Jack the Ripper

 Jack the Ripper is the best-known name given to an unidentified serial killer who was active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888. The monicker attached to what became known as `the worlds first serial killer' originated in a letter signed #JacktheRipper, claiming credit for the savage rampage and was propagated by the local newspapers at the time. However, I should point out at this stage that this grisly claim to fame was attributed to American serial killer, H. H. Holmes, who was one of the first documented serial killers in the modern sense of the term. Although Jack is generally referred to as "The Whitechapel Murderer" this is misleading as the term refers to additional murders speculatively attributed to the ripper murders, particularly, Alice McKenzie and Martha Tabram, with the only thing in common being that the suspect was never identified. Between August and November 1888, the Whitechapel area set the stage for the most gruesome murders in criminal history. The five destitute victims were prostitutes, and all except for one - Elizabeth Stride - were horribly mutilated.

-

As an objective researcher I have always challenged any official story of the 1888 Whitechapel murders. The events are what set me on my path as a curious and diligent young man of 15 years old when my father told me about one of the many books he was reading, Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution by Stephen Knight. For an astute teenager it was part of a much larger picture that had to be explored and investigated further. A cabal of now well known authors sprang up as a result of Knights book, all refuting every aspect of his work since his untimely death. This inner circle defensively close ranks at any suggestion of the British Royal family being involved. This is perpetuated by the pompous Victorian empirical view that "NO Englishman would have done these crimes" as  alleged by Sir Robert Anderson, KCB, the second Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, from 1888 to 1901. He laid the blame for the ripper murders squarely at the door of social outcasts of English society, the Polish and the Jews. However, since the clique of so-called experts are so well established, any challenge to them is aggressively rebuked, so their position is well maintained. Yet, it prevents the most obvious and basic questions from being asked, such as, "How could one person elude, deceive and escape perhaps the greatest police force in the world at the time, which is responsible for protecting the mighty British Empire?" Both the Metropolitan police and the City of London police were gravely outsmarted by one man who was so self-confident that he took great risks of being caught in the act of depravity. Not only does that make Jack the Ripper an exceptional human being, but how much more of an exceptionally powerful individual does it make him that he is able to defy several generations and history itself? Yet, these ripperologists as they have become known, would have us believe that the killer was a foreign lunatic. His identity will never be known, only because there are people who won't allow it to be known.

I abandoned the Jack The Ripper Casebook forum some time ago due to its arrogant dependence on the club of alleged experts. You may already be familiar with them. When I challenged them, explaining that Jack could not possibly be one single person and was indeed among a group of individuals, forum members immediately attacked me, ridiculing me for daring to challenge these so-called authors. My challenge was the Mitre Square murder of Katherine Eddowes (aka Mary Kelly as given at the police station she had just been released from). In the short space of approximately five minutes and under the noses of a night watchman and two patrolling police officers and in a pitch black unlit Mitre Square, a single killer managed to lure a victim into the Square, render her unconscious, dissect her body, locate her kidney and finally arrange her body for display, as noted by one of the officers at the scene. The killer even had the audacity to stop and scrawl an obscure chalk message on a wall in Goulston street as he fled the scene, which can reasonably be viewed as deliberately taunting the police. It was the fact that two police officers passed through the Square during their respective beats that one of them came across the body. This indicates that the killer either had a lookout man or that the abduction and mutilation took place elsewhere and the body was dumped in Mitre Square. This theory was also proposed at the scene of the first victim, Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols. The Mitre Square location being chosen for some ritual reason can be supported due to the killer's willingness to risk being caught. By this stage it was obvious that the killer operated in confidence and with impunity. This became most apparent upon the murder of his second victim, Annie Chapman. Again, we are expected to believe that the killer risked taking his victim into a house (29 Hanbury Street) that was filled with tenants and escorted her to the back yard where he performed his grisly act of butchery and mutilation, then take the time to arrange the victims body for display and leave the scene covered in blood. It is difficult to believe that upon the frenzied butchering of five women that nobody witnessed seeing anyone covered in blood near the crime scenes. Instead, yet again we are distracted to make the assumption that the area had several slaughterhouses so it was not uncommon to see bloodstained abattoir worker. Perhaps the reason why there was so little eye witness accounts of such characters is because in each case all the victims were displayed and very little blood was found at the scene, despite the horror of the crime. These facts alone strongly indicate that the crimes were committed elsewhere. Yet, each of the alleged ripper experts today alter the evidence to suit their own agenda as well as their egos and god help anyone who dares to challenge them.

In conclusion these people have perpetuated the myths:

1. Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual.
2. He was a lunatic (probably foreign and Jewish) despite being clever enough to outwit the mighty British Empire, two of the worlds leading police forces and its best detectives and even history itself.
3. The upper classes and especially the British royal family are of high moral standards and ethics and as such are infallible so could possibly be involved in such depraved acts. This is despite their history of sexual decadence and incest.
4. He was just lucky.
5. He was invisible.
6. He had `no' anatomical knowledge despite the evidence clearly indicating otherwise. This claim also contradicts the evidence of other doctors.

In a BBC interview in 1973, an elderly nun at the Providence Row Night Refuge claimed that she had been a novice there in 1915 and was told by an old sister who was there in 1888 that "if it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened". 

Both these books support this account as does the Jack The Ripper Casebook forum