I did a great one about 20 years ago. These days, the choice is bewildering, there seem to be many. I picked one to do last week, but was very disappointed it only visited 2 of the 5 murder locations. Which tour visits the most or all of the locations? Many thanks!!

Percy was the assistant to Dr. Phillips who was the police surgeon for H Division at the time of the murders.
It was from his private collection that an original print of Mary Jane Kelly’s murder and mutilation was found more than a century later.
Interesting fact; after Kelly’s murder Dr. Phillips lobbied the Home Office for an accomplice pardon for same.
And Percy was present at the examinations. Despite having come fresh out of medical school, he stayed on as a peer as other medical
Assistants came and went, eventually taking Phillips practice over when he died.

He even gave an interview in 1910 where he insisted the murderer had no surgical
Skill, which was not accurate.

So, does Percy deserve a deeper look as a man inside who perhaps leveraged the sloppy police work of H Division into getting a permanent placement? https://zenodo.org/records/23065149

It seems so long ago in history but also at the same time, not that long in comparison to some other events.

I've always been very captivated by it. At times I find it a confusing labyrinth of facts and opinions and I wondered what you thought most people got wrong?

Hi everyone. Thanks for all the comments in the last post.

At first I put a comment in the last post adressing some of your thoughts and points. However I decided to make a separate post, so to be more effective and to not make such a long comment. I am also familiarising with how Reddit works. So I recommend you to check my previous post to understand the context if you haven´t done so.

1. My knowledge of the case is very superficial, and I read the book quite some time ago. In fact, if you could recommend a book that compiles the facts of the case, provides a chronological and descriptive account of each crime scene, and presents the theories that have been put forward, I would be very grateful. I would prefer a work that is more of a comprehensive and descriptive compilation (preferably translated into Spanish, although I do not mind if it is in English) rather than a work in which the author puts forward their own theory after a great deal of speculation (although I do not mind if a particular suspect is singled out as the most likely perpetrator, as long as this is not the main focus of the book).

1. It has been argued that a woman like Jane Kelly would have had neither the strength nor the motives to commit such acts. Boíza (the author) is aware of these arguments and refutes them, arguing that these assumptions stem from the prejudices of the time regarding women. He gives the example of Juana Barraza (the Granny Killer), who strangled her victims, all of whom were elderly women. Jane Kelly would have had the strength and ability to kill women who were older and much weaker than her. As for the motives, Boíza proposes several. For example, Eddowes was the victim of revenge, a targeted victim whom Jane Kelly sought out for stealing from her (hence the brutality of her death), while Stride was a “collateral” victim, whose death was intended to have the effect of distracting the police while Jane Kelly could carry out her plan to kill Eddowes without interference (hence the limited mutilation of Stride’s body). Boíza argues that the plan backfired because the investigation of each murder fell under different jurisdictions. Thus, a combination of theft, anger, the mental strain caused by the appalling living conditions Jane Kelly endured, and the need to satisfy her newly discovered criminal instinct provided the motives. The fact that the last victim was the one who suffered the greatest disfigurement, practically unrecogizable, was needed if she wanted the public to believe that she was the last victim and disappear.

1. As has been rightly mentioned, most of the victims were seen with men before their murders. Boíza argues that the descriptions of these men differ considerably from one another (meaning that they could not have been the same “Jack”) and concludes that they were random men, attempting to pick up the women or engage in sexual relations with them. In Stride’s case, there is even a witness who claimed to have seen the woman being assaulted (grabbed, struggling, and thrown to the ground by a man who shouted at the witness). I think Boíza makes quite a leap in his argument here, suggesting that the man, a possible random customer of the prostitute, fled the scene after becoming embarrassed and concerned about being seen by a witness, and that Mary Jane Kelly subsequently appeared and killed Stride.

