Why do suspects have to be celebrities?

[Little Nell]

I refer to the idea that JTR has to be someone well-known, ie. the Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull, Walter Sickert, etc?

I know it makes for a good tv drama or book and is commercially a winner, but it isn't common sense. Similarly, the idea of latching onto any other murderer of the era, regardless of his/her killing methods.

So many images of JTR feature a posh gent wandering about in fog, when the murders took place in the summer months and a posh geezer would stick out a mile in Whitechapel.

[claire]

I refer to the idea that JTR has to be someone well-known, ie. the Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull, Walter Sickert, etc?

Agreed. Daft.

I know it makes for a good tv drama or book and is commercially a winner, but it isn't common sense.

Absolutely.

Similarly, the idea of latching onto any other murderer of the era, regardless of his/her killing methods.

Not sure about this. If you have known killers, whose MO matches, why not take a look at them first? Isn't this just common sense?

So many images of JTR feature a posh gent wandering about in fog, when the murders took place in the summer months and a posh geezer would stick out a mile in Whitechapel.

This has become a truism. It isn't necessarily ridiculous. There've been long discussions about the prevalence of slummers in the East End; 'posh geezers' wouldn't necessarily have stood out in Whitechapel; the Booth map shows a 'better class' of individual living in close proximity to the murder sites, and so forth. As to the weather: the nasty old smog wasn't really season specific--and it snowed for a day or two in the East End in July 1888

[Adam Went]

The simple answer is that people like sensationalism. This isn't unique to the JTR case - people don't really want to accept that somebody capable of such crimes was a disturbed nobody, they have to add more fuel to the fire by saying that it was somebody well known. Which of course stumbles into a road block right away before you even get to the "evidence" against the individual, because somebody very famous would be spotted in an instant.

It's actually really annoying and frustrating that people who gave so much to society during their time and were pretty good citizens should be post-humously smeered with such horrible tags.

Cheers,
Adam.

[kensei]

My favorite suspects are James Kelly and William Bury, but I have to admit that what I really believe is that the Ripper was someone who has never been named- someone utterly obscure who slipped totally under the radar and who may even have been among those unrecognized by the census. How big a letdown would that be? But on the other hand, I suppose we could look at such a person as being clever enough to have evaded even history itself, let alone criminology.

[Robert]

I suppose it's natural. Imagine the unlikely scenario whereby I could actually prove - to everyone's satisfaction - that JTR was Bert Smith. Everyone asks "Who was Bert Smith?" and I reply that I know nothing whatever about him, except that he was JTR. Folks would feel cheated. They'd immediately set about trying to discover as much as possible about Bert Smith, his age, what he looked like, where he lived, occupation etc.

People feel that they "know" celebrities and this makes the case more interesting for them.

Even if people managed to find info on Bert Smith, they'd insist on Smith being interesting and colourful. They wouldn't want Smith to be an Eric Oulthwaite character, interested in precipitation and shovels.

[ChrisGeorge]

I refer to the idea that JTR has to be someone well-known, ie. the Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull, Walter Sickert, etc?

I know it makes for a good tv drama or book and is commercially a winner, but it isn't common sense. Similarly, the idea of latching onto any other murderer of the era, regardless of his/her killing methods.

So many images of JTR feature a posh gent wandering about in fog, when the murders took place in the summer months and a posh geezer would stick out a mile in Whitechapel.

Hello Nell

The idea that the Ripper was a gentleman arose early in the case because of the model of the drama Jekyll and Hyde starring a sometime suggested suspect, the American actor Richard Mansfield, that was playing in the West End at the time of the murders. You add to that the notion or rumor that the killer could have been a doctor or medical student and the idea that the monster was a gent was fully formed right at the beginning. However, most people who study the case believe that the killer was more likely a local man, an idea that is supported by the various suspect sightings, e.g., that of Joseph Lawende in Duke Street just before the Eddowes murder, which appears to describe a working class individual or a sailor.

