|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 30 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Was He a Media Invention?:
Archive through 30 January 2002
Author: Diana
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 07:55 am |        | From time to time the question arises as to whether Whitechapel was such a hotbed of violence and mayhem that women were constantly being killed and mutilated there and that the emergence of the Victorian press only brought the problem to light for the first time. If this is true then there probably was more than one killer and "Jack" was a media invention.
Whenever this has come up someone asks what the murder rate was in Victorian Whitechapel and someone else trots out statistics which show no murders before Jack. These are immediately called into question as being a possible coverup and we are back at square one.
Going at this problem from a different angle: What about October? Lets posit 5 or 6 loonies running around Whitechapel committing atrocities. October comes and nothing happens. A coverup is unlikely because the press was in a heightened state of awareness by that time. Suppose a non-Jack killing occurred. We would have press accounts of the day. We would know the name of the victim and the circumstances of her death. We would have speculation as to whether Jack was the culprit. Is it believable that even in the face of all the increased patrolls at least one of our 5 loonies wouldn't have succeeded given thirty-one days to do so? |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 07:07 pm | | Hi Diane,
Do 5 or 6 loonies, as you put it, mean 5 or 6 murderers? Or do you mean 5 or 6 serial killers?
Also, 1887 to 1889 was a particularly high murder rate for the city of London in general. There were 67 adult murders over this period. This was twice the rate of the previous decade. In 1888 alone there were 22 hangings. In the district of Whitechapel, there were no murders in 1886/7 and only one one murder each year for 1889/90. Even if one thinks that the crime of murder went underreported, Whitechapel was still not as fatally violent district as many writers seem to assume.
I know you didn't want statistics trotted out; sorry about that. I just wanted to show that I don't think that there was anything unusual about there not being a murder in Whitechapel (or the East End) in 1888.
Certainly Jack was a media invention: all serial killers are. The press certainly didn't ignore the problem of murder in Whitechapel before Jack because their wasn't one in comparison to the rest of London. The press, and moreover, the government, were more guilty of ignoring the real problems of Whitechapel and the East End: poverty, adequate housing, proper sanitation, poor street lighting, working conditions and wages, et cetera.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:05 am | | I was being vague when I used the word "loonies". I suppose I meant homicidal maniacs. If there were 5 or 6 then we would have a ratio of one victim per loony and that would mean murderers but not serial killers. If that is the case then you have the highly unusual (and I think untenable) hypothesis of 5 or 6 individuals who killed because they enjoyed mutilating and were satisfied with one victim each.
I have no objection at all to statistics. Its just that every time we've had this discussion before on these boards the statistics are called into question so I thought I would walk around the problem and attack it from another angle. If this thread continues a day or two more you will find someone explaining that the police doctored the data to make themselves look good. I've been around this block before. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Monday, 14 January 2002 - 06:56 am | | Diana,
but you seem to just be accepting the canonical victims for your 'five or six loonies'?! If you do accept the canonical list, then you also have to accept that there were at least another three murderers around during the 1888-90 period. One of those would indeed have been a SK, if the three 'torso' murders were all committed by the same person. And once you've made the logical breakthrough that, yes, at that time there was more than one person murdering the unfortunates of East London, why stop at two? Might as well go all the way to seven or eight!
Of course, there is also the issue of copy-catting involved. And the suggestion that some murders might have then been made to look like JtR's work, even though committed for more personal reasons. Not to mention that the press would include some as the work of JtR simply through co-incidence (I'm thinking of Liz Stride (RIP) here...if Kate Eddowes (RIP) had not been murdered on the same night, and Stride had only sustained the level of injury we know about, no modern Ripper author would regard her as a canonical victim...)
I've got an appalling feeling I've missed the point you were making...apologies if so! It's Monday morning...
Vaughan |
Author: Diana
Monday, 14 January 2002 - 09:29 pm | | | But what about October . . . All those patrols might have been able to stop one man, but how in the world could they stop 5 or 6? |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 10:54 am | | But there was a murder in October...the Whitehall Mystery!