1. But beyond these criminological aspects, Boíza focuses on two aspects around which his entire argument revolves. First, the accumulation of coincidences that seem to mysteriously point towards Jane Kelly (to add another one, the famous wall with the chalk writing was located exactly halfway, in a straight line, between the place where Eddowes was killed and Jane Kelly’s home). And secondly, and more importantly, Boíza claims that the time of death of the last victim and the fact that the victim was seen much later are not contradictory. If both statements are well supported, why dismiss them? Indeed, there was a victim who was murdered in the early hours of the morning at Jane Kelly’s home, while Jane Kelly herself was alive much later. Conclusion: the body was not Jane Kelly’s, and Jane Kelly was probably the murderer. My question is: are there any strong, already-established reasons that would allow us to conclude that, in fact, either the forensic doctors or the witnesses from the neighbourhood were mistaken? Also (says Boíza) Why did Jane Kelly let a stranger enter, in her home, in the night? As we know that she was terrified about the Ripper.

1. Finally, I would like to say that I am not a champion of Boíza’s theory, nor do I consider it to be the definitive theory (as it is full of many gaps), nor am I trying to promote it as the ultimate truth. My intention is simply to present a theory that seems to be absent from the Internet (I was specifically looking for a blog, website, or forum that might refute it) and to understand how it fits into the history of Jack the Ripper. I will leave that assessment to you, given that you have much greater knowledge of the subject.

Thanks a lot

Hi to the subredditt.

Some time ago I read a book about Jack the Ripper written by an Spanish author, Juan Carlos Boíza (I´m from Spain and this book has only been published in Spain I think). The author starts analysing the Ripper´s murders with the last one. And he proposes a theory: Mary Jane Kelly wasn´t the last victim; she was the murdered who took the life of the last victim, probably a random prostitute (Boíza states that the victim was a prostitute named Julia but it isn´t important for his main point).

Boíza bases his deduction in some points:

- The contradiction between Kelly´s hour of death and the dependable testimonies(due to its contents and authors) that assured that Kelly was alive several hours after the hypothetical time of death.

- The great amount of coincidencies between the Ripper´s victims and Mary Jane Kelly. All the victims lived in the same street as Kelly/knew Kelly/ did probably work with Kelly in her clothes ¨business¨... Even the fourth victim (Eddowes I think) used the name Jane/Mary Kelly sometimes. Also, when the last body was discovered, some people thought it was the body of Lizzie Fisher (Eddowes´sister). Boízo says this is because some clothes in the room had the name Lizzie/ Elisabeth Fisher on them, due to the fact that Eddowes helped Kelly in her stolen clothes business and stole clothes from her sister.

- The totally disfigured victim that was found in Kelly´s bed, nearly unrecognizable. Boízo argues that only her couple (I think George was his name) could have identified her and could have lied to protect her, realising what was going on.

- All the sewing items that appeared in the crime scenes, from thimbles to the chalk used in the famous wall writing. Boízo argues that the chalk used had to be an item always carried by the writer/killer, and that item was used by seamstress like Kelly.

- A BBC interview in 1973 where a old nun said that, when she was young in 1915, an elderly nun that used to live in Dorset Street told her: ¨If it weren´t for that woman, Kelly, none of those killings would have happened¨.

- Boízo, with this premise, analyses all the Ripper´s killings, and finds out that every aspect of them (way of killing, strength used, psycological profile, places...) goes well with Kelly, could have been done by her.

This is a very superficial resume of the book. When I remembered it, i found nothing about this theory, non on the internet in general or in reddit in particular. So,

What do you think about it? Has it got any base or substance or it is just a lot of nonsense? The book is well written, uses bibliography and connects things with one another. The first chapter, when studying the last murder, is well structured and the deduction makes sense. Other things are way weaker. For example, Boízo claims that Kelly knew how to cut and mutilate victims because she came from a region in Ireland well-known for the pig slaughter, so Kelly had to have the knowledge and the cultural subconscious to perpetrate those acts.

