HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Religion Motivated Jack the Ripper to Kill


NOTE: I do not agree with some of the conclusions on this page. I include it as part of my website because of its correct assessment of the dangers of religion. Despite its flaws, the religious motivation for the Ripper murders is shown as a real possibility.


The Question


In 1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in London’s East End. Five prostitutes, destitute women who knew of no other way to survive, were slaughtered and mutilated by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname Jack the Ripper.  If we don't know for sure who the killer was do we know that his religious faith drove him to kill those women?


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.


We may not have incontrovertible proof pertaining to the identity of the Ripper. After all he was never caught in the act. Due to press and police mishandling of the case, we may have to do without it. And though desirable it isn’t absolutely necessary. But who the Ripper was is a matter of enormous interest and determined speculation to this day. And the experts disagree sharply in trying to put a name on the monster that terrorised London in those dark days. But we do have proof that religion murdered those five women. In sifting out the truth and the possible identity of the Ripper it is important that we try to stick with what evidence we have got. Once we start getting sceptical without proper reason about anything witnesses say we can make the evidence mean anything. However if a report or testimony is clearly tainted by errors there is nothing wrong with trying to weed out the errors.
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.


Someone is better positioned than us to see Ripper's faith


Dr Lyttleton Stewart Forbes Winslow spent “day after day and night after night-in the Whitechapel slums” looking for clues about the Ripper. He decided that the Ripper had to be “a homicidal lunatic goaded on to his dreadful work by a sense of duty” and “possibly imagined that he received his commands from God. After each murder had been carried out and the lust for blood appeased, the lunatic changed at once from a homicidal religious maniac into a quiet man with a perfect knowledge of what he was doing.” He added that he felt the killer was a young well-off man.


Dr Bond who saw the injuries inflicted on some of the Ripper victims said that the killer’s “homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely”. It is interesting though that he saw things that made it look like a religious nutter was at work.


The Ripper was a Jew


Sir Robert Anderson who was head of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police in 1888 wrote, "When the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."  Because of religion, justice couldn’t be done for the five murdered women. Religion not only took their lives but it sought to protect the murderer.

Those who knew more about the murders than we ever will stated that the Ripper was possibly - and a strong possibly - a Jew.  Swanson and Anderson the detectives said it was certain he was a Jew.  In 1910, Anderson wrote concerning the Ripper, “In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute."


Study that declaration. He writes that he cannot say the Ripper had a religion though he calls him a Jew. He says he means to specify the race of the Ripper not his religion as if he doesn’t want to insult the Jewish religion by saying the Ripper was a Jew. Now why would it be an insult to Jews to say the Ripper was a Jew and not an insult to Polish people to say the Ripper was Polish? He doesn’t want to speak of the Ripper as religious because the Ripper had depraved religious beliefs. It would be stupid to think the Ripper had no religious beliefs.  Anderson felt that to say that a Jewish fanatic who lived as if brutally killing prostitutes were a Jewish religious duty was a Jew is to insult the Jewish faith. That is where he was coming from. He was not necessarily hinting that the Ripper suffered from a religious mania. The killer could have been a religious extremist and the way Anderson speaks of him shows that the killer was considered evil rather than insane. Anderson never named the Ripper but we know that for him the Ripper was not Aaron Kosminski for Aaron Kosminksi showed no signs of religious extremism.


The Ripper robbed Annie Chapman and there was a leather apron in the yard where she was found.  The Ripper if he did not need to rob her might have been aware that John Pizer, Leather Apron, was accused of the murders so far.  Pizer was a Jew who loved to batter prostitutes into giving him their money.  Did the Ripper rob Annie to create a false trail?  If so, did the Ripper know John Pizer?


The Ripper wrote a message blaming the Jews in chalk on a wall.  It is too much of a coincidence that this message was written where the Ripper discarded a tiny piece of apron that he did not really need.  It was made to appear that he needed it to wipe his hands and knife but that is hard to believe!  The Ripper probably did not clean up but just put a coat over the mess on his clothes - not that there would have been a huge mess.  The message certainly suggests the Ripper was being protected by Jews.


 Remember too that even when there were only two recognised victims Nichols and Chapman the people were convinced that Jew John Pizer was the killer. Even worse, the rumour had started with the killing of Nichols!  When Polly Nichols died the people had already pointed the finger at a Jew specifically this John Pizer. The rumour could have started through people seeing a Jew who seemed to be responsible and feeling they had not enough to go to the police with.


