Ever feel like the media is just making things up to get clicks? Honestly, it’s nothing new. Way back in 1888, a fledgling London newspaper called The Star was doing the exact same thing, but with much bloodier consequences. We’ve all heard of the Whitechapel Murders, but the recent drama-documentary Jack the Ripper: Written in Blood flips the script on the legend.
It suggests that the "Jack" we know—the top-hatted, cape-wearing shadow—might actually be a creation of the tabloid press.
The show isn't just another "who-dun-it" where we guess which royal or doctor did it. It’s more of a "who-wrote-it." It turns out that a lot of what we think is historical fact was basically Victorian clickbait.
The Newspaper That Invented a Monster
Before 1888, the term "Jack the Ripper" didn't exist. People were just scared of a "Leather Apron" or a "Whitechapel Murderer." Then came The Star. This was a radical, scrappy paper edited by Thomas Power O’Connor (played by Moe Dunford in the series). They needed sales. They needed a hook.
Basically, they turned a series of local tragedies into a national obsession.
The series highlights how journalists like Fred Best and Ernest Parke didn't just report the news—they shaped it. There is a very strong theory, backed by experts in the show, that the famous "Dear Boss" letter was a forgery.
✨ Don't miss: Priyanka Chopra Latest Movies: Why Her 2026 Slate Is Riskier Than You Think
Who wrote it? Likely a journalist.
Think about that for a second. The very name "Jack the Ripper" was likely penned by a reporter looking to sell more copies of the evening edition. It worked. Circulation skyrocketed, but so did the panic. This media circus didn't just entertain; it actually got in the way of the police. While the cops were chasing fake letters and dealing with mobs incited by the press, the real killer was out there, slipping through the cracks.
Why the "Written in Blood" Perspective Matters
Most Ripper docs focus on the gore or the DNA. Jack the Ripper: Written in Blood focuses on the victims and the society that failed them. We’re talking about the "Canonical Five":
- Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols
- Annie Chapman
- Elizabeth Stride
- Catherine Eddowes
- Mary Jane Kelly
For a long time, these women were just treated like data points or, worse, just "prostitutes" in the background of a man's story. This series tries to see them as human beings with actual lives and families. It looks at the crushing poverty of the East End where 55% of children died before the age of five. Prostitution wasn't a "choice" for most; it was a survival tactic in a world where you slept nine to a room or paid fourpence for a "doss" bed.
The show uses present-day experts—detectives, historians, and even a former sex worker—to bridge the gap between 1888 and today. It's a bit of a wake-up call. We still have this weird obsession with "monsters," but we often ignore the systems that allow people to be targeted in the first place.
🔗 Read more: Why This Is How We Roll FGL Is Still The Song That Defines Modern Country
The Letters: Real Clues or Cruel Hoaxes?
You’ve probably seen the "From Hell" letter. It’s the one that came with half a human kidney. That one is widely considered the most likely to be genuine because of the medical details and the, uh, attached organ.
But the others?
The "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jacky" postcard? Experts in the series lean heavily toward them being fabrications by The Star. If you write a letter to your own newspaper using a catchy name, you’ve basically cornered the market on the story. It was a brilliant, if totally unethical, business move.
The police, led by people like Sir Charles Warren and Chief Inspector Frederick Abberline, were overwhelmed. They were trying to use 19th-century methods—bloodhounds, questioning local butchers—against a 21st-century media machine.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Case
We tend to think the Ripper was a surgical genius. You'll hear people say he must have been a doctor because of how he removed organs.
💡 You might also like: The Real Story Behind I Can Do Bad All by Myself: From Stage to Screen
Honestly, that’s probably an exaggeration.
While the killer had some anatomical knowledge, some experts argue he could have just been a butcher or someone used to working in a slaughterhouse. The "gentleman in a top hat" image is also mostly a myth. A guy dressed like that would have stuck out like a sore thumb in the slums of Whitechapel. The real killer was likely someone who "blended in"—someone poor, ragged, and unremarkable.
Actionable Insights: How to Separate Fact from Ripper Myth
If you're interested in the real history behind the "Written in Blood" series, here is how you can actually research the case without getting lost in the "Ripperology" nonsense:
- Check the Primary Sources: Don't just read blogs. Look at the actual transcripts of the inquests. These are the real testimonies from witnesses and doctors from 1888.
- Follow the "Victim-First" Approach: Read The Five by Hallie Rubenhold. It’s a great companion to this series because it reconstructs the lives of the women without focusing on the killer.
- Evaluate the "Suspect of the Week": Every year someone "proves" who the Ripper was with a shawl or a diary. Be skeptical. Most DNA evidence from 130 years ago is contaminated or lacks a clear chain of custody.
- Watch with a Critical Eye: When watching Jack the Ripper: Written in Blood, pay attention to how they describe the role of the newspaper The Star. It’s a lesson in how media can create a narrative that becomes more "real" than the truth.
The Ripper case isn't just a scary story. It's a look at what happens when sensationalism, poverty, and a lack of forensic science collide. The "blood" on the pages of those 1888 newspapers wasn't just ink; it was a byproduct of a media frenzy that likely helped a killer go free.
To dig deeper into the actual geography of the crimes, you can look up historical maps of the Whitechapel district to see how the "labyrinth" of alleys actually looked before modern redevelopment changed the face of London forever.