Religion drove Jack the
Ripper
PART ONE, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES REQUIRE MURDER OF PROSTITUTES
PART THREE, DID THE VICTIMS KNOW THE KILLER?
PART SIX, THE RIPPER WAS A BUTCHER
PART
SEVEN, THE RIPPER UNMASKED
PART EIGHT, THE RELIGIOUS MOTIVATION FOR THE MURDERS
NOTE: I do not agree
with some of the conclusions on this site but include it as part of my website because
of its correct teaching on religion and its dangers and despite its flaws the
religious motivation for the Ripper murders is a real one.
Preface
There can be no
doubt that the first known serial killer of modern times, Jack the Ripper, was
driven by religion to commit his crimes.
As we will see, the Ripper was a Jew who killed his five victims as
human sacrifices to his God. It is
important that religion should not be given the prestige it has so that it will
never have such a dangerous influence ever again.
What is aimed
for in this study, is finding the facts about the Ripper. None of its conclusions or assertions are intended to justify the anti-Semitic fondness for
spreading rumour and slander on the Jews that they like to commit ritual murder
for instance. Though much religion is
harmful that is not to say that its members are dangerous and should be hated. Most Jews today are true humanitarians and a
Jew can do wrong like an atheist or anybody else can. One cannot stigmatise a whole section of
society because of the crimes of a few.
Judaism of the three world religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism,
is the one that has caused the least religious wars and the least mental
illnesses and its misogynistic tendencies are weak in comparison to its sister
faiths. Above all Judaism has learned
more from humanitarian theological liberalism than any other faith and many of
the Jews ignore the nastier commandments of God in the Old Testament. This must be remembered and the Jewish people
must be applauded for that.
PART ONE, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES REQUIRE
MURDER OF PROSTITUTES
In
the Laws God gave the Jewish prophet Moses, it is clear that prostitutes should
be cruelly murdered. These laws start
off with, “The Lord said to Moses”. The
laws claim to be the very words of God.
The method favoured for destroying prostitutes was stoning them to
death. These Laws are part of scriptures
revealed by God. It would be illogical
to accept that these scriptures are true when they say there is one God, that
God is jealous and that he acted visibly to take care of
God
said, “The daughter of any priest who profanes herself by playing the harlot
profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9).
Prostitutes
by default are adulteresses. “The man who
commits adultery with another’s wife, even his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer
and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10).
If
a man marries a woman and finds that she wasn’t a virgin when they married the
following is prescribed: “if it is true that the evidences of virginity were
not found in the young woman, Then they shall bring her to the door of her
father’s house and the men of the city shall stone her to death, because she
has wrought [criminal] folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s
house. So you shall put away the evil
from among you” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
Clearly when she could be murdered like that in front of her father’s
house the father and the family were not allowed to be upset over her death. They must rejoice in it. Children are to be loved conditionally on the
condition that they don’t seriously break the law of God. There can be no doubt that the Bible
encourages hatred of women who commit sexual sin. There is no doubt that scriptures like this
encourage psychopaths and religious maniacs.
Just because the Church claims the right to revere such scriptures,
people have to die!
Jesus
himself said that the Law, these teachings, are the heart of God’s word and
that no true prophet from God will contradict it. He said he didn’t come to repeal the Law of
Moses but to improve it. He tightened it
up. It forbade adultery but he forbade
even the desire for adultery. A woman
was brought by the Jews to Jesus accused of adultery. This crime was punishable by death by
stoning. He said that whoever was
without sin could cast the first stone. They all went away for they all had
sins. All this tells us is that only
people who aren’t guilty of those kinds of sin themselves have the right to
condemn a person to death for adultery.
To read it as an endorsement of letting her off the hook is totally
wrong and he didn’t say she shouldn’t be put to death. He did say that it was right to stone her if
the stoners were any better. Also
putting people to death without consulting the judges of
Christianity
incites to hatred against prostitutes for though it has no evidence that any of
its doctrines are true it still dares to accuse serious sinners of deserving
everlasting torment in Hell from which there is no release. This is slander when there is no evidence or
proof. If you love your son or your
father and you imagine that he will suffer horrendous torment in Hell forever
if he dies after sleeping with a prostitute then how could you possibly avoid
hating that prostitute? Many of the Jews
believed in eternal torment for serious sinners after death and in the bigoted
idea that adultery and prostitution were necessarily serious sins. If the Ripper agreed it would make him hate
prostitutes. Even if he didn’t he would
have still hated prostitutes for the prostitutes were baptised Christians and
were uncaring if their trade led men to Hell.
Judaism
and Christianity see how their God commands the destruction of certain sinners
in order to purge the sin from the midst of the people. They command then the hatred of sin. Jesus said that you should hate sin so much
that you should cut your hand off if it makes you sin to get across how much
one ought to detest sin.
Both
religions then teach that you should hate the sin but many forms of them teach
that that you must love the sinner. This
is absurd. You either hate the sin and
the sinner or you love the sinner and the sin.
Why? Because the sin is something
that the sinner causes and does. It is a
part of the sinner. You can hate
somebody’s sickness but not hate them for the sickness is something that
happens to them and isn’t their fault.
But sin is not sickness. It’s the
deliberate creation and willing of evil.