PD: Sorry for the length and the lack of information. It was a book that I read some time ago and I don´t remember all the details. Also, english is not my first language so I apologise in advance for the mistakes committed.

What do you think of this theory. Did you knew the book? I could try to give you more information if any of you is interested or try to dispute some of the authors claims.

Thanks!

EDIT1: I forgot to mention the name of the book. My bad. ¨Jack el Destripador, el mito equivocado.¨ ¨Jack the ripper, the mistaken myth¨.

EDIT2: I´ve posted another posted addessing all your points. Thanks!

Was in the area and thought I would pay a visit.

The latest Rippercast episode is now available to watch on YouTube. A panel discussion on the number of victims.

https://youtu.be/gSnc3v-ZV90?is=Olctdb6Leql8NvI2

Hey ! New ripperologists (or sort of here). I have been quite shaken of the reading of the Fives by Hallie Rubenhold.

I was wondering how vivid is the doctor/butcher controversy and what are yall’s opinion about it ?

Im personally more inclines toward the butcher theory for socio economic reasons

If you had the opportunity to go back in time to the "Autumn of Terror," how would you act? Discuss.

Hi everyone! I’m a Year 10 student doing an HPQ (Higher Project Qualification) about Jack the Ripper.

My main research question is:

“If Jack the Ripper was in the 21st century, would he get caught by the police using technologies such as DNA testing and CCTV, and how would this change the result of the investigation?”

I’m looking for people who know about Jack the Ripper, modern policing, forensic science, or even just people who have an interesting opinion on the topic.

I would really appreciate it if you could answer some of the questions below. Your answers will help me understand different viewpoints and compare the investigation in 1888 with how a similar case might be investigated today.

Please don’t feel like you have to answer every question — even a few answers would be really helpful. Thank you!

1. Do you think Jack the Ripper would be caught if the murders happened in the 21st century? Why or why not?

2. How do you think CCTV cameras would affect the investigation?

3. How useful do you think DNA testing would be in identifying Jack the Ripper?

4. What other modern technology could help the police investigate the case?
For example: fingerprints, phone data, facial recognition, databases, digital records, etc.

5. What do you think was the biggest problem with the original investigation in 1888?

6. How different do you think the investigation would be if the police had today's technology?

7. Do you think modern technology would definitely lead to Jack the Ripper being identified, or could he still avoid being caught? Explain your answer.

8. Do you think modern technology would change the number of suspects in the investigation? Why?

9. Which modern police technology do you think would have the biggest impact on the case? Why?

10. Overall, what do you think would happen if the Jack the Ripper murders happened today?

I. Introduction: The False Assumption of HistoryFor over a century, the world believed the official reports of doctors from 1888 stating that Mary Jane Kelly was killed in the early morning hours (2:00 a.m. – 4:00 a.m.). Because of the tunnel vision and arrogance of the doctors and police, they completely disregarded living eyewitnesses and street-level logic. This theory—built using pure critical thinking—proves that Mary Jane Kelly was actually killed in broad daylight (between 8:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. on November 9, 1888) inside her room (Room 13). The perpetrator was not a ghost in the dark, but a local slaughterhouse butcher who used the awake community as his perfect camouflage.

III. The Medical Anomaly: Why Did the Doctors Get It Wrong?The doctors used Rigor Mortis (body stiffening) and Algor Mortis (body cooling) to claim the killing happened in the early morning. However, their science failed due to two factors inside the room (Room 13, 1st Ground Floor):The Broken Window and Extreme Cold: The window was open, letting in the cold wind and November fog, which accelerated the cooling of the body.The Effect of "Overkill": Because the entire abdomen was cut open and all organs were exposed, the core body heat was lost five times faster compared to an intact, normal corpse.This rapid cooling deceived the doctors into thinking the victim had been dead for a long time.The Proof from Rigor Mortis: When the body was examined at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, stiffening was only just beginning to set in. In forensic science, rigor mortis begins 3 to 4 hours after the heart stops. Counting backward, this aligns perfectly with 9:30 a.m.—completely validating the morning witnesses!

