Only a 0.000003 chance the Ripper murderer was not a religious fanatic

[GUT]

I'm not a Catholic so I sure am not going to use the word 'magical'. A lead is as real as it leads to an arrest.

Well your lead's not real as it will never lead to an arrest, if that's the criteria.

[Richard Patterson]

Which mid wives carried blades, my gran was one from about the 1890s and yep carried scissors but not a knife.

When and where did the police either limit their, searches or inquiries to people who carried knives as a part of their jobs or mention saints days.

Caesarians, being named after the 100 BC Roman emperor, is not a new practice. Not all mothers and child survived birthing, this was more true in the 1880's. If sadly the mother succumbed, it was the midwife's role to cut into the abdomen and remove the surviving baby. I don't think scissors would have done the trick.

[Richard Patterson]

So rather than "police" we have "A policeman", whose notion of a midwife is non-existent, immediately pooh-poohed by his mentor who is the one loosely suggesting midwives - who knows, perhaps to be kind. And was this in the papers at the time of the murders? How could Thompson know about that conversation?

Does "one policeman" pondering a midwife outweigh "many policemen" looking for a sailor, as per witness descriptions of persons seen near murder sites?

So why not sailors?

Sailors were suspected as well as hairdresser and barristers, but none of them required anatomical knowledge as well as the need to carry a knife.

[Richard Patterson]

Well your lead's not real as it will never lead to an arrest, if that's the criteria.

Good point. Well done! I was talking using an 1888 contemporary analogy. Today a real lead would result in the case being declared solved.

[GUT]

Sailors were suspected as well as hairdresser and barristers, but none of them required anatomical knowledge as well as the need to carry a knife.

What police suspected a Barrister "at the time" first Barrister suspect seems to come from the same place as C5.

Where is the proof that the killer had anatomical knowledge this is hotly disputed both now and at the time.

[Ausgirl]

So. Did Thompson precognitively estimate occupations that some policeman might suspect - or did he cleverly leave clues as to his murder-inspiring saints in the hope it'd get spotted?

[GUT]

Good point. Well done! I was talking using an 1888 contemporary analogy. Today a real lead would result in the case being declared solved.

"Case solved" has been claimed many times, so were those real leads.

[c.d.]

Hello Richard,

I hate to throw cold water on your theory since you obviously spent a lot of time on it. But here is your problem -- what if it can also be shown that the dates of the killings correspond to the days when Henry the VIII got married or killed his wives? How would we have any way of knowing whether the Whitechapel murderer was a religious fanatic or simply a big fan of Henry the VIII? Short answer, we wouldn't.

Those dates are going to correspond to something and the list is pretty much endless.

This line of reasoning reminds me of "The Bible Code." While the author contended that the Bible showed secret messages from God, others were able to use the same process to show secret messages in "Moby Dick." The same principle is at work with your theory unfortunately. Those dates correspond to something, we just don't know what. And ultimately we have no way of knowing which pattern the killer was following.

Those dates could also correspond to some mundane fact like the days the killer got paid or days when his immediate family was out so that he could come home to an empty house. We just don't know.

c.d.

[Richard Patterson]

Hello Richard,

I hate to throw cold water on your theory since you obviously spent a lot of time on it. But here is your problem -- what if it can also be shown that the dates of the killings correspond to the days when Henry the VIII got married or killed his wives? How would we have any way of knowing whether the Whitechapel murderer was a religious fanatic or simply a big fan of Henry the VIII? Short answer, we wouldn't.

Those dates are going to correspond to something and the list is pretty much endless.

This line of reasoning reminds me of "The Bible Code." While the author contended that the Bible showed secret messages from God, others were able to use the same process to show secret messages in "Moby Dick." The same principle is at work with your theory unfortunately. Those dates correspond to something, we just don't know what. And ultimately we have no way of knowing which pattern the killer was following.

Those dates could also correspond to some mundane fact like the days the killer got paid or days when his immediate family was out so that he could come home to an empty house. We just don't know.

c.d.

Thanks for the cold water. Thank you for bringing up this problem. Your comments have been the first that had me stop and think. This theory that the pattern of dates match the occupations of patron saints leads to the conclusion that the murderer was a religious fanatic. This idea is not obscure, unlike the possibility it was a fan of Moby Dick or Henry VII, it was what the bulk of Londoners thought at the time. The fact the Ripper was targeting fallen women was seen by police, the press and many people who wrote letters to the papers, as evidence that the killer was on some moral crusade. In fact that the murderer could have been a religious fanatic was the most common of beliefs. It is certainly not strange to think so now, and that I have found that many of the dates for the murders can be connected to Catholic saint days keeps to the creed. In affect I’m not saying anything new or that conflicts with the views of the investigators of the case.

Of course, if it could be shown that the dates of the killings could correspond to days for something different that matched the views of the general populace, I would be very interested. I accept that the dates could correspond to some mundane or personal fact and probably do, but this does not lesson the facts as I have shown them.