To say that John’s work is a disgrace is to say that John is a disgrace.
It
is not going too far to accuse Judaism and Christianity of self-deception and
hypocrisy in their teaching. We all know
by experience that loving the sinner and hating the sin they commit is
impossible. The teaching has a lot in it
even when so diluted, to incite to hatred against sinners.
The
Jewish and Christian scriptures both teach that if there is one commandment you
must keep it is the one to love God with all your heart and strength for God
gave this commandment to Moses (Jesus confirmed it). It implies this by saying this is the
greatest commandment. So love starts
with loving God not yourself or others.
The commandment that comes next is the next most important but
significantly it is not the most important, “you shall love your neighbour as
yourself”. So you are to love God more
than yourself or your neighbour. But we
know that if you are to be in anyway normal you must start with loving yourself
for failure to love yourself properly is reflected and manifested in cruel and
malicious actions towards others. The
commandments forbid this as sin which helps explain why those most devoted to these
commandments ended up thirsting for blood.
Despite the love of neighbour requirement, it is plain from the
commandments that religion is for God and not for man. Man may benefit but that is not what religion
is for. Benefits are side-effects. So it is a sin to seek any benefit in
religion. This advocates a pining for
death and suffering and blood which we see reflected in Jesus who refused to
take simple steps to avoid being crucified but embraced this terrible
death. To frustrate your natural need to
love yourself is to foment anger in yourself.
What,
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and powers and the next
most important commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself” really means
is, “We the ministers of God ask you to believe in God and put this belief
above everything else.” It is really the
belief that is being loved. This is the
pure stuff of bigotry and shows that God religion is intrinsically power hungry
and authoritarian. Rules come before
people. No wonder God religion has
produced so many charming psychopaths. There are Catholic priests and bishops
in
Judaism
and Christianity, when correctly understood, are not humanitarian
religions. People are helped not for
their own sake but for the sake of the faith and because the faith asks
it. If the faith asked one to murder them
then it would have to be done. The
underlying lack of value placed on the person is there whether believers murder
for the faith or not. If faith comes
before people then it is okay to kill in the name of faith and God and
religion. That is what the anti-humanitarianism
of these faiths is saying.
God
told Saul through Samuel that he wanted to punish the people of Amalek for blocking Israel when they were coming out of
Egypt by getting Israel to put them all to death and even the children (1
Samuel 15). When mercy was shown God got
angry. This was commanding war both for
revenge and obedience to the Lord.
Christians will say that revenge was not the only reason but one reason
and that the main reason was to eradicate their evil. But God would have stated the main reason if
that had been right and that is what a responsible and careful God would
do. God is condoning war for the purpose
of vengeance. Christians say that it was
good of God to command things like that because there is a life after death for
the dead babies who would have inherited the evil characteristics of their
parents had they not been killed and that the parents should have been killed
for they were irremediably evil (page 104, Christianity
for the Tough-Minded). Loads of evil
parents have good children and even the Bible does not say that the Amalekites were that bad.
Besides, God had founded no religion for them for the Hebrews did not
want them in theirs and there was no trace of the doctrine of a holy and nice
afterlife at that period of time. God
hadn’t revealed any of it so how could the afterlife justify what the Hebrews
did when they didn’t believe in it? What
right had they to kill over Samuel who was only one man claiming to speak the
word of God? And it is judgmental to
accuse the people God told
The
Jews and the Christians hold that the Old Testament in the Bible is the word of
God. God spoke the word and preserved it
for us. No other work is the word of God
and infallible except Christians add the New Testament in as well. When God had to put in his violent and hate
filled commandments and revelations into his word instead of more peaceable and
edifying substance then God has a definite predilection for violence. To adore his book as his word is to become as
bad as he is. Most of the violence in
the Bible is encouraged against women.
God reveals himself through his word.
God commands that God be adored and liked above all. That means his book has to be liked too for
you can’t love God and hate what he has said about himself and what he
wants.
There
was a lot in the Old Testament to make our suspect become Jack the Ripper. He
would have known it well. And the
example of the Christians who likewise tried to follow the great commandments
and ended up twisted and neurotic would have affected him too. He would have known of Christian preachers
who preached about the battle of Armageddon.
There the final earthly battle between God’s forces and his enemies will
take place. The Old Testament predicts
that the people of God will be armed and turn on those who are not the people
of God. In that day God will kill those
who disobey him such as prostitute and unbelievers and heretics but he will do
it through protecting his people as they slaughter the hated enemies of
God. Jesus was certainly not a pacifist
though he may not have lifted a sword against anybody when he was on
earth. He sanctioned the Law and the Prophets,
the whole Old Testament as the Jews have it.
The Law and the Prophets promise that one day this king, the Christ,
will come and lead the Church into bloody warfare against evildoers and
unbelievers. Jesus accepted such
declarations as referring to himself.
