Summing Up And Verdict

[Abby Normal]

Abby - I would respectfully quibble with saying the Ripper was definitely single. Serial killers like BTK, Ted Bundy, and Israel Keyes all had successful long-term relationships. My understanding, as well, is that the "single" argument comes from the timing of the murders; that is, that JTR was not answerable to anybody at home, so could be out killing at wacky hours. But there were plenty of occupations in the East End that had these irregular or extremely early hours. In fact that's how multiple Ripper victims were found (Charles Cross finding Polly, John Davis finding Annie, not to mention the slaughtermen at work who came to see Polly, etc). And even if he didn't have such an occupation, serial killers seem to have a gift for making their loved ones just accept anything they say or do. Israel Keyes, for example, traveled frequently across the US to hunt victims and dispose of their remains, and would be gone for long periods of time on these trips; his girlfriend at the time of his capture seemingly accepted whatever excuse he gave.

Sean - would you mind clarifying your comment on "certain low-class Polish Jews"? Do you mean we should consider "Polish Jew" a given and accepted Ripper trait? Just want to make sure I understand!

hi bone
yes so would i lol. in the past ive said single or dominated wife. so i agree with you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions (Abby, Sean, Paul and bonestrewn)

Though my initial point was to highlight how much we don’t know I certainly accept that we can apply ‘possibles’ and ‘probables’. So looking at the suggestions from Paul and Abby.

Age around 25-35 > I wouldn’t dispute this at all. It’s a very likely age range imo but I don’t think that any of us would eliminate a suspect if he was 5 years out either way?

Gentile > Numerically likely but apart from that I couldn’t personally be too sure.

Nationality English > Ditto

Local > I’ve always been a little wary of assuming the level of benefit from local knowledge but I certainly wouldn’t dispute that he was a local man. Paul’s point about Kelly is a fair one but the killer might have been a non-local who looked a bit better off. Or the way that he spoke might have won her trust. It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that she was in arrears with her rent and we have to wonder he far McCarthy’s patience stretched? Serial killers don’t usually kill ‘on their own doorsteps’ though.

So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss a local man but it’s fair to say that I don’t place as much weight on it as (probably) most do.

Anatomical Knowledge > It seems likely to me but, without having medical knowledge myself, I can’t really state what level and with any level of confidence.

Employed > I don’t know. Maybe he was but I can’t see he we could deduce that with confidence.

Frequented bars, drinker, knew prostitutes > Very possible imo. But he may have entered the area and picked up his victims in the street.

Description > I can certainly see and accept possibles from the various descriptions but I’m certainly wary of these.


All the points made on here could be absolutely correct but I don’t have a great level of confidence. With no great confidence I’d say…


Male
British/English
25-35
Lived just outside Whitechapel
Anatomical knowledge
Fairly average looking (moustache a possible)
Unsure about employment

[bonestrewn]

Abby - I would respectfully quibble with saying the Ripper was definitely single. Serial killers like BTK, Ted Bundy, and Israel Keyes all had successful long-term relationships. My understanding, as well, is that the "single" argument comes from the timing of the murders; that is, that JTR was not answerable to anybody at home, so could be out killing at wacky hours. But there were plenty of occupations in the East End that had these irregular or extremely early hours. In fact that's how multiple Ripper victims were found (Charles Cross finding Polly, John Davis finding Annie, not to mention the slaughtermen at work who came to see Polly, etc). And even if he didn't have such an occupation, serial killers seem to have a gift for making their loved ones just accept anything they say or do. Israel Keyes, for example, traveled frequently across the US to hunt victims and dispose of their remains, and would be gone for long periods of time on these trips; his girlfriend at the time of his capture seemingly accepted whatever excuse he gave.

Sean - would you mind clarifying your comment on "certain low-class Polish Jews"? Do you mean we should consider "Polish Jew" a given and accepted Ripper trait? Just want to make sure I understand!

[kjab3112]

Herlock, I think that other things can be added as highly probable. These are all my personal opinion.

