The following was submitted by CyberTrix. In an e-mail he sent to me he argued about the real identity of Jack the Ripper, and gave a basic profile using Robert K. Ressler's book. I invited him to write down his argument on my page as a serial murder discussion. Well he wrote a lot and used some good material to back his claims up. Read CyberTrix's views then sign the message board at the end of this page to give your own view. I have added a few things also to make it more interesting. Anyone wanting to start a new serial murder discussion please e-mail me with a topic and give your opinions.
Have you read all those books on Jack the Ripper? In all of history has not one murderer equalled the speculation and publication hysteria of Jack the Ripper. The murders themself happened in London's East End in 1888 in a period of three months where 5 prostitutes were killed; each one had their throats cut then they were mutilated. There really is nothing special to the case, it doesn't equal the Green River Killer's gruesome tally, nor that of the Zodiac Killer. But the main reason this case has become famous is because it was the first serial murder case in the world, the first case where a lone man killed 5 women to satisfy his sexual gratification needs - indeed the first sex murder, and the murderer was never caught. No one really understood it in 1888 and there are many people who don't understand it today. I myself have read numerous books leading to his identity telling of doctors, Freemasons, royalty, midwives etc - what a load of cr@p. One early theory suggested that Jack the Ripper was a doctor who killed these 5 prostitutes to exact his revenge because one killed his his son with an STD, and that his medical skills were needed to mutilate his victims - but this theory was invented by a journalist(although the doctor mutilation theory is still widely discussed). It was more than a hundred years ago but there really is a scientific and logical explanation to it all - this will be discussed throughout this page. At the end of this page is my view and profile of the real Jack the Ripper, with supporting facts. But because this page is totally of my opinion(with the gathered information of some resources) there is also a message board at the end of this page so you can have your own freedom of opinion as this is an Internet discussion.
There are 5 generally accepted victims, this has been debated because Marie Kelly, the last victim was killed indoors. There are also many other murders after the Ripper's 5 victims seen as possible kills(none of them grisly enough to be done by Jack). Jack the Ripper's MO(Modus Operandi) was to kill prostitutes by cutting their throat from left to right and then he would mutilate the body. The mutilation was thought by doctors(carrying out autopsies on the victims) to have some medical knowledge because the Ripper used his knife swiftly and carried out dissections although other doctors disagreed. Jack could have also been into death fetishism as it was said that he had removed a uterus from one victim and a kidney from another. A package was sent to a prominent citizen of London's East End - George Lusk, and was 'from hell', the writer told him that 'i send you half the kidne i took from one woman... tother piece i fried and ate...', apart from the letter the package also contained a kidney(this package was probably sent by the English media to make hyped news of the situation, they probably got wind of Jack's Kidney abductions and made that package up, thus creating a false story) which was human, but a match to a victim proved to be inconclusive. After the double murder on 30 September a chalked message was found on a building near the murder scene: 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing', presumably written by Jack; this was ordered to wiped clean on order of the Police Commissioner. Also from Jack's murders they were no clues left or real witnesses to identify him - something he got lucky with as he spent his time carving the mutilations from his sick fantasies.
|Date||Circumstances of Death||Mutilations|
|Mary Nicholls||31 Aug 1888||killed where found; no shout/cry(sho)||abdomen slashed|
|Annie Chapman||8 Sep 1888||no signs of struggle(str)||disembowelled; uterus missing|
|Elizabeth Stride||30 Sep 1888||throat cut on ground; no str; no sho||no mutilation|
|Catherine Eddowes||30 Sep 1888||throat cut on ground; no sho||abdomen laid open; kid, uter missing|
|Marie Kelly||9 Nov 1888||killed lying on bed, no str||extensive body mutilation|
Jack the Ripper's MO
Victim Type - prostitutes, mid age.
Areas - dark secluded streets of Whitechapel, in London's East End(exception Marie Kelly).
Murder - throat cut from left to right, victim mutilated.
Victim After Murder - body not concealed or moved, body organs missing(cannibalism/fetishism?).
