What makes Jack the Ripper?

[RivkahChaya]

Considering all the discussion about topics like the actual letter giving that name "Jack the Ripper" being a hoax, and the debates about which murders were by the same hand-- I've even read one argument that they all are by different hands, and there was no serial killer in Whitechapel in 1888, which was compelling, but ultimately just short of convincing.

Anyway, it got me to thinking, what makes the Ripper? Suppose we were to find out that three different people killed the five canonicals: which one would we call Jack? If one of them wrote a letter, any letter, would that count? Suppose we identified the writer of the "Jack the Ripper" letter, and he turned out to have killed Martha Tabram, but no one else? Would he get to be the official Jack the Ripper, even if say, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were all killed by one person, who never wrote a letter.

If we could magically answer all the questions of who killed who, and who wrote each letter, but they didn't fall neatly into expectations-- the canonicals were by different hands, some killer wrote at least one letter, but most were hoaxes, and one killer of one of the canonicals killed other women known as "possibles," but nothing is easy, what is the bare minimum for you to say that "This person was Jack," and the others were just murderers or letter hoaxers.

For me, if the author of the "Jack the Ripper" letter killed anyone, then he is Jack. Otherwise, anyone who killed at least two of the canonicals is. If more than one person killed at least two, then I think we have to say, even if it sounds funny, "Jack was two people." If the canonicals were killed by five different people, then there never was a Jack, even if it happens that the man who killed Annie Chapman also killed Martha Tabram, and the man who killed Polly Nichols killed one of the post-MJK victims.

[Shaggyrand]

I agree that if whoever wrote the Dear Boss letter was one of the killers they should get to keep the name. Though I think that, culturally, the title would go to whichever one of them killed Kelly.

[Pcdunn]

Jack, will we ever know ye?

I agree that if whoever wrote the Dear Boss letter was one of the killers they should get to keep the name. Though I think that, culturally, the title would go to whichever one of them killed Kelly.

Interesting point. I think Mary Jane Kelly's murder is the "signature" one of the Whitechapel series, and that her killer is entitled to the moniker history has given him, for better or worse.

[Rosella]

Are we talking about the man and woman in the street with these possibilities, or the posters on these two main forums devoted to him? I think that as far as JTR crosses the minds of members of the general public his nickname is so culturally embedded over more than a hundred years of history he would still be known as 'the Ripper' and 'Jack'; for a very long time, anyway.

I have noticed on the forums that posters usually refer to 'the killer' when specific things are being discussed and sometimes 'Jack' when they're being jocular. In the very unlikely possibility that everything, including the authorship of the primary letters/postcard, was discovered, I think the killer or killers would be referred to by name.

'Jack' is just a convenient variant to 'the killer' a lot of the time when discussing this series of murders. I don't believe he wrote any correspondence except maybe the Lusk letter, which of course wasn't signed. To me, this serial killer if he killed the C-5 but wasn't the letter writer, would still be Jack the Ripper. Besides the history attached it has more style to it than 'the Whitechapel killer'!

[RivkahChaya]

'Jack' is just a convenient variant to 'the killer' a lot of the time when discussing this series of murders. I don't believe he wrote any correspondence except maybe the Lusk letter, which of course wasn't signed. To me, this serial killer if he killed the C-5 but wasn't the letter writer, would still be Jack the Ripper. Besides the history attached it has more style to it than 'the Whitechapel killer'!

Suppose all the letters were known for certain to be hoaxes, and it was known that killer A killer Tabram and Chapman, killer B killer Nichols, killer C killed Stride and two of the post-MJK victims, and killer D killed Eddowes and MJK, as well as previously unknown victims.

Who would you call Jack the Ripper? or would you say he never existed? or would you say there were four Jacks?

[Rosella]

^ Good grief, that's a lot of killers operating in one small area at the same period of time! Obviously, if they were known to be different killers then their names would probably be known and they would then be Joe Bloggs, William Sykes etc, 'the multiple murderers of Whitechapel'. The name Jack would live on as a historical curiosity, but for me anyway, there couldn't be four or five JTRs!

[GUT]

Suppose all the letters were known for certain to be hoaxes, and it was known that killer A killer Tabram and Chapman, killer B killer Nichols, killer C killed Stride and two of the post-MJK victims, and killer D killed Eddowes and MJK, as well as previously unknown victims.

Who would you call Jack the Ripper? or would you say he never existed? or would you say there were four Jacks?

Well 4 Jacks makes a pretty good Poker hand.

But in realitry if any was to prove four separate killers, then no Jack.

[Steve S]

Once you hit three..It'd have to be 'The Whitechapel Killers'......Which is probably accurate for Smith to Coles inclusive anyway..........

[Sleuth1888]

If at least 3 of the canonical five were killed by one man, that makes him Jack the Ripper.

[Shaggyrand]

There are names enough to go around

Even if we say that there were four killers & we know all their names, Jack the Ripper would still be used. There were more than enough other catchy names to go around for the others. It's no different to me than when you see a reference to a captured serial killer. Berkowitz, for example, is always referred to as "David Berkowitz, the notorious Son of Sam" or "Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, ..." or something like that.
It would be "Jack the Ripper, real named TV's Frank, killed...", I'm sure they could apply Leather Apron to another and maybe double dip a bit and make "Saucy Jack" the third. We do love our nicknames for famous murderers.

[Wickerman]

In the unlikely event that we were to identify separate killers for all the murders then I think the name Jack the Ripper would still remain, it is now inseparable from these crimes, but the emphasis might be more on 'Ripper' than 'Jack'.
They would be referred to as, The Jack the Ripper Murders, in the same way as we call them, The Ripper Murders, where emphasis is more on the style (Ripped) than anything else.
We also call them, The Whitechapel Murders, but not all of the murders occurred in Whitechapel. The name 'Whitechapel', just like 'Jack the Ripper' carries a currency which is too alluring to dispense with.

I wouldn't worry too much, it'll never happen

[John Wheat]

If at least 3 of the canonical five were killed by one man, that makes him Jack the Ripper.

To Sleuth 1888

Agreed if 3 or more of the canonical five were killed by the same man then that definitely makes him Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John