Sex - We know that male serial killers are more likely, but also that female serial killers tend not to use knives and guns. I agree likely male.
Age - I would suggest around 30, based on physical strength required to quickly overpower the victims. An older man would likely struggle as strong enough would probably have arthritic changes due to their strength being from work. A younger man would be less skilled.
Skill - the killer knew how to rapidly subdue and silence his victims. For me, having seen footage of modern halal butchery, I can’t help but feel that he was a butcher or slaughterer. The method of killing appears to be strangle to unconsciousness then cut throat. These need to be achieved quickly as his want/need is the mutilation phase.
Anatomical knowledge - he demonstrated some anatomical knowledge as he could identify different organs. It should be remembered that this was a time when people would often kill or at least butcher their own meat. Given human organs and pig organs are similar in size and appearance, at least an amateur butchery knowledge would be enough.
Local? - he needed to blend in and not raise concerns. As the killings went on, the local prostitutes would’ve become more careful. I doubt that MJK, no matter how desperate, would’ve taken any old John back to her room. This suggests either a regular (I suspect these were questioned) or at least a known face - Hutchinson was almost certainly asked for money (why else mention it), was he being euphemistic when he said he gave her an occasional tanner?
Appearance - he blended in. Whitechapel was a poor, docks area. The killer couldn’t be traced by CCTV or credit card transactions as now, and without modern forensics away from the immediate vicinity could be considered safe, but only if not wearing an obvious outfit. The top hat and cloak would stand out like a sore thumb, a grey/black jacket with hat etc would describe virtually every man on the street. Think jeans and t-shirt with jacket now.

Who that makes the killer? I doubt we’ll never know for certain, but suspects could be narrowed if they don’t meet at least some features (it wasn’t Queen Vic) but a 40 year old local butcher or ex-military with previous history of violence I wouldn’t rule out.

Paul

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely there’s no point in having any interest in the case if we don’t want to know who did it Sean?

[seanr]

I just think that it’s worth us all remembering how little we actually know about the person that we are all hunting

I'm not hunting him, he doesn't interest me much at all really. It's really time to move on from trying to 'solve' the case. It'll never be agreed or settled.

We can’t know where he lived or if he had a ‘bolt hole.’ Local knowledge isn’t proven. Possible, maybe even likely, but nothing like certain imo.

He had to have some place where he could take organs in private, or where the site of organs would not raise suspicion from his family / co-habitees. That effectively rules out lodging house residents who went from place to place, with little to no privacy.

Did he have medical/knowledge and if so, to what level. This has been discussed endlessly over the years with no firm conclusion. And if he did have such knowledge how did he acquire it? Was he a doctor or former doctor? Did he have some early training but never completed? Did he acquire knowledge from reading and study? Was he a butcher or slaughter man? All have been suggested but we just don’t know.

He had to be a person who could cooly remove organs in minutes in imperfect conditions. A medical man would struggle to do so.

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

certain low-class Polish Jews; it's almost as though an important piece of this puzzle is missing.

There's absolutely no reason, beyond conventions to assume he worked alone or even that there is only one 'he'. Almost no-one asserts that all eleven murders in the Whitechapel Murders file were committed by the same hand.

I'm satisfied that will never know the name for certain and frankly, it doesn't matter. He's gone and good riddance.

[Abby Normal]

My first ripper book was Summing Up And Verdict by Wilson and Odell so I’ve borrowed the title for this (perhaps slightly depressing) thread. So the big question is - it’s 137 years down the line, every available document has been scrutinised, every witness, suspect and scenario has been picked over, analysed and argued over. We’ve had enough books published to dam the Thames and two excellent forums loaded with research. So what do we actually know about Jack the Ripper?


I think that we can state that the killer was, in all likelihood a man. This is probably the only statement that I could make on here where no one would disagree with me.

So how old was he? We can be fairly confident that he wasn’t 15 or 75 but whereabout in between? Probably between 25 and 45 but we have no way of narrowing it down and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss a decent suspect who was 23 or 47.

As to his nationality we have no clue. He would have been able to communicate in English but that doesn’t mean that he was English. He was likelier to have been lighter skinned rather than a person of colour.

We can’t deduce his marital status or whether he lived alone or with family. There are no hard and fast serial killer rules on this. The killer had a certain freedom to roam but we still can’t deduce his personal circumstances from this fact.

Where did he live? Many feel that he exhibited local knowledge and therefore lived locally but this isn’t proven and how ‘locally’ would he have needed to live? A man visiting the area regularly might gain a familiarity of the area. A man who was born in the area, or who had lived there for a period of time, but had moved further afield would also retain his local knowledge. We can’t know where he lived or if he had a ‘bolt hole.’ Local knowledge isn’t proven. Possible, maybe even likely, but nothing like certain imo.

What about his physical condition? It’s probably reasonable to assume that he was reasonably fit and healthy but didn’t require anything exceptional. A deaf person would have been taken far more risks of course so deafness appears unlikely.

We can deduce little or nothing about his appearance as we have numerous potential sightings with fairly generic descriptions. We also have to factor in witness fallibility. Apart from saying that it’s reasonable to suggest that he unlikely to have been 6’6” tall or 20 stone in weight or that he didn’t have missing limbs or a pronounced limp then we have next to nothing to go on.