The man seen with some of the women just before they died had a Jewish appearance.  The man seen with Annie Chapman was described as a foreigner meaning a Jew by Mrs Long.  Mrs Long must have been talking to the gossips and the man must have looked as Jewish as John Pizer!! The rumour would not have been fueled otherwise.


Possible Ripper witness Israel Schwartz saw a man in the presence of Elizabeth Stride who was called Lipski by a man attacking her.  The attacker was not the killer and she was found dead later.  The name Lipski was a form of abuse against Jewish males for Lipski had been a murderer.


The Ripper had to be protected by his family and people.  Jews were against handing their own up to Gentile justice.


The best suspects are Jews.  Eg Kosminski and Jacob Levy.


The Judeo-Christian Scriptures Justify the Religious 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 Israel and to reject their more unpalatable teachings. God miraculously split the Red Sea in two to let the Israelites cross over to the other side so that the Egyptians couldn’t recapture them. When the Egyptians went into the gap God let the water come back in on them. He could have used a wind or something to stop them trying to enter. Why accept that God murdered the Egyptians by drowning them in the Red Sea unnecessarily when he could have used a storm to prevent them attacking the Israelites and deny that he wanted prostitutes put to death?
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 so cruelly 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 than her. Also putting people to death without consulting the judges of Israel was illegitimate. Then it wouldn’t be killing her that would be the sin but bypassing the judges. They had no right to execute her anyway. When they took her to Jesus and not to the judges it shows they were lying about their certainty that she was guilty. It is telling that Jesus despite that is still on record as wanting her stoned if the circumstances allowed it.  What a woman-hater!  Nothing in the Bible indicates that holy murder is wrong.
St Paul an apostle of Jesus and therefore an authorised explainer of the teachings of Christ stated that in no sin do you sin against your body but one. And that is by having sex with a prostitute. Christians are considered parts of the body of Christ so to have sex with a prostitute is to unite Christ with a harlot (1 Corinthians 56:15-20) an immense sin. If the sin is so repulsive it will be impossible to avoid hating prostitutes. Sex must be the worst sin possible for Paul excluded the idea that self-abuse or using your body to steal was as bad and was trying to unite Christ with evil. He certainly had the idea that to unite Christ with a sexual sinner was so bad that uniting him with a thief or murderer was nothing in comparison. There is real hatred for prostitutes in this theology.
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 Africa threatening the people with hellfire unless they leave themselves open to AIDS for condom use is a sin.
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 Israel to kill of extreme obstinacy in evil. It is not right that many Christians try to make up excuses for the Bible’s version of God for that means they worship a kind of being they know is evil. Today, prostitutes and homosexuals would be in the same moral category as the people of Amalek. We are to hate the Amalekites so we are to hate them as well.
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 Temple. He embraced his death because he said it was right for him to die – God needed the gore and suffering and blood to save the world - and not because he thought that bearing arms was wrong.
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.


If your religion says violent revelations and Bibles are from God or promotes such which give mixed messages on violence it is its duty to take responsibility if somebody reads that stuff and becomes mad enough to carry it out.  That religion will not take the responsibility shows it is itself capable of great evil.


The Ripper's pious hatred of female sexuality
Religious faith is always chiefly characterised by a desire to control and maybe mock sexuality.  Sexual sins get terrible penalties.  Jesus wants those who commit them damned forever in Hell while Moses wants them stoned to death for God says so.