Joel
3 says that God will assemble the nations and have a judgment with them so he
will engage in direct communication and he calls his people to turn their tools
into weapons and Egypt shall be left in desolation as a result of the final
world war in which the Jewish people will be triumphant because God used them for
taking his revenge (verse 21). Other incitements to violence from God can be
seen in the book of Obadiah, Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 12 and 14; Daniel 2:44;
Revelation 17:14; Revelation 2:26-27; Revelation 19:14. Jews believe in the Old Testament passages
here and think that the Messiah when he comes will lead them into this
war. Jesus claimed to be this king and
that he would return as the Old Testament foretold. When Jesus was not a pacifist it is hardly
right to assume that he did away with the Old Testament God’s murderous and
bloodthirsty laws. He never needed to
fight when he was alive except when he caused a violent riot in the
Books
such as the Bible are dangerous to the minds of disturbed people. Because people promoted these books as correct
and without error for God wrote them and God doesn’t make mistakes, five
prostitutes in the East End of London had to be brutally slain in 1888. Those who never change their opinions love
themselves more than the truth. And Jews
and Christians when loyal to their faith, and not to some watered down version
of it do insist that it is a virtue never to change your mind about the Bible
being God’s true word.
PART
TWO, THE MURDERS
In
1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in
The Murders
Mary
Ann Nicholls was murdered on Friday 31st August between 3.15 am and
3.45 am at Buck’s Row, Whitechapel. She
was found at 3.45 am by PC Neil. The
victim had bruising to her face and her throat was cut twice. There was a small amount of blood beside the
body and her abdomen was mutilated. At
the post mortem it was found that the knife used must have been moderately
sharp. Being a bit blunt, most of the
destruction it inflicted was down to the violence with which it was
wielded. No blood was found on the
clothes or on the breast. The lack of
blood and the swelling of the victim’s face indicated death by
asphyxiation.
The
second Ripper victim Annie Chapman was murdered on Saturday 8th
September 1888 in the yard adjoining
The
third Ripper victim Elizabeth Stride met her violent death at the hands of the
Ripper on 30th September, a Sunday.
At 12.45 am,
That
same night the Ripper made up for his failure to mutilate Stride. Mitre Square at 1.28-9 am was checked by PC
Harvey. There was nothing. But when PC Watkins checked the Square a
quarter of an hour later he found a body, the Ripper’s fourth victim. Catherine Eddowes
was found strangled with her throat cut twice.
This time the killer mutilated the victim’s face. The intestines were thrown over her right
shoulder. Part of the right ear was cut
and there was no bruising. The left
kidney and the womb were taken away by the killer. There was no evidence of a struggle. There was no spurting of blood. At 2.55 am, PC Long discovered a piece of
apron stained with blood and body matter in
The
fifth victim Mary Jane Kelly was butchered on Friday 9th
November. The other victims were murdered
in Whitechapel but she was murdered in Spitalfields. She was killed in her room 13 Miller’s
Court. She was found about 10.45 am the
next day. The mutilations were so
extensive that she had to be identified by her eyes and her ears. Strangely enough the hair was not examined
for identification purposes. The heart
was missing.
After
this, the most notorious murder in history and the annals of gore, the Ripper
stopped. One can see that with each
victim his fury increased reaching a macabre climax with the murder of
Kelly.
The
police surgeons and other surgeons who were familiar with the modus operandi of
the killings, had their disagreements.
But they did hold their belief that the killer had enough skill with the
knife to pass for a butcher or medical student (page 190, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper).
Dr Bond thought the killer showed no knowledge at all of cutting women
or animals up but we know that the killer was able to find Eddowe’s
kidney and take it away and when the killer cut away the uterus and the top of
the vagina and part of the bladder with one slash of the knife with Annie
Chapman we must beg to differ. As we
will see, the butcher possibility will take on more and more significance as we
progress through this examination.
Was Stride a Ripper Victim?
Many
Ripperologists contend that Elizabeth Stride was not
a Ripper Victim. But the fact remains
that both her and the woman killed later that night Catherine Eddowes carried the same throat wounds (page 14, Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888). The Ripper victims had their throats cut from
left to right and Dr Bond stated that Stride’s was cut from right to left. Dr Blackwell examined the neck and decided
that the throat was indeed cut from left to right as the others had been and
that Dr Bond was led astray by the fact that the killer didn’t use as much
force when he cut Stride’s throat as he had done with the others.
The
body was placed on its side while with the other murders the victims were laid
on their backs. It may be the killer
never intended to mutilate her. He knew
the woman had been attacked minutes before just a few feet away and seen so it
was too dangerous to spend time mutilating her.
There is no reason to believe the killer was disturbed though it is
possible. Catherine Eddowes
however was put on her side first by the Ripper for she had mud on one side of
her face off the ground. The Ripper then
put her on her back. When the Ripper
puts two women on their sides in the one night it shows they must have had the
same killer. The Ripper strangled Eddowes as she stood up.
Why did he place her on her side after?
He may have done this to have a look in case policemen were hovering
about and then he put her on her back to continue with his evil task.
Stride
was strangled to death like the previous Ripper victims (page 59, Jack the
Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). This was
why there wasn’t much blood. Only the
Ripper would have cut the throat of a woman already dead. This was his only mutilation of her.
The
Ripper maybe didn’t intend to kill that night.
He was always prepared to kill but he didn’t expect the opportunity to
present itself. That was why he didn’t
indulge himself in mutilating Stride.
And that was why he needed a piece of Eddowes’
apron to wrap Eddowes’ organs in later on. In the other killings he already had
something with him to contain the organs.
That both killings looked like a wonderful surprise for the Ripper shows
that both were the Ripper’s work. The
closeness in time and place of the two killings strongly indicates the work of
the one man.
