Murderabilia

[clark2710]

Not sure i spelled that right and i'm aware that this is not exactly smiled upon as far as the doing but i'm curious....i saw a report on muderabilia of Ted Bundy and how popular his old stuff is along with other murderers and such. Is this the case with Jack the Ripper? I mean it's a little macabre but the sheet that half covers mary kelly's body would be worth a fortune. So i wondered, what DOES Jack's old stuff go for? It's the first question that hit me when i saw this news/documentary thing on murderbilia. Is it really as frowned upon as the report made it seem? It was a small part of something on a completely different killer, Richard Ramirez i believe, and it mentioned Bundy, Gacy and his artwork, and more...so i thought surely the Ripper has some as well. I would also like to know what Ripperologists feel on the sale of such things and their impact on possible evidence, however remote, being on objects and how their being sold could ruin that.

[kensei]

As far as I'm aware- and I've been studying the case for quite a while- nothing remains today that is positively known to have belonged to the Ripper (particularly because no one knows who he was) or to any of the victims. There is a knife acquired by Donald Rumbelow that is rumored to have been the Ripper's, but it is just that, a rumor. I feel it's most likely that that knife was recovered stolen property from Ripper suspect and career thief and con man Michael Ostrog (who was most probably NOT the Ripper) as he was once caught with a bunch of stolen surgical equipment. I saw that knife on display at the Jack the Ripper Exposition at the Museum in Docklands in London in 2008. There was some clothing displayed there typical of what the victims would have worn, but it was not the actual clothing from the victims themselves. None of that stuff appears to have been saved.

There is of course suspect Walter Sickert, whose prolific artwork survives in museums and private collections far and wide. Author Patricia Cornwell did spend huge sums of money acquiring some of it when she was investigating him for her book "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper- Case Closed," but he was, in all likelihood, NOT the Ripper.

[clark2710]

This came to mind when I was reading your reply, thank you for the reply by the way, in one of the other threads I started, there's a sweater or top of some kind that belonged to one of the victims of the Ripper that they tested as part of the show. They said that it was the property of the decendents of that victim and was known and verified to have belonged to her, or something like that. If I find a link with the video i'll let you all know.

[Mayerling]

The "Murder Memorabilia" Market

Hi Clark,

Actually the possibilities of building a collection are large but limited. With the Ripper the best you can do is collect the items connected to Tumblety, D'Onston, Duritt, Osrog, Kosminski, Chapman, Cream, Deeming, Pearcey, Bury, Maybrick (both for James and Florence), and also items connected to the police officials. I'd be hesitant if someone presented you with the tattered remnants of an old dress and claimed it was the one Mary Kelly was wearing that fatal morning.

Some of the suspects (due to being famous already) can be found, but would be expensive. Anything signed by Lewis Carroll or Walter Sickert would costs hundreds of dollars, pounds, or Euros.

I have been building an autograph collection for the last three years - once I almost tried to buy what was supposed to be the signature of the Duke of Clarence. It turned out that I lacked the money, but I also found it was the wrong Clarence - not Prince Eddy (1864-1892) but his great grand uncle, King William IV (reigned 1830-1837) who was Duke of Clarence as the third son of George III. The document clearly showed it was from 1828 but the people labeling it got confused. I am sorry I did not get it, but I did not have $100.00 on me.

Jeff

[DrHopper]

Actually this is an interesting question - leaving aside the moral/ethical issues that this raise. I'm sure I read somewhere that the people demolishing Millers Court were selling bricks as souvenirs... where have all these gone? I think the lack of tangible remains almost makes the case all the more interesting.

[Fisherman]

Who said there was hope for mankind ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Graham]

A few years ago someone produced a shawl which was claimed to have been worn by Catherine Eddowes when she was murdered; but I believe it was shown to be somewhat dodgy regarding its provenance.

Maybrick, for example, must have left behind a huge amount of stuff, which was probably distributed amongst friends and relatives or auctioned off without a thought about its morbidity value. I believe the old nurse at Battlecrease House had a case of silver spoons she claimed Florence had given her.

Graham

[Daveshredder]

I suppose it depends what you consider an item of jack the ripper 'murderbilia' to be. We cannot say for certain what may or may not have been JTR's. You may own something rumoured to be JTR's. As for anything belonging to the victims, I would seriously doubt they still exist, especially cloth