There are certain things in the victim chart that deserve special comment. On the 30 September 1888 Jack killed two victims, this itself doesn't usually happen in the serial murder world - Bundy did it at Seattle and Florida, Kemper and DeSalvo did it, to name a few. The first victim though, Elizabeth Stride, was not mutilated, suggesting that Jack was interrupted and he could not get the sexual gratification that he needed, so he then killed Catherine Eddowes and mutilated her.
The second thing is that Marie Kelly, the last victim, was killed indoors. Serial killers often tend to change part of their MO, where they kill their victim and what type of person they kill; they do not however tend to change how they kill their victim - say cutting their throat and then mutilation. So Jack changed where he killed his next victim, not in the East End streets where an increased police presence was making it dangerously hard for him but indoors(this was the most grotesque mutilation of all).
There are many suspects you can take off the list just by hearing about them so here's a list and my comment. I think one future book author investigating Jack the Ripper will put the names of the entire population of England in 1888 in a book and go - 'heres the suspects'. There are many suspects - too many, some invented by authors with great imagination. So here's a short list and my comment.
A Royal Plot - This theory was by author Stephen Knight who talked to some grandson who said that his painter dad knew of a Royal duke who had a baby by a prostitute(who posed for the painter). The Royal family decided to split them up by exiling the Duke from the prostitute, the prostitute was taken to a mental home where she then died. Some friends of the prostitute attempted bribery on the Royal family by saying that they wanted money or that the whole of England would know of the affair. So the Queen inscribed the help of her doctor and Freemasons(Lord Salisbury and Sir William Gull) who then killed the prostitute friends with each Jack the Ripper murder. This theory has no proper basis - they had to kill these prostitutes by slitting their throats then they would mutilate them? It seems that real assassins would just slit their throats all in one location and hide it up so that no one would get wind of it. No assassin would mutilate his victims. It certainly wasn't the case of the assassin copying the act of a serial killer to mislead people to thinking it was a one, because Jack the Ripper was the first serial killer and sex murders did not happen in those days. It was also said that they could of been ritual killings and a lot other combining theories with this one but they are all garbage. The grandson whose dad was a painter retracted his comment after the book and said that he made it up. Good one.
Doctors - Did Jack the Ripper need medical knowledge to kill his victims? Some doctor's said he did and some said he did not. Here are some comments from doctors who carried out autopsies on Jack's victims -
Mary Nicholls - 'Deftly and skilfully performed.' - Dr Llewellyn.
Annie Chapman - 'Obviously the work was that of an expert - or one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife.' - Dr Phillips.
Catherine Eddowes - 'A good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity.' - Dr Brown.
Catherine Eddowes - 'No stranger to the knife.' - Dr Sequiera.
Marie Kelly - 'No scientific or anatomical knowledge.' - Dr Bond.
So was Jack a doctor? Certainly some serial killers don't need to have the knowledge to perform mutilation but others have. Dahmer had the medical experience for his seventeen victims and I think Edmund Kemper got the idea of dissection from reading books. But in all senses I don't think Jack had human medical knowledge(certainly not for a killer like him - this is in my end profile of the killer).
Dr Thomas Neill Cream - Cream killed four women by poisoning them with pills containing strychnine. He was arrested by Scotland Yard on 3 June 1892 on suspicion of murder. He was convicted and sentenced to die by hanging on the 15 November 1892. When Cream was on the scaffold he was alleged to have said 'I am Jack the...' just as the bolt was drawn and he was killed. This one statement has made Cream a Jack suspect but either this statement is a lie by Cream or a lie by the execution staff. Neill Cream was a poisoner, he would never embark upon the throat cutting mutilation of Jack the Ripper. Whole different MO. It's like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer could of stopped what he was doing and just become a poisoner(serial killers do change their MO when they gain experience but I've never heard of any killer going from mutilation to just poisoning). The whole thing is false.
