A fiction label to me suggests it probably has more truth in it per page than non-fiction. Looking for new ideas, try fiction. A fictionalized account of Stephenson as Jack the Ripper, taking liberties of course with his health and situation, would at least make sense compared to Prince Jack. I know fact is supposed to be stranger than fiction but the Prince of Wales running down Goulston Street with bloody hands is beyond strange.
The Ripper case is unique in many respects and one is in having many suspects who were famous people, known to artists, or famous artists themselves. Who’s to say he wasn’t famous? Who’s to say his identity wasn’t known by a select few and who’s to say one wasn’t also a famous artist? There’s no reason not to investigate their work in case they knew who he was and decided to give us a hint. Obviously people like Roslyn at least thought he knew and wrote letters. These are worth studying. Hundreds wrote Ripper hoax letters. I’d study them too and not just to find a real Ripper letter.
Oscar Wilde’s family friend, Marie Belloc Lowndes, wrote The Lodger, which may have been based on what Wilde told her. Masonic organizations, as you know, are called Lodges.
In most mainstream history books, Jack the Ripper is little more than a footnote. Ripperology books may contend that he was of pivotal importance, but as far as I can see this is just bare assertion.
Surely, in the history of hoaxes, Jack the Ripper should be in the Hall of Fame. He’s generated as many hoaxes in 120 years as Jesus and Mary. Does any non-religious figure compare to Jack the Hoax Machine?
On the shortlist of his inspirational contribution to the hoax field: 700 plus hoax Ripper letters generated from the public, more than one “hoax Diary”, a Royal Conspiracy theory from Joseph Sickert who later admitted it was a hoax, and now the “Roslyn Hoax”.
More than a footnote, I’d say. A separate wing in the museum might be in order.
I think people here who underestimates the Ripper’s impact on London policing need to read up a bit on the case.
Some posters here asked for examples, and I’ll give you a very specific one: the crime scene photography.
The thing about the Ripper case is that you can gradually see the progress of police methods as the murders carry on. The murders were an extremely sensitive issue for both the police and the parliament, since they illuminated the social issues of the East End and supplied the radical papers and radical political forces with ammunition and provided them with an excuse to try and kick out MP Henry Matthews from office.
The Metropolitan Police there found themselves under severe pressure to solve the case, not only from the politicians but also from the national and international press, who ridiculed them.
It shall be noted that Scotland Yard had had very little experience - if any - with investigating serial killers, and during the early Ripper murders, the crime scene investigation methods were based on both ignorance and arrogance, with no sealing off the scene and with a bucket simply to wash away the traces of blood without recording anything.
Now, while the murders progressed, we can see a slow change coming on, no doubt brought on by the increasing pressure and desperation. And it may have been the London City police (a totally independent police force who policed a district of their own) and not the Metropolitan who started this. And it started already with the attitude in connection with morgue photos. On September 30, Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes was found murdered and mutilated in Mitre Square, Aldgate, City of London. Up til that time, the City police had watched the Metropolitan investigation of the previous murders from afar and no doubt learned from their colleagues mistakes.
Now, morgue photos had prior to the Eddowes murder merely had the purpose of helping identifying the victim and the photos were regularly catalogued as “Photos of the Unknown Dead”. Meaning, they were not intended for recording medical evidence, as they are today.
This all changed when Eddowes was found murdered on City territory and all of a sudden the morgue photos of Eddowes were taken displaying a completely different intent, namely to record the wounds, as several shots are taken (on the face as well as on the body in different angles) of her naked body and the wounds clearly visible after she has been stitched up (there also exists a photo where she is still lying in the ambulance before being stitched up, with the wounds displayed - a photo totally useless for any identification purposes since you can hardly see her features because of the photographic angle as well as the wounds).
But that is not all. The real change comes with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Although in occurred on Metropolitan territory, the city police somehow became involved and it was probably them who sent for a photographer to record the crime scene, the room and his victim just as the murderer had left it, before it was disturbed by doctors and policemen, as well as an exterior photograph. Several sets were probably taken and another photo depicting only the mutilated groin area in detail was produced apart from the full body and interior scene.
This was totally new, and as far as I know these are the first crime scene photographs ever to be produced in Great Britain.
So, in short, the Ripper murders forced the police to revise their attitude against recording evidence and force them to develop measures that had previously been unheard of. Most likely theses ‘modern’ methods had been available already in 1888 and used by the French police, but up til that date, Scotland Yard and the English police had never bothered about it.
So there can be no doubt that the Ripper murders had a great impact on the general attitude towards crime scene evidence.
A short comment also on the myths regarding Mary Jane Kelly.
Any information concerning her name and background must be viewed with severe caution, since we really don’t know anything about her apart from what she told her boyfriend Joseph Barnett, who repeated this information at the inquest.