Very
near
That
night Israel Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to a woman near the gateway
where the murder later took place. The
man tried to pull her into the street but threw her down on the footpath. She screamed – but not loudly. Schwartz saw a second man standing lighting
his pipe watching this. The attacker
shouted Lipski at the other man and the other man
started to follow Schwartz but after a short time when Schwartz looked around
he saw that the man was gone. It is said
that it was Schwartz that the man was calling Lipski
to. But the man was attacking a woman
and was unlikely to notice that Schwartz was a Jew. And it was dark at the time. The man was not going to kill her and had no
reason to get Schwartz scared off for he had already seen it all.
The
man who threw Stride down on the footpath was not the killer. He does not bear any resemblance to the
descriptions of the Ripper (page 54, The
Crimes of Jack the Ripper). (It is important to note as well that the
thought that Aaron Kosminski killed Stride but none
of the other women and he was the one identified by a Jewish witness and that
this witness was Schwartz is false for neither of the two men looked like the
poor emaciated homeless incoherent madman.)
The
Ripper would have dragged her into the gateway not the street. She had cachous in her hand when she was
found as if she felt safe with the man who killed her. She would not have felt safe with a man who
had just been violent towards her. The
other man was trying to make sure Schwartz didn’t return for another look. That was why he followed him to scare him
away and make sure he was out of the way.
He was alone with Stride and he comforted her. The Ripper always made friends with his
victims. Then he violently induced
unconsciousness and cut her throat. The
killer was in a hurry. It seems that
only the Ripper would use the knife on a woman who had died by
strangulation. The knife was taken away
as it was in all Ripper crimes.
The
second man who was called Lipski then was probably
her killer. Lipski
was a nickname used as a form of insult against Jews. The second man then was a Jew. The killer of Elizabeth Stride was a
Jew. If she was not killed by the Ripper
then she must have been killed in a domestic but this can’t have been. Her man wasn’t a Jew nor did he look 35 as
the second man did.
Schwartz
told the press that the second man carried a knife.
Why
wasn’t the knife mentioned to the police?
Because Schwartz was a Jew and the second man was a Jew and Jews didn’t
squeal on Jews. The press was insistent
that during an interview Schwartz said the second man had a knife. It rings true for Schwartz was in a hurry to
get away from the scene. He didn’t shout
for a policeman after seeing a woman attacked so he was afraid. He had to have been more than just afraid of
the man, he had to have been afraid of the knife! Schwartz admitted running as far as the
railway arch when he realised the second man was following him. He was afraid of this man but gave no reason
for being afraid of him in his police statement. The knife explains the fear.
The
second man must have had a knife or been the killer or both when he never came
forward. He had no reason not to come
forward otherwise.
Schwartz
said to the papers that the second man tried to stop the attack on Stride. This is probably true for the attacker called
Lipski to him.
And we know that
Why
did the first man call the second man Lipski? Had he called him Murdering Jew which he
meant by Lipski we might have seen the reason. The reason was most likely because the
attacker was trying to get
Stride
was seen in
Stride and the Knife
The
main reason why some hold that Stride was not murdered by the Ripper is that
she was not killed with the same knife used on Catherine Eddowes
later that night. The knife was possibly
Stride’s own knife which many prostitutes had taken to carrying for protection
or perhaps the Ripper had two knives and on this occasion didn’t employ his
usual knife. Because she had been
attacked just minutes before her murder but not by the killer she may have
retained her knife in her hand. Did she
attack the killer with it and did he disarm her? Not likely – there are indications that she
trusted her killer. He may have just
taken the knife in case she would attack him and before she had a chance to think
she was rendered unconscious.
If
the killer used Stride’s knife then the killer didn’t use his usual knife for
two reasons. One was for speed. He had no intention of spending a second
longer by going to the trouble of getting his own knife out with this woman for
it was dangerous. This would indicate
that she withdrew her knife when the other man attacked her and she then let
the Ripper hold her knife for her because she trusted him and he was comforting
her. The second was because he knew it
could be told what kind of knife was used.
He didn’t want the police to think that anybody other than the man who
assaulted her earlier was the killer.
Both of these would indicate that the Ripper had been seen by
Schwartz. Who knows. Maybe the man who attacked Stride had a knife
that he dropped and which the killer used for speed. The killer would have carried a knife for
self-defence and another one for butchering any prostitutes if the opportunity
arose.
The
knife used on Stride had been sharpened for it made a clean cut, and it had no
point on it but was rounded (page 61, 62 Jack
the Ripper Black Magic Rituals). The
killer didn’t just happen to be carrying such a sharp knife and kill her on
impulse. The man carrying the knife
intended to kill and was experienced enough to know that he didn’t need a
pointed knife. Perhaps the Ripper
carried this knife and used it just because he got the opportunity. And having got the bloodlust maybe he
returned to his lair to get his favourite knife and then he set out with it in
search of a prostitute to kill with it.
Later that night Catherine Eddowes was found
murdered.
There
is no reason to hold that the Ripper used only one knife when he was
mutilating. The fact that the knife used on Chapman could have passed for a
butcher’s knife or an amputating knife may mean more than one was used. Perhaps he used a different knife when he
knew the knife would be seen as it was by Schwartz. He knew that the police were into trying to
find out what kind of knife he used on his victims.