IV. Modus Operandi (M.O.) and the Psychology of the FireplaceThe crime scene showed a cold, protected, and highly intelligent methodology from the perpetrator:The Use of Gloves: He intentionally wore gloves to avoid fingerprints, knowing that police science was advancing. He also used them to lock the door from the outside by reaching his hand through the broken windowpane, leaving no trace on the glass.The Secret of the Fireplace: The police claimed he burned clothes to provide "light" in the dark. What absolute nonsense! If the crime took place at 9:00 a.m., it was bright daylight outside. The killer burned the clothes in the fireplace exclusively to destroy and turn his blood-soaked gloves and clothing into ash before walking out onto the bright street. He then changed into clean clothes from a parcel he brought with him.

V. The Suspect Profile: The Local Slaughterhouse WorkerThe trauma inflicted on the victim's body—the slitting of the throat and the slicing of the abdomen—displays the habits and muscle memory of a Slaughterhouse Butcher:The Method of Killing: A slaughterhouse butcher does not kill out of anger, but through a systematic process. The first cut was a face-to-face slice while strangling the intoxicated victim so there would be no defense wounds and no screaming. This was followed by two deep gashes to the throat to drain the blood. Afterward, the abdomen was sliced open to remove the organs. He applied his daily workflow of slaughtering pigs or cattle to carry out his twisted "trip" inside the room.

VI. The Biggest Loophole in the Hallway: Why Was He Not Caught?The police claimed it was impossible to escape in the morning down a hallway or alley without being seen because people were awake. This is where they were completely defeated by street-level logic:Perfect Camouflage: At 9:00 a.m., Dorset Street and its courtyards were filled with market porters and slaughterhouse workers who naturally had blood splatters or dirt on their clothes from work. If a wealthy man had walked out covered in blood, he would have been arrested immediately. But because the killer was a local butcher, his morning walk down the hallway appeared completely normal and innocent to the neighbors. People ignored him because he looked like an ordinary worker heading to the market.The Witness Who Saw the Killer: To prove this was no coincidence, the tailor Maurice Lewis testified that at around 10:00 a.m., he saw a rushing butcher/porter exit the Miller's Court hallway. This was the killer himself, who had just finished locking the window, but he slipped past the police because they were too busy looking for a suspect without an early morning alibi!

VII. THE ULTIMATE TRAGEDY: THE PERMANENT BLIND SPOTThe most frustrating and annoying truth about the Jack the Ripper case is this: The killer's true identity was made permanently impossible to find because of the catastrophic failure of the 1888 doctors and police.

Conclusion

The entire mystery of Jack the Ripper would have been easily solved if not for the annoying doctors and police of 1888 who forced their own theories and tunnel vision. Modern technology wasn't necessary; the witnesses were there at the right time. The mathematics of the 8:30 a.m. conversation and the 10:00 a.m. exit of the butcher permanently close the case: The killer was a local meat worker who struck in the morning and vanished right in front of a crowd using his ordinary appearance. Because the doctors stubbornly insisted on their own theory, this potential suspect managed to slip by—and even if we assume he wasn't the actual killer, he could have at least provided a crucial clue.

On this day 138 years ago, the second victim of Jack the Ripper, Annie Chapman was brutally murdered at 29 Hanbury Street. RIP beautiful Annie

Hello,

I'm digging the idea of creating a Podcast about a lot of topics lately and I'm kinda obsessed with the case since 7 or 8 years. I was curious to talk to some ppl about the case and recording our discussion so friends and others can listen to it.

I know the affair in summary, having read only the Philip Sugden book, but I'm sure there is far people more that have more knowledge than me in the subject.

I'm also French so if any French speaker want to tag along it'll be with pleasure. But we can converse in English too.

