[OT} Jack the ripper case... solved?

[Voobaha]

There are annotated comments on one of the lead investigators memoirs. The annotations were made by one of the other investigators, though I do not recall the title of the book, someone borrowed my copy of it and the video from TLC that came out when From Hell came out. Anyway, at just about every point the main author comments to the effect of "we never discovered the Ripper's identity" the commentor writes, "we knew it all along, it was Kosminski". Some RIpper researches actually had the FBI forensics office do a profile on the RIpper and then compared the profile to the top 4 suspects and the only person the profile fit was a man named Kosminski.

They had a witness as well, but this witness wouldn't testify because he was Jewish and the man he saw murder one of the girls was a well known eccentric that happened to be Jewish. The witness said "I will not have the blood of another Jew on my hands". This made it impossible for the police to nab Kosminski because in that day they had to have a witness to get a charge to stick. There wasn't much of a forensic science to speak of at the time.

The police followed Kosminski for weeks and the murders stopped completely. EVentually Kosminski was placed into a mental home by his family. The man was violently hostile to women and suffered from psychotic episodes. Classic serial killer personality in retrospect. Before I forget, Kosminski's full name was Aaron Kosminski. The ripper is something of a favorite of mine.

Yep. I saw a TV show on the discovery channel some years back which featured an "expert panel" who, given all the evidence, were supposed to give their best guess as to who the real ripper was. Two of the experts were the two guys who founded the FBI serial crimes unit and *invented* profiling: John Douglas & Robert Ressler

They concluded (rather matter-of-factly actually) based on scores of past cases they'd worked on that Kominski was the ripper, especially after reading about his history and examining the actual crime scene photos.

The most damning evidence was the memoirs of the head of the asylum where kominski was committed (after which the killings stopped). The doctor flat out said he knew the identity of the ripper, but was obligated by a sense of "duty to public safety" not to reveal it. This is often cited as evidence that he was protecting a member of the royal family. It's much more likely that he was trying to prevent a riot caused by the numerous gangs of unemployed east ender thugs who were out hunting for the ripper. They targeted jews and organized attacks against jewish businesses throughout the area. Kominski was jewish, and if the public had found out he was the ripper, it likely would've caused more anti-semitic mob violence.

 

[enrious]

Yep. I saw a TV show on the discovery channel some years back which featured an "expert panel" who, given all the evidence, were supposed to give their best guess as to who the real ripper was. Two of the experts were the two guys who founded the FBI serial crimes unit and *invented* profiling: John Douglas & Robert Ressler

They concluded (rather matter-of-factly actually) based on scores of past cases they'd worked on that Kominski was the ripper, especially after reading about his history and examining the actual crime scene photos.

Actually, Douglas later wrote that he and his partner selected the person that most fit their profile out of three suspects presented by the producers. Douglas said that they were not saying Kosminski was the killer or was likely to be the killer, only that he fit the profile the closest out of the three.

John Douglas, Mindhunter, Pocket Books, 1996

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Forgive me, but this is one of my hobby subjects of interest.

Woohoo! You and me both. How bout that, I share a hobby with a published author...well, other, than DnD that is...

Some people believe that Jack the Ripper (almost certainly a name that was never used by the killer himself but invented by the press) got his name from "Spring-Heeled Jack," but they're different people altogether.

In Stewart Evans' recent hardcover collection of the Ripper letters, there's one in which Jack actually signs his name as Spring-Heel Jack.

Yea, he advances a theory in there that the "Dear Boss" letter, in which ol' Jacky coined his name, was written by the Daily Mail (or whichever paper got it). Dunno about the Lusk letter, though...I think it may be genuine (the Lusk letter is the one in the film which had with it half a kidney - interestingly, victim #4, killed not long before, was missing a kidney). I don't see how someone would know to fake that.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think Jack the Ripper retains people's interest even today for a couple of reasons. One is because he was the first serial killer of modern times that exhibited the traits associated with such criminals, or at least was the first to be identified and confronted in a very public way by an organized, modern police force. Another is that he was the first to use the media the way he did, or at least the first one of real note. In a lot of ways, the case seems to have helped usher in a new era of both police work, and the way the media and crime interrelate.

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
In Stewart Evans' recent hardcover collection of the Ripper letters, there's one in which Jack actually signs his name as Spring-Heel Jack.
>>>

I don't have that, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. By far the best book on the subject, by the way, is Phillip Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper." I highly recommend it.

The reference to "Spring-Heeled Jack" in "a" Ripper letter is effectively meaningless, as most scholars dismiss all but one of the letters as fabrications of the media or the public (as brilliantly shown in "From Hell"). It's not surprising that _someone_ would confuse the two back in 1880, since it's still relatively common in 2002!

>>>
Yea, he advances a theory in there that the "Dear Boss" letter, in which ol' Jacky coined his name, was written by the Daily Mail (or whichever paper got it). Dunno about the Lusk letter, though...I think it may be genuine (the Lusk letter is the one in the film which had with it half a kidney - interestingly, victim #4, killed not long before, was missing a kidney). I don't see how someone would know to fake that.>>>

I personally tend to think that the Lusk letter is the genuine article. Pretty difficult to fake a kidney, especially one that tastes "vary nise."

--Erik

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

By far the best book on the subject, by the way, is Phillip Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper." I highly recommend it.

OK, I'll have to check it out. It was the longest time until I could even look at a book on JTR (highly ironic given my level of interest), strictly because the books ALWAYS had the pic of Mary Kelly, and for the longest time I couldn't stand that. But now I can, so all tis good.

The reference to "Spring-Heeled Jack" in "a" Ripper letter is effectively meaningless, as most scholars dismiss all but one of the letters as fabrications of the media or the public

Still, there were a few interesting ones in that book, including one sent to, I believe, the wife of Mary Kelly's landlord, John McCarthy, which I believe was also the same one which said he would strike down a woman and her child...eerie given some rumors about Mary having a child.

At some point in the future, I plan on taking a trip to London (to check out the sites) and Wales. I want to check up on something in Wales...searching old census records from 1881, we *may* have found record of Mary Kelly...must follow up on it.