The Ripper may
have carried two knives in case the opportunity to commit more than one murder
would arise. Maybe he was afraid of
losing a knife.
Was Kelly a Ripper Victim?
It
is thought that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim for she alone of the Ripper
victims was killed indoors. This proves
nothing. It is thought that since she
wasn’t strangled, her killer was someone other than the Ripper. It is thought that the mutilations this time
seemed more amateurish and not the work of the Ripper who seemed to be skilled
at slicing people up. The Ripper had the
chance in most of the other locations to take the women into empty sheds and
houses and slash them there. He didn’t
because he didn’t feel the need.
Mary
Kelly was so badly mutilated that she would have been better off having been
run over by a train. She was the worst
mutilated victim.
As
stated before, the Ripper’s rage intensified with each victim. The mutilations got worse each time. For example, he savaged Catherine Eddowes’ face but went further with the next victim
Kelly. His methods altered all the
time. For example, he was careful doing
some mutilations and careless doing others.
If somebody had murdered Kelly and was trying to frame the Ripper why go
to extremes to mutilate the woman?
Surely cutting her throat and removing her womb and opening her abdomen
would have been enough. Why would
another killer take away the heart? Why
not the uterus only as the Ripper might have done? He inserted Kelly’s left hand into her empty
abdomen reminiscent of when he carefully put Annie Chapman’s left arm over her
breast. He wished to leave signatures
that it was really him. No other killer
would have thought of this signature.
If
the Kelly murder didn’t show much skill it was because the Ripper was in a
frenzy.
Why
did the Ripper who used to leave the women openly on display for quick
discovery lock Kelly’s door? This
delayed discovery. It may have been that
the Ripper got a scare with the Stride and Eddowes’
murder and thought he had been seen.
Kelly
was not strangled like the others. She
was attacked with a knife in her bed. In
this case the Ripper seems to have wanted to inflict pain or perhaps it was too
dark to attempt to find her neck. Perhaps
he knew that he could be heard in the next room and decided to omit the
strangulation for she would struggle.
Better just to kill her quickly with the knife. With the other women, they were dead first
and then he set about cutting them up.
Possibly he changed his modus operandi because unlike the others he
couldn’t get behind Kelly with her standing up.
He probably made a mistake in putting his hand over her mouth and so she
was still able to cry, “Oh Murder!” Had
this not happened she would have been making as much noise as she could to
raise the alarm. And then instead of
trying to strangle her he just slashed her throat. The sheet was found to be full of knife holes
as if it had been put over her face.
Kelly’s
clothes were found folded neatly on a chair.
This is such a mystery because they were untouched by any blood though
there was a mess all over the room. The
solution is that the Ripper had undressed and put his own clothes on top of
hers. The idea that Mary Kelly was not
the woman killed but she returned to her room and saw the gore and left her
clothes there and lit the fire is pure mad fancy.
The
Ripper didn’t use the pump next Kelly’s room to wash which reminds us of how he
didn’t use the water tap in the yard where he killed Annie Chapman either.
One
mystery with Catherine Eddowes is why when her neck
was cut the artery didn’t make a big jet of blood (page 72, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). There were no spurts on the pavement or on
the brickwork. Did the killer use his
red neckerchief to stop the spurts in case he would dirty his clothes? The blood wouldn’t have been seen on the
cloth. That was why he used a red
one.
The
red neckerchief reminds us of the red handkerchief that Kelly’s killer gave
her. The uproar over an earlier murder,
Stride’s, started soon after these men saw the man and woman. The men must have
soon heard that this murder had taken place.
So why didn’t they go to the police with this description that very
night?
The
book, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic
Rituals, page 143 proves that there is a 500 yard radius from a centre
point which goes through the exact spots where Stride, Eddowes
and Kelly were found. This was not a
coincidence. The killer made sure there
was some mark so show that he was the murderer.
A perfect circle can be drawn with the three killing sites along the
circumference.
Kelly Murder Scene
PART
THREE, DID THE VICTIMS KNOW THE KILLER?
Evidence that some of the
Victims Knew their Killer
The
five murder victims may have known each other.
They didn’t live far apart. These
women walked the streets later than most prostitutes which makes it very likely
that they were known to each other. Women of the night tended to know each other especially prostitutes
that worked after dark (page 122, Jack
the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).
Some experts believe that Mary Jane Kelly and Annie Chapman knew one
another and were friends. Their source
is the People newspaper November 11th 1888. Also Kelly and Chapman lived on the same
street –
Did
they know the Ripper?
Mrs
Long saw Annie Chapman with a man at 5.30 am near the backyard where Annie was
later found murdered. At about that time
roughly a woman’s cry of, “No!” and a bump was heard against the fence of
number 29. Annie was found at 6.00
am. The bruises on Annie indicate that
she did hit herself perhaps against the fence.
Why did she call out, “No!”? The
Ripper worked here in broad daylight.
Despite
the possibly that the thump was something else and the “No!” was not from Annie
it is unlikely. Nobody came forward to
explain them in any different way and she was attacked about the time these
sounds were heard.