George Chapman - In the late 1890's Chapman married a woman who then mysteriously died when she became ill and had abdominal pains. He then married a barmaid and she died in the same conditions. He then married another barmaid and yet again she died in the same way as the others. Then someone became suspicious and suggested that Chapman poisoned them. An autopsy on all of the dead three found that they were killed by antimony poisoning. Chapman was convicted and hanged on the 7 April 1903. Somehow Chapman has been linked with Jack the Ripper. Chief Inspector Abberline, who was a detective in the Ripper case, said to the officer who arrested Chapman, 'You've got Jack the Ripper at last!'. It was suggested that Chapman, motivated by sadism, gave up the Ripper-style murders because of the increased danger of detection, and took to poisoning his victims thereon. That is of course like saying that a senator will give up politics and start working in a factory because the people don't like him. A serial killer will never change the way he murders his victims(the way he kills them-say mutilation or strangulation), so Chapman could of never been the Ripper.(You'll find that every convicted killer around the 1890's being a suspect to Jack the Ripper).
Frederick Bayley Deeming - Frederick Deeming lived in England and Africa before moving to Australia in 1891. In Australia he was arrested after a bad smell was emitting from his house, inside they found his dead wife under the floor. Police in England investigated Deeming and discovered the bodies of Maria Deeming and their four children cemented under the kitchen fireplace in their apartment in Liverpool. Deeming was found guilty and executed on the 23 May 1892. He was suspected of being Jack the Ripper. At the time of the Ripper murders Deeming was in Africa so he could of never been Jack, the MO is also completely different.
Freemasons - It has been said that the powerful Freemason community of 1888 London could of been responsible for the the murders in some sort of ritual killings involving Lord Salisbury and Sir William Gull. This theory also intertwines with the royalty one. These murders could of never been the act of many people, it was the act of a lone man, not a group of deranged masonic ritual killers. It was the act of a serial killer, a sex murderer, not a Freemason told to carry out ritual killings. Maybe I could be wrong, maybe the serial killer could have been a member of a Freemason ritual killings club(sarcastic-duh).
Midwife / Jill the Ripper - The suggestion that Jack could of been a woman is ridiculous. There has only been a few rare women serial killers and they have not carried out murders involving mutilation. It was suggested that it could of been a midwife because she could go around unnoticed with blood on her dress and stuff when all suspicions were on men. But then how could she control her victims? Bruises were found on victims so there was struggles and there's no way a woman could control these women with such force. It has also been said that because Marie Kelly was killed indoors it could of been a midwife carrying out an abortion(this is also because clothing was found neatly piled on the chair next to the bed). There is no way that there could of been a female serial killer in 1888 carrying out murders on women with such sadistic force.
There are heaps of other suspects too, like one thousand, but they don't get a mention.
The Real Jack the Ripper
This is what the Real Jack the Ripper would of been like. Reading the book 'I have lived In the Monster by Robert K. Ressler(a foremost expert on serial killers in the FBI's Behavioural Science Unit - now retired) I was to brought attention to how simple it would be to put a basic profile on Jack. I myself am not an expert on behavioural science but with the right sort of info you can put a basic profile on Jack. I am also basing some information from the previously mentioned book which gives the views of Ressler.
Robert K. Ressler ('I Have Lived In The Monster' by Robert K. Ressler & Tom Shachtman) - Ressler learnt a lot about the murders and even visited some of the places where the Jack the Ripper had struck back in 1888 London, in East End Whitechapel...'Based on the tour, I became convinced that the police had looked for the wrong sort of suspects'...'concentrating their efforts on men of the upper classes such as doctors, political figures, and even a royal.'...'The type of victims, the haunts they frequented, and the circumstances of the murders all made it more likely that the perpetrator was of the same social class as the prostitutes.'...'if the killer was noticeably upper class, his presence in the area would have been remembered and remarked upon by the locals.'...'It also seemed clear to me that the Ripper had been a "disorganized" killer'...'who was mentally deranged and becoming more so with each victim.'...'The escalation of violence, the dismemberment, and the general disorder of the crime scenes were evidence of this.'...'Sexual satisfaction for Jack the Ripper, derived from seeing the victim's blood spill.'...'there were even more overt signs that the crimes were sexual, since he cut out the uterus's of many of his victims, after opening the body cavity at the genitals with his knife.'...'With his last victim, Jack the Ripper not only removed the uterus, but cut off the victim's ears and nose and placed these on a severed breast in a mockery of a face.'...'If the killer was deranged and becoming progressively more so, it is likely that he might well have gone off the deep end entirely'...'so crazed that he could no longer even commit crimes, and have landed either in a suicide's grave or in an institution for the insane.'...'Suicide or confinement until death would explain why he was never apprehended'.(see: 'I Have Lived In The Monster' By Robert K.Ressler & Tom Shachtman).