The problem is, that in spite of painstaking efforts of a large number of professional researchers and genealogists, it has been impossible to verify any of it, and digging through genealogical sources in Ireland and Wales - including marriage certificates containing the name Davies etc. - have proved fruitless and at best produced more questions than answers.
It is even possible that Mary Jane Kelly might not have been her proper birth name. And if that’s true, we’re pretty much screwed.
Now, of course, this does not in any way indicate a romantic conspiracy theory. In fact, it was common for prostitutes to not use their common names, and it was also quite regular for them to make up stories in order to create a myth surrounding themselves. We have another example of that in the case of the alleged Ripper victim, Swedish-born Elizabeth Stride, who made up the story of her children and husband having drowned during the Princess Alice disaster, when in fact the husband died of illness several years after the incdent plus the fact that the pair never had any children. This story was probably fabricated by Stride in order to make herself important and as a part of a scam to claim financial aid from the Swedish Church in London.
All evidence from the police investigation and interviews with those who knew Mary Kelly suggests that she never had a child (Barnett never mentions one although he lived with her for eight months) etc. Unfortunately because of the nature of her murder as well as her young age, Mary Kelly has been a subject to severe romanticizing - the Royal Conspiracy nonsense (which is a MODERN hoax originating from the 1970s and based on lies, dubious research and manipulating or even fabricating sources) included.
Whats all this about?
*sigh* another thread with long winded new people that just happened to stumble on their “expertise and the subject theyve been researching on’ Reminds me of dumagat….
Whats all this about?
*sigh* another thread with long winded new people that just happened to stumble on their “expertise and the subject theyve been researching on’ Reminds me of dumagat….
There’s nothing wrong with that Silver. They are welcome and hopefully they will stay and join other discussions. At least they are not interrupting other threads with meaningless dribble and incoherent babble.
They are welcome and hopefully they will stay and join other discussions.
Yes, welcome to Mr. Andersson, Swedish Ripper author and historian, not to be confused with Sir Robert Anderson, moderator of jtrforums.com. Vaelkomna. Thanks for your post.
You made one of the best cases for Jack’s historical relevance I’ve heard; I guess you get a lot of practice trying to make that case when introducing Jack to Swedes and I think Americans need your help.
On the subject of Mary Kelly, I believe she did have a child and the secrecy around him/her is suspicious and we might have to conclude the child was special in some way, perhaps being the child of a celebrity and/or royal or public figure of authority.
Jose Rizal? I have to remember that when I run into my Philipino co-worker with whom I regularly discuss serial killers….One Ripper letter used the name Juan Pollen but I believe it was a hoax from Dr. Neill Cream.
It was inevitable that Mary Kelly would be associated with a Davinciesque Conspiracy. I’m surprised it took 120 years. Here’s a Davinci Blog evolving into a discussion of Mary Jane Kelly starting in March 2008.
Jose Rizal facts that support he was Jack the ripper:
1.It was said He was a ladies man
2.He was in europe at that time
3.It was said at the techniques used to kill the women were probably came from someone who knew the human antomy well…Jose is a doctor.
Why he is NOT
1.he is a hero
2.There is little proof that he was in england
3.He was never in that area in that time.
4.He is a pacifist
I agree, though, that my first posts were a bit long-winded.
I am interesting in a number of subjects (including the paranormal) and I can be just as long-winded on any subject.
Now, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I am not a conspiracy man. I never have been and never will.
The only exceptions may be the murders of J.F. Kennedy and the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme.
Again, there is no evidence of that Mary Kelly ever had a child, or that she should in any way be considered as the center-figure in the Ripper story.
Barnett, who lived with her for eight months never mentioned anything of a child, and I can’t see any reason why it should be kept secret considering the environment she lived in, which didn’t really apply to high class Victorian values. Like most myths regarding the Ripper case, it’s all creations of modern storytelling and has nothing to do with the real facts surrounding the case. The same goes for the rumours of several cover-ups.
Mary Kelly was just another murder victim and the idea that the Ripper murders all centered around her is rubbish. We don’t even know if the victims knew each other - they might have known each other by sight but let’s remember that Whitechapel had approximately 1200 prostitutes in a very small area so if they did it wouldn’t really be that surprising. Nor would it mean anything of importance.
Nor can we be absolutely sure of who was a Ripper victim or not, including Mary Kelly.
The worst enemy of Ripper research is conspiracy theories and suggestions of weird, mysterious cover-ups. It’s all part of 20th century romance and has nothing to do with the factual aspects of the case.
As for Donston, I don’t really have an opinion about him, since I find him uninteresting. He appears to have been a contemporary police suspect for a very short time, but that’s about it. Apart from that, I am indifferent to him and his alleged role in the Ripper story. But the again, I am not particularly suspect-oriented. There are other things in the Ripper case that I find more worthy of study than the identity of the killer.