All the best

Chris

[caz]

Never the Twain Shall Meet?

...and the idea that the monster was a gent was fully formed right at the beginning.

Hi Chris,

While I agree that the monster was far more likely - on a purely statistical basis - to have come from the unwashed masses than a tiny section of chinless or celebrity types, what you say above rather tends to indicate that people at the time had no problem with the basic concept of 'gents' in Whitechapel, either as a natural if small proportion of its population, or at least mingling with it - and one such gent adapting well enough to get away with murdering several unfortunates there.

It's something we should perhaps not lose sight of, considering how many respected doctors and so on have turned out to be low-life murdering scum.

[Nothing to do with the arguments for or against medical skill, btw.]

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

..or of course, Caz, they might have given themselves a shiver by imagining that the Ripper was someone who snuck in and snuck out sneakily..like all those people that imagine that England has a secret population of black panthers and lynxs, escaped from private collections and adapted to the wild,
who roam at night feeding on pet pussies (whilst never leaving a paw print, poo, getting hit by a car, or leaving one of their own corpses).

People like my parents (Daily Mail readers) believe this.

[Rubyretro]

p.s here's another thought, Caz..

the looming shadowy figure of a 'powerful' (not in the physical sense) entity,
quietly creeping in and out unseen and doing you harm, seems to take the form of big corporations like Google, Facebook, MacDonalds etc at sophisticated dinner parties...

There seems to be a need for people to get creepy thrills about the Thing that they can't control and that insidiously infiltrates itself through the fog from elsewhere.

Certainly the Jekyll and Hyde thing.

[protohistorian]

Why even now I am searching for a way to pin this whole thing on Rosie O Donnel! Dave

[Rick Mattix]

I refer to the idea that JTR has to be someone well-known, ie. the Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull, Walter Sickert, etc?

I know it makes for a good tv drama or book and is commercially a winner, but it isn't common sense. Similarly, the idea of latching onto any other murderer of the era, regardless of his/her killing methods.

So many images of JTR feature a posh gent wandering about in fog, when the murders took place in the summer months and a posh geezer would stick out a mile in Whitechapel.

I suspect the whole erroneous concept of a "gentleman" ripper was probably deeply ingrained at the time of the murders. 19th Century literature is filled with villainous or murderous aristocrats from Baron Frankenstein to Count Dracula. And of course you have to factor in the working class mistrust of the wealthy and powerful. And of doctors. Dr. Jekyll plays on this, I think, plus historical precedents of murdering doctors and of Burke and Hare, etc. These would all be subconscious inspiration, I think. And on the local level it might have occurred naturally as a class thing: Us Vs. Them (and it couldn't be one of us).

Who knows?

[protohistorian]

Very well said Rick! Dave

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Some good, intresting and fair points made by all, but surely the odds of the killer being either famous or not must be 50 / 50.
why is it more likely that the killer would be a low class nobody then someone well known.
I think it would have been easier for a famous person in 1888 to wander the east end un-noticed then it would be today, How many people would have known what Walter Sickett or William Gull looked like for instance?
The poor of the East end had more things to worry about then the celeb culture of the day.

[Rick Mattix]

Hi all,
Some good, intresting and fair points made by all, but surely the odds of the killer being either famous or not must be 50 / 50.
why is it more likely that the killer would be a low class nobody then someone well known.
I think it would have been easier for a famous person in 1888 to wander the east end un-noticed then it would be today, How many people would have known what Walter Sickett or William Gull looked like for instance?
The poor of the East end had more things to worry about then the celeb culture of the day.

True, but I tend to think a well-dressed stranger would have attracted considerable attention. If nothing else a suitable mark for muggers (who might not know he was carrying a big knife).

[spyglass]

Mary Kelly murdered on a Friday...maybe they had dress down Friday in those days.
Seriously, there is no reason why a famous / wealthy person wouldnt change there dress to go on a murder spree is there ?
It was said that Prince Eddy wanderd the streets of Whitechapel with a reporter during this time dressed as a sailor.