Jtr Jack the Ripper (Summary)

JTR

Jack the Ripper (Summary)

Where the name came from B. The Women that were killed

Motive and Evidence

Who was "Jack the Ripper": The Suspects

Serial Killers have long played an intriguing role in society. In modern time such crimes are easier to solve because of discoveries such as DNA testing, which can be extremely accurate as it relates to identifying individuals. However, during the 19th century such testing did not exist, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to find those that committed some of the most heinous crimes.

One of the most mysterious serial killers is Jack the Ripper, who terrorized London in 1888. Jack the Ripper was not the first serial killer in the world but his systematic killing of women that took place over a rather short period of time. The fact that Jack the Ripper has never been found adds to the intrigue of the murders that he committed. There are many theories that exist concerning the identity of this individual, none of which have been proven.

Problem

The primary problem with this case seems to be a lack of evidence. In some respects it seems that there was not enough evidence collected at the scenes of these crimes. In addition a great deal of the evidence was damaged or loss. There were also some problems associated with the evidence because investigators were from two different police forces. In understanding this, the investigations were done differently and the evidence gathered was handled differently.

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the story of Jack the ripper. This evaluation will include gathering a greater understanding of who Jack the Ripper might have been and perhaps the motives behind the acts that he committed. The research will also investigate the evidence that exist as it relates to these crimes. We will also investigate the reasons why this individual has never been identified. Let us begin our discussion with a summary about Jack the Ripper.

II. Jack the Ripper (Summary)

Where the name came from the name Jack the Ripper is commonly used to describe the serial killer who is believed responsible for several murders that took place in 1888 in East London. The serial killer got this name from a letter written by an individual that took responsibility for the murders. According to Barbee (2006) all of the victims of Jack the Ripper were prostitutes. The author explains that all of the murders took place within a one mile radius and included the areas of the City of London proper Spitalfields, Aldgate, and Whitechapel.

The Women that were Killed

The author explains further that there is no consensus on the number of women that were actually committed by Jack the Ripper. However it is believed that at least five women were killed by this individual. These individuals include Mary Ann Nichols, killed on August 31, 1888; Annie Chapman, killed on September 8, 1888. Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes, killed on September 30, 1888 and Marie Jeanette Kelly (Mary Kelly), killed on November 9, 1888.

There is also the possibility that a woman by the name of Martha Tabram was actually the first woman killed by Jack the Ripper. This murder actually took place on August 7, 1888. The author explains that all but two of the victims including Tabram were murdered outside. The evidence that is available asserts that the victims did not know one another. It is also believed that all of the victims were drunk when they were killed.

In addition to the aforementioned cases there were also other cases that have been attributed to the ripper. In any case, it is unknown why these women were targeted and why these cases are still unsolved.

Over the next few paragraphs we will discuss the possible motives and evidence associated with the case.

III. Motive and Evidence

There has long been a great deal of speculation about the motive behind these acts. The book the Complete History of Jack the Ripper asserts that the contemporaries of this killer had a difficult time understanding the motive behind such heinous crimes. Some have speculated that the killer was influenced by the occult (Sugden). The author asserts that other contemporaries believed that the murder was somehow influenced by the stresses of the modern age (Sugden). The author also explains that there was a belief that if the killer was caught he should be studied, so that officials could garner a greater understanding of what caused him to commit these murders (Sugden). The author explains "can we not, before handing him over to the executioner or the authorities and Broadmoor, make a really decent effort to discover his antecedents, and his parentage, to trace back every step f his career, every hereditary instinct, every acquired taste, every moral slip, every mental idiosyncrasy (Sugden)."

Indeed the author insists that Jack the Ripper was viewed as a new breed of killer and it made this case even more intriguing (Sugden). In addition, it created many suggestions as to the motivations of this killer. According to many theories the killer was seeking revenge because he contracted syphilis from a prostitute.