His clothing was no help due to the fact that we don’t know which, if any, witness actually saw him and the fact that it can’t be assumed that he wore the same clothing for each murder. And again we have to consider witness fallibility. (I just had a thought - how familiar would the concept of colour-blindness have been in 1888? How can we know that a witness wasn’t colour blind and we have been questioning a different coloured coat or hat)

What about the question of why he chose the victims that he did? Did he have a specific issue with prostitutes or where they just chosen as sadly ideal victims. Was his issue against reproduction or sex or disease or morality or was it something more personal to him? Was there a family or relationship issue or did he have some rage-inducing physical disability. Basically we don’t have a clue about the killers deeper reasons or why he used the methods that he did. Why did he remove organs? Souvenirs, cannibalism, to increase the shock value, because he thought that they gave him special powers? Who knows? Not me.

Did he have medical/knowledge and if so, to what level. This has been discussed endlessly over the years with no firm conclusion. And if he did have such knowledge how did he acquire it? Was he a doctor or former doctor? Did he have some early training but never completed? Did he acquire knowledge from reading and study? Was he a butcher or slaughter man? All have been suggested but we just don’t know.


So…..my Summing Up And Verdict, after 137 of investigation is that Jack the Ripper was overwhelmingly likely to have been a man. That’s about it really. I just think that it’s worth us all remembering how little we actually know about the person that we are all hunting.

white
gentile
english
25-35
local
short and stout
mustache
frequented bars
drinker
knew prostitutes
strong
employed
single
experienced with knife
had a modicum of anatomical knowledge
wore a peaked cap : )

[Herlock Sholmes]

My first ripper book was Summing Up And Verdict by Wilson and Odell so I’ve borrowed the title for this (perhaps slightly depressing) thread. So the big question is - it’s 137 years down the line, every available document has been scrutinised, every witness, suspect and scenario has been picked over, analysed and argued over. We’ve had enough books published to dam the Thames and two excellent forums loaded with research. So what do we actually know about Jack the Ripper?


I think that we can state that the killer was, in all likelihood a man. This is probably the only statement that I could make on here where no one would disagree with me.

So how old was he? We can be fairly confident that he wasn’t 15 or 75 but whereabout in between? Probably between 25 and 45 but we have no way of narrowing it down and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss a decent suspect who was 23 or 47.

As to his nationality we have no clue. He would have been able to communicate in English but that doesn’t mean that he was English. He was likelier to have been lighter skinned rather than a person of colour.

We can’t deduce his marital status or whether he lived alone or with family. There are no hard and fast serial killer rules on this. The killer had a certain freedom to roam but we still can’t deduce his personal circumstances from this fact.

Where did he live? Many feel that he exhibited local knowledge and therefore lived locally but this isn’t proven and how ‘locally’ would he have needed to live? A man visiting the area regularly might gain a familiarity of the area. A man who was born in the area, or who had lived there for a period of time, but had moved further afield would also retain his local knowledge. We can’t know where he lived or if he had a ‘bolt hole.’ Local knowledge isn’t proven. Possible, maybe even likely, but nothing like certain imo.

What about his physical condition? It’s probably reasonable to assume that he was reasonably fit and healthy but didn’t require anything exceptional. A deaf person would have been taken far more risks of course so deafness appears unlikely.

We can deduce little or nothing about his appearance as we have numerous potential sightings with fairly generic descriptions. We also have to factor in witness fallibility. Apart from saying that it’s reasonable to suggest that he unlikely to have been 6’6” tall or 20 stone in weight or that he didn’t have missing limbs or a pronounced limp then we have next to nothing to go on.

His clothing was no help due to the fact that we don’t know which, if any, witness actually saw him and the fact that it can’t be assumed that he wore the same clothing for each murder. And again we have to consider witness fallibility. (I just had a thought - how familiar would the concept of colour-blindness have been in 1888? How can we know that a witness wasn’t colour blind and we have been questioning a different coloured coat or hat)

What about the question of why he chose the victims that he did? Did he have a specific issue with prostitutes or where they just chosen as sadly ideal victims. Was his issue against reproduction or sex or disease or morality or was it something more personal to him? Was there a family or relationship issue or did he have some rage-inducing physical disability. Basically we don’t have a clue about the killers deeper reasons or why he used the methods that he did. Why did he remove organs? Souvenirs, cannibalism, to increase the shock value, because he thought that they gave him special powers? Who knows? Not me.

Did he have medical/knowledge and if so, to what level. This has been discussed endlessly over the years with no firm conclusion. And if he did have such knowledge how did he acquire it? Was he a doctor or former doctor? Did he have some early training but never completed? Did he acquire knowledge from reading and study? Was he a butcher or slaughter man? All have been suggested but we just don’t know.


So…..my Summing Up And Verdict, after 137 of investigation is that Jack the Ripper was overwhelmingly likely to have been a man. That’s about it really. I just think that it’s worth us all remembering how little we actually know about the person that we are all hunting.