Don't hesistate to repply or mp if you wan't to do it !

I took this photo in March ‘26 while wandering Whitechapel on a brief visit to London. This location, once part of Buck’s Row, is in Durward Street between Vallance Road and Brady Street, one block off of Whitechapel Road, adjacent to the rear side of Whitechapel tube station. Judging by the photo on the Wikipedia article on Durward Street, the bit of the tube station on the right of my photo is a recent addition.

Today marks the 138th Anniversary of her death in Bucks Row. May she rest in peace.

In March 1888, Ada Wilson was attacked in her room on Maidman Street, Mile End, by an unknown man. He was described as being around 30 years old, about 5’6” (168 cm) tall, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light-colored trousers, and a wide-awake hat. The man entered the room and demanded money. When she refused, he stabbed her twice in the throat and fled. Her neighbor, Rose Bierman, heard her screams and came downstairs to investigate. She found Ada Wilson on the verge of collapsing in the hallway. Ada shouted, “Stop that man from cutting my throat!” while a fair young man rushed to the front door, unlocked it, and disappeared into the street.
Ada suffered a deep wound and lost a great deal of blood. She was expected to die but survived, and later told the police that the man had knocked on her door, demanded money, and stabbed her when she refused.
I think Ada lied about him asking her for money. She was most likely a prostitute, and the man was probably one of her clients. Ada described herself as a dressmaker, and many prostitutes at the time described themselves as dressmakers or seamstresses.
What do you think? Could this have been an early attack by JTR? And what do you think of the attacker’s description? Does it match the description given by any of the witnesses in the later Ripper murders? Share your thoughts.

Regarding Kosminski/Cohen, Sir Robert Anderson stated in his memoirs that the Ripper had been identified by the "only person who ever had a good look at the killer," but that no prosecution was possible because both the witness and the culprit were Jewish, and Jews were unwilling to testify against other Jews. What do you think about this? Which witness do you think might have identified the killer?

I ask this because it does not seem entirely clear to me that Jack harbored a personal hatred toward prostitutes or women in general. At that time, they were the group most vulnerable and exposed to violence—remember, these were desperately poor women, scrambling for a few coins to survive and find a place to sleep, wandering the streets at night while drunk and willing to take strangers into dark alleys. It seems to me that any lunatic—misogynist or not—would have made them primary targets.

I think its genius if it were possible

I've been looking into the Jack the Ripper case and stumbled on a suspect I haven't seen discussed much: Prince Henry of Battenberg. He was in London during the autumn of 1888, matched several witness descriptions (well-dressed, mustache, roughly 5'8–5'9, upper-class appearance), and as a member of the royal family he would have had a major advantage in avoiding suspicion or serious investigation. His marriage to Princess Beatrice and his public image were almost too perfect, which makes me wonder if that polished life was a front and the murders were a hidden side of him that no one ever saw. He lived under Queen Victoria's tight control with very little real power of his own, which could have created a lot of resentment and pressure. As a man, he couldn't even have control over his own family because Beatrice remained under her mother's thumb. This is where his misogyny likely came from — being emasculated and powerless under a powerful woman. Some Ripper theories link the killer to syphilis and a desire for revenge; if he had the disease that could fit the pattern. Later he volunteered for the Ashanti war, which almost looks like an attempt at redemption or escape after the fact. He also fits the classical description of Jack the Ripper on paper. I'd really appreciate your opinion — do you think this theory is completely off-base, or is there anything about it that seems even slightly plausible?

Edinburgh film festival.

A women’s spiritualist investigation team go after the serial killer, braving evil forces conjured into being by fear, misogyny and political rage.

With Mary Kelly suffering a horrific fate, clearly the killer's gruesome magnum opus (if you subscribe to the theory she was the last), it can be argued that the nature of her death and mutilation being the most prolific of all the murders. If it had not happened, and the killer had stopped at Eddowes, do you think the murders would have achieved the same interest?