When you think about it, you have two in August, three in September, one in October and two in november...not much real difference! |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 11:36 am | | Hi, Vaughan:
The Whitehall mystery is usually discounted as being connected to the Whitechapel murders because the M.O. appears to be so radically different. However, it would appear, wouldn't it, that the killer responsible for leaving the woman's remains in the basement of New Scotland Yard, whomever he might have been, was trying to send a message. If Jack really was a taunter and a man who took pleasure in taking chances, I would suggest that this could have been just the type of act that he might have done. Clearly the leaving of the body in that location says, "Look, I can do it on your very doorstep and you still can't catch me!" It might be also remarked that it would be bad public relations for the Yard to let it be known that they thought the Ripper had done this audacious act. Of course, nothing in the official files would lead us to believe, apparently, that there was a belief among the Yard detectives that the Ripper was responsible for this crime but, nevertheless, if we wish to keep our options open, the notion that Jack could have committed the crime might be something we as latterday investigators might keep in mind.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 12:29 pm | | Chris,
Oh I know that the WM is discounted from the orthodox JtR crimes, but here we were talking about the number of SKs wandering around London at this point, and why they might all have stopped in October (as an extension of the notion of why, if the five JtR killings were done by two or three different people and not one man, they all stopped at the same time). And it is interesting that at a time when SKs were not meant to exist, two at least pop up at virtually the same time.
As to your second, couldn't agree more. There's a sort of creed that states SKs don't alter their MOs, but of course they do, and quite deliberately in some cases. Indeed, it seems likely that we can't really rule anyone in or anyone out. I was making a fairly good case for Emma Smith (RIP) the other day...
Vaughan |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 12:59 pm | | Hi, Vaughan:
Glad we concur that Jack probably committed more crimes than he is usually credited with. Watch your abbreviations though -- "WM" could be interpreted either to read Whitehall murder or Whitechapel murderer! 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 08:06 pm | | | Oops! I guess my argument falls flat! Weeel wait a minute -- The A to Z says Whitehall happened October 3. That still leaves a span from October third through November 9 with no activity. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 06:10 am | | Diana,
But most of the theories about more than one man being responsible for the canonical five don't suggest two SKs at work. Rather they suggest one or more of those murders may have been done by someone other than JtR. The two most likelies here are Liz Stride (RIP), because of the difference in technique and lack of post-mortem mutilation, and MJK (RIP).
Various theories suggest their respective lovers being responsible, or, for Stride at least, a casual pick-up that evening.
It's also worth remembering that, IIRC, Dr Phillips believed that Kate Eddowes (RIP) was murdered by a different hand than was responsible for the deaths of the others.
Chris,
Too long on usenet I'm afraid, and too long in journalism and academia 'doing' strategic and war studies...abbreviations are the bane of my life!
Vaughan |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:48 pm | | | If one or two of them were done by someone else then we still have a Jack, not a media invention. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:52 pm | | | PS -- Does anybody know if Whitehall was in Whitechapel? |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 02:29 am | | Diane,
Whitehall is far removed from Jack's haunts in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, and not just geographically.
Whitehall is right on the Victoria embankment of the Thames in Westminster.
Cheers,
John |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 05:24 am | | | Diana asks if "Jack" was a media invention, and as far as the name "Jack the Ripper" is concerned, that was almost certainly a media invention, or more precisely the creation of a radical journalist. When dealing with the Ripper saga people tend to ignore the social conditions at the time and the attitude of those who did not live in the East End. The murders became famous because the radicals, especially the radical press, that is the Pall mall Gazette and the Star newspaper, wanted to draw attention to the awful conditions in the slums, especially with the first ever elections to the newly-created London County Council only weeks away. What was known as "The bitter cry of outcast London" had been ignored to the point where something new and dramatic was needed to prick the conscience of the public at large, and the murders were just that. But more was needed--the murderer needed a name that would catch on and get folks reading about him and, by default, the district of Whitechapel where he operated. The title of Leather Apron certainly increased interest in the crimes and the slums, but it was until a few hours after the "double event" that the Ripper name hit the news. Overnight the name turned the Killer into a terrifying celebrity and this more than anything else (even more than the murders as such) was what produced publicity on such a massive scale with the newly-established Star newspaper running its presses day and night on the saga. The result was a landslide victory for the radicals in the Council elections, and the Council soon got to work with its agenda of a better deal for East Enders: improved lighting, slum clearance, education plans for the poor, public baths and abolition of the dreaded workhouse. And it was the name, not just the murders, that was instrumental in this. The man who penned that first "Dear Boss" letter and the follow-up postcard was almost certainly a radical newspaperman, for only he would know the purpose of a news agency: to disseminate news items to all papers subscribing to the agency, in this case the Central News Agency. The term "Give it out straight" (as used in the Ripper letter) was a term used exclusively in Fleet Street as was the clipped newspaper style cross-heading giveaway in "had not time to get ears for police." And the word "Boss" was common in Fleet Street but not yet broadly used by the public. It was an American word, well known to newspapers via their cable links to the U.S. press such as the New York Times, and would not be in common use the slums. The Ripper saga must be viewed from the viewpoint of the social conditions at the time, for only then can we better understand and fully appreciate what took place. With best regards, Alastair. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:58 am | | and of course, Jack was a common name for a villain, especially one used to terrify the children (cf. Spring Heeled Jack)...the first victim of the Whitechapel Murders was Emma Smith, killed by one of the High-Rip gang...