The Ripper was not killing the prostitutes for sexual perversion. He never had sex with them and no semen from masturbation was found at the crime scenes. His frenzy was hatred not of women in general but of fallen women - prostitutes. The suspect Aaron Kosminski can be eliminated for he suffered from compulsive masturbation in public. He would have been found masturbating over the bodies had he been the killer. Levy, it seems, wasn’t having sex with his wife for he went out walking at night and she said he paced up and down the bedroom floor and of course they only had two children so they didn’t have much sex together prior to the onset of his bizarre behaviour either.
The Ripper showed signs of anger against female genitalia. He performed mutilations in the genital area of four of his victims - he may not have had a chance to do this with Catherine Eddowes the exception in the sense that though he attacked her uterus he did not attack the vagina with his knife. This is most probably a sign of a man who contracted syphilis from prostitutes and attacked the genitals of prostitutes to release his anger. He took trophies – parts of the bodies of these women to satisfy his feeling that he was stronger than these women, that he was in control. There is no evidence that the Ripper got any sexual enjoyment out of doing this. The fact that he took Eddowes’ kidney – an organ nobody would associate with sex - and engaged in abdominal mutilations and ripped intestines out shows that the crimes were motivated by anger not perverted sexuality. This man was not a sex killer of any description. He was angry with the bodies of prostitutes and his attacks on the genitals suggest that the basis of his anger was something that happened to him as a result of sex with prostitutes. Our suspect, Jacob Levy, would certainly have felt anger against prostitutes for giving him syphilis. For those who question that that was how he got the disease they must remember that syphilis was caught mostly by men who went with prostitutes. Our suspect had only two children which suggests that he cheated on his wife with a streetwalker and didn’t have sex afterwards with her for he suspected syphilis. Why else wouldn’t there have been more children than that? A man like him would have hated the female genitalia that left him waiting for death.
Annie Chapman and Kelly were displayed with legs apart in a mock sexual position. The Ripper wanted to mock their sexuality and make a display of them. This could be interpreted as, “Here they are ready for sex but I want to put you off the idea of having sex with them”. This interpretation would surely indicate that the Ripper considered prostitutes dangerous and to be objects not people.
The attacks on the womb especially with Annie Chapman suggest a desire to punish the womb for being the source of life. The Ripper removed her uterus and the top of her vagina and took them away. He removed the uterus when he killed Catherine Eddowes as well. The Ripper did not hate his own life – he didn’t want to end up hanged. He didn’t want to attack the womb because it was the seat of his life that he wished he had never been born. But his anger may have been roused by the fear that since he had syphilis he might have given this killer disease to his children when he fathered them with his wife. Jacob Levy had a wife and children.


Human sacrifice and Jacob Levy
Judaism follows the Law of Moses which is in the first five books of the Bible. These books endorse the torture and murder of apostates from God’s religion, homosexuals and kidnappers to name but a few categories. These killings are senseless therefore the killings are really about human sacrifice. Unnecessary killing in the name of God is really human sacrifice no matter if it is called execution or not.
Pope John Paul II forbade capital punishment except in extreme circumstances though tradition and the Bible, the voices of God according to the Church, command that it be deployed more than that. Catholics say that he is not saying capital punishment is wrong full stop but only that it is not often necessary today and the Bible regulations are only meant to be carried out if the Church runs the state which it does not. The capital laws of the Bible were never necessary and God could not object to Christians using the state to kill people their God wants dead like heretics, homosexuals and adulterers. For him to object now, would be the same as saying he was wrong to go so far. If killing those people was right then, then it is always right. The pope is both condoning the crime of capital punishment and saying he does not – another crime. The Catholic view that capital punishment was encouraged by God to protect the state and its members is misleading because the Bible laws could have done that without commanding the killing of those people and also because the Bible says these killings are punishment. Now could they be punishment if you need them to protect others? That would not be punishment but self-defence. The laws of the Bible had nothing to do with protecting but about showing the people who was boss, God and about God getting his own back on those who ignored his law.

In Genesis 22, human sacrifice is declared not to be intrinsically immoral in the sight of God. God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, up Mount Moriah and offer him up as a burnt offering. A burnt offering is killed first by having its throat cut and then it is cooked and often eaten in a communion rite. Abraham obeyed God and when he had drawn out his knife to kill the boy, God’s messenger came to tell him not to do it for God had not been serious. So God had lied in telling Abraham that he wanted Abraham to kill the boy. But at the same time his command shows that he approves of human sacrifice for Genesis regards God as good and therefore unable to command immorality.
Leviticus 27:27-29 was thought to command human sacrifice.
Verse 27 talks about redeeming, buying things back.
Verse 28 says that nothing devoted to God by the owner, be it man or beast or field, can be bought back.
Verse 29 says that no one who is doomed to death can be ransomed or saved but must be put to death. The Amplified Bible puts notes in brackets to cover up what this really says. It would have us believe that the verse is about people doomed to death because they have committed a capital crime and is saying that you cannot save a person from it by money in justice.
The verse afterwards says that all that is offered to God is holy.
I believe that Leviticus is really permitting human sacrifice here and does not intend the meaning alleged by the Amplified Bible and the believers.
The context, the verse before and after, does not mention the death-penalty but what is offered to God as a sacrifice, not necessarily a dead sacrifice. Sacrifices can be alive when offered and then killed as blood sacrifices. And it is certain that the Law sees death as the only suitable fate for such offerings. The Law makes a difference between the death penalty and sacrifice because the first is only for those who have been wicked.
The context is about holy sacrifices and criminals could hardly be one of these for not all of them repent.
The sacrifices will be slaves, children and wives who were thought to be a man’s property.