That a religious motive was ascribed for the killer is reflected in just one of the many letters received by the press. Speculation grew that the unidentified decayed woman's torso that was found, where the concrete was to be laid on the work site of New Scotland Yard, was yet another Jack the Ripper victim. In response someone claiming to be the assailant, wrote to the "Central News Agency" on October 5,

'Dear Friend
In the name of God hear me I swear I did not Kill the female whose body was found in Whitehall. If she was an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer. If she was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the woman of Moab and Median shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work would quit forever. Do as I do and the light of my glory shall shine upon you. I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped I will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss. The police now reckon my work a practical joke ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat.
Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

[Richard Patterson]

So. Did Thompson precognitively estimate occupations that some policeman might suspect - or did he cleverly leave clues as to his murder-inspiring saints in the hope it'd get spotted?

I think when you use a knife to kill or cut into people, you might rightly expect the police to suspect occupations who carried knives and knew anatomy. Thompson, although himself a failed doctor and soldier, at the time of the murders looked like neither. I can not imagine why a murderer would leave clues in the hope it'd get spotted. That would be the opposite of clever.

[Hakeswill]

Here's my $0.02 worth.

A lot of assumptions are implicit in a statistically based argument. The high level of 'improbability' of the event being random for example contains assumptions.

Hypothesis: the killer chose specific dates relating to Saint's days associated with Butchers/Doctors

Null hypothesis: the dates were coincidental with these dates

So what assumptions must be made for the hypothesis, and how likely are they? It assumes killer could have potentially chosen any days in the year, or in fact any year since the Saints days would fall on different days in other years. I feel that the fact that the murders occurred on weekends or Bank Holidays to be a convincing argument that the killer was employed during weekdays. If so, does this mean he had to wait until the Saints day's conveniently fell on the times when he would be off work?
What if we use the assumption (not unreasonable) that some event was the catalyst for the murders (I'm thinking along the lines of stressful events that are often mooted as being the tipping point for such crimes). This would further pin the killer down to a certain time period, so for the C5 (we could put Martha Tabram in here too since the timing is so close), we're looking at a time period running from 7/8/88 to 9/11/88, or a total period of 93 days to everything in, assuming that he wanted to complete the task all in one year. Suddenly four Saint's days appearing in one 93 day block starts to look a bit closer to being randomly possible, particularly if you take out Mondays-Thursdays if the killer couldn't operate on those days for whatever reason.
But if the days were relevant, could the killer have chosen a different year? In 1885 31 aug, 8th and 30th Sep fell on weekends, so that would have worked too. If he'd waited until 1894 he could have got a similar pattern. The hypothesis would have us accept that these days were significant to the killer but we also have to build in when the killer was 'free' to commit the crimes. If he had no particular timing constraint e.g. a job then it makes the hypothesis slightly more plausible. If the timings of the killings are influenced more by other factors such as availability, psychologically inciting events and also of course whatever brought the killings to an end then the apparent unlikelihood of the events being explained by specific Saint's days recedes.
There is a problem with using such probabilistic approaches, namely that the events were all rare. There aren't that many killers running around (thankfully) to see if there are enough to fit patterns, and to start assigning probabilities to an event occurring. Consider two cases that are often compared with JTR - Cummins and Napper. What are the chances that causally unrelated cases would occur within a few miles of each other rather than being randomly distributed around the whole of the country? The answer most likely to do with related to a function of the large metropolitan build of London, but you could make a probabilistic argument that since all cases occurred within the areas most densely populated with churches their must be some theological basis for the crimes. I don't feel that would be a reasonable claim.
To sum up, to look at probabilities you must also consider how likely or unlikely other scenarios are, and demonstrate (not easy) that a claim is more likely than other possible scenarios, or at least more than could be explained by other possibilities. I remain unconvinced by your suggestion but absolutely open to changing my mind.

Keep going and good luck.

[Robert]

Julius Caesar was not a Roman emperor.

[Errata]

Thanks for the cold water. Thank you for bringing up this problem. Your comments have been the first that had me stop and think. This theory that the pattern of dates match the occupations of patron saints leads to the conclusion that the murderer was a religious fanatic. This idea is not obscure, unlike the possibility it was a fan of Moby Dick or Henry VII, it was what the bulk of Londoners thought at the time. The fact the Ripper was targeting fallen women was seen by police, the press and many people who wrote letters to the papers, as evidence that the killer was on some moral crusade. In fact that the murderer could have been a religious fanatic was the most common of beliefs. It is certainly not strange to think so now, and that I have found that many of the dates for the murders can be connected to Catholic saint days keeps to the creed. In affect I’m not saying anything new or that conflicts with the views of the investigators of the case.

Even if you are correct, and the dates were selected by their association with saints, there would still be no proof that he was a religious fanatic. It could just as easily be a pissed off agnostic sending a message. Or a twisted joke. Patterns happen all the time, purposefully or accidentally. But just because a pattern exists doesn't mean there is only one explanation for that pattern. And just because it's a popular theory doesn't make it a right one. Any theory that the killer was a zealot is not going to come from the dates of the murders. It's going to come from the murders themselves.

[Rosella]

If we are linking saints days with the dates on which murders occurred I think the question must come up as to Jack's religious education. If you have a middleclass privately educated suspect in mind for the Ripper, fair enough.

If however, he was a local and came from a poor background it's debatable as to how often he would attend church services and therefore take note of saints days. The East End population of those days was not known as a notable church-attending one. He would probably have also attended a board school rather than one run by the Roman Catholic or Anglican Church.

[lynn cates]

Caesar in his salad days.

Hello Robert. Correct. And his salad days were 100 BC to 44 BC. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC