So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Stephen]

I think Jack The Ripper was.....

Hi,

In answer to 'who was Jack The Ripper', I have written my views on this in the Letters and communications forum, in the Dear Boss thread. I have written of how I personally imagine him to have been.

[Celesta]

hi!!!

I'm new on here, I really like reading the opinions and possibilities brought forward by you guys. I've been a bit of a Ripper fanatic since I stumbled upon the story a long time ago in a book about serial killers.
I don't think the real killer has ever even come under any writers' radar as of yet, and there needs to be serious findings coming out regarding missing files...someone's got them right?
Anyway, I got to thinking about something when I saw the miniseries with Michael Caine...he said



Do you reckon this is plausible? That the killer was a member of the vigilance commitee?

Hello Steve,

Welcome to the runaway train. As for any theory being plausible, it is generally entirely dependent on whom you're talking to. Enjoy your time here.

Best,

Cel

[Celesta]

rip·wank·ery, n., pl. -ies. A traditional ritual practised by men on attaining their hundredth birthday.

rip·winkly, adj. The condition of the male genitalia following an act of ripwankery (q.v.)

Does item 1 on your list involve being immersed in very cold water?

[Roy Corduroy]

Steve, welcome to the Casebook discussion group,

Do you reckon this is plausible? That the killer was a member of the vigilance commitee?

Nothing much as been ruled out. Some of the suspects are: A lawyer, a witness, and well, I don't know, has anyone fingered a judge? Here come da' Judge......

Again, welcome

Roy

[stevebaker25]

hi!!!

I'm new on here, I really like reading the opinions and possibilities brought forward by you guys. I've been a bit of a Ripper fanatic since I stumbled upon the story a long time ago in a book about serial killers.
I don't think the real killer has ever even come under any writers' radar as of yet, and there needs to be serious findings coming out regarding missing files...someone's got them right?
Anyway, I got to thinking about something when I saw the miniseries with Michael Caine...he said

If I was the killer I'd join up with Lusk and go out at night looking for myself, wouldn't you?

Do you reckon this is plausible? That the killer was a member of the vigilance commitee?

[Sam Flynn]

rip·wank·ery, n., pl. -ies. A traditional ritual practised by men on attaining their hundredth birthday.

rip·winkly, adj. The condition of the male genitalia following an act of ripwankery (q.v.)

[caz]

Inventing up secret agendas that are the "real reason" for the murders is just an exercise in ripwankery.

Joy of joys - I bloody well wish I'd said that... well almost as much as I'm bleedin' glad I didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dan Norder]

It takes more than calling yourself Perry Mason and telling us you have a 180+ IQ to actually know what you're talking about. Inventing up secret agendas that are the "real reason" for the murders is just an exercise in ripwankery. Robberies gone bad don't target penniless vagabonds and end in complete disembowelment. People who want to raise the public consciousness of life in the East End don't go around killing women in the most psychopathic ways possible. Uterus collectors would just talk to someone at a medical school... and would actually take the uterus in more than just two out of five (or more) killings.

Fantasy-prone people raised on fictional mysteries may want to think otherwise, but serial killers kill because they like to and not for some overly complicated plot-driven reasons. Anyone who wants to study a serial killer but refuses to treat him like one is just wasting his time.

We sure know that most of those suggestions make no sense at all. Just because we didn't see what happened first hand doesn't mean that any insane thought someone comes up with has an equal chance of being right as any other idea.

Isnt a bloodthirsty madman your take on these Dan? Its included with the other ideas that are as baseless or realistic, or as probable.

The facts are that someone could have had agendas we know nothing about, and those agendas might reveal where the killer may have come from in societal terms. And whom he was likely to have killed and why.

If none had motives beyond just kill and cut, then no issues.

Best regards.

[marloes]

As a newbie to the forum but as someone interested in the Whitechapel Murders since I was a little girl (I found a book in my dads bookcase I wasn't supposed to find) I would like to share my ideas on theses crimes.
Im not up to date with the latest ideas and theories so I may be mentioning some things that have been judged 'officially silly' by everyone else for years

I think the whitechapel murderer or jack, was a man who knew the area, probably lived there for some time or had lived there and returned.
He would be someone you would pass in the street without looking twice, he wouldnt fit the description of 'a suspicious character' in the mind of the victorian Eastender, so not a 'foreign type', a man with a long cape, a man with a doctors bag, etc.
He was the type of man that you could see every day, there would have been hundreds or thousands of men just like him walking that area all the time.
He wasnt a charming gentleman but he didnt look like a sadistic murderer either, the women would go with just about anyone into a dark corner if they were drunk enough and if they needed the money badly enough, but they werent stupid and Im sure most of them had spend a night outside before so they probably wouldnt risk their live with someone they suspected of perhaps being Jack.

