Tweet
The prima facie case against Wilde is a strong one.
(1) The Whitechapel Connection: there isn’t one. Wilde had no knowledge of the killing area. Nor had he lived there. Nor did he visit. This cultivated non-connection to the Whitechapel area would have provided the perfect cover. For many years it has been assumed that the killer would have actually had to have been present in the area in order to commit the crimes. This assumption is misconceived, as Wilde’s candidacy makes clear.
(2) Anatomical knowledge: it is now believed that the killer would have not required any rudimentary anatomical knowledge in order to commit the murders. Wilde had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever (not of the female type, at least). Thus here, too, he fits the profile perfectly.
(3) Literary clues: in his recent paper “Wilde About You: the taxonomy of Ripper motifs in the plays of Oscar Wilde” Professor Everard Snipe adumbrates a significant number of Ripper references in the Wilde plays (the complementarity with Walter Sickert is striking here). In particular he argues that the famous “handbag” quip in “The Importance of Being Earnest” is a reference to several witness reports of a distinguished gentleman carrying a black medicine bag at the time of the Whitechapel murders. As we have already seen, Wilde was never actually in Whitechapel, ever. We can conclude that the obvious Ripper reference is an example of Wildean humour.
(4) The motive: here we can only speculate. It is, however, quite possible to imagine Wilde sidling up to his victim’s and saying “I have nothing to declare except my genius” and, on being met with a blank stare, falling into a terrible homicidal rage. This will explain the somewhat lacklustre killing of Stride: it might well be that she at least was able to raise a smile, thus blunting the famous Wilde rage.
(5) Why did he stop? Wilde was notoriously thin skinned when it came to reviews. It is quite possible that he “took his ball home” after reading unsatisfactory newspaper accounts of his activities.
Taken individually there is no “killer fact” here. However, considered collectively the case against Wilde seems pretty strong.
(1) The Whitechapel Connection: there isn’t one. Wilde had no knowledge of the killing area. Nor had he lived there. Nor did he visit. This cultivated non-connection to the Whitechapel area would have provided the perfect cover. For many years it has been assumed that the killer would have actually had to have been present in the area in order to commit the crimes. This assumption is misconceived, as Wilde’s candidacy makes clear.
(2) Anatomical knowledge: it is now believed that the killer would have not required any rudimentary anatomical knowledge in order to commit the murders. Wilde had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever (not of the female type, at least). Thus here, too, he fits the profile perfectly.
(3) Literary clues: in his recent paper “Wilde About You: the taxonomy of Ripper motifs in the plays of Oscar Wilde” Professor Everard Snipe adumbrates a significant number of Ripper references in the Wilde plays (the complementarity with Walter Sickert is striking here). In particular he argues that the famous “handbag” quip in “The Importance of Being Earnest” is a reference to several witness reports of a distinguished gentleman carrying a black medicine bag at the time of the Whitechapel murders. As we have already seen, Wilde was never actually in Whitechapel, ever. We can conclude that the obvious Ripper reference is an example of Wildean humour.
(4) The motive: here we can only speculate. It is, however, quite possible to imagine Wilde sidling up to his victim’s and saying “I have nothing to declare except my genius” and, on being met with a blank stare, falling into a terrible homicidal rage. This will explain the somewhat lacklustre killing of Stride: it might well be that she at least was able to raise a smile, thus blunting the famous Wilde rage.
(5) Why did he stop? Wilde was notoriously thin skinned when it came to reviews. It is quite possible that he “took his ball home” after reading unsatisfactory newspaper accounts of his activities.
Taken individually there is no “killer fact” here. However, considered collectively the case against Wilde seems pretty strong.
Comment