Spring Heeled Jack + High-rip= Jack (the) Ripper...
easy for any hack at all...
Vaughan |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:31 am | | I've always thought of Emma Smith's murder as not being the Ripper's work,--three men being known to be responsible. But I would also think that only one man was responsible for thinking up, and committing the act that eventually caused the death of Emma Smith. If a man can be callous enough to do that to a poor woman, I'd think he would find the style of Jack the Ripper easy to come by. Is there any meaning in the name "High Rip"?
Rick |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 04:47 pm | | Uhhr, you're missing my point...though it might not have been very clear!
What I meant was that the name 'Jack the ripper' was easy to come up with. The High Rips were a public concern at the time, and were connected to the case (again AT THE TIME), so might have influenced a journalist in producing the nom de guerre...
'High Rip'...yeah, the rip gangs basically were robbers who slit open purses/bags and so on and made off with the contents. Later, it also came to mean ripping of individuals who didn't pay protection. There were a large number of such fluid confederations, the term 'High Rip' gang is again likely to have been a journalistic description rather than a self-assigned title (though the example of the Elephant Boys shows that journalistic titles then would be assumed by the gangs!).
Vaughan |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 07:01 pm | | The gang that attacked Emma Smith could just as easily have been the Old Nichol Gang or the Green Gate Gang.
All the street gangs in 1888 were operating essentially as ponces, extortionists, and street robbers.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:09 pm | | I may be missing the point of this thread, but I found Asegerdal's post intriguing. Would Jack the Ripper have been possible a decade earlier? Would we be talking about him today if there hadn't been a tabloid press positioned to exploit him? In America, by century's end, William Randolph Hearst would wire a reporter in Cuba, on the eve of the Spanish-American War "You supply the stories and I'll supply the war." The lifeblood of exploitive yellow journalism, then and now, is sex and violence.
In America, the social reformers often unearthed, or created, or embellished, sensational stories to further their aims. If the Ripper was seen by the press as a vehicle for social reform, wouldn't his continued success be of value to them? |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:23 am | | Jack,
Has my brain stopped working or am I really not making myself clear...no it wasn't important what the name of the gang was. However, once Emma Smith had been attacked by the High-Rips, the 'rip' terminology was in the public domain and associated with the Whitechapel Murderer. Therefore it wasn't hard for the enterprising pressman to put 'Jack' and 'Rip' together to come up with the infamous nickname...
Really not hard to follow surely?
Steve,
read 'Jack the Ripper and the London Press'...this was a period when the yellow press in London particularly was coming into its own. WT Stead was combining moral outrage with titillation in a way that the Brit tabloid tradition (transferred to merkins with the supermarket tabloids and Fox TV) has followed ever since. THere is some seeming evidence that a month post-MJK (RIP), the newspapers dipped in the amount of coverage given to the crimes. Many have specualted that this was due to 'private briefings' that the killer had committed suicide. It's more likely, however, that this was an early example of a press moral panic that came to a natural pause/end.
Vaughan |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:23 pm | | Hi Vaughn,
It's easy to postulate and difficult to prove the origin of the soubriquet Jack the Ripper. If the High Rips (along with many other gangs) are part of the conscious around the time of Smith's murder, why doesn't the Jack the Ripper name surface earlier? Because as August and September rolled around, the gangs of the East End were pushed from most people's minds.
My point is that you need not connect Jack the Ripper with a gang when the word 'rip' itself means: to tear or cut apart roughly or violently. Which is what the Whitechapel Murderer was doing to his victims, and which the press was so eagerly reporting.