Ransom means to buy back. How can you buy back a capital criminal for he has not been sold?
What has all this to do with Jack the Ripper?
Stride was seen in Berner Street with a man earlier the evening  she died who said to her, “You would say anything but your prayers.” Does this match the fact that there was a religious motivation for the killings? She may have been speaking with the killer.  It could be that he planned to slaughter a woman at Berner Street. The Ripper took women to some unlikely spots which indicates he may have presented himself as a man of faith to get them there.


The first four Ripper victims made a cross on the map. The religious symbolism indicates the killing of these women as human sacrifices.
Were the first four Ripper victims human sacrifices to God? Levy’s surname is in memory of the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe of Israel which offered blood sacrifice by cutting the throats of animals and possibly people. The Ripper victims had their throats cut.
Leviticus 7:4 demands the mutilation of an animal to get its kidneys. Catherine Eddowes’ kidney was taken.
The killer took the uterus of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. That he didn’t do the same with Nichols or Kelly indicates that he did not take the uteri to satisfy some perverted sexual craving or to strike at the seat of life. He did not take them for trophies. He took none of Nichols or Kelly away with him. The Kelly murder was his masterpiece in his twisted mind. That he took nothing indicates that he didn’t want trophies. When he took organs it was for some ritualistic purpose – occult or religious. He probably burned the organs he took to fulfil the law of sacrifice. However he believed this was optional due to the circumstances – he was not a priest acting in the comforts of a distorted legalised parody of religious freedom - but did it anyway to fulfil the Jewish Law.
The Ripper cut off Mary Kelly’s breasts and left them on a table. Why go to that trouble when he threw the rest of her everywhere? Leviticus 9:21 calls on the priest to take the breasts and use them as a wave offering to the Lord: “The breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses commanded”. The killer took Kelly’s amputated breasts in his hands reminding us of this. He flayed her right thigh down to the femur.
The killings were human sacrifices and also motivated by God’s call to revenge: “”Rejoice with His people, O you nations, for He avenges the blood of His servants, and vengeance He inflicts on His foes and clears guilt from the land of His people” (Deuteronomy 32:43). There can be no doubt that this is speaking of revenge in all its ugliness for the nations referred to believed in revenge more than Israel did though Israel promoted revenge too.
Jacob Levy was dying of syphilis. He most probably got it off the prostitutes who frequented his area. He would have seen himself in the role of the avenger, the man who had the right to kill in revenge without divine or legitimate civil penalty according to the book of Numbers chapter 35. All prostitutes in his mind were as bad as each other and spreading death and so they ought to be slain.
It is possible that because Jews suffered because of Christian anti-Semitic lies such as the story that Jews murdered Simon of Trent and cut open his abdomen that the Ripper avenged this slander by killing Christian prostitutes the same way.
The surname Levy was related to the Jewish saint Levi who left the Jewish Tribe of Levi after him. The Tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe that offered animal and occasionally human sacrifices to God and perhaps Jacob Levy felt his surname was a call from God for him to sacrifice prostitutes as if he were one of those priests.
The Ripper liked to leave clues so was his Jack a hint that he was a Jacob? To take Jac from Jack and at the K for Kosminsky gives you Jack! Coincidence? If not then the Ripper did write the Dear Boss letter of October 5th in which he claimed a religious motivation for the murders.




The Marks on Catherine Eddowes' Face



The Ripper mutilated Catherine Eddowes' face as you can see from the above picture.  Notice how uncannily deliberate the two arrow marks below the eyes are.  Each mark is identical.  The marks symbolise something.  They look almost like triangles.


