NappieB

I didn't know about Bob Clark - it's a shame he was killed.

I agree that the diary is a hoax - I was told as much by an assistant to Donald Rumbelow, probably the greatest of all the expert Ripperologists.

batman

I have to say that this argument is grossly provocative and misleading. To suggest that all crimes that involve serious violent attacks on women are committed by people with mental health problems is irresponsible. I work in forensic psychiatry and know that the number of violent crimes committed by 'women-hating psychopaths' and 'schizophrenics' is far less than those committed by 'sane' people. Please think before making such statements.

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

Pye

'''''

Pye

Sorry, this is none of my hobbyhorses here so sorry for sounding so opinionated...

None of the films, plays, tv serials have a seriously respected solution for the murders, because drama isnt really the place for one, especially not in terms of films. But as entertainment, for me Murder by Decree leaves the others standing. It is a beautifully acted, brilliantly written piece, great music, lovely Holmes and Watson, very creepy and amazingly movinbg. Just don't take a word of it's theory seriously, and you've got a terrific conspiracy thriller to enjoy.

The BBC serial (not all of it was directed by David Wickes who did the Caine serial by the way) is certainly a rigorous investigation, but a couple of things hinder it. One is that the central premise of two coppers investiagting the old case is dramaless and also the reconstructions are terribly acted as they star mainly extras. The last episode is the one worth ewatching, although again its real coup was the public statement ,made in it by Joseph Sickett which started off all the theorising that led to the "solution" Murder by Decree" was based on and has since been discredited. Unlike that though the BBC opne doesn't take Sickett's story any more seriously than the others put forward.

The Caine one I'd have to rate as the worst. I think it's abysmal. The acting is unbelieveably (Caine is usually always solid, but this is the worst I'v e ever seen him, he's no television actor.) Lewis Collins is even worse, and for a series that harps opn about its meticulous research, centres around two policemen who in real life never worked on the case together. David Wickes can't write, and at several points he has lifted lines of dialogue from episodes of The Sweeney he directed. His directorial style is completely stuck in a previous era, as he further proved with The New Professionals, and the production is designed and performed as an American miniseries, with a scrubbed down, Mary Poppins style East End, glamorous actresses in period costume and scenes ending with long ominous stares and big music. The "solution" is dire, and Susan George and Lysette Anthony as prostitutes and Jane Seymour as a love interest have to be seen to be believed. There's a bizarre subplot involving Jekyll and Hyde that goes nowhere too! At one point caiune makes a list of suspects based purely on characters he has bumped into so far in the serial! Urgh!!!!!! I hate it!!!!

A Study in Terror is a bit of a let down, and the 1958 Jack the Ripper is ok for a potboiler, but for me its Murder by Decree. From Hell I thought was a total mess and as it was a fictional storyline I don't see why they had to use the Ripper murdes, except as a moneyspinner.

batman

My favourite 'Ripper' film is also 'Murder by Decree', not because it's premise is any more believable than the others, but because it is simply a great film!

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

Moor Larkin

I'm no expert, but the murdering and abuse of prostitutes seems to have a long history. Quite why men would want to murder prostitutes is beyond me but the Ipswich case which is coming to court soon will reinvigorate the debate, no doubt.

Surely it was the fact that the Ripper victims were prostitutes that was the most significant thing about the case. It would also go some way to explain why the authorities were not that bothered about solving it, at least in the early stages. It would also go some way to explain why muffled screams, grunts and such-like emanating from the vicinity of such women would go largely unnoticed. I think the truth is often simpler than we want it to be.



So far as the movies go, I think the reasons we get all these 'conspiracy theories' is the fact that movies still portray these women as 'attractive' and 'desirable'. Johnny Depp's movie made most of them hags except Johnny's love interest, who was of course still gorgeous....... enough to attract a king-in-waiting, we were led to believe.........

http://numbersixwasinnocent.blogspot.com/

D Cairns

"I have to say that this argument is grossly provocative and misleading. To suggest that all crimes that involve serious violent attacks on women are committed by people with mental health problems is irresponsible."

First, I'm talking specifically about serial murder: the Whitechapel killings are very different from cases of rape of violent abuse: though all those crimes are deplorable, they are distinguishable.

Psychopathy is generally considered a personality disorder, not a mental health problem. Serial murderers tend, by their very nature, to have personality problems. What else would you call murdering women? Even if the Ripper were a political assassin, to coldly do what he did would STILL argue for a case of psychpathy.

Schizophrenia features in some, but by no means all cases of serial murder, but is more likely to be present in disorganised cases like the JTR and the Yorkshire Ripper. Most schizophrenics are indeed safer than "normal" people, but there are horrible exceptions.