There is just no way of knowing what goes through a person's mind when inventing a name; just as when some one thinks of a clever pun immediately upon hearing a certain phrase, it's not always easy to explain why or how those exact words were chosen.
Another thing that pushes the High Rips further away from JTR is that they operated in Hoxton. You have stated in each of your last two posts that they attacked Emma Smith. They almost certainly did not. The reason I give for the Old Nichol gang is that they operated around Old Nichol Street, which isn't far from Osborn Street, where Smith was attacked. Since Emma was not exactly forthcoming about details on her assailants, the fact that they were part of a gang is probable speculation at best.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:25 pm | | Hi Steve,
You asked if JTR could have happened a decade earlier. I think a more relevant question is could he have happened recently? Compared to many modern serial killers, Jack's crimes seem less severe. For example, the torso murders were upstaged, and given less press coverage than JTR's. Would that press coverage be reversed if Jack were one of two serial killers working the same area today?
Cheers,
John |
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 09:35 pm | | John-
I agree. As a semi-addict to Forensic Files, the New Detectives, and so on, I'm of the opinion that Jack had nothing on the more recent breed of thugs. I don't think he'd be as notorious. That said, our appetite for the scandalous and salacious runs pretty deep (remember the O.J. trial?)
Were there penny dreadfuls in London in the 1870s? Without yellow journalism, in my opinion, there's no Jack the Ripper. It was a sensationalized story. It's not a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 09:46 pm | | | Several dead prostitutes,and no answer to their deaths. All killed within the compass on 1 mile.Not quite like "Varney the Vampire" but close to "Dracula". Somewhere in between.The facts speak a different story. |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:20 am | | Vaughn: You say WT Stead was combining moral outrage with titilation. Moral outrage, yes, but as editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, Stead disliked what you refer to as "titilation." I have read most of these Gazette pages which I had photo-copied by a friend in Coventy, UK, and wouldn't say Stead went in for titilation. His Gazette was a radical, yet prestigious newspaper, read by many of London's upper class. He was certainly the father of what was known then as "The New Journalism," but for out and out titilation, that has to go London's other radical paper, the Star under its editor T.P. Oconnor. The Star was created early in 1888 and the Ripper murders gave it the chance to become London's first truly sensational newspaper. It quickly became the top selling paper in Fleet Street, and was a rival to the Pall Mall Gazette in terms of being radical and keen to expose social injustice. In fact, O'Connor and Stead were friendly rivals. Have you read my posting of Jan 19th regarding the media at the time? The moral outrage of Stead (and the Star) was very much due to the coming elections to the newly-created London County Council and its agenda for reform in the slums. The radicals were keen to see as many "Progressive" members elected to represent the East End (Tower Hamlets especially) on the Council, and this is exactly what happened, thanks to whoever invented the Jack the Ripper name and turned the killer overnight into a terrifying celebrity. The name was the perfect "hook" for massive newspaper coverage, not just for the Gazette and Star but for the rest of Britain's press, not to mention its coverage in Canada and America and Continental Europe. Maybe we should thank Jack, or more precisely the name, for what was later achieved in welfare reform for almost a million impoverished East Enders!
All the best, Alastair |
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:01 am | | Alastair-
I couldn't agree more with the final sentence in your last post.
Have you noticed any difference in coverage over time by the more conservative papers? I wonder if it was similar to the process as it has occured recently here in the United States. A scandal rag like the National Enquirer publishes a photograph of presidential candidate Gary Hart with his girlfriend. The New York Time ignores it for a while-- until it become "legitimized", or at least widely talked about. A story the Times wouldn't stoop to cover yesterday is front page fodder today.
The story is legitimate only because everybody is talking about it. In other words, the tabloids acted as stalking horses for the legitimate press. Their hands were clean in the original mucking out of the story, but eventually they were covering it as aggressively as any other paper. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 05:08 am | | Hi Alistair, Steve,
"Whilst we conventional Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation, and organisation, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand..." George Bernard Shaw.
Thanks for keeping everything in their proper historical context, Alistair. Your views on Stead, his ideas, and agenda within the general press of the time are most welcomed. By understanding what was happening in 1888; the press, the politics, the prevailing social conditions et cetera, get us closer to understanding, and perhaps even discovering JtR.
