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!

 

The Victims of Jack the Ripper

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 killed and slaughtered by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname Jack the Ripper.

The Ripper did not have sex with any of the women.  He got them out of sight and murdered them.  Some think he may just have lunged at the first victim when walking with her on a street.  The second woman was found in a backyard with her pockets emptied.  The third showed no sign of preparing for sex with a client.  The fourth certainly was expecting to service the Ripper.  The fifth may have had the Ripper in for a sleepover only.

In total thirty-seven women in the year 1888 were attacked violently and sometimes killed. Fourteen were domestic attacks which leaves twenty three. Subtracting the five canonical ripper victims leaves us with 18. Despite the supposition of some that the Ripper murders were carried out by gangs attacking prostitutes there is no evidence that any of these gangs set out to kill.  A prostitute called Emma Smith was clearly attacked by a gang but there is no reason to think they intended to kill her. There is no evidence that any gang ripped up women Ripper style. The Ripper’s style was unique. None of the victims except maybe Kelly showed signs of struggling.
  
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 backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The victim was found just before 6.00 am by John Davis who lived in number 29. Her throat had been cut and her intestines were flung over her left shoulder. It looked as if the killer had tried to decapitate her. The killer put the left arm across her breast. The face and tongue were swollen due to strangulation. The ring fingers were injured due to a ring or rings being pulled off violently. She carried bruises on her right temple, upper eyelid, two on her chest and one on her right hand. The uterus and part of the bladder and vagina had been skilfully extracted and taken away. No damage was done to surrounding organs.
 
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, Elizabeth was seen being attacked by a man, not necessarily her killer, on Berner Street. Fifteen minutes later she was discovered just inside Dutfield’s yard along the same street with her throat cut. No mutilations had taken place. She was seen talking to a man at 12.45 am by James Brown who heard her refuse the man by saying, “Not tonight, some other night”. It looks like she had a date with the Ripper and turned this man down. The Ripper may have needed to make dates with these women for the important thing for him was getting them to suitable killing sites.
 
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 Goulston Street at the Wentworth Buildings where many Jews resided. Right above it was a chalked message. The message went, The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing. The apron piece was found to have been cut from the dead woman’s apron. PC Long was certain that the writing and the piece of apron were not there at 2.20 am when he last checked the area.
 
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.

One thing the murder victims have in common is that they must have been robbed by the killer. The Ripper would have paid them up front and then killed them and taken the money back plus any other money that they may have had. It is hard to understand how a crazed killer, fearful of the nearby police, who had little time to steal still managed to have the presence of mind and the the time and the eyesight in the dark to take their money. It does show that money was important to him and he was not a wealthy man. Interestingly, no money was found at the murder scene of alleged Ripper victim, Martha Tabram either. [Tabram had a three inch gash and a one inch gash in her abdomen as if the killer had attempted to rip her.  She was killed on Wednesday 7 August and the previous day was a bank holiday which fits how the Ripper always killed when it was not a working day.  She was killed quietly like the Ripper victims - people slept only feet away.  Plus three women, Connolly, Cooper and Allen said they suspected a man who lived in the vicinity of Buck's Row.  That was where Polly Nichols was killed.  Tabram could have been the Ripper's first victim]. Also, the Ripper tidied up the clothing on the corpse of Mary Ann Nicholls after he must have searched her for money. That was why nobody realised she was abdominally mutilated until after she was taken from the scene. The killer of Stride was interrupted and yet he still seems to have made off with any money she may have had.
 
Was Stride a Ripper Victim?

The Ripper was on the prowl that night and a witness saw a man of Jewish appearance near Stride whose demeanor upset him and indicated that the man was dangerous.

Her throat was cut the same way as the other Ripper victims.  The knife was out of the ordinary like the Ripper's knife though it was not the same knife used later on Eddowes.

She was cut down to the bones in her neck as with the others.

She was laid down on her side yes but so was Catherine Eddowes just prior to mutilation.

She was kept quiet like the others were.

Stride didn't need to be knifed for all the killer had to do was pull her scarf tight to kill her and it was already very tight.  The Ripper was not going to change his throat cutting enterprises.

She was the kind of woman the Ripper wanted to kill.

She was killed after the pubs had shut.  All the victims were.

The killer was disturbed and did not mutilate.
 
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 have his red neckerchief and use it to stop the spurts in case he would dirty his clothes? The red would have come in useful if he didn't want blood to be seen on his person!
 
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.
 
Evidence that some of the Victims Knew their Killer
 
Detective Inspector Edmund Reid thought that only Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were slain by the Ripper. He worked hard to find the killer but decided “here are the only known facts. The whole of the murders were done after the public houses were closed; the victims were all of the same class, the lowest of the low, and living within half a mile from each other; all were killed in the same manner. That is all we know for certain – my opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public house, and of remaining there until closing time. He would leave with one of the women. One thing is to my mind quite certain, and that is that he lived in the district. I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone.”

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 – Dorset Street (page 189, Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates).   Another newspaper claimed that Catherine Eddowes had used a shed at 26 Dorset Street to sleep in (page 190, Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates).
 
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 could indicate that she hit herself against the fence. Why did she call out, “No!”? The Ripper worked here in broad daylight.
 
Despite the possibility 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.

The way to the backyard was through an occupied building past a staircase. It is terrifying to know that the Ripper and Annie passed out that way to the yard.  The Ripper had evidently been there before which explains why he was so confident but still it was a big risk.

Some specks of blood after the Chapman murder were seen in the passage from the street into the backyard of Number 29. The rather far-fetched explanation was that cases had been carried through it which had come into contact with the blood in the back yard. That was the explanation endorsed by the Manchester Guardian. The Evening News said the spots were thick. You would wonder who persuaded the police the blood did not come from the killer and why.  It seems that Chapman died shortly before 6 am when she was discovered by John Davies. It is hard to fathom how the killer went about in daylight with hands stained with blood when there was a tap in the year that he never went near. Dr Philips however was clear that there was no other blood and he said he checked carefully.

If there was blood then it probably came from the killer as he departed. The notion that Chapman was killed on the street and carried into the yard is too much.

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.  He described the man very well and was clear he could identify him and a newspaper felt that the man who got Annie Farmer drunk on 21 November 1888 and lay beside her resembled that man.  And Annie had woken upon finding he put a knife to her throat.  She fought him and ended up with a gash to her neck that was non-fatal.  Kelly probably lay beside her attacker too and woke to find a knife at her throat.

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.” I think the man really did say that for it is felt that Kelly let the man lie beside her on her bed.  If Hutchinson had been making it up he was likely to think the man would get his sexual release and just walk away. 

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. Kelly probably left her door on the latch when she lost her key. Abberline did declare that she had a spring bolt lock.  The murderer then only had to pull the door and he did not need a key.  The notion she put her arm in the window through the broken glass is unlikely.

Some however think that 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?

Why did the Ripper not move the table out of the way? The door hit the table when busted in.  Why did he put it there?  If he had to squeeze to get out of the door why did nobody find blood marks on the door and the jamb?  Did he kill Kelly and put clothing on that covered the stains?  Was that why he got out without staining anything?  Why no bloody footprints?

The Kelly murder is a mystery.

Finally

All the five Ripper killings create mysteries and puzzles.  That alone is enough to cause you to think that the women were killed by the one man.  The Ripper had five known victims.