So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Graham]

For what it's worth, my take on the Ripper is:

- someone local to, or with easy access to, the area.

- someone, given his ability to 'disappear', knew the area like the proverbial back of his hand.

- someone who aroused no suspicion either from the public or the police.

- someone who was probably known to at least some of his victims.

- someone without any previous convictions for violent crime.

- not a 'wife beater' or anyone with 'everyday' violent tendencies but a person who, for reasons we probably still don't fully understand, needed a 'fix' of ultra-violence every so often. This defect was not openly visible to those who knew him.

- someone who perhaps tried to conquer these tendencies: possibly a reason for the long time-lag between Eddowes and Kelly (assuming that the latter was a C5 victim). Perhaps he held off for as long as he was able prior to Kelly.

- physically powerful: even a sick and ill-nourished woman surely has the ability to offer at least some resistance.

- I don't necessarily hold with the theory that all serial killers simply carry on
until they're caught or commit suicide. I think Jack was probably in sufficient touch with reality to 'quit while he was ahead' before he was caught, as I think he inevitably would have been had he continued his killing. I also rather suspect that, assuming Kelly was a Ripper victim, she represented the absolute ultimate in his deranged ambition - what else was there left for him to do to a victim? Eat her, maybe??

Where's all this lead to? I haven't a clue! They're purely my thoughts on the type of person Jack might have been, and if they point towards any known, named suspect then that's just coincidence.

Sorry for the long post.

Cheers,

Graham

[Hellrider]

I don't necessarily hold with the theory that all serial killers simply carry on until they're caught or commit suicide. I think Jack was probably in sufficient touch with reality to 'quit while he was ahead' before he was caught, as I think he inevitably would have been had he continued his killing.

Hey Graham, what exactly does make you so sure about him getting caught eventually if he continued to kill? Of course, his Mdus Operandi didn't change considerably, so police knew HOW he would strike if he struck again. But there is no way they could know WHEN he would strike again and therefore they had no effective means of prevention. All they had was:

- a number of police officers way too small to survey an entire area
- "designated victims" (destitute and homeless women) who could do nothing else but doing what Jack wanted them to do: go out on the streets, solicit clients and go to dark corners with them. They were dependent on this "trade" in order to survive. So Jack knew that his targets would, out of sheer necessity, offer him ever-new occasions to strike.

And, lest we forget, by the time of the fifth murder, Jack had nether made a fateful mistake which could have led police to him nor had they any (not even basic) information about him, except for witness statements as to his physique which differ greatly in some parts.

So why should he fear getting caught then?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Graham,
I to have never gone with the 'Had to continue' belief, He could have had enough sanity to have assesed the situation, and judged it to have run its course.
If he had no self control, but still assesed the situation as foolhardy to continue his work in Whitechapel, he surely would have left for pastures green, before more killing.
I happen to believe, the murders ceased after Mjk, simply because the killer had taken the life of the very person that set him off, during that Autumn. he simply had no reason to continue.
I can even see the killer placing the blame on Mary Kelly, making her responsible for the others, and in killing her, he rid himself of guilt.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Hi Richard,

1] I'm not SURE that he would've been caught had he carried on; I just said that I THINK he would have been. What you have to remember about Jack is that he had incredible luck - he was so close to being pinched on at least one occasion. Sooner or later IMHO his luck would've run out.

2] Not sure I go for Kelly as being ultimately 'responsible' for the murders. That's an old theory on the 'Dr Stanley' lines, or Joe Barnett bumping off whores to 'scare' his girl-friend Mary Jane into quitting whoring. I don't buy either of these theories. Certainly, the series stopped with Kelly (or at least most commentators say it did), so either Jack had had his fill of ripping, or died, or went somewhere else. Ever since 1888 people have had a fascination with Kelly, which I suppose is understandable, as she was the only victim about whom virtually nothing was known, was young, supposedly good-looking, etc., etc. Like I said in a previous post, give the public a bit of a mystery and they'll a great big mystery out of it!

Cheers,

Graham

[joelhall]

It's human nature, Joel. The Ripper crimes were a long time ago, never solved, and because of the location and the way of life of the victims they're a very fertile breeding-ground for any number of crank theories and just plain silliness. However, don't get too despondent, because much excellent work has been and is being carried out on 'serious' suspects such as Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, even though it is now virtually impossible for proof to be found of the guilt of any named suspect. Personally, I tend to go along with those who say that the Ripper's name if ever genuinely located would be totally unknown to us. But that doesn't stop us all having a bit of fun, does it? The Ripper's i.d. is and will remain a mystery, but again human nature, given a mystery, will make it a bigger and deeper mystery.

In passing, what really pees me off are the (sometimes) interminable and pointless discussions on these boards about, for example, whether so-and-so could see the colour of someone-else's socks in the dark...you know what I mean. That stuff, so far as I'm concerned, is a waste of space and energy and gets us nowhere. What I really like is the expertise that's often shown in the research into, and the tracking of, a named suspect, someone who actually existed; people capable of doing that 120 years after the event have my total admiration.

Cheers,

Graham

i dont deny its going to happen, just notice it happens more and more from people who are really just frustrated cos they believe theyre right, no matter how outlandish the conclusions. youre right about the posts. people often clutch at straws just in the hope something will suddenly become clear, but, alas, after 120 years, its most likely its been thought of, analysed, over-analysed, then forgotten as being no use.

though you mention research into 'serious' suspects, im no longer convinced these are serious to suspect anymore, nor have i for a while, but youve raised a good point.

the danger is, these are often suspected because someone else suspects them, and tells some of what they know, and noone else does their own research. now that further investigations are being done, it would be interesting to see who, if anyone, changes their minds based on further evidence.

a good number of students of the case, simply believe too much to change opinions or keep an open mind, and will argue the evidence to show sometimes very illogical conclusions. fact is even serial killers and the disturbed killers follow logic in their actions, if not in their motives (though their motives too are often not too hard to understand).

of course it appears from some serial killers, when they are questioned, they often have a habit of lying too.

