New Jack the Ripper claim strains under scrutiny

Originally published at:


The central conceit of a lot of these “I’ve figured out who Jack the Ripper was!” theories is that the serial killer lived a life that was notable enough (outside of his murder spree) for detailed records of his existence to be readily available today for amateur sleuths to search through.

Most serial killers were basically nobodies right up until they got caught, and most 19th-Century nobodies didn’t leave behind troves of detailed searchable records. So naturally the “suspect list” leans toward people of prominence. It’s like the old joke about the drunk searching for his dropped keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.


I’ve learned that any time you start hearing news about “they’ve figured out who the Ripper was!” it simply means someone else has published a new book and has gotten the media to promote it for them. So yeah, this one doesn’t hold up either.


I wonder if anyone has promoted a book claiming that they’ve found Jack the Ripper, and he was THE SAME SASQUATCH that killed Kennedy to cover up the fake moon landing program!


Shhhh… that’s the truth, but people can’t handle it.


This was solved back in the 60’s.


“At that low resolution, it could be that thousands and thousands and thousands of people share the mitochondrial DNA types that they’re finding,” King said.

She obviously never met Kenneth Starr.


Nah, much though I love TOS, Star Trek got it wrong. It was Sebastian.


This has been solved. You want a book called They All Love Jack, by Bruce Robinson. Yes, that Bruce Robinson: Withnail & I, etc.
Even if you don’t care who the Ripper was, it’s worth reading for the sheer venom he directs at everyone who covered it up.
I appreciate that this will sound a little tinfoil-hatty, but get the book; read it, judge for yourself.


As a general rule the more people that would have to be involved in a cover-up for your theory to be true then the less likely it is that your theory is true.


I never did trust Piglet.


This fits with my theory. He didn’t look like a monster, he looked like a guy from the pub. He wasn’t exceptional. Probably wasn’t any good in a fight.

Whitechapel was not a nice place. It’s quite possible the reason his spree stopped is because he got mugged and panicked or crossed the wrong person, and simply ended up another body in the gutter. Or maybe he died from bad booze, bad water, or something else mundane.

So the murders stopped. But no one knew why, because no one connected Jack the Monster to Poor Tom who stepped in front of that overloaded drayer’s cart, yesterday. Or Ted who died when that load of bricks slipped and fell on him. Because those guys weren’t monsters. Ted was my mate, and I would know if Ted was a monster.


I agree, but the research is exhaustive - it took years. Like I say, judge for yourself if it’s worth your time.

Mainly I enjoyed that it has the rigor and heavy footnoting of an academic work, but instead of the usual third-person, passive-voice, feigned impartiality the guy is PISSED OFF and he just lets fly. Honestly, I think mandating the first person (or at least allowing the pronoun “I”) in academic papers would be an improvement. They would be more readable. The PIs could quit pretending they are objective when in fact they are heavily invested both in terms of ego and the quest for research money.


Sure, but the problem is the suspect conclusions he arrived at from that research. If simply spending a lot of time chasing a pet theory was enough to give that theory credibility then there are a lot of moon hoaxers and 9/11 Truthers we should hear out.

It was also the kind of place where a poor working-class person could easily live out their entire lives without having their names written down on more than a handful of pieces of paper. “Exhaustive research” doesn’t do one much good if the killer didn’t leave behind any records to research.


We’ve know since '72 that Jack the Ripper was Peter O’Toole.


Yes, quantity and quality are two different things; absolutely. If this is a subject you care about, read for yourself & decide whether the conclusions are suspect.
Plus, as a side order, an entertaining master-class in invective.

1 Like

"Was Jack the Ripper in fact a sixty-foot sea serpent from Scotland?"

Altered Image from Cinemarathon2010 on Blogspot
Still originally from: Amazon Women on the Moon, 1987 See clip below

Using undiscovered evidence we pieced together the events that lead up to the first murder…

I swear there was a Monty Python bit about Loch Ness Monster being Jack The Ripper, but I can’t find it.


Exactly. This is long solved, people!


An amusing detail : good ol’ Jack is always represented wearing a top hat, following the common conception he was a physician or at least from the upper class. But with that kind of fancy hat, he would’t have survived one full hour in a such a cut-throat neighborhood…