How
could Mrs Long who saw people going to and from all the time to the extent that
she would have paid no attention have been so interested in Annie and the man
with her? She even listened to what they
said. The man having said, “Will you?”
and Annie answering, “Yes.” She had a
good look at the man. That was
strange. It is hard to believe that she
hadn’t seen them together before. If she
had, that would explain her interest.
She was afraid to say too much in case the man would come after her
next. If the man had been a Jew there
was a danger of reprisals from the Jews if she said who he was. She knew more than she ever said.
Elizabeth
Stride was found holding her cachous in her hand. That she didn’t struggle or drop it indicates
that she trusted her attacker and was totally taken by surprise when he put his
hands round her throat. She had turned
down a client earlier that night. Sex
only takes minutes on the street so why did she do this? It may have been because she was saving
herself for a special client, the Ripper.
If not, then she must have trusted the man who was the Ripper when she
went into the Yard with him. Either way
she must have known and trusted him especially since she knew of the recent
murders and after she had been assaulted by another man on the street minutes
before.
Joseph
Barnett, Mary’s ex-partner, testified that Mary Kelly was afraid of a man or
men. He said that she asked him to read
the stories of the murders to her (page 104, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). Why did he say this? Her door was easily opened through a hole in
the window. Would she have left her room
so open to burglary and the risk of attack had she been afraid of someone? Barnett was undoubtedly lying. Barnett probably knew who the killer was and
wanted to point to him but in such a way that he wouldn’t get the blame for
saying who it was. But its possible
that Kelly was assured by Barnett that the Ripper would never touch her so she
might have been afraid of the Ripper but not afraid enough to make sure she was
safe in her room. Kelly may have known
the Ripper when Barnett her lover knew him.
Kelly
could read herself and would have and when Barnett still had to read the Ripper
murder accounts to her it shows she was obsessed with them a little. This was likely if she knew the killer.
Why
did the Ripper always take the money he paid the women for sex back? The women usually asked for the money and got
it before they went with the man. The
man was a lot less likely to pay if he got the goods first. No matter how much he was in a hurry, he
always took time to search their clothes and get the money off them again. He always stole whatever money they made – the tale of the farthings at Annie
Chapman’s feet however was a myth. The
stealing indicates that the Ripper did indeed kill the canonical five
victims. And the Ripper wasn’t exactly
extremely poor. He looked like a shabby
gentleman and sometimes dressed far finer than that. What happened when he had got other women to
the killing sites but wasn’t able to kill them for one reason or another? Did he have sex with them and then rob them? Hardly likely.
It looks more like the five women he murdered trusted him to pay after
sex. They knew him. They liked him. Our suspect had fallen into hard times or was
fearful of his finances getting worse and would have needed to take the money
back if he had given them any.
The
bizarre and rushed behaviour of the police and investigation in relation to the
Mary Kelly murder and the inquest would suggest that they knew who the murderer
was and didn’t want to shout about it.
This could suggest that the killer was a Jew and identifying him would
lead to backlash against the Jews. The Goulston Street message which was thought to have been
written by the Ripper by chalk on a wall to blame the Jews for the crimes had
to be washed off in case a riot would happen which shows how dangerous it could
be for Jews had the Ripper proven to be one of their number. Perhaps the Ripper was carted off to an
asylum so the police felt they should let the matter go.
The Man Hutchinson Saw
A
witness, George Hutchinson, who said he saw Kelly take a man he could identify
to her home Miller’s Court at 2.05 am on the morning she was murdered got a
very good look at the killer. He said
that the man was well dressed. The man
said to Kelly, “You will be all right for what I have told you.” Hutchinson heard Kelly say later to the man,
“All right, my dear, come along, you will be comfortable.” The man gave her a red handkerchief. Hutchinson thought something strange of the
situation and stood watching until 2.45 am but nobody came out. He went up the Court afterwards and all was
in darkness so the man and Kelly must have been asleep in bed.
The
amount of detail to many seems suspicious as does the fact that Hutchinson
didn’t come forward for three days. But
perhaps Hutchinson was one of Kelly’s clients and didn’t want to draw attention
to himself and her being friends. Maybe
he didn’t want to come forward and it took him three days to change his
mind. Inspector Abberline
accepted his testimony as valid which indicates that anything unusual was
explained. If he had been lying he would
told better lies than what he told. He
could have said for example that Kelly had went out again at the time he saw
her with the man and so that he didn’t know anything. He had no need to lie that he could identify
the man he saw with Kelly. That would
have got him in trouble if he was trying to cover something up.
The
view that Hutchinson was afraid of suspicion coming on himself and made up the
account for he had been seen keeping watch over Kelly’s room that night is
spurious. When he went forward after
three days and hadn’t been approached by the police before then there was
evidently nothing for him to worry about.
He knew other people who saw him walking behind the killer and Kelly on
that fateful night could come forward and contradict him if he told any lies.
Hutchinson
was able to give the police such a detailed description of the man that one
conclusion is unavoidable. He had seen
him before when he was able to take in all that. When you know somebody well, and you glimpse
them briefly you can describe them a lot more clearly than you can if they are
strangers. If this was not the case with
Hutchinson then we have to ask why Hutchinson lied for he must have made it all
up. If he lied, then he was the Ripper
himself or he was protecting the Ripper.
Hutchinson knew who the Ripper was – that we can consider proven. It is most likely that Hutchinson saw the man
with Kelly before. Hutchinson was seen
by a witness keeping vigil on Miller’s Court.
