Why do people think Jack was so private?

[Harry D]

A lot of Ripperologists seem to pooh-pooh the idea that Jack sent letters, scrawled graffiti, or did anything that would've attracted attention to himself (besides the murders, of course). There even seems to be a certain snobbery towards such notions. What basis is there for believing this?

Case in point, I was reading about the shifty guy who approached Lusk in the tavern, enquiring about the Committee's beat. He tried to take Lusk aside for a 'little chat', before possibly preparing to attack him, and then beat a hasty exit. Okay, now, no one can conclusively prove this WAS Jack, it could have easily been another crook whose 'business' was at threat from the WC, but there's nothing ruling him out as our man either, yet how many people consider this a genuine possibility?

[DRoy]

Harry D,

I don't know if everyone believes he was necessarily 'private' but they look at the evidence on an individual basis and it is easier to discount most of it.

People were accusing their own friends, family members, neighbours, pretty much anybody/everybody of being Jack for any number of reasons. Most letters if not all are considered to be hoaxes for obvious reasons.

However, once you filter through this mess, of course it is possible he could have written a letter or even some, he could have written the GSG, he could have been the "shify guy", he could be all or none of these things.

What evidence do we have though? Is it better to attribute things to Jack regardless whether there is evidence, or is better to not attribute it to Jack because there is no evidence to do so? There isn't even a consensus on how many victims 'Jack' is responsible for so where do you start and end attributing things to him? Up to you.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Hi Harry,

I think some opinions have become so popular that they are now treated as fact:

No letters were written by the killer.
The GSG was unconnected to the WCM.
There was no Double Event.
Kelly lied about her past.
Street lighting was too poor for Hutchinson to have seen what he claimed.
Long cannot have been mistaken because he said he was sure.

All of these are arguable and valid opinions, some of which I share, but none are proven fact. They are, though, becoming the Sacred Cows of Ripperology.