‘An Evening With Jack the Ripper’ Q&A with Steve Morgan

An Evening with Jack the Ripper: A Journey into London’s Dark Heart is a show that has entertained countless audiences across the UK. Hosted by the knowledgable Ripper enthusiast Steve Morgan, it takes audiences on a deep dive into the lore, history, legends and theories surrounding one of the most enduring mysteries of the past. This show is guaranteed to shake up whatever you think you know about the gripping, gruesome story of London’s most infamous serial killer. Ahead of the show’s return to the Wanstead Fringe this September, I had a chat with Steve about his motivations behind creating the show, his personal beliefs about the true identity of Jack and why audiences remain so gripped by this story all these years later…

What inspired you to create the show, and what is it about the Ripper story that fascinates you most?

I'd initially planned to transform my Jack the Ripper walks into a series of podcasts. Each episode would be recorded at a location attached to the story and I would recount the tale in the company of a group of people who could then ask questions. But then I realised that by transforming what I was doing into a two-act structure for the stage I could create an evening of immersive story telling with a visual and dramatic component that would be lost on a podcast. And the more I explored that idea the more I realised that this was something that was far better suited as a theatrical presentation.

My fascination with the story began in childhood, the pre-internet age. When I would arrive home from the library with mountains of books on the topic, much to the alarm of my parents. But I was hooked. And what hooked me initially was my belief that there had to be an answer to this mystery. There just had to be. And my hope was that if I kept looking hard enough within the pages of all these books I would find it...   

You describe yourself as a “student of the crimes” rather than a “Ripperologist”. What does this distinction mean to you and how does approaching the case without a fixed theory shape the way you recount the story?

I regard myself as a 'student of the crimes' because I still see myself at a young age bringing books back from the library to study. And that's how I've approached my research over the years as someone who is open to a range of different ideas and concepts related to the case. I think by doing so it's allowed me to assemble the multiple pieces of the puzzle together to create a picture of who Jack the Ripper was. 

Since the actual events there have been countless books, documentaries, podcasts - all theorising the Ripper case. There is certainly no shortage of new and different interpretations. What do you think makes this particular story so enduring more than 130 years later, and do you personally believe there is anything new to question?

I think our fascination with the story revolves around a number of things.. Firstly the mystery is central to that. It still defies belief that a murderer operating across a short period of time within a few streets wasn't found. That alone creates a void that will be endlessly filled with theories and speculation.

Secondly, the era. The Victorian age is still within touching distance. We travel on its railways, live and work in the buildings and homes constructed at that time.

A global audience was glued to the football World Cup this summer. This was a sport codified by the Victorians. We still live in their shadow.

Another element I believe is the injustice of the story. The victims were denied justice in life with what they were forced to endure and they were denied justice in death because the killer should have gone to the gallows.

In terms of anything new to question - I believe there is. And over recent years people like Hallie Rubenhold and Bruce Robinson have written books which have done just that. They've come at these crimes from completely different angles and unearthed a wealth of information which has shed fresh light on things. There are still stories attached to this case waiting to be told. The past is never dead. It's not even past.  

The show focuses heavily on the real locations connected to the murders. Why was it important to you to bring those places into the story and what do you think it adds when audiences realise that many of these locations still exist today?

I think it underscores the fact that these murders happened within walking distance of one another. This wasn't someone running amok across the whole of London stretching the very capabilities of the police. They were concentrated within a small radius and yet he still escaped capture. But his presence can still be felt on those streets. They say the body keeps score but places have memories too.

Your walking tours are known for being immersive and atmospheric. Is An Evening with Jack the Ripper an extension of that experience, and if so what opportunities does a live show give you to explore the story differently?

If anything It allows the story to be far more immersive with the use of visuals, music and lighting. It also gives me the opportunity to explore things in far more depth and illustrate the dramatic aspects of this case.

How did you approach translating the atmosphere of Victorian London and the suspense of the case into a seated theatrical experience?

I wanted the audience to get a sense of time and place so a degree of world building was important. I also wanted to convey something about the lives of the victims to make them three dimensional figures rather than mere accessories. Then it was a case of constructing a narrative course over two acts which would mean stepping into a Victorian Hell-scape to confront the identity of the killer. 

True crime has become more popular than ever and as a genre it regularly tops the charts on podcasts, streaming sites, social media etc. What is different about the Ripper story, compared to all the other countless true crime stories audiences can access today? Additionally, what does a live experience like your walking tours or this show offer that those formats can’t?

I think what is different about the Ripper story is that it can be read on so many different levels. Not just as a murder mystery but as a study of society at that time and the lives lived in the east-end. It is open to a number of different interpretations. No two people's telling of the story are the same. Everybody sees something different there and that's why I believe it will be retold for generations. 

In addition to that, the live experience of the show compared to the consumption of true crime on other platforms simply means that people aren't staring at a screen. They are present with me in that moment where we’ll descend into the darkest reaches of a man's soul.

The show is theatrical and at times fairly graphic. Do you think modern audiences expect more shock and gore to stay engaged with true crime these days?

Not necessarily. The story is graphic but I’ve set out not to use any pictures of the victims lying dead on the mortuary slab or at the scene of the crime. That is not only out of respect for the victims but also because the human  mind  is capable of painting pictures far more graphic than anything I can show.

A key part of your show is looking beyond the killer and towards the women who were murdered. How important was it to you to humanise the victims and explore who they were beyond the labels that have historically been attached to them?

It was incredibly important. For too long they have barely featured in the story. Hallie Rubenhold’s book ‘The Five’ was instrumental in changing that. Their lives are integral to this story - I wanted to create a rounded sense of who they were and how they lived. I've been lucky enough to meet several people who were related to the victims. That only reinforces the fact that these were real women and not something out of a ‘Penny Dreadful’.

Ultimately, do you see An Evening with Jack the Ripper as being less about the identity of a murderer and more about the time and society in which these crimes took place? If so, what do you think the murders reveal about Victorian society, particularly in relation to poverty, class, gender and prejudice?

I think what it tells us about Victorian society is that it is a lot like our own. Both periods of rapid invention and discovery in the fields of technology and science but there are vulnerable people who remain on the fringes forced to endure hardship and alienation.

There are countless theories about the identity of Jack the Ripper, from the plausible to the highly speculative. Without giving too much away, can you give a brief overview of what led you to your own theory and why this stood out to you?

As I mentioned earlier - I was convinced that the answer was there waiting to be found. I simply excavated the material, followed the clues and found that no matter how much I tried to resist I was being pulled in the direction of Jack the Ripper’s true identity. It was waiting there all along. I just had to go digging.

The case has survived in the public imagination partly because it remains unsolved. Why do you think an unanswered mystery has such enduring power and do you think we would we still be talking about Jack the Ripper today if his identity had been formally established?

I do. Even though the mystery is so compelling I think the era, the location and nature of the crimes mean that we would still be talking about them today even if we knew who the killer was. In the same way we still talk about Dr Crippen, John Christie and the Moors Murders. The history of Britain can be told in its crimes and that's why the Jack the Ripper story will endure. Regardless of whether we know his identity or not.

What do you hope people take away from the evening? A theory about the killer? A deeper understanding of Victorian London? Or perhaps just a different way of looking at the streets and places around them?

I'll settle for any of the those options. Ultimately I believe that come the end of the show the audience would’ve stared into the eyes of Jack the Ripper. The only people to have previously done so were his victims. This time however the audience will live to tell the tale.