The Ripper would not have acted like that. He was not the Ripper. The Ripper didn’t loiter.
Hutchinson
was clearly concerned for Mary Kelly when he stood so long on the dangerous
streets at night watching her take the man who killed her to her room and for
long after. He must have made sure he
remembered everything clearly. He would
not have lied. Why did Hutchinson not
admit to having seen the man before?
What was he afraid of? Did he
know the killer? What made him so sure
that Kelly who had taken so many men back was in danger with this gentlemanly
looking client? He knew the killer. Hutchinson gave Kelly money. He gave her six pence shortly before she was
murdered. It appears that he could have
been one of her clients too. Perhaps he
didn’t want to name the killer for the killer could expose his sexual liaisons
with Kelly? Why was Hutchinson giving
her money when he had no regular job as the Scotland Yard letter of 12th
November 1888 states?
Hutchinson
saw that the man had a Jewish appearance (page 17, Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888). We know the Ripper was a Jew so the man he
seen must have been the Ripper.
Prostitutes would have been wary of Jewish customers since the Goulston Street message.
When Kelly went home with a Jew she probably knew and trusted this Jew.
Was
he suspicious because the man looked so respectable and seemed prepared to
sleep with a common prostitute? This is
unlikely for it wouldn’t have been that unusual. Slumming was popular then. The man didn’t fit the image of a killer such
as the Ripper who people pictured as a dirty, dishevelled, maniacal and ugly
monster.
Hutchinson
surely would have known if there was a light in Kelly’s room after she took the
man back. It was easy to see from where
he was standing at Dorset Street. He
would have had a look when he was that concerned and indeed he stood for a long
while watching her room and saw that it was all in darkness. He said he went up past the room and all was
quiet so the man she took back was in her bed sleeping with her. The man would have been seen leaving had he
just been with Kelly for sex. He planned
to spend the night there. He said to
her, “You will be all right for what I have told you.” What a strange thing to say? Evidently he didn’t want Hutchinson to hear
what their sexual plans were. He knew he
was listening and was being careful. It
sounds like he and Kelly were planning to have unnatural sex. He spoke to her as if it was something unusual
he wanted from her. Perhaps he asked her
to masturbate him. The police suspect
was believed to have suffered from an addiction to masturbation that made him
insane. He was less likely to suggest
sodomy and talk about it when a man was listening for she was drunk and giddy
and vulgar and he didn’t want to encourage her.
He might have been less careful when it was only masturbation he was
after. No semen was found at the crime
scene. This alone suggests the man she
took to her room was the Ripper. It was
the same with all the Ripper crime scenes.
Some
time between 3.30 and 4.00 am a cry of “Oh Murder!” was heard from Kelly’s
room. When prostitute Mary Ann Cox went
home at 3.00 am she saw Kelly’s room all in darkness.
What
Kelly said, “All right, my dear, come along, you will be comfortable”,
indicates that she intended to let the man sleep in her bed. It was the nearest to comfortable in her
room. There is no doubt from the
bloodstains that when she was attacked she had her face to the partition that
the bed was alongside. Her head was in
the corner of the room. She was attacked and the blood spurted up on the
wall. She was lying as if to make room
for somebody lying beside her. The idea
that the Ripper wasn’t taken to her room and he sneaked in is unlikely for he
knew she was a prostitute or he wouldn’t have been planning to kill her. He knew a prostitute could have a caller any
time or have a man in bed with her.
Kelly
though drunk took off her clothes in her room with her guest and folded them
neatly and put them over the chair. She
then slept alongside her companion for the night. The Ripper didn’t burn her clothes despite
burning nearly everything else he could get his hands on in the room in the
fire. But it seems she was very
comfortable with her guest. Kelly having
been afraid of the murderer would only have taken men she trusted back to her
room. She felt safe that night with a
man beside her in bed. It is hard to
believe she had her room unlocked when she was there alone so that the Ripper
could sneak in and attack her. This
takes us to the mystery of the key.
The Key Mystery
Mary
Kelly lost the key to her room. Joseph
Barnett her ex-lover and she had had a violent quarrel and the window next the
door ended up partly smashed on the 30th October. Without the key, she reached in through the
hole in the glass to unlock the door to let herself in. This was stated in
Joseph Barnett’s statement to the police which they accepted. But the door was found locked and the police
had to break it down after her mutilated body was seen through the hole by the
man collecting the rent.
It
seems that the door locked automatically when it was closed and one had to
reach through the window hole for the catch inside to open the door.
If
she had the Ripper with her in her bed then he didn’t need to know how to open
the door. If he crept in, he must have
been familiar with her room. He must have
observed how she opened the door at some stage.
Inspector
Abberline speaking at the inquest said that the
murderer did not lock the door behind him with the key. Nevertheless it is certain that the killer or
somebody had a key and locked the room (page 64, The Complete Jack the Ripper).
This must have been the situation because how else can the need to break
the door down be explained? If the lock
could be easily opened by putting one’s hand through the cracked pane as
Barnett said then why did the police break the door in? The police must have looked to see if there
was any way of entering the room without breaking the door in. You don’t do unnecessary damage at the scene
of a crime. The police must have known
if the door could really be opened by putting a hand through the window for
working out how the murderer could have got in is an important part of the
evidence. Possibly the police were
acting unprofessionally but there is no reason to think this. The neighbours would have known how Kelly got
into her room and could have told them.
