Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Religion Motivated Jack the Ripper to Kill

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?

Preface

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.

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.

No Ripper candidate shows signs of religious extremism. The only thing we have is Kosminski worrying about breaking the Jewish sabbath. It is something to go on.

Why was no money found on the victims who certainly would have got paid in advance? However it is felt that 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?

Some surmise that murders however were not about money. The effort the Ripper went and the risk he put himself in by taking time to take any money from them speaks of somebody who did not want others to think he went with prostitutes. The murders gave a message: not about money, not about sex, nothing personal - I just have to be God's instrument against prostitutes.

But simple robbery is a more sensible idea. The victims had other clients so did he take their money? It would be strange to take such immoral earnings away with him if he was that virtuous!

It is thought the killer got the women to empty their pockets before he slew them. That would explain why no blood was found on the objects lying around or found inside the pockets.  The idea that he held them at knifepoint and robbed them is improbable.  It was easy to attack when they were trying to poke around in their own pockets when being threatened with a knife.

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. Lipski by the way had been a Polish Jew. So a Polish Jew could be called a Polish Jew in insult. There was a Polish Jew there!

The Ripper should have been caught so the Ripper had to have been protected by his family and people. Jews were against handing their own up to Gentile justice.

The best suspects are Jews. Especially Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen.

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. It is said that 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. That is nonsense for he knew the danger of being caught.

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. It is not known if Kosminski had syphilis but it is clear that people at the time surmised that he did.

The Ripper 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.

The killer 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. The Ripper would certainly have felt anger against prostitutes if sex with them had given 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.

Ripper victims 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.

This is best seen as pure religious misogyny. Religion always hated the womb and his Jewish faith told him childbirth and sex were dirty.

Bible sacrifice regulations would poison a diseased mind

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.

Kosminski used the name Abrahams. His family did. Abraham meant a lot to them for they only used that name to fit in in England and because it was easier to spell.

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 allegedly made a cross on the map. If so then the religious symbolism indicates that the killing of these women was as human sacrifices.

The priestly tribe of Israel 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.

The Ripper would have blamed prostitutes for giving men syphilis and perhaps even to him. 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 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. I don't know, 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?

It has been pointed out that 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. If so the Ripper was using a map.

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.

Hutchinson

Mary Kelly and a Jewish looking stranger with a parcel 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. However 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).

The Ripper piled on the fire. For light? Maybe. There was traces of women's clothing found in the ashes. Nothing else. Kelly was keeping a woman's clothes for her and these were burnt. Kelly's own clothes were untouched.

We cannot think he burned his own clothes for they would have smouldered.

It is believed he took his clothes off to prevent them getting messed and put them back on again when he was ready to go and that is why he would not have looked dirty when leaving.

The Ripper had excellent eyesight which is why he could work in poor 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 fire was started at night for nobody spoke of a great smoke coming out of the building in daylight. 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 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?

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.

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.

Conclusion

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