The fact that this is, 'part of an article', is important to consider, as we are only being handed a small part of what could have been a long and extensive review of the Ripper crimes, unlikely but a possibility. We are not given the whole picture from this source as to what the article was like in it's entirety, however, we must deal with the source we are given, and should not speculate as to what the whole article contained. We must deal with the source as it stands.
A newspaper article is written for the general public. It can therefore make speculations and somewhat wild allegations into details of the subject under scrutiny. This source is, of course, no exception. It states the murders were commited by a 'demented being', insinuating not only that these crimes were perpetrated by someone not in full possession of all of their mental faculties, but that they were perpetrated by one person. Upon more recent analysis, it is common belief that indeed these murders were not committed by the same person. They were both equal in brutality, but this brutality manifested itself in different ways. Martha Tabram suffered 39 stab wounds in the breasts,belly and groin area. The murder of Polly Nicholls was much more methodical, carrying with it all of the typical Jack The Ripper hallmarks; Deep 'Ripping' of the throat and the removal of some organs. This shows that the newspaper had not considered any of these factors, or that perhaps they had not even seen these facts, and therefore made their presumptions without considering that they may be incorrect. This again makes the source seem even more unreliable.
Notwithstanding the obvious question mark on the reliability of this source, we can still gain some details about the murders of Martha Tabram and Polly Nicholls, and the circumstances that surround them.
The extract opens with:
'The two murders which have so startled London within the last month'
This states very plainly some highly important details; the incident, the reaction and a vague time. In doing so however, it infers much more. In referring to the murders as a collective - 'the two murders', it subtly links the murders together as being done by one person, as is reinforced later on in the source in saying, 'both crimes are the work of a demented being'. Linking the murders together into one timeframe, 'the two murders... within the last month', has a similar effect. This implies a serial killer, which is probably why they did it, as news of a serial killer makes for more interesting reading than two separate isolated incidents.
In saying that the murders startled London, it strongly outlines the severity of the crimes, as the Whitechapel area, which was the scene of the crimes, was an extremely violent and criminal area. There was fighting on the streets, prostitution at every turn and burglary rates were on the rise. If such an area were to be shocked by an act, this act would have to be of some grue, as the residents would probably be desensitized to most forms of violence.
The source states that, 'The victims have been the poorest of the poor', and they rule out theft as a motive when it is stated that, 'no adequate motive in the shape of plunder can be traced'. This infers that the murders were frantic and not premeditated, with the hope that the reader will think that the killer acts on insane impulse. Also, considering the poverty of the victims, it is fair to say that they probably would not be missed by many people, and it is possible that the killer selected them because of this. This would make the poor people worry, and buy more papers later on in the hope for more updates, and everyone would think that the murderer was very low if this was his motive.
The source puts strong emphasis on the levels of brutality in the murders, stating that there was an, 'excess of effort apparent in each murder' and there was, 'extraordinary violence', which again, is to invoke feelings of dread in the reader to make them buy more papers, because back in 1888, there was no television news bulletins, which is the way we usually get information about such incidents. The only way to be informed of something was to read in the paper, and this caused the journalist's word to be held as paramount, so they could get away with tweaking details here or there.
There are considerably more details neglected in this source than that that is provided. It doesn't tell us dates, times, exact whereabouts, similarities and differences in injuries, possible weapons, age, family situation, marital status, who discovered the body or the police's reaction to the murders, not-to-mention a whole host of other necessary or at least useful factual information. All in all, this source delivers a few handy snippets of information, but it is used to persuade, not to inform, almost as propaganda. It is mostly conjecture, and therefore, should not be trusted.