So there are reasons why the police thought that it couldn’t be done and
so they didn’t try it. The suggestion
that the police didn’t believe Barnett but decided later at the inquest that
the door could be opened as he said is ridiculous.
The
landlord didn’t even have a key either! So without a key they just broke in.
It
seems that the police knew that Barnett wasn’t the killer and let him away with
his lies. After all they had considered
him a suspect in her murder. They wanted
the whole investigation rushed through as if it was unnecessary. They acted as if they already knew who the
Ripper was and there was no point.
Why
did Barnett lie? Why did he want to
protect the killer? Why did he act as if
the police guessing that the Ripper had the key could lead them to the
Ripper? The answer is that Barnett
probably set up her meeting with the Ripper.
Barnett worked at the Market and may have known our suspect who may have
supplied meats to the Market.
If
Joe Barnett was the Ripper or at least the killer of Mary Kelly it would have
been a crime of passion for he lived a normal life after her murder. He
wouldn’t lie beside her peacefully and then attack her. He did love the woman. He had no reason to go so far in the
mutilations. He had no reason to make it
look like the work of the Ripper – after all there were plenty of prostitute
killers about.
Most
likely the person who locked the door had to have been the killer. But what did the Ripper need the key
for? He didn’t know then that Kelly was
able to open the door by putting her hand through the broken glass. Was she really able to do this at all?
The
missing key story was a lie. Kelly used
the key and the Ripper locked the door with it and took it away with him after he desecrated her corpse. Did the killer take the key as a trophy
similar to his stealing Annie Chapman’s rings?
The
key was never lost. Kelly let herself
and the Ripper in with it. The Ripper
took the key with him. If as Barnett
said, the key fell out of the lock when the door was slammed shut during a row
it could have gone very far. She could
have got a new key soon if it had been.
And she wouldn’t have delayed if she was afraid of somebody like he
said.
Barnett
lied because he knew who had the key. In
his stupidity he thought the lie was necessary to protect the killer. As if the police were going to search all the
houses in Whitechapel for a tiny key!
However, if the police had already suspected the killer his lie would
have been far from stupid. This would
tell us that one of the police suspects was the killer. The police would certainly search the houses
of the suspects of the time. It would
tell us too that the killer was a local resident. He was not the American quack doctor Francis Tumbelty. He was not
Aaron Kosminski who nobody would have been afraid of
especially another man. He was not D’Onston for Barnett wouldn’t have been that afraid of
him. The killer had to have been a Jew
and Barnett was afraid of the Jews who were protecting the killer. He had to live among them. The killer was not George Chapman for he was
only 23 at the time of the killings while the witnesses saw an older man. And Chapman’s English wasn’t as good as the
English of the Ripper. A police suspect
Michael Ostrog was free to commit more murders after
the Whitechapel murders stopped and didn’t while a maniac like the Ripper
shouldn’t be able to stop. GWB the Australian suspect who according to his son
admitted to the murders saying he had been getting very drunk and then getting
the urge to gut prostitutes doesn’t sound very plausible. It doesn’t explain why the killings stopped
so soon after starting. Its only
hearsay.
Some
think that the Ripper stole the key and that was why it was missing. Let’s see
what the implications are.
The
Ripper must have been to her room some time previous to the murder. He must have known Kelly reasonably
well. He found the key and kept it which
was why it was missing. He locked the
door after he slaughtered her. Had he
got the door secured some other way he would have left blood marks on the
door. If you use a key you can avoid
blood marks if you are careful. You can
make sure only the key gets the blood.
The
Ripper had been planning to kill her for some time. She knew him and she trusted him. He either found the key after she lost it or
he was the reason she lost the key. He had stolen it. Either way she respected this man. She let him treat her room like his own. He didn’t have sex with her at any time. Perhaps he just paid her to sit and talk with
him. The Ripper didn’t do sex.
The
possibilities are that Ripper entered by stealth using her key – assuming it
had been lost and stolen by him. Or she
let him in and he slept beside her or he knew how to unlock the door through
the broken glass. Joseph Barnett had
visited her hours before her murder and would have known if the key had turned
up again for she would have been likely to hang it up on the same hook or nail
on the wall. Perhaps Kelly kept the door on the latch and the Ripper got in
easily and when he left he left it off the latch so that the door locked. This
is unlikely for she would have known that Hutchinson who was concerned and
keeping an eye outside that night could decide to send the police into her room
and she would be caught in prostitution so she would have locked the door so
that she might have some warning at least.
But how the Ripper got in doesn’t matter. What matters is that he had the key. He knew this woman and she knew him when he
went to such lengths.
The
murderer had waited a long time before striking Kelly. It seems he was waiting until he would be
sure that she was alone. He was waiting
until her lover had left her and a night in which she wouldn’t be sharing her
bed with her prostitute friends.
One
more thought, the Ripper didn’t wash at the pump next Kelly’s windows. If the Ripper didn’t know the pump was there
was it because Kelly let him in the door with the key which would have meant he
wouldn’t have seen it?
PART FOUR, THE RIPPER WRITES
Goulston
Street Graffiti