According to Barbee (2006) the motive behind the killings were not raped although all the victims were prostitutes. In all of the cases the victims were strangled, their throats were cut and they were mutilated (Barbee 2006). However, none of them were raped and there wasn't any evidence that the perpetrator had any sexual contact with the victims (Barbee 2006). However in certain cases the sexual organs were mutilated or cut completely out of the body. The manner in which the victims were mutilated has led some to believe that the killer had some sort of medical training (Barbee 2006). The author explains that in the opinion of most of the surgeons who examined the bodies, most believed that the killer had to have some degree of anatomical knowledge to do what he did. In one case he removed a kidney from the front rather than from the side, and did not damage any of the surrounding organs while doing so. In another case he removed the sexual organs with one clean stroke of the knife. Given the time circumstances of the crimes (outside, often in near total darkness, keeping one eye out for the approach of others, and under extremely tight time constraints), the Ripper almost certainly would have had some experience in using his knife (Barbee 2006)."

The evidence also suggests that the killer slit the throats of the victims after they were already dead as a result of strangulation (Barbee 2006). This was evident in the fact that there was a limited amount of blood at the scene (Barbee 2006). The theory is that since the victims were already dead when they were cut the heart had stopped pumping and as such there was less blood. (Barbee 2006)

In addition to the aforementioned evidence, there are also some letters that have been associated with Jack the Ripper (Barbee 2006). However, it has long been asserted that none of the letters that have been found were actually written by the killer. The first letter signed "Jack the Ripper" was sent to the Central News agency on the 25th of September and received on the 27th (Barbee 2006).

There was also a postcard that was sent subsequently on the 1st of October. It is important to remember that on the 30th of September two women, Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes, were killed on the 30th of September (Barbee 2006). With this being understood many believed that this particular letter may have been from the killer (Barbee 2006). In addition this postcard also made reference to the letter that was received on the 27th even though the existence of that letter had not been made public (Barbee 2006). For this reason some believed that the letter and the postcard came from the same source (Barbee 2006). The author explains that if the postcard was indeed sent on the day that the double murders occurred instead of October 1st there would have been a significant possibility that the letter was written by the killer (Barbee 2006). There has been some speculation that the Whitechapel killer could have written both the letter and the postcard but there is also speculation that the writer of both the postcard and the letter was a journalist (Barbee 2006). In fact there is evidence to suggest that a journalist by the name of Tom Bulling was the writer of the letter and the postcard (Barbee 2006). Bulling was a journalist from Central News (Barbee 2006).

However there is a letter that may have written by the person responsible for the murders. The author explains that the head of the vigilance committee, George Husk in Whitechapel received a package (Barbee 2006). This package contained a letter from an individual that claimed to be the murderer and part of a human kidney (Barbee 2006). This was part of the kidney that the killer removed from Catharine Eddowes (Barbee 2006). This letter provided the strongest link to the letter writer and an actual murder that was committed. There are varying degrees concerning the authenticity of this package and letter (Barbee 2006). Nonetheless, officials did know that this particular victim had Bright's disease, which changes the way that the kidneys look (Barbee 2006). The piece of the kidney that was sent is consistent with someone with this particular disease (Barbee 2006).

As it relates more specifically to evidence related to this crime, a great deal of the evidence has been damaged or misplaced (Barbee 2006). According to the author during this particular time in history police did not have the ability to test DNA and as such the only way this killer or any criminal could be caught was in the act of the crime or as a result of a confession (Barbee 2006). As it relates to Jack the Ripper there is still a great deal of mystery surrounding who the killer was and to complicate matters the crimes were investigated by two different police forces (Barbee 2006). The Scotland Yard police force was responsible for investigating all of the murders that occurred in the boroughs while the crimes that occurred in center of London was performed by a separate police force (Barbee 2006). The Eddowes murder was committed in the city of London (Barbee 2006). The author reports that for the most part the two forces worked together to solve the murders, however there is some evidence that suggest that the senior official of each force did not get along (Barbee 2006).

Whatever the case may have been as it relates to how the police forces worked together most experts do not place blame on either police force as it relates to their inability to solve these cases (Barbee 2006). The author contends that the investigations conducted by Scotland Yard were only inclusive of taking statements from some individuals and performing autopsies (Barbee 2006). This led to allegations that the police force was not competent and the department was criticized for not offering a reward in the case (Barbee 2006).

On the other hand many have asserted that the City of London police conducted a better investigation (Barbee 2006).. This is because this police force created drawings of the crime scene and they also took many photographs Eddowes. Eddowes was the only woman murdered to have her photograph taken at the crime scene (Barbee 2006).