I used to argue the following on the knowledge that religion was involved in the crimes. Perhaps the marks were made because the triangle is the symbol of the Trinity, a doctrine considered blasphemous by Jews for it has three persons being God? Jews were taught that this symbol is pagan in origin and that the root of the doctrine is in paganism. Were these symbols indications of the desire to defile the Christian doctrine? The killer may have not realised that it needed to be a complete triangle not just two sides. Had he completed the triangles on her face they would have been equilateral. It can’t be coincidence. In any case, why triangles? Perhaps it was to desecrate the symbol of the Trinity. Who knows?


When one joins up the first murder site (Nichols) the second (Chapman) and the third (Stride) on a map a near perfect equilateral triangle can be drawn. When one joins up the second and the third and the fourth which was Eddowes you also get the same effect. The two triangles marked on Eddowes face may indicate these two triangles.


He thrust his knife once through both the lower eyelids. Was this the work of a religious nut who wanted to symbolise the blindness of Christians in their failure to see that his religion was true? If so the killer was most probably a Jew. The stabbing of the eyes indicating no sight or blindness and the adjacent triangles may indicate that Christians are blind to believe in the Trinity.  

The Cross
The book Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals proves that the murders of Ripper Victims, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes were planned on a map. The four murder sites make a near perfect parallelogram when they are joined up by lines on a map. The book shows how this isn’t imagination. On page 149 we see how between the Nicholls and Chapman murder sites there is 930 yards as the crow flies. And between Chapman and Eddowes there is 930 yards as the crow flies. Between Eddowes and Stride there is 950 yards and in case there should be any doubt that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim the Ripper made sure she was exactly 950 yards away from the Stride site. But he did that just for show for Kelly was outside of the pattern he was trying to make. As page 149 shows, the distance of 930 yards between murder site one and two and 930 yards between two and four and 950 yards between four and three and the exact same distance between three and five just cannot be coincidence. The people who doubt that Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims have to be wrong. The reason the killer didn’t make them all 930 yards was simply because some adjustment was necessary and he didn’t want to end up killing some of them too openly. They had to be killed in the right place with the right amount of cover. The book says the killer’s plan couldn’t be improved on.
The first murder took place marking the east compass point. This was to desecrate Christianity which sees the east as sacred and the most sacred and meaningful direction Jesus will return from the east. It is the direction in which he lived when he was on earth. Next is Chapman for due north and Stride for due South and Eddowes for due west.
The directions may indicate that the symbolism is not a parallelogram but a cross. Why else would the Ripper have gone to the trouble of using a compass?
What is more they make up a cross that is almost perfect.
To draw a line from Chapman and Stride makes a line that points due north and south. To draw a line from Nicholls to Eddowes makes a line from due east to west. The points of the compass are made out (page 13, 59, 150, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). One thing is for sure, a killer who takes into consideration the four directions when planning the killings is planning some kind of human sacrifices.
The arms of the cross when drawn go due north, due south, due east, due west. This is because the first four victims were killed at nearly the same distance apart and at the four points of the compass (page 140, 150, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). Therefore it seems that the cross, not a parallelogram, was what was intended. It explains why no killing was made at the place where the lines intersect to make sure we knew it was a cross. It wasn’t necessary.
Some say that the view that the Ripper was a black magic killer who was desecrating the cross in this way was unlikely. Why? Because we don’t have a victim at the spot where the two lines of the cross intersect. Such a victim would be necessary to show that it really was a cross. Maybe the killer just didn’t think it would make out a parallelogram and just cared about making a cross. The cross is the most likely understanding of what the killer wished to symbolise. Maybe he was making the cross for himself not for us to see it. Some people might shape out a cross by making just four points after than making another point of where the lines they draw meet. The chief reason for holding that it was a cross that was intended is seen from the fact that the parallelogram isn’t a likely symbol. It has no common religious significance. So it could have been the cross that was intended. As the parallelogram is composed of two equilateral triangles it would seem that the triangles could be the symbolism intended. But then why two joined together making a parallelogram? Why not a triangle here and a separate one somewhere else? The killing sites were possibly chosen to make a parallelogram or a cross. If it was a parallelogram then why the killer made this symbol is a mystery. But it shows that the first four victims were indeed Ripper victims. The cross interpretation says the same thing. Both whatever they indicate, certainly indicate that the Ripper murders were religiously motivated.
The Kelly murder is an exception to this symbolism despite the book’s attempts to assume symbols to get her site included. Its implausibility is shown by the books admission that the killer had to move the centre point to choose her site (page 141). The book shows that murders three and four and five allow a circle to be drawn through them. But though this is true when you look at the circle you think it may be coincidence. Jack has a coincidence here so the parallelogram is hardly likely to be a coincidence. The circle is found if you put the point at a certain spot in the middle of the junction of Commercial Street. If the circle was planned then the killer chose this spot. It was not at random. He would have had to record all the places in the area that would give sufficient cover for killing the women and then choose the ones that were plotted along the circumference of the circle. The same must be the case for the parallelogram or cross. He had to be sure of all the places which gave good cover and then plan the cross accordingly. The murder sites had to be checked out before he set out to work on the map.
Why five murders? Jesus Christ had five wounds. Why five women of Christian background?  Why no Jewish prostitutes?
The argument of the book that the killing sites show a very complex Vesica Piscis, the Christian symbol of the fish is without foundation. We must not get carried away with the fact that symbolism is shown. But even if it is the Vesica Piscis, it does our argument that the killer was a Jew who wanted to desecrate Christianity no harm. In fact it, supports it.