Jack the Ripper's crimes were indeed disorganized. If you see the classifications here they match entirely with Jack -
Murder usually happens spur of the moment(with no planning but the one simple objective to kill).
Does not bring any tools('rape kit') to the kill except maybe murder device.
No contact with the victim prior to spur of the moment murder.
No rape, torture etc. will take place before murder.
Kills victim but does not care for evidence usually left at the crime scene(high degree of violence takes place at murder).
Will not move body in an attempt to hide, bury it etc., unconcerned of its discovery.
Killer might be involved further with the dead victim(mutilation, necrophilia, cannibalism, etc) and may also take souvenir.
Jack's crimes showed much hate towards prostitutes, and females in general. Jack did not rape his victims but instead mutilated them, showing his anger and sexual frustration. The act of thrusting the knife into the body was a replacement for sex(this is called regressive necrophilia). Jack also killed the victim and left her in the same spot, with no will to clean up his mess or hide the body. It was highly probably that Jack had suffered from some mental illness to enact crimes of this classification. So what type of person would Jack the Ripper be?
A Basic Profile of Jack the Ripper
Jack would probably of grown up in a poor household, where the fathers work was unstable and where he experienced harsh discipline. The family could of also been subject to sexual abuse, alcohol or drug problems, mental illness etc. Jack would of been a shy quiet type as he had internalised the painful emotions at home. He would also have a poor self image with a disability or physical ailment, casting him from society and making him feel very inadequate. He would also be an underachiever and would probably have a menial job in the industrial sector. Jack would of been unable to live or socialise with other people, leading a very lonely life, the only people he would live with would be his parents or on his own. He would also have no relationships so his hate and anger would be aimed at the opposite of sex, but no rape, as he was very incapable. Jack's mental illness would have played a big part on the murder and mutilation of his victims. He would also take little to no interest in the murder after it was committed so he would of never sent any letters(the media did). Jack's motive was of course : sex. Jack was also a stable killer - a person who murders in the same basic area, so this means that it was quite definite that he lived right in Whitechapel in 1888.
(Profile made up from notes of classification from the book - 'Whoever Fights Monsters' By Robert K. Ressler and Tom Shachtman)
So that's the basic profile completed. I believe this to be the best and nearest description to what the possible killer to be like ever. This basic profile doesn't have much of a physical description, but more of profile to how the killer was portrayed in society. The profile itself eliminates many suspects. The profile that was used was from a book which was made by Robert Ressler, a serial murder expert, and so this profile would most likely be correct. So who is the Real Jack the Ripper? Now that I've got a profile that I believe holds great strength in winning an argument, it gives me a look to what the suspect to be like. But of course, not all of the Jack the Ripper suspects could of done it, and there are probably many suspects that were never investigated by police or taken into account. A better way to end this would be to just give the profile of Jack the Ripper and say that this is what sort of person he was.
If you'd like to make a comment or your opinion to who it could be, or just general messages about the Ripper case please visit the 'Real Jack the Ripper' Messageboard below. Added opinion would be greatly appreciated to this discussion.
- visit the -
'I Have Lived In The Monster' By Robert K. Ressler & Tom Shachtman
'Whoever Fights Monsters' By Robert K. Ressler & Tom Shachtman
Discussion by CyberTrix, Some Stuff Added By hiperaktiv