I think he probably had a lodging and a job, he was frustrated in his daily life and perhaps had a childhood trauma or was sexually frustrated.
I also think he enjoyed bringing fear to the East End, he may have written one of the many letters to the press.

He could control his beaviour enough not to stand out, of course in a area like the East End as it was then that wouldnt mean he never fought or got caught abusing a woman.
He was smart enough to think ahead and plan a bit but I do feel he had urges that he couldnt control.
He wouldnt kill the first woman he saw, he would wait for a situation that he had some control over, where he felt save and expected to escape or at least have some time.
Many serial killers go from bad to worse, not all, but I think Jack was one of those.
I think he killed before the C5 and I also think the double-event shows this, he was disrupted and was frustrated that he couldnt finish the job.
Therefore I also think he couldnt have just stopped, not after MJK.
That night and the souvenirs he took would have been enough for him to 'get by on' for some while but eventually he would have to murder again.
I think he got send to an asylum or simply died.

And against my better judgement I still believe there somewhere is a old suitcase hidden in an attic somewhere with all the evidence we need to close this case

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"I'm not sure how that would work. If he planned the murders while sane then insanity would never need to come into it. If he was insane when he killed he would have either been also insane when he planned the murders or he wouldn't have planned them ahead of time at all."

A very sane suggestion. But then again, I may be insane judging it...? Oh, crap!

The best,
Fisherman

[Dan Norder]

The questions we cant answer are the ones we need answers to the most....for example why were each of these women killed? To satisfy the blood lust of a serial madman? To raise the consciousness about the East End strife? To punish women? Robberies gone wrong? Gangs? Pimps? Uterus collectors?

We dont know.

We sure know that most of those suggestions make no sense at all. Just because we didn't see what happened first hand doesn't mean that any insane thought someone comes up with has an equal chance of being right as any other idea.

[Fisherman]

Hi DVV!

You ask:

"...if Jack really wanted to behead his preys, why didn't he came with a proper instrument to do so, after his "failure" in Buck's Row?"

He may well have come with a proper instrument - but without the proper knowledge. THAT is what I am arguing. And I do think that the notches in the spinal columns of Kelly and Chapman points to failed attempts at decapitation. I am having trouble understanding why he would notch the bones at all, if that was not his aim. It points clearly to somebody trying to "saw" his way through the bone.
As for Phillips´wiew on Stride/Eddowes, I have explained before that I believe that a lot of prestige was involved in his claims in the case of Eddowes - I think he soon came to see that he may have been wrong, but chose to be left in the corner he had painted himself into. And it really is not that interesting, since I believe that ANY doctor who is faced with a cut neck and a notched spinal column will be having difficulties not to recognize that there are few other opportunities around to explain such a thing but attempted decapitation.
Incidentally, returning to the initial subject, I believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the Ripper worked with more than one knife - one apt for the "surgical" bits and pieces, the other one meant to ensure a fast, heavy, deep cut through the neck. Plus I believe that the clearest example of this is the murder of Martha Tabram (sorry Glenn, if you are out there somewhere!)

The best, DVV

Fisherman

PS. Nichols was not the failed first attempt to cut the head of, DVV - it was Chapman.

[Dan Norder]

Hi Fisa,

Brainstorming is fine and healthy, but this part caught my eye:

we was sane in plotting but insane in the killing.

I'm not sure how that would work. If he planned the murders while sane then insanity would never need to come into it. If he was insane when he killed he would have either been also insane when he planned the murders or he wouldn't have planned them ahead of time at all.

[DVV]

Hi Lintukorpi!

Just noticed that you yesterday brought up a suggestion that is commonly marketed: that the Ripper was a butcher.
One thing that applies in that discussion, is the fact that he apparently tried to sever the head from the body in both Chapmans and Kellys cases, as evinced by notches present in the spinal column on these victims. Dr Phillips was very clear on the point that the notches pointed to a failed decapitation in Chapmans case.
I think that we have to accept that IF he was a butcher, he would have accomplished to decapitate these women!

The best,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
I'm not sure at all that Jack wanted to behead his victims. All victims, except Stride, have their throat cut to the spine - not only Chapman and Kelly.
So if Jack really wanted to behead his preys, why didn't he came with a proper instrument to do so, after his "failure" in Buck's Row?

Amitiés,
David

ps: Phillips was also quite clear that Stride was a ripper's victim, and dismissed Eddowes as such...