Mary Kelly and a Jewish looking stranger went to her room 13 Miller's Court.  George Hutchinson saw them and made a statement to the police.  He stood for a while to keep watch but saw nothing out of the ordinary and as the pair seemed to settle in the room for the night Hutchinson put his worries aside and went to bed.  The stranger is believed to be the Ripper.

It is thought that Hutchinson may have lied in his testimony.  If he did then one reason is that he was seen at the scene of the crime by Sarah Lewis and that he was the killer.  The other reason is for the reward money but Hutchinson did not look for or claim it.  The lies are more like errors and imagination but the overall testimony in its core points should be endorsed as true.  For some reason he was slow to come forward perhaps in case people would think he was the killer.  But it seems possible that he knew the man she was with and that was why he was able to describe him in such detail.  That would not be possible if he had just got a quick look at a stranger.
What burned in Kelly’s grate?

Kelly took a man to her room and the next day she was found mutilated on the bed beyond all description.  The killer of course was not seen leaving or in action.

It seems from the evidence that the man who lay beside Mary was her killer.  Some feel Kelly could have let the man out after Hutchinson went away and took the killer in then.

The Ripper created a roaring fire in Mary Kelly’s room. Seven hours after he had gone the ashes were found to be still warm (page 64, The Complete Jack the Ripper).
Did he burn his bloodstained clothing? But he never worried that much about his clothing before. He left the scene of Annie Chapman’s murder in daylight and a man was seen in a pub soon after with bloodstained clothes. No evidence of buttons belonging to a man or zips were found in the ashes. What was found was parts of a woman’s bonnet. There was no need for his clothing to have been drenched in blood. Just take the coat off. Go and kill the woman. Then put on an apron or take more clothes off to perform the mutilations. Then wipe the blood off and put the clothes on over any smears. The woman shouldn’t spout blood when she is dead. Heavily bloodstained clothes don’t burn – they smoulder.
The remains of Mary Kelly lay on the side of the bed next the door. The bed was tight against a partition. It seems that the Ripper climbed over her so that he knelt between the partition and the body on the bed to perform many of the mutilations.
Did he burn clothes in the room for light? There was a candle there and he didn’t use it. He would have had to cut the clothes up first and put them on for throwing clothes on a fire can put it out. The Ripper was good at working in the dark and was always in a hurry when he ripped women up. He didn’t need a fire to see. There was a candle there.
Was he not afraid of burning the place down or drawing attention by having such a big fire that late at night? The fire was started at night for nobody spoke of a great smoke coming out of the building in daylight.
The fire was so hot that it melted part of the kettle. Did the fire melt the kettle that night? It probably did for Kelly needed her kettle and wouldn’t have kept a bad one for long. She sometimes got money from Hutchinson which would have gone towards a new one if it had melted some time before. A good second-hand kettle would have been easy to come by. Kelly would have lit big fires especially when she was drunk and during winter. Whatever caused the heat to be so intense that it could melt the kettle was nothing ordinary. The killer brought something flammable into the room that he used – alcohol maybe? Why did he do this?
Whatever the Ripper burnt could have been evidence of some kind. It would point to his identity if it was found.
Some believe the Ripper entered Kelly’s room dressed as a woman to avoid detection. He burned his female outfit and dressed as a man to leave. This is hard to believe. Why not wrap it up and take it away? Better to go dressed as a woman and leave dressed as a woman as well.
When he took the knife away with him why not whatever he was wearing? Her killer was the man she took back and he was not in disguise as a woman. He had oilskin like a parcel with him to wrap bloodstained clothes in to take them away. What did he wear to leave if he didn’t go out in his bloodstained clothes? Did he have a change of clothes with him?