The author also explains that there were some disagreements between the two police departments as it related to some writing that was found on Goulston Street on the night of September 30th when the two women were killed. The author explains that on this night piece of Eddowes' apron, which the Ripper used to wipe off his knife, was found by a constable near a doorway that had a chalked message over the door. This message, "The Juwes are the men That Will not be blamed for nothing," may have been written by the Ripper and the City police officers wanted to photograph it. Warren felt that leaving it until it was light enough to be photographed might cause riots against the Jews living in Whitechapel whom the bigoted English residents already believed were responsible for the murders. Warren did not even compromise by willing to erase or cover up the word "Juwes" only (Barbee 2006)."

All of the aforementioned evidence is sketchy at best. There seems to be very little consensus concerning what the evidence tells us about the killer; although the most concrete aspect of the evidence seems to be the package with the half eaten kidney. It seems that this package and letter had to have come from the killer or someone that was close to the killer. In any case there is still not a consensus or just who this individual was. The next section of this discussion will focus on the various suspects that have been named in association with these murders.

IV. Who was "Jack the Ripper": The Suspects

The ideas behind who "Jack the Ripper" could have been have abounded for many years. A book entitled Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper shares some insight into what local citizens were feeling at the time that the crimes were committed (Ryder 2006). The book contains letters to many of the editors of newspapers that existed at the time of the murders. In many cases the public suggested to police who the killer might be (Ryder 2006). The public also suggested that the police were not handling the investigation properly and as such there was a delay in finding the killer (Ryder 2006). In addition, some of the letters contained in the book confront some of the social conditions that existed in that section of London during the time that these women were killed (Ryder 2006).

In any case, there are a plethora of theories concerning the true identity of Jack the Ripper. As early as 1894 there were speculations concerning the true identity of the killer. According to Sir Melville Macnaghten who was the Chief Constable there were three suspects (Barbee 2006). The first of which was M.J. Druitt who was a barrister and a teacher (Barbee 2006). Druitt killed himself in 1888 shortly after the last murder that was attributed to Jack the Ripper (Barbee 2006). However there were very few law officials that believed that Druitt was the killer (Barbee 2006).

Macnaghten' also named two other suspects. The second suspect was Aaron Kosminiski (Barbee 2006). This suspect was revealed in the early 1980's when a researcher found the memoirs of Robert Anderson, which had been in the possession of Donald Swanson (Barbee 2006). The author explains that both Anderson and Swanson were officers in the case and in his memoirs which appeared in 1910 revealed that the police knew who the killer was (Barbee 2006). Anderson asserted that the ripper was a Polish Jew named Kosminiski and that he was sent to an insane asylum where he died (Barbee 2006). This suspect is somewhat problematic because at the time of the killings Jewish immigrants were reviled (Barbee 2006).

However many have argued that Aaron Kominski was not the killer and that he didn't die right after being placed in the asylum but in 1919(Barbee 2006). There is a belief that Aaron Kominiski was confused with a V. Kominiski who was also a Polish Jew who may have been the killer (Barbee 2006). On the other hand there are disagreements concerning the possibility that he was the killer (Barbee 2006).

However there is some credence given to the possibility that this was indeed the killer. This credence goes back to the theory that the murders were related to Jewish ritual slaughters (Cawthorne, 1994). These rituals are traditionally performed by a shochet, which is a butcher that slaughters animals in accordance with Talmudic law (Cawthorne, 1994). As we discussed earlier there was a message at one of the crime scenes that read 'The juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing' this gives some credence that the killer may have been Jewish (Cawthorne, 1994). The author further explains that the Masonic spelling of 'Jews' also gave rise to the theory that the murders had been some Masonic rite. The police commissioner of Sir Charles Warren was himself a high ranking Mason. He had the graffito removed, he said, to prevent inflaming anti-Jewish feelings in the area. Sir Charles Warren resigned after the murder of Mary Kelly, admitting his utter failure to solve the case (Cawthorne, 1994)."

The third suspect that Macnaghten named was, Michael Ostrog (Barbee 2006). This individual was investigated but the evidence nor the investigation implicate him in committing the crimes (Barbee 2006).

There were also other theories concerning who Jack the Ripper could have been (Barbee 2006). In fact Frederick Abberline who was a retired detective believed that a man, who poisoned some of his wives named Severin Klosowski, was Jack the Ripper (Barbee 2006). However, no other law officer believed that Klosowski committed the crime (Barbee 2006).