Too many people use modern information to make their points by citing F.B.I. profiles, current murder M.O's and statistics, modern forensic techniques, while forgetting that Jack was very much a product of time and place. Many people on these boards are reading John Douglas when they would be better served by William Fishman. We also must keep reading contemporary books, articles, and press reports from the Ripper's London. I hope your posts inspire more people to look at the all the information the Casebook has meticulously assembled. But from many of the questions, I fear not.
Steve,
You are right about the press of today. The so-called mainstream, conservative, intelligent investigative press will jump on any scandal after the tabloids have brought the story out.
No one in England, from the BBC to the Times have ignored the Prince Harry "Potter" story.
And the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair seemed to go on forever, with the traditional press echoing all the tabloid information.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 06:46 am | | Jack,
you're quite right to mention the Old Nichol, of course...Though as I also pointed out, the gangs of the time were extremely amorphous, and there is a lot of evidence of links between the Hoxton High Rips (who later became the Titanics) and the groups of thugs based around Brick and Petticoat Lane, so it's highly possible that there was a combination (hell, by the First World War, the Elephant Boys and the Brummagen boys were led by the same person...), and that any gang involved in a protection racket could have included members from any side. And, from the evidence I've seen, the High Rips and the independents around Petticoat Lane were more involved in protection that the Old Nichol, who seem to have been more interested in thieving.
Gangs generically were often known as 'rip' gangs as well...and I was only postulating an idea (I do have an idea that the murderer of Emma Smith (RIP) may have become the Whitechapel Murderer, but that's only a fleeting drunken tale..).
You are, of course, right to suggest the sobriquet was as or more likely to come from his very act, but hey...it was an invention and we'll never know where it came from!
Alistair,
the idea that Stead disliked 'titilation' is ludicrous to anyone who has read any of his pieces on the white slave trade...the lingering descriptions of the girls forced into slavery, how they're used and abused by 'gentlemen'. This isn't 'titillation'? Come on...Of course he said he was against it, the Editor of the News of the World wouldn't admit that descriptions of rape trials and paedophile offences are also designed to titillate, but the way they're written suggests they are.
The idea that Jack helped welfare reform is an old canard, of course. The impact of the great cholera epidemic was rather more important in getting the condition of people in the slums recognised, and the Second and Third Reform Acts
were important in giving the male working class a voice (especially the former for the urban population...).
but, yes, I read and find interesting (even though I disagree!) your postings on the radical press in general...
It's Vaughan with an 'a' before the 'n', BTW people...
Regards,
Vaughan |
Author: Chris Livesey
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:23 am | | to me the ripper only killed 3 people, nicholls, chapman and eddowes. They are the only ones that bear the hallmarks of the same person.
It's possible that he was interrupted after murdering stride , but to me unlikely , he seems to have selected both victim and location's to minimise detection and also was probably pretty quick at his ghastly work. As for Kelly , i think this is all wrong for many reasons. It was indoors , a big departure from the others , this would have greatly decreased possible escape if detected. Also , the killer of kelly most likely knew her , he must have known nobody would have come to check on her at the time he was with her. Otherwise , he mustn't have cared if he was caught anyway...possible but unlikely.
Of greater importance than the above must be the body itself. This wasn't the work of somebody with knowledge of anatomy , she was basically butchered , another departure from the other 3. Ok Eddowes was mutilated but not hacked up.
I conclude from the above that Kelly was a copycat murder , but the murderer 'overcooked the pudding' , he probably read about eddowes being mutilated. Also , this would have taken a much greater amount of time than the other 3 , possibly more than 30 minutes , also a greater risk and different to the others.
I think she could have been killed by her husband , barnett( i think this is his name) , but he wasn't the ripper. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:34 pm | | Chris,
Have you been watching late night documentaries on ITV again ???
Monty
|
Author: Bob Hussey
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 05:35 pm | | Hi all,
IMHO Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press literally and figuratively,although in the latter they were helped in no small manner by the actions and postulations of our favourite coroner.
The investigation into the series of crimes was hindered at the time by the fixation of a single murderous individual stalking the streets of Whitechapel in the late 1880's and early 1890's. It was in trying to equate all these murders to one individual that undermined the police's efforts to investigate every likely suspect at the time and has continued to scupper each new theory to this very day.
I believe that, although we owe the contempory press a huge vote of thanks for the wealth of information that we have on the subject of the Whitechapel murders it was the creation of the myth of "Jack The Ripper" that also hindered the investigation.