The Ripper had a change of clothes with him. Because he knew Hutchinson was curious about him and watching he changed his appearance and burned the clothes that Hutchinson saw him in. Hutchinson saw the face of the Ripper. He probably cut off the buttons and the zips and took them away with him. The red handkerchief that he gave Kelly as Hutchinson watched was not found in the room. Did he burn it? Maybe because Hutchinson did see him give it to her. If the killer had been another man he was unlikely to throw her handkerchief on the fire when he didn’t touch her clothes.
The Ripper burned the clothes that Hutchinson saw him wearing. There were clothes that belonged to Kelly’s friends in the room. He burned these clothes with his own to make sure that all trace of his clothes was gone. This would suggest that the Ripper didn’t burn his clothes with alcohol or something as some have surmised. It suggests that he was a well-known face. Why else would he be so afraid that he could be traced by his clothes. One more thought, there were no traces of zips or metal buttons that belonged to male clothes. He cut them off first.
The Ripper probably got the fire going so ferociously by burning some of Kelly’s fat on the fire as a sacrifice.
Leviticus 7 requires that the parts of sacrifices that are not eaten should be burned on the altar. Did the killer burn some part of Mary Kelly in the fire he caused in her grate? It would have been impossible to put her all back together so this was possible. Was her hearth his altar? Probably he burned a little of her fat – no wonder the fire burned so furiously that it was able to melt the kettle. “And they put the fat upon the breasts, and Aaron burned the fat upon the altar” (Leviticus 9:20). The killer didn’t burn the breasts for he knew that it would be hard to burn them no matter how big a fire he created. So he considered himself exempt from this requirement. The permission to eat the thigh and the breast given in the Bible couldn’t apply for Jews had an abhorrence of eating human flesh and eating blood was forbidden. The killer only loosely exercised his grisly and black priesthood.
The killer burned clothes on the fire. This would have filled the room with smoke but not if he burned Kelly’s fat with the clothes (page 106, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper). The smoke would have gone up through the gaps in ceiling into the flat above and disturbed its occupant. The killer must have planned beforehand what he was going to do. Only a butcher would think of something like this. Only someone that was used to burning rags and rotten entrails with the help of fat would have got it so right.
It was a bit strange that the Ripper didn’t burn any of Kelly’s clothes. They were found neatly folded in the room.
Why did the Ripper not bring a big dark coat to cover his clothes and disguise himself? Because the papers spoke of witnesses talking about a man dressed that way. This may prove that these witnesses did indeed see the Ripper.
The killer attacked Kelly and gave her the fatal wound. Perhaps, then he changed clothes into ritual robes and mutilated her as a human sacrifice. He went into a frenzy and his robes were dirty so he decided to burn them. She was his offering as a priest of God. This was the only chance he had to kill her garbed as a priest. He burned other clothes with the robes to make sure all trace of the robes was gone.
Did the killer burn his clothes because he had stolen them? If that was his reason then he knew George Hutchinson had got a good look at him. And whatever we conclude there can be no doubt that the killer was the man that Hutchinson watched so closely and the killer knew that he had better destroy his clothes because of that. His behaviour proves that the Ripper himself knew that Hutchinson could give a detailed testimony about him so the clothes had to be reduced to ashes. The Ripper was also afraid to take his clothes home, this suggests that his family or friends were keeping an eye on him. He was afraid to even wrap the clothes up in a parcel and carry them through the streets.
George Hutchinson saw the killer carrying a parcel – presumably a change of clothes. The Ripper having had a change of clothes shows that he planned to kill Kelly well in advance for he made preparations.




The Ripper was a man of faith and that faith aided him and inspired him to kill.