Tweet
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.
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.
Comment