2006-09-23 22:19:34 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
It's suspected he was a doctor. He had ties to important people. I saw a special documentary about it a few years ago, they made some pretty good points as to who he would be, but i can't remember.
2006-09-23 22:24:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
His identity has now been proved. The ripper was certainly not the poor old Duke of Clarence or any other member of royal family (the Prince of Wales was never a suspect!).
The Ripper was an artist called Walter Richard Sickert. He was widely respected for his art (I believe the Queen Mother had one of his paintings at Clarence House) and therefore he was never a suspect at the time. Yet the clues were all there: artist's paper, and watermarked paper both used for letters to the police was the same as he used at home; the pictures (mostly caricatures) sent to the police were the same style as his artwork; he even taunted the police by signing some of his notes 'WRS' or 'RS' (he sometimes used his middle name).
His art was very dark; he painted violent pictures - even one he called 'Jack the Ripper's bedroom' (the picture was of the room he was using at the time of the murders!). Some of his paintings of women have the faces of prostitutes he murdered.
Postage stamps and licked envelopes he sent to the police has been tested for DNA, but direct DNA was too degraded to be of any use. However, mitochondrial DNA (passed through the mother) linked him to the murders via a letter to someone sent by his wife, and presumably licked and stuck down by him.
It's a bit late in the day but I believe there's enough evidence out there to try and convict him, officially bringing to an end all the speculation and myth about the identity of Jack the Ripper.
I've just read a book about Sickert's life, and it's completely fascinating. Hope all this helps!
2006-09-24 05:44:50 · answer #2 · answered by Songbird 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There's no irrefutible proof against anyone, but here's a short list of highly plausible suspects.
James Kelly
Montague Druitt
George Hutchinson
Joe Barnett
There is no proof that he was a Royal. He definately was not Prince Albert Victor. And there is no evidence at all that it was Walter Sickert (Cornwell's book is a joke)
2006-09-24 07:01:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most probably a person of education (probably in the field of science or medicine), status, and influence hence was never caught, prosecuted. But with a deep psychological disturbance. Also tends to look at lower class as worthless thus he/she thinks prostitutes can be killed for his learning and no one would miss them.
Or probably a practioner of the dark arts thus he needs human sacrifices and human organs.
2006-09-24 05:31:47 · answer #4 · answered by eternalvoid 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Duke of Clarence.
2006-09-24 05:27:59 · answer #5 · answered by david p 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think it was actually several different people. the first person killed a prostitute, they advertised it, then there were copy cats. we dont actually know who (s)he was because there was no csi back then to make a show about it...
2006-09-24 05:29:30 · answer #6 · answered by Sarifynna 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prince of Wales!
2006-09-24 05:26:30 · answer #7 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was a serial killer who lived in England.
2006-09-24 05:28:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A mental issue murderer. Now is to late to find his identity
2006-09-24 05:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think he was royalty but still he was a cold blooded murderer and i was so scared of all the movies of him years ago
2006-09-24 05:26:17 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