Is it even possible?

[clark2710]

Well the logical suspect is William Henry Bury all things considered. It's not case closed though.

With respect, I've heard many a theory regarding other suspects people had spoken of in the same way, where the speaker will swear their suspect theory makes sense and why. I've seen whole books written on why person x or a is the Ripper, and if you talk to some and read their books it's gibberish, but others make a more compelling case. I don't consider any suspect off the table except for the obvious. or I should rather say, except for the less likely

[The Rookie Detective]

A good example would be Samuel Little, he confessed to killing over 90 women, and when asked why he went after prostitutes he basically said that they were the easiest target, no one is going to miss them, the police aren't as likely to pursue it as heavily than if you murdered say a Senator's daughter. That's a paraphrase, but Little and the Ripper may share that ideal, that prostitutes were convenient and easier to get hold of.

I agree, but I would add to that the idea that the killer specifically targeted fallen women.


When we look at all of the alleged victims, we see that they were all women who had either been divorced, widowed, or who had turned to prostitution after having once known a better life of relative stability.

Rather than attack relatively younger women who had been long term prostitutes since their teens; he instead murdered older women (excluding Kelly) who had resorted to prostitution as a means of survival and largely as a result of alcoholism and having come out of a relatively stable relationship.

There's potentially an element of religious and ethical fanaticism to that way of thinking.
A man on a mission, so to speak.

And we see distinct recent changes in some of the victims personal circumstances, I.e. Kelly has just split from Barnett, and Stride has just split from Kidney

These timings may be relevant as it may indicate that the killer knew of Kelly's and Stride's recent relationship breakups and by proxy indicating that he knew them, and that they weren't random strangers.

If that's the case, then we need to look for any potential connections between the victims.
We know that Stride, Eddowes and McKenzie all worked for the Jewish community for example.
That doesn't make the killer Jewish, but it perhaps suggests that the killer had a connection to the women who worked within the Jewish community.

And in terms of the injuries inflicted by the killer, we can see that he primarily targeted his victim's reproductive organs; the uterus, the womb etc...
He appears to have attacked these areas specifically and this is perhaps a window into the killer's mindset.
It's not really about sex; it's about the control he had over a woman's reproductive organs; ergo, her ability to hold and grow new life; and that is particularly significant.


IMO for a man to make those choices when dispatching a chosen victim, it suggests that he wasn't picking random women through an impulsive desire to attack an easy target; but rather that he also had a need to punish women who had once had stability and who had fallen from grace.

That may imply that the killer had a particular hatred for a woman who had loose morals and perhaps in his eyes, he felt they were abusing their natural biological God-given ability to carry children, by having countless men use their bodies as vessels for carnal desires.

And so, while I agree that the killer chose relatively easy targets first and foremost; it is also right to acknowledge that the killer also focused on a woman's natural biological attributes; and perhaps he felt aggrieved by seeing women who presented themselves with no self dignity or respect for their own bodies.

He was punishing women who had chosen; in his eyes; to degrade themselves.

Of course, many people will say that he only chose prostitutes because they were easy targets, because that's an easy fix.
However, I would ask this question...

Would Kelly or Stride have been Ripper victims IF they had still been with their respective partners?

I believe the answer is a resounding NO.

It would appear that Eddowes was the only victim who was actively in a relationship with a man at the time she was murdered, and seeing that it was alleged that she stated that she knew the killer; this may also be significant, especially when she gave the name of Mary Kelly; that name then matched the next victim.
A striking coincidence.


The evidence suggests that the real killer targeted his victims, perhaps stalked them, got to know their movements, engaged with them to a point that they felt safe... and then picked his moment to strike.

The idea that the killer randomly picked his victims, and for no other reason than they were simply easy targets, is a means of sweeping things under the carpet and acts as a convenient fix that misses the point of the murders having occurred in the first place.


Lots to ponder.