[Graham]

Hi Joel,

all your points are very valid.

For my money, the best of the historical suspects is Druitt, and he is also the one who, IMHO, has been the subject of the best research. Right from when he was first named by Dan Farson, he seemed 'right' to me: disturbed, and from a family with a history of mental disturbance; East End connections; committed suicide at about the right time; suspected by a senior police officer. But then my prejudices kick in, and I ask myself, 'Hang on - what's an educated, middle-class, comfortably-off, good-looking, cricket-playing barrister doing being suspected as Jack the Ripper??' Somehow I just can't bring myself to accept the age-old myth that Jack was a top-hatted toff carrying a black bag, etc., etc. Great for a work of fiction, but not when weighed against the harsh reality of the East End slums. It doesn't fit. But no way would I ever wish for Druitt to either cease to be suspected, or for people far cleverer than I to discontinue to investigate and research his life and background. That's what this is all about. To me at least it's fascinating that in the nearly 50 years we've known about Druitt we are no closer to placing him in the right places at the right times as the Ripper.

Anyway, as I've always said, if by chance an 'authenticated' photo ever surfaced of the Ripper slicing up Eddowes, for example, how many people would accept it??

Cheers,

Graham

[joelhall]

if you had old cinematic footage of the murder, a photograph of the murderer standing next to the body, the missing organs found sealed in his old house, with a signed confession, the knives, a vial of eddowes blood matching the dna of her ancestors, along with a diary explaining in detail exactly how did it and got away, most of the 'bright sparks' here would not only not believe it but go out to find any evidence at all to prove it was a hoax, claiming photoshop, the handwritings messy, he wouldnt have used this knife openshaw said so, ummm your swore im telling, etc, etc. (ok maybe not the last one ).

most people, especially seasoned 'ripperologists' (for want of a better phrase) do not want to solve the killings, nor want anyone else to. newbies love their 'solutions', so theyll be known as 'genius X' who finaly solved the puzzle.

besides, if someone else solves it you have to admit youre wrong (dont happen often here ). they say good scientists set out to refute their own theories in order to prove them. how often does a good investigator set out to refute their own theory of the ripper murders? i know i have dozens of times, which is why i still have no clue who did it or why. in fact ive gone through every theory from sexual killers to hit men (yes they did exist then apparently).

then again im one of those people who knows exactly why im drawn to the case. and if i could prove anyone specific did it i doubt id ever name them. for me, though, the analysis and arguing is enough.

perhaps a better question would be -

does it really matter to us anymore who really killed these women? (and i mean to the wm community not necessarily the public, families or police).

joel

[celee]

hi Richard,
I dont think it anything much to do with Mary Kelly myself.I tend to see her murder as being one committed after a long gap and indoors simply because he had become nervous of killing women in the open air due to the much increased size of the police force and all the Whitechapel vigilantes chasing after him in the previous five weeks.
Cheers
Norma

I too feel Kelly was just another victim and the murders did not revolve around her.

I think that Jack the Ripper killed Kelly indoors because Kelly took him there. I do not believe that Jack was looking to find a woman he could kill indoors that night.

I will answer the question, Tumblety or Druitt or Both

Your friend, Brad

[Dan Norder]

Who was Jack the Ripper?

Jack the Ripper was a fictional character created by an informal and ad-hoc group of irresponsible journalists, writers of hoax letters, and the legion of authors who continued the tradition over the years.

The Whitechapel Murderer, on the other hand, was a very disturbed man who killed and mutilated a number of women and apparently got away with it, possibly because everyone was looking for Jack the Ripper instead.

[Limehouse]

Brilliantly put Dan, and so important when you think about it.

[Graham]

You're right of course, Dan, but 'Ripper' or 'JtR' are so much quicker to type than 'The Whitechapel Murderer'....

Graham

[Victor]

Graham,
What about WM?

Dan,
That almost exactly sums up my thoughts over the past few years after coming to casebook.

[rain]

I don't think Barnett killed Mary Kelly. Someone around her apartment would have recognized him and he knew it.

And even if he was mad at her and did kill her, I really don't think he would have killed her so viciously.

[AdamWalsh]

Many years ago a good friend of the family was working in a late night cafe, when a young man knocked on the window. The cafe was closed and all the fryers and cookers had been turned off, but she felt sorry for the bearded truck driver.

She let him in a made him a hot pot of tea, and fired up a stove to make him some soup. She piled the bread up and re-filled his pot.

After a while he politley asked if she would join him, as he had been on the road all day and was hungry for conversation. He asked about her family, complimented her, on her hair, and said her food was "Delicious".

He produced some money and feeling sorry for him, she said it was on the house, and was pleased he liked it.

He gave her a hug, and left, getting into his delivery truck and driving off into the night.

Although she never saw him again in person, she did see on the news that he had been arrested.

She described the Yorkshire Ripper as being one of the nicest men she had met, mild mannered, charming, and great to talk too!

wow! and she was sure it was Peter?

[Red Zeppelin]

So who was 'Jack'?

Hello,

Newbie here but have been following the forum for a while. My best guess is along the same lines as yours. I wouldn't 100% bet on the ripper being somebody we actually know but of those so far named I go along with Joe Barnett more than any other known suspect. In fact, I don't even seriously consider any of the others that have so far been fingered, particularly the likes of Druitt, Tumblety, and Kosminski.

Either Joe Barnett...or nobody we are aware of.