshua Rogan]

The thing is, he'd have needed to change into his disguise, assuming he used one. If he wasn't alone, wouldn't the others have noticed? ("Goin' to yet another fancy-dress party, Tom? That police outfit must need a good wash by now".) Or, if he didn't change before setting out, he'd have to go somewhere to get changed into his costume. Whatever his disguise might have been, none of this seems logistically easy, and inherently unlikely in my view.

I seem to recall that Faircloth (or Fairclough), the ex "husband" of Liz Jackson, wore two pairs of trousers at once. If the killer did the same, he would only need to strip off the outer pair if they became bloodstained, and ditch or bag them. There's no shortage of reports of bloody clothing being discarded in the streets.

[Sam Flynn]

I seem to recall that Faircloth (or Fairclough), the ex "husband" of Liz Jackson, wore two pairs of trousers at once. If the killer did the same, he would only need to strip off the outer pair if they became bloodstained, and ditch or bag them.

In the case of the Double Event, we're talking about a change of trousers, cap, other items of apparel and a moustache.[/quote]There's no shortage of reports of bloody clothing being discarded in the streets.[/quote]So why was there no bloody clothing found discarded in the aftermath of a Ripper murder?

All that aside, I see no reason whatsoever why the Ripper should have worn a disguise of any description.

[APerno]

In order to terrorise a city, he has to put himself at a ridiculously high risk of being caught and hanged? He could have murdered the women in safety and dumped their mutilated bodies in the streets later, mutilating them further just before he left the scene for even greater effect. That he didn't do this reinforces the idea that he really had no safe place in which to kill.

I agree, I was just suggesting a reason. But, dumping the body would not be as threatening to a citizen as the thought that he/she could be killed right there on the street. A dumped victim is terrorizing but not as much as the thought that the street itself was unsafe.

Again I don't buy into any disguise either; I actually don't believe he had any political agenda whatsoever, just a psychopathic killer suffering from piquerism. Also I agree with modern profilers who label him a disorganized/opportunistic killer and that disguises and elaborate plans were beyond his cognitive reach. I would also add, that considering the timing of the killings, weekends/holidays and late into the night, that he needed to fortify himself with alcohol before he went hunting.

[Leanne]

In the case of the Double Event, we're talking about a change of trousers, cap, other items of apparel and a moustache.

There's no shortage of reports of bloody clothing being discarded in the streets.[/quote]So why was there no bloody clothing found discarded in the aftermath of a Ripper murder?

All that aside, I see no reason whatsoever why the Ripper should have worn a disguise of any description.[/QUOTE]

HE HAD TO HIDE HIS KNIFE SOMEWHERE! And all it would have took was for someone to say they saw the same local near each murder site, before each murder.

[Sam Flynn]

Hiding a knife is one thing. Hiding a costume is quite another.

[Leanne]

The thing is, he'd have needed to change into his disguise, assuming he used one. If he wasn't alone, wouldn't the others have noticed? ("Goin' to yet another fancy-dress party, Tom? That police outfit must need a good wash by now".) Or, if he didn't change before setting out, he'd have to go somewhere to get changed into his costume. Whatever his disguise might have been, none of this seems logistically easy, and inherently unlikely in my view.

A lot of suspects carried a bag. He likely wrapped his knife in something. If he was with someone (which he likely wasn't), he could have said he was going to bed. If he was with friends do you think he joined with them again after he killed, or did he run to his hiding spot?

[Leanne]

There was such a thing as "Slumming" which was popular in the East End at the time.
People of the middle to upper classes would don common clothes to see how local poor people lived:

https://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html

Where would they store their upper-class clothes to put back on once they stepped off the train coming home?