Tweet
Part of what seems to make the case so baffling is that the facts just don't seem to add up. Two assumptions which seem to be taken as true are that Jack the Ripper was both a noble and a doctor. Regardless of the time, I'm guessing there are precious few nobles in England who are also trained surgeons. These two pieces seem to conflict so strongly that I suspect one must be a red herring. The case for advanced surgical training can be easily made based on the nature of the crimes so if one is untrue, it is likely that JTR wasn't actually a noble.
But there is one individual who comes very close to meeting both criteria. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He was a doctor trained at the University of Edinburgh but wasn't knighted until 1902.
This may appear a bit of a stretch but an author able to write a character like Sherlock Holmes must have been at least fairly clever himself. And it would be reasonable for him to make his own guess as to the identity of the most notorious criminal of his time, which he did, as well as for it to be revealing, which I believe it is. However, it also seems to be completely inaccurate. His stated conclusion is that the killer was a midwife. A midwife wouldn't have advanced medical training, noble midwives are likely in shorter supply than noble doctors and there really isn't a lot to support the idea at all. Which is odd.
Though in order for Doyle to be a viable candidate, there has to be some explanation for what was going on which helps clarify the things we do know. But a good way to frame this seems to be in terms of what we think we know.
To me, it seems unlikely that The Ripper was an antisemite. Aside from antisemitic messages scrawled above some of the bodies there really doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. He wasn't targeting Jewish prostitutes and his biggest contention seems to have been with the police.
Which leaves the rather burning question, what the hell was he trying to do? One of the challenges that I think we face considering such a series of events is that we tend to lose sight of the fact that it was in many ways the first of its kind. I've heard it argued that there have been serial killers throughout history, at the same time many features of the Jack the Ripper killings are both original and since repeated. So it shouldn't be surprising that these killings might contain a motivation driving certain behavior and while the behavior is repeated, the motivation is unknown and therefore different than later serial killers.
In particular, Jack the Ripper's craving of recognition from the police, media and the populous seem to stand out. While the natural inclination for such a killer seems to be to hide in the shadows, Jack the Ripper did quite the opposite in all but revealing his true identity. And it does stand to reason that without both the infamy and anonymity of Jack the Ripper, it is unlikely that others would have attempted to do the same.
Not only does it stand to reason that the motivation would be unique but it also seems plausible that there is a rationality to it. While the killings show an escalation and in some was increasing disorder, if only because he managed to get away with it the killer's thinking must have had some clarity. And it seems to me that he was likely able to justify the killings in some way. If it was simply the notoriety, the killings wouldn't have been necessary and it's unlikely a prankster would carry things so far. If it was simply the killing, there would have been no reason to court the publicity. So I suspect it was something else.
And based on the evidence, the best guess I have is that The Ripper was trying to incite a class revolt. The killings targeted prostitutes, a vulnerable population from the lower class, and slurred Jews, a vulnerable population from the middle class, while insinuating the abuses originated from the upper class. The canonical five seem to suggest a noble generally and then the killings stopped, perhaps because they failed to achieve the desired result.
However, attention persisted and the police took serious notice. When the killing started up again, there seems to be strong connections between victims and obvious but imperfect suspects. These appear to be intentionally framed. It seems unlikely that Jack the Ripper was at any real risk of getting caught and the approach changed so it makes sense that the motivation could have as well. I think that the failure of the original killings to achieve the desired result and the killer's ability to get away with it emboldened him. The police took notice and while a class revolt seemed unlikely, using the police to create an air of paranoia amongst the upper class may have been a motivation.
Then the killings stop entirely and this is where things get strange. The idea that the killer was caught doesn't seem to hold any merit, as both the police and the aristocracy looked very bad institutionally and even if there was sufficient motivation to keep the secret, it seems unlikely that there was the ability to do so. It seems likely that very few people knew the true identity. It also seems unlikely that the killer simply died, particularly considering his penchant for trophies. If the end of the killings wasn't intentional, it seems likely that there would have been sufficient remaining evidence to turn up and positively identify the killer.
So I'm guessing that the killer stopped of his own accord. This seems unusual from our current understanding of serial killers but the time line of the killings suggests that Jack the Ripper did have the control to do this and was able to do this once before. And because the police closed the case, which would have been very controversial if the killings had continued, it seems likely that someone on the police force knew both the true identity and felt confident the killings had stopped. Which is particularly fascinating. Why would the killer go to the police and why would the police agree to keep the secret?
And I think this reveals the true driving motivation of the killer, to protect the common people of London. Subsequent to the killings, the London police moved to The New Scotland Yard and became a model for modern policing.
Getting back to Arthur Conan Doyle, I believe this holds another clue. While the old headquarters did open up onto Scotland Yard, it was not a name commonly used to identify the building. And Londoners of the time didn't necessarily hold the Scottish in high esteem, so it seems a rather odd choice to name the new headquarters The New Scotland Yard. Except that Doyle was a Scotsman and if he were the killer, it seems plausible that the new name was a gesture acknowledging his shift from antagonizing the police to offering to provide assistance.
Doyle was also a prolific writer but his works were first published in newspapers, which means that he was familiar with interacting with that audience and notably in fairly sensationalistic terms. This fits with The Ripper's ability to capture the attention of the media and the general public. And the format that he wrote in was serials. The term serial killer was coined to describe Jack the Ripper and while the term feels commonplace now, the origin seems worth considering.
