The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[GBinOz]

Excellent post George.


I think the answer may lie in the Ripper having suffered from a multiple personality disorder.

Not schizophrenia, but rather someone with more than one "personality."

There would be a dominant host, and possibly up to scores of others all within one human frame.

That may sound like science fiction, but there is science behind this Jeckyl and Hyde description.

A man who could initially present as calm and well mannered, could then change to a man with a different personality type, who could exhibit different attributes; including increased strength, different accent, violent temperament etc...

it has often been argued that the Ripper may have been more than one man.

But what if he was one man....but with multiple personalities?

He could have been a surgeon, a clerk, a sailor, a doctor, a detective etc... all in one body.

It's a rare phenomenon, but still possible.

Thanks RD,

I suspect your theory would attract support from Dave Adams who postulates that the ripper was connected to the Robert Louis Stevenson book.

There are arguments that the murders were committed by more than one killer, that they were committed by a team of two or more, and they were committed by a Jekyll/Hyde. There was a witness that heard the whispering of male voices as the train went by at Berner St, but that would have required Jekyll and Hyde talking to themselves.

As for the team theory, for Stride there was BSman and Pipeman, at Mitre Sq there have been suggestions that George Morris may have been an accomplice, the royal conspiracy has Netly and Gull and it has even been suggested that Hutchinson may have been a lookout for Astrakhan man. That's not to mention the "Four Jacks Theory" promoted by Randy Williams.

IMO JtR was a composite of several killers, but if he were one man I agree that he would have been a Jekyll/Hyde - the placid character that nobody notices until he changes into his dark passenger.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Who says that Brown recognised a ‘new technique?’ He certainly never mentions any alleged technique in his statement. Brown is being asked if the killer possessed any medical/anatomical knowledge because that information might have proven important to the police. It would be strange to say the least Fishy if you are claiming that Brown told everyone ‘no’ but he was only talking about the mutilations. So they could have ended up having a situation where this conversation was had:

Police - We have a suspect Dr. Brown.

Brown - really? Does he have medical knowledge.

Police - No, why.

Brown - Because the killer had medical knowledge.

Police - But you said that he didn’t have medical knowledge?

Brown - Ah, but I was only talking about the mutilations and not the organ removal!

Imagine the police’s reaction if that had been the case Fishy?


It reminds me of that film scene involving Inspector Clouseau where he asks the hotel manager “does your dog bite?” To which he replies “no.” Then Clouseau gets bitten by the dog and says “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite,” to which the hotel manager calmly replies “that is not my dog.”

Im simply talking about Dr Bond , and his decription of the ''removal'' of kellys heart and the way it was done . Not sure what your saying there herlock .

We cant have a doctor describing a obvious medical technique with kellys heart removal , and then saying the killer had no medical skill at all . Its a contradiction

Bond was cleary talking about two different things, No Skill in the mutliations , Skill in her heart removal ..... its simple . imo.

[FISHY1118]

As far as the prostitute that Thompson had the ‘relationship’ with, he never expressed anything but fondness for her. He therefore had no motive to kill.

Im not just talking about you Fishy but on the subject of Thompson everyone would be better off reading Walsh’s excellent and completely unbiased biography of Thompson rather than just the writings of a man who is trying to create a case around him. You would then see a fuller more rounded picture of the type of person that Thompson was. No one could recognise anything remotely like a killer.

So Geddys information about Thompson is wrong ... These sounds like motive to me , otherwise i wouldnt have even commented on this thread .

He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.
→ He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.
→ He was an active arsonist and fire-starter — linked to sadistic psychopathy.
→ He wrote essays at the time describing prostitutes as “putrid ulcers,” “blasphemies,” and called for them to be drowned in the Thames.
→ He delighted in reading and writing about the killing of women with blades — even his own play had this as its central scene.
→ His movements align perfectly with the timeline of the murders and when they ceased (he was removed from the area right after the final killing)

[FISHY1118]

By "consensus", I obviously mean everyone who's studied the case, from medical professionals, psychological profilers, policemen, professional researchers, and, yes, even amateurs like you and I.

It's never, to the best of my knowledge, been asserted, without any hesitation, that Kelly had to have been killed by a skilled medical professional, in fact, it's quite the opposite.

That's basically what I mean.

None of the medical men of the day gave their opinion that Kelly's murderer had to have been a medical professional. We can start randomly making up reasons for them distancing themselves from the killer, or we can just accept what they said, and it stands to reason that if we're going to trust Dr Bond enough to acknowledge the manner in which he details the removal of the heart, then I'm at a loss to explain exactly why we're also expected to ignore everything else he said, along with the other doctors who certainly didn't think that the killer was a skilled professional.

That seems a little disingenuous.

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im simply talking about Dr Bond , and his decription of the ''removal'' of kellys heart and the way it was done . Not sure what your saying there herlock .

We cant have a doctor describing a obvious medical technique with kellys heart removal , and then saying the killer had no medical skill at all . Its a contradiction

No it’s not. Dr Bond clearly didn’t see an ‘obvious’ medical technique. And we know this for a fact Fishy because he never at any point mentions seeing an ‘obvious’ medical technique which he definitely would have mentioned had he seen it because it would have been absolutely vital evidence.

Bond was cleary talking about two different things, No Skill in the mutliations , Skill in her heart removal ..... its simple . imo.

That’s just impossible Fishy. You are basically suggesting that Dr Bond was a complete idiot who was clueless as to what the police required of him. Clearly as the police wanted to know if the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge Bond wouldn’t have mentioned an aspect of the murder where he didn’t show such skill/knowledge but he fail to mention the part where he did. I can’t to see why anyone would think differently. Bond was talking about medical/anatomical skill as a whole; he can’t have done otherwise. I realise that this doesn’t support the idea of a ‘medical knowledge Jack’ but we shouldn’t allow this to suggest the impossible.