That the police should want the murders to be all have been committed by the same hand is not so hard to believe (as anyone who has witnessed present day police officers suggesting to suspects a list of other crimes that they may want to be taken into account at the time of their sentencing will apprieciate. Does wonders for your clear up rate, that!).
Anyhow, thats my humble two cents worth. As for the identity of the murderer(s), well..... |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:30 pm | | | The influence of the media has a direct bearing on how many victims are ascribed to Jack. If the story had ceased to interest the public after Kelly, or if the media had some agenda we don't understand and that agenda was met after Kelly then the media ceased to sensationalize the subsequent deaths. |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 06:50 am | | Thanks John Traisson for your kind words about my posts "keeping everything in their proper historical context." In all my researches I have always tried to do this by making a close study of what was written at the time. Tons and tons of this is all available on the jtr Casebook and, like you, I suspect from the many questions asked, that not enough folks are consulting this mass of information. Yes, read all of what the newspapers say, but also other writings such as the "Lancet" etc. However, one point you mention is the bit about using FBI profiles to judge a killer in 1888, and you suggest this should not be done by todayÕs students because the Ripper was a product of his time. True up to a point, but the profiling of serial killers by the FBIÕs profiling unit (known as VICAP) does show that the RipperÕs M.O. followed very closely to the FBIÕs basic traits of serial killers. These include such killers being "Organized" and the Ripper was certainly well and truly organized! The RipperÕs traits also include many other FBI studies which include the following: A need to display his work; a need "improve" on each killing so that each murder is more horrific than the last; Domination (rather than sexual needs) via gross mutilation of the body, death being the ultimate domination of his victim; Enough "smarts" to avoid capture; A craving to show off his work and shock people (including the police) by engaging in despicable rituals--the Ripper made sure of this by such things as placing the victimÕs intestines over their shoulder, and stealing the womanÕs internal organs such as the uterus and kidney. In fact, Jack the Ripper is a classic example of what the FBI has listed in its profiling of serial killers, that is the basic traits which are common to most serial killers. Yes, of course each killer is unique but the above are the more common traits seen in nearly all serial killers, regardless of each killerÕs pet M.O.
With best regards, Alastair |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 07:46 am | | Hi Vaughan: Re WT Stead. I agree that Stead was rather titillating in his writings about the white slave trade, but his editorials on the Ripper murders were well reported by his Pall Mall Gazette. I have copies of these and I would not describe them as "titillating." But Stead, unlike today's News of the World "crusades," was more than just another social reformer. He was Britain's most ardent crusader for social reform and stayed that way until his untimely death as a first class passenger on board the Titanic. Oddly enough, he was also an ardent imperialist, which upset his good friend Annie Besant, darling of the socialist movement! I agree with you about the impact the cholera epidemic had on slum reform, and also the various Reform Acts. But so did the agenda of the newly-created London County Council. It's reforms sprang to life in a very short time after the Progressives won seats on the Council by a landslide victory. One cannot ignore the publicity generated by the Ripper name (and not just the murders as such) in persuading people to vote Progressive because the Ripper publicity was so massive it forced attention on "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London" like no previous publicity. Even in America readers of the New York Times gave lots of cover to East End living conditions by their reporting on Jack the Ripper. By the way, "Progressive" was a good substitute title for the many Progressives who were Fabian socialists. This enabled conservative voters to vote Progressive without deserting their conservative roots. After all, they were voting for London--THEIR city--in which they were keen to have a say.
All the best, Alastair |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:54 am | | Hi All,
Since childhood I have had ordinary, salt-of-the-earth (but healthily cynical) working people tell me that social reform tends to kick in when continuing to do little or nothing starts to directly and adversely affect the lives of those 'above', so to speak.
So, for example, when a cholera epidemic threatens everyone's health, including those at the very top of society, the question of providing better sanitation and improved water quality for the lowest echelons can no longer be avoided and indeed becomes an urgent priority.
Bad publicity, arising from the coverage of the Ripper crimes for instance, can get politicians motivated longer-term, and no doubt prick an awful lot of consciences too. But it's not hard for me to see the point made to me over the years, that there's nothing quite like a good old dose of everyone else's medicine to make those in power work to improve things for society as a whole.
