The first five books of the Bible were and are promoted by the Jewish and Christian faiths.  Bibles are even given to children despite the sick content.

Abraham famously in the Book of Genesis was praised by God for being willing to kill his son in a gruesome sacrifice and burn the body as a holocaust. 

Plausible Ripper suspect 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.

This man's Bible, and most suspects had one, is inspiring to a mind that wants to strangle and kill vulnerable women.

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.


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). There were 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.

The Ripper piled on the fire.

Why?  To get rid of evidence?  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.

For light?  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?

Heat is a possibility as it was a cold night.  This would suggest a nude ripper or a man who had bad life circumstances and was often cold.  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?

Consider this argument

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.

I'd dismiss this idea, "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."

It is certain that the Central News was right to put out that "In view of certain statements to the effect that portions of the body of the Miller-court victim were taken away by the murderer, we think it necessary to re-affirm that at the post-mortem examination every organ was fully accounted for and re-placed, as far as possible, in its natural position.  We are further enabled to add upon authority that the uterus had been cut out by the murderer, but that it was found lying in a corner of the bed, the murderer having apparently no desire to take it away, or having forgotten, in his final hurry, to do so."


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

No killer is ever responsible as an individual.  Something around him, in his environment helps make him what he is.

No Copyright