I live with a mentally ill person so I am as sensitive as anyone to the stereotyping of people with mental health issues.

D Cairns

Oh, if you're looking for the worst JTR film, you have to see Jesus Franco's version with Klaus Kinski: filmed in Zurich (all too obviously), and with the Ripper captured by police at the film's end: the ONE FACT we ALL KNOW about the Ripper being that this did not happen!

I sort of have to respect the filmmaker for such utter perversity and illogic.

Nonetheless it's a nasty and exploitative film, and with no factual content to "justify" such unpleasantness.

batman

Dear D Cairns.

Thanks for replying to my post.

I accept what you are saying about distinguishing between one-off incidents and serial murder(ers), however psychopathy (aka anti-social personality disorder/sociopathy) is classified as a mental disorder and is, therefore, regarded by clinicians as a mental health problem. With regard to schizophrenia, I am glad we agree about the safety issue.

Best wishes to you and yours.

The Bat.

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

shead

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Whitechapel Murders were committed by more than one person? Putting the credited killings to one side, there were faintly similar killings either side of 1888. But you do have to take into account that during that time period, life was held very cheaply. Murder was an every day occurance. So why did these Ripper victims become headline news? Was the original Ripper working his psychotic way up to killing Mary Kelly, or was she his only victim, the others being done away by someone else (hence discrepensies in descriptions).

NappieB

An interesting angle, Shead.

However, for that to be a possibility, it begs the question : why did the mutilations and modus operandi stop with the Mary Kelly murder? I realise there were many killings before and after the 5 generally attributed to JtR, but the trademarks of the JtR murders were distinctive...

Pye

I think the main reason some serioal killers focus on prostitutes is that they are the easiest women to lure into cars and so on. Bear in mind that some, such as the Yorkshire Ripper, didn't only kill prostitutes, just that at first they found them easiest prey, and of course people who may see them in the area are unlikely to come forward.

D Cairns

Lots of interesting points. Various theories have been put forward that Elizabeth Stride was not a Ripper victim, and was murdered by her boyfriend. So, yes, it has been considered that there may have been more than one killer.

Against that, murder was not actually very common in whitechapel at all, despite what you might think. There were no prostututes at all murdered there in 1887, the year before -- in fact, if memory serves, no murders whatsoever.

The Yorkshire Ripper claimed to be acting on God's instructions to kill prostitutes, but when the urge was upon him he would actually kill any woman who came in his path. A hatred of prostitutes usually links in with a strong suppressed misogyny or anger at women, I think.

As to why JTR stopped, it is very unusual for serial killers to retire, or to commit suicide unless caught: it is likely that he was arrested for another crime, became immobilized through illness, or died. He might have moved elsewhere, but one would expect the killings to resume if he did.

jaycad

I don't think there has been,or ever will be a tv production/film which will adhere to the known facts and police files regarding the 'jack the ripper' case-the temptation to move towards the 'toff with a gladstone bag' route seems to be too strong for any writer/director to resist.
A factual representation of the crimes would be difficult to transform into compulsive viewing as the tale would have no conclusion,unless the story was told from the perspective of a suspect maybe,in which event his identity as jack the ripper could only be alluded to if to be made believable.
alas,i fear the joseph sickert tale of royal conspiracy,d'onston stevensons black magic and the lewis carroll yarn are the only theories which contain the sensationalism to be attractive to anybody who doesn't already have an active interest in the case

'QUIS EST ISTE QUI VENIT'

Sweeney Todd

"There's a bizarre subplot involving Jekyll and Hyde that goes nowhere too! "

Pye, this is not "a bizarre subplot", it's simply history. The play "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was given in London during the Jack the Ripper murders and Richard Mansfield, who played the dual role, was for a time really suspected to be the murderer. This has been established by all the studies about the case. So, it's not a fantasy of the screenwriter.

All the thories about the true identity of Jack the Ripper have the same defect. The murderer is ALWAYS:
a) one of the suspects whose names passed to posterity.
b) a celebrity (a member of the Royal family; the Queen's surgeon; Richard Mansfield; William Sickert; etc.)
But the REAL Jack the Ripper was perhaps simply an unknown, whose name was even not mentioned at any moment, a person never suspected. A perfect "nobody".

I have read the book of Patricia Cornwell, totally inconvincing - with sentences like "so, we can imagine that... ", "we can think... ", "he was probably... ", "it could have been..." etc etc. She was apparently "certain" of Sickert's culpability before she wrote a line of his book, and her entire "quest" was made around this certitude, in eliminating all the other facts which contradict her hypothese.

A last notice: sorry for my bad English. In spite of that I am NOT Jack the Ripper !