[John Wheat]

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

How do you know? We certainly don't have a detailed history of Bury's employment whose to say he wasn't at one time a butcher?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Geddys information about Thompson is wrong ... These sounds like motive to me , otherwise i wouldnt have even commented on this thread .



He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.

He had absolutely no history of violence against women.

→ He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.

Unproven

→ He was an active arsonist and fire-starter — linked to sadistic psychopathy.

False

→ He wrote essays at the time describing prostitutes as “putrid ulcers,” “blasphemies,” and called for them to be drowned in the Thames.

None of his poems mention prostitutes as far as I can recall.

→ He delighted in reading and writing about the killing of women with blades — even his own play had this as its central scene.

Shaun Hutson, Stephen King, Clive Barker….i could produce a huge list….were these all potential serial killers?

→ His movements align perfectly with the timeline of the murders and when they ceased (he was removed from the area right after the final killing)

Druitt and Bury both give us an explanation for the cessation of the murders but are they taken as proof of anything?

This isn’t Geddy’s information Fishy. He had cut and pasted it from a source online. It clearly comes from Richard Patterson who wrote a book suggestion Thompson’s as the ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

Anyone with a knife and a knowledge of the location of the heart could cut it out.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Im simply talking about Dr Bond , and his decription of the ''removal'' of kellys heart and the way it was done . Not sure what your saying there herlock .

We cant have a doctor describing a obvious medical technique with kellys heart removal , and then saying the killer had no medical skill at all . Its a contradiction

Bond was cleary talking about two different things, No Skill in the mutliations , Skill in her heart removal ..... its simple . imo.

So, there were two different people involved in the Kelly murder, in your opinion. Firstly you have Bond saying that the mutilations in each case were performed by someone with no scientific or anatomical knowledge, not even that of a slaughterer, then the highly skilled surgeon with the totally up to date techniques arrived, and expertly removed the heart.

[Mike J. G.]

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

That's fair enough, I definitely agree that the vast majority of what we know about the case is entirely open to our own interpretation.

I don't personally think it was Thompson or Bury, although, from the list we have, I don't think Bury is a bad suspect. I think I'd put Chapman ahead of Thompson, though.

[Mike J. G.]

Chapman is a crap suspect. It's highly unlikely a serial killer could go from doing what Jack did to poisoning.

I don't believe it was Chapman or Thompson, to be fair, John. But playing devil's advocate, I could see the argument that Chapman only killed his wives in the manner that he did to avoid detection. He couldn't rip them up and hope to get away with it.

I personally don't believe the killer is on the list, but if I had a gun to my head then the likes of Chapman and Bury would be on there. I think they're decent suspects on the actual list we have. Chapman was in the area, was sadistic, multiple murderer of women, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate, though!

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

Yes, if we were sure, or even if there were a strong preponderance of evidence, that the Ripper had to have surgical knowledge, one would think that locating men with surgical training who lived in the London area and were in their 20s or 30s at the time would be a very active area in Ripper research. We're talking about Thompson now in part because he's famous. Is there really any more reason to think that Thompson might be the Ripper than to think that some other London area surgeon in his 20s or 30s at the time was the Ripper? I don't see his poetry as being a reason to suspect him.

I agree that George Chapman is a considerably stronger suspect than Thompson.

Allo, Lewis. I tend to agree. I'm not entirely sure why the "medical knowledge" angle isn't focused on a lot more when choosing valid suspects, given what we're being told regarding Mary's heart removal.

I'd have thought that would have all but sealed the deal on Jack being a medical man, but IMO, I don't he was. I think he had a basic grasp of anatomy, though, and was familiar with cutting up bodies, human or animal.

Definitely agree on Chapman being more likely than Thompson.

[Mike J. G.]

Same with me Mike. How many thousands of people have studied this case over the years. How many people with medical knowledge (including doctors, surgeons etc) and yet still we have no consensus. If it was in any way proven I just can’t see how this hasn’t been stated and stated forcefully.

Totally agree with you, Herlock.

[John Wheat]

I don't believe it was Chapman or Thompson, to be fair, John. But playing devil's advocate, I could see the argument that Chapman only killed his wives in the manner that he did to avoid detection. He couldn't rip them up and hope to get away with it.

I personally don't believe the killer is on the list, but if I had a gun to my head then the likes of Chapman and Bury would be on there. I think they're decent suspects on the actual list we have. Chapman was in the area, was sadistic, multiple murderer of women, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate, though!

Fair points I just don't see Chapman changing from what Jack did with mutilation etc to be a calculating poisoner. I think Bury a much stronger suspect than Chapman. For various reasons not least the fact he performed post mortem mutilation on his wife.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick list..I only had a look out of curiosity so its by no means an extensive list:



Thomas Barnado - studied at London Hospital but didn’t complete his studies.

George Chapman - Apprenticed to a surgeon. Did a course on practical surgery.

Thomas Neill Cream - Doctor

Thomas Cutbush - A medical student.

William Gull - Physician

Francis Thompson - Medical training

Sir John Williams - Obstetrician to the Queen

Robert Mann - Mortuary attendant

John Sanders - Medical student

HH Holmes - Studied medicine

Dr Alfred Pearson - Physician and surgeon

Henry Gawen Sutton - Physician

Oswald Puckridge - Trained as a surgeon?

then…

Jacob Levy - Butcher

Montague John Druitt - Son of a surgeon


And before complaints come rolling in I’ve only added Druitt as someone that might, without any stretch of the imagination, have acquired anatomical/ medical knowledge. There may be other suspects who might fall into this same category.