There is no Jack the ripper

[joelhall]

Has anyone read the Jack the ripper book by Andrew Cook? He brings forward the theory that there is no Jack the ripper and different men killed the women we know as supposed ripper victims. We have been led to believe over the years that there was only one lone killer doing all of these atrocious murders, but is there any evidence or facts at to suggest that one man is responsible 100% for all of these murders supposedly committed by him? Some of the murders differ from others. Maybe the ripper was interrupted on some of them, who knows, but what does everyone think of Andrew Cook's theory that the murders that we know as the c5 and maybe a few other ripper style murders may have been committed by different men and not just one lone killer like we have been told all of these years?

the short answer is no - there is no evidence to prove anything 100%.

the slightly (!) longer answer, is that the values of evidence is always to be taken in context alongside other pieces of evidence to come to conclusions based on probability. this is where alot of peoples differencs of opinion stem from, as there is no concensus as to which pieces of evidence are accepted or rejected.

for instance the goulston street graffitti - is this evidence or not?

the difference of cuts and mutilations could be the work of one killer or many. the location of the killing, the method of killing etc do not constitute proof of a lone killer - they merely add odds towards it.

for instance the knife would be the weapon of choice on the east end streets. throat cutting would of course be common (there are only limited ways to kill with a knife in a short time in public).

if has been said that these murders all happened close together which clearly indicates a lone killer.

however, according to rumbelow, in his book the complete jack the ripper (im now hoping ive remembered the correct text ) notes that the worst part of this area, where morals were different (or absent) and crime was an everyday part of life - including assault, sexual crimes and murder - was confined to an area of around 1/4 square mile (analogous o the police no go areas of today) - someone will correct me if im wrong here. very small, densely populated areas which were at odds with the immediate surroundings.

s far we could conclude that the odds of a serial killer are around 50/50 or perhaps better, say 60/40 or even 70/30, at best.

comparison of the wounds and mutilations is a double-edged sword. the details we have are not as precise as one would like. they represent a common method of killing, and of course the mutilations are seen as the key tying them together.

the problem with this is that, unlike today, methods of stating whether the killings or mutilations were carried out by the same person in all cases is missing. there is no forensic evidence available, there is no surveillance which is of a high probability, there does not even seem to be any connection between the victims other than the obvious (lone women who had been drinking out alone at night). it could well be that the attacks were carried out by different people. it could be that they are all the same. it could be that the victims were attacked by two men. none of these can definitively be discounted with any certainty. indeed the medical evidence presented at the inquests notes that at least two different blades were used in the series.

the next problem is the evidence itself or rather lack of it. the files are notably scant. any documentation which could have contained vital clues, even if only one line long, is now gone, and may not ever surface except through luck.

witness testimony, which is often shown to be faltering to some degree, is sparse, and those witnesses who did see something did so in poor conditions and probably werent paying too much attention at the time thinking it not worthwhile to do so (even with killers on the loose people do settle back to the humdrum of daily life). people were poor, homeless, starving, cold - im sure that jack the ripper did not obsess everyone all day long!

lastly there is one other vital issue - the power of suggestion. whilst it may seem to some that it is clear cut - these were the work of a serial killer - let us not forget that this is the popular opinion not only of now, but even at the time. the name of jack the ripper was as famous in london at the time as it is now, and however objective anyone claims to be, everyone will have a prejudice of some description, no matter how large or small (even this member ).

for my own opinion i do not believe that these killings were the work of one person. however that is my own opinion based on interpretation of the facts. we cannot be scientific about this case in as far as we would like to be, and so everyones opinion will differ from one to another.

some are convinced there was a royal conspiracy, that walter sickert did it, or dr john williams, and even dr bernardo - or for that matter anyone whod set foot in a masonic lodge.

however unlikely, we cannot rule something as definite simply because certain facts fit (or more often because there is no evidence to the contrary - thank god these people are not real detectives).

we must simply make up our own minds with probabilities based on our interpretations of the facts and clues.

[corey123]

Here jump over to either the battleground thread or serial killers, a pattern? I started them both but they built around this topic, maybe they will help you form your own opinion.

good luck

[corey123]

jon,

Ok your have five woman, all killed in a small range of less than a mile, weeks apart. All died from a cut throat, four out of five dispayed abdominal mutilations and almost identicle throat wounds. Yes we have a serial killer.

Its a very heavily debated topic, the evidence says serial killer but there are those who think every murder must be 100% the same, thats when we get odd ideas like 3+ killers. trust me there was one two at the most.

[jonwilson]

Has anyone read the Jack the ripper book by Andrew Cook? He brings forward the theory that there is no Jack the ripper and different men killed the women we know as supposed ripper victims. We have been led to believe over the years that there was only one lone killer doing all of these atrocious murders, but is there any evidence or facts at to suggest that one man is responsible 100% for all of these murders supposedly committed by him? Some of the murders differ from others. Maybe the ripper was interrupted on some of them, who knows, but what does everyone think of Andrew Cook's theory that the murders that we know as the c5 and maybe a few other ripper style murders may have been committed by different men and not just one lone killer like we have been told all of these years?