The final serious suspect came to light in 1993 and his name is Dr. Francis Tumblety (Barbee 2006).

This individual was actually an American doctor who was believed to be insane. This individual actually fled London and came back to America (Barbee 2006). The author explains that he was indeed a suspect because after he returned to America, detectives from Scotland Yard came to America to investigate Tumblety (Barbee 2006).

Indeed there are many theories concerning who "Jack the Ripper" may have been. In fact there were at least 176 suspects during the time that the murder occurred. One significant suspect was a Russian Doctor named Alexander Pedachenko (Cawthorne, 1994). It is said that Pedachenko worked under a pseudonym in an East London clinic that cared for some of the women that were killed (Cawthorne, 1994). According to the author a letter naming him the killer was found in the basement of a monk named Rasputin after he was assassinated in 1916 (Cawthorne, 1994). However, this to is problematic because many have asserted that he did not have a basement (Cawthorne, 1994).

A final suspect is Dr. Stanley. It is believed that a Whitechapel prostitute gave him syphilis from and as a result he was vengeful toward all of them (Cawthorne, 1994). The author reports that he eventually fled to Buenos Aires and confessed that he was the killer to a student (Cawthorne, 1994). Stanley died in 1929.

There is also a Royal Conspiracy theory that abounds but has not been readily accepted. According to Britton (2006) the royal conspiracy theory asserts that Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria's grandson), had secretly wed a commoner, Annie Crook, which was forbidden. The theory claims that she was catholic and became pregnant with his child (Britton 2006). The truth of this marriage could not be known to the public as it would cause a great deal of shame to the royal family (Britton 2006). In addition, at the time there was a great deal of religious tension and if there was any indication that there would be a catholic heir to the throne it would incite serious violence (Britton 2006). The royal family did not want such violence to occur.

As such, the Queen informed the prime minister of the situation and informed him that Annie and Eddie and their child lived together on Cleveland street (Britton 2006). The prime minister ordered a raid on their residence and they were taken away separately. The author asserts that Annie was placed in an asylum but the child named Alice was able to elude the raid with her nurse made who was Mary Kelly, one of the victims of Jack the Ripper (Britton 2006). The royal theory asserts that Mary Kelly went back to Whitechapel where she became a prostitute and told this story to some of her friends who told her that she should attempt to blackmail the royal family (Britton 2006).

As a result Jack the Ripper was a character created by Royal physician named William Gull. The royals received assistance from the freemasons to not only keep Mary quiet but also her friends she told the story to, Mary Nichols, Elizabeth Stride, and Annie Chapman (Britton 2006). All of these women were indeed victims of Jack the Ripper.

Britton (2006) that this theory is a combination of fact and fiction (Britton 2006). The author reports that an investigation of the murders a man named Joseph Sickert relayed the story of his father, who was a famous painter named Walter Sickert (Britton 2006).

The author explains that According to Joseph, his father had told him that Jack the Ripper was created to avoid a royal scandal. Three men were involved in the killings -- Dr. Gull, Inspector Anderson, and John Netley. The women were made unconscious by grapes injected with poison and the mutilations performed in the carriage. Gull did the killing, then the women were dumped into the street. One of the murders, that of Catherine Eddowes, was a mistake, a case of mistaken identity. She often went by the name of Mary Kelly, the same name as the intended victim. Montage Druitt was chosen as a scapegoat for the crimes (Britton 2006)."

As you can see many of the suspects were doctors. As was mentioned previously in this discussion, it has been widely held that the killer was a doctor because of the manner in which the bodies were mutilated. It is also possible that the killer was a butcher that specialized in butchering animals for slaughter as it related to the Jewish tradition. However, there is no consensus on who this killer was and these cases still remain unsolved.

V. Conclusion

The purpose of this discussion was to evaluate the story of Jack the ripper. We began our discussion with a summary about Jack the Ripper. The summary revealed that Jack the Ripper was the name given to a murderer who is believed responsible for at least five killing in the East End of London in 1888. The name Jack the Ripper came from a series of letters received after several of the crimes occurred. The killer is accused of killing the following five women, all of whom were prostitutes; Mary Ann Nichols, killed on August 31, 1888; Annie Chapman, killed on September 8, 1888. Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes, killed on September 30, 1888 and Marie Jeanette Kelly, killed on November 9, 1888.