Love,
Caz |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 10:02 am | | Hello Caz. Just read your post about the upper classes and legislators being motivated to enact reforms whenever the social problems affect them and not just those of a more lowly class. I agree with you, but the Ripper saga was somewhat different. The reforms promised by the newly-established London County Council DID concern the lives of LondonÕs better class because its reforms were set to improve London life as a whole and not just the slums. The murders AND THEIR PUBLICITY with a brilliant "hook" like the Ripper name, have to be judged in the light of the new London County Council elections which were only weeks away from the last Ripper murder. This is something that is constantly overlooked by Ripperologists , but not I might add by Martin Fido. He made this point very clearly on a Ripper TV program a year or so back. Something else that prompted reforms as a result of massive Ripper publicity were the directives from Queen Victoria, demanding not just the apprehension of the Killer, but the betterment of slum life. She demanded better lighting, more police, more education of East End children via the influential London School Board (to which Annie Besant was elected) and better availability and distribution of food. When the Queen (unlike today's Monarch) demanded action, those in power acted fast in order to not risk the Queen's displeasure! It was not in the interest of Members of Parliament to ignore her! Even the media campaign, especially that of WT Stead in his Pall Mall Gazette, to get the incompetent Sir Charles Warren out of office got results. Sir Charles finally resigned, I think on the day Mary Kelly met her frightful end. Parliamentarians were also concerned about the image of Britain being smeared by the foreign press--the Ripper murders received lots of publicity on the Continent of Europe and the United States. They asked how the wealthiest city on earth could tolerate the awful conditions of almost a million starving Londoners. Over in Germany, the "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck boasted how his country was one of the first to enact welfare reforms but that all Britain could come up with was the workhouse!
Thanks for your post and all the best,
Alastair |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:07 am | | Hi Alastair,
I think the only difference between us here is over emphasis. I would argue (sorry, hard to shake off those years of Marxist history) that the processes were already underway...you point to the 1888 Local Govt Act., that's vital in giving the power to local authorities to DO something (the whole notion of local governance as best exemplified by the Chamberlains and Birmingham).
The two major acts in 1890 were about bringing together previously enacted legislation and lining them up with the power given to local authorities.
But I don't hold with the (for instance) Gauldie view of JtR having a major impact. Those other things were happening anyway, and I'm not sure even Victoria's intervention had much of an impact. The most notable immediate change was the introduction of better lighting. But, it has to be asked, alongside Caz's viewpoint, was this for the betterment of the local citizens or to enable better law enforcement, to bring Whitechapel, a transgressive zone, within the panopticon.
I do agree that Stead's editorials on the case were notably less OTT than those of many others (and the whole coverage of the case likewise), but this stands in some opposition to his writing in other cases, and the point I was making was rather more about the climate of the yellow press, a climate he certainly had a major role in developing.
Vaughan |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:46 am | | Hello Vaughan. I agree that the only difference between us might be one of emphasis, but in regard to the editorials of WT Stead, yes, in some cases his writings were rather sensational but I do not think he was keen or deliberately instrumental in pushing for "yellow" journalism. In fact, Stead would often reprimand his friendly rival T.P. O'Connor, editor of the Star, for engaging in too much sensationalism. Mind you, Stead was probably a little jealous of the circulation wars the Star was winning! Stead is often regarded as the father of what was then known as the "New Journalism" which included a new ploy for reporters--that of the interview, often of an investigative nature. Stead got many ideas for the New Journalism from his visits to the United States. What is odd about Stead, however, is his ardent support of imperialism, which he and other imperialists such as Lord Esher referred to as "The New Imperialism." This latter was supposed to uplift and educate "The English speaking people of the world" all under one "roof" with Britain and America as one guiding ruler. Stead was influenced in this by the likes of Cecil Rhodes and other New Imperialists who formed what was known as a "Circle of Intimates." This group, also known as the "Round Table" group, issued regular documents on the subject. They were hence instrumental in founding the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) or Chatham House as it was often called. The influence of the RIIA years later (I think about 1917) gave rise to the setting up in America of the Council on Foreign Relations CFR). To this day the CFR and the RIIA work hand-in-hand on international matters. It all sounds a bit conspiratorial, but like the suggestion that the royals were involved in the Ripper murders, there is nil evidence for this. I have wandered a bit so I will end off!
All the best, Alastair |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 07:26 am | | Ah yes...the Rhodes to the Pinay Circle and so on...that history documented so well by the wonderful Lobster magazine...know it well!
Now, where was Rhodes in 1888?
Vaughan |
|
|
|
|