And who better to coin the term "serial killer" than a serial writer?
But those are just my thoughts and I would love to get feedback from others who find the topic fascinating. Please feel free to raise questions, comments and challenges.
But there is one individual who comes very close to meeting both criteria. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He was a doctor trained at the University of Edinburgh but wasn't knighted until 1902.
This may appear a bit of a stretch but an author able to write a character like Sherlock Holmes must have been at least fairly clever himself. And it would be reasonable for him to make his own guess as to the identity of the most notorious criminal of his time, which he did, as well as for it to be revealing, which I believe it is. However, it also seems to be completely inaccurate. His stated conclusion is that the killer was a midwife. A midwife wouldn't have advanced medical training, noble midwives are likely in shorter supply than noble doctors and there really isn't a lot to support the idea at all. Which is odd.
Though in order for Doyle to be a viable candidate, there has to be some explanation for what was going on which helps clarify the things we do know. But a good way to frame this seems to be in terms of what we think we know.
To me, it seems unlikely that The Ripper was an antisemite. Aside from antisemitic messages scrawled above some of the bodies there really doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. He wasn't targeting Jewish prostitutes and his biggest contention seems to have been with the police.
Which leaves the rather burning question, what the hell was he trying to do? One of the challenges that I think we face considering such a series of events is that we tend to lose sight of the fact that it was in many ways the first of its kind. I've heard it argued that there have been serial killers throughout history, at the same time many features of the Jack the Ripper killings are both original and since repeated. So it shouldn't be surprising that these killings might contain a motivation driving certain behavior and while the behavior is repeated, the motivation is unknown and therefore different than later serial killers.
In particular, Jack the Ripper's craving of recognition from the police, media and the populous seem to stand out. While the natural inclination for such a killer seems to be to hide in the shadows, Jack the Ripper did quite the opposite in all but revealing his true identity. And it does stand to reason that without both the infamy and anonymity of Jack the Ripper, it is unlikely that others would have attempted to do the same.
Not only does it stand to reason that the motivation would be unique but it also seems plausible that there is a rationality to it. While the killings show an escalation and in some was increasing disorder, if only because he managed to get away with it the killer's thinking must have had some clarity. And it seems to me that he was likely able to justify the killings in some way. If it was simply the notoriety, the killings wouldn't have been necessary and it's unlikely a prankster would carry things so far. If it was simply the killing, there would have been no reason to court the publicity. So I suspect it was something else.
And based on the evidence, the best guess I have is that The Ripper was trying to incite a class revolt. The killings targeted prostitutes, a vulnerable population from the lower class, and slurred Jews, a vulnerable population from the middle class, while insinuating the abuses originated from the upper class. The canonical five seem to suggest a noble generally and then the killings stopped, perhaps because they failed to achieve the desired result.
However, attention persisted and the police took serious notice. When the killing started up again, there seems to be strong connections between victims and obvious but imperfect suspects. These appear to be intentionally framed. It seems unlikely that Jack the Ripper was at any real risk of getting caught and the approach changed so it makes sense that the motivation could have as well. I think that the failure of the original killings to achieve the desired result and the killer's ability to get away with it emboldened him. The police took notice and while a class revolt seemed unlikely, using the police to create an air of paranoia amongst the upper class may have been a motivation.
Then the killings stop entirely and this is where things get strange. The idea that the killer was caught doesn't seem to hold any merit, as both the police and the aristocracy looked very bad institutionally and even if there was sufficient motivation to keep the secret, it seems unlikely that there was the ability to do so. It seems likely that very few people knew the true identity. It also seems unlikely that the killer simply died, particularly considering his penchant for trophies. If the end of the killings wasn't intentional, it seems likely that there would have been sufficient remaining evidence to turn up and positively identify the killer.
So I'm guessing that the killer stopped of his own accord. This seems unusual from our current understanding of serial killers but the time line of the killings suggests that Jack the Ripper did have the control to do this and was able to do this once before. And because the police closed the case, which would have been very controversial if the killings had continued, it seems likely that someone on the police force knew both the true identity and felt confident the killings had stopped. Which is particularly fascinating. Why would the killer go to the police and why would the police agree to keep the secret?
And I think this reveals the true driving motivation of the killer, to protect the common people of London. Subsequent to the killings, the London police moved to The New Scotland Yard and became a model for modern policing.
Getting back to Arthur Conan Doyle, I believe this holds another clue. While the old headquarters did open up onto Scotland Yard, it was not a name commonly used to identify the building. And Londoners of the time didn't necessarily hold the Scottish in high esteem, so it seems a rather odd choice to name the new headquarters The New Scotland Yard. Except that Doyle was a Scotsman and if he were the killer, it seems plausible that the new name was a gesture acknowledging his shift from antagonizing the police to offering to provide assistance.
Doyle was also a prolific writer but his works were first published in newspapers, which means that he was familiar with interacting with that audience and notably in fairly sensationalistic terms. This fits with The Ripper's ability to capture the attention of the media and the general public. And the format that he wrote in was serials. The term serial killer was coined to describe Jack the Ripper and while the term feels commonplace now, the origin seems worth considering.
And who better to coin the term "serial killer" than a serial writer?
But those are just my thoughts and I would love to get feedback from others who find the topic fascinating. Please feel free to raise questions, comments and challenges.
Comment