A new book from a British author says Jack was really Lizzie Williams, wife of putative suspect Sir John Williams. Hell, it’s no zanier than the tens of thousands of other suspects: Jack the Ripper suspects - Wikipedia
Me? I think it was Gilbert *and *Sullivan.
Nah, it was a time-traveling true-crime author, setting up the biggest cash cow her profession would ever see.
Feh! I’m waiting for the experts at http://www.casebook.org to cut her case apart like they did to her husband’s.
Warning! That website is like TV Tropes or Cracked for serial killer, um, enthusiasts.
I love that. “John Williams owned a *knife! *A sharp, pointy knife! Therefore he *must *have been Jack the Ripper!”
I saw a similar theory years ago: It was a midwife. A midwife would be able to walk around at night covered in blood and not be suspicious. (I don’t remember enough of the details to do it justice.)
I did look for this book, but it costs 25 US on Amazon and I’m not that interested.
There is nothing like a dame…
StG
Nothing could possibly be worse than Patricia Cornwell’s book on the subject. I found this tome on a bus, took it home and read it. I was overcharged.
If you take the “might maybes” out of this work, it would be a twelve page pamphlet.
Please, this was solved ages ago.
I am planning to write a book about how Marilyn Monroe killed the Black Dahlia.
It always bugs me. <i>Most</i> arrested serial killers aren’t famous, until they’re outed for being serial killers. So the most likely explanation for the JtR murders is… it’s someone who wasn’t famous. Come on people, stop writing books guessing that so-and-so did it! 
That sounds like something one might say to throw off suspicion. Where were you on the night of September 30, 1888?
Uh
Def. “Hey, guys, can we talk about something…else? Uh, nobody’s interested in this deal that everybody’s talking about.” There’s blood on this one’s hands!
Let’s just look in a little detail about how this new book came about.
First Tony Williams wrote a book called Uncle Jack in which he claims his ancestor, a Victorian doctor who was never before associated with the Jack the Ripper murders in any way, was the killer. His arguments? A lot of really bad ones, but the one people found most compelling was the note from the doctor’s log book with a name similar to the person who is generally assumed to be the first Ripper victim showing that he performed an abortion on her. This is suspicious because of… well, some crazy bit of logic that isn’t important, because:
*The “abortions” listed there were most likely miscarriages and not abortions as we now know the term.
*The name as shown could have been lots of other people other than the Ripper victim.
*That line in the notebook has been proven to be fake.
Yes, it’s totally fake. It was written in the original notebook in the national library with different handwriting and ink, and clearly more recently than the rest of the writing. It was a totally botched and obvious forgery, so much so that when it went to print in the first edition of the book they doctored it further (in the published book, the original notebook looks different) so the handwriting looked more closely like the original handwriting. Either that or they first doctored it for the book and, when they realized someone would go check the original, they scribbled something down fast on it, hoping that people would only ask the curator what the wording of it was and not compare what it looked like to what was printed in Uncle Jack.
Now this new guy comes along, reads the Uncle Jack book and probably no others on the case (except maybe some of the other wacky conspiracy theory ones), decides it was absolutely great but that he could make it even better. Instead of the killer supposedly being a well respected doctor allegedly having an affair and making bizarre medical experiments on hapless prostitutes in the middle of the street at night, now it’s supposed to be his jealous wife just being all “hell hath no fury” with a knife all over the damn place in the darkened back alleys of the largest slum in the world.
If you picked the top five worst theories about who the Ripper was, the author of this new book just smashed two of them together haphazardly and declared himself the man who finally identified Jack the Ripper. Normally he’d just be a harmless eccentric, but he somehow got a bunch of journalists to pay attention to him as if he knew what he was talking about. But then that’s how it usually goes. If someone in the general public has heard anything about Jack the Ripper it’s almost invariably from a book none of the experts take seriously.
I wonder if there will be a rock musical based on this.
There’s no Ripper like a dame,
No slasher in the world,
There’s no Ripper you can name
That is anythin’ like a dame!
It’s my understanding that there is one in the works.
“You’re a naught one…Saucy Jack”.
Something like that.
I think all the women committed suicide by carefully disecting themselves and removing their organs. It may seem unlikely, but they lived pretty dismal lives, so maybe they just wanted a break from the monotony.
I live in Lovely London, Ontario. Sometimes foggy, includes a river Thames, and no shortage of Victorian homes. Also, as it happens, home to North America’s oldest, still in use, baseball park. Through the years it has been home to various farm teams, etc. They move on, and someone else turns up, with a Team, and strikes a deal with the city. It’s all good, right?
Bet you wonder what this all has to do with the OP and topic at hand. Well, it seems the latest team to show up and strike a deal with the city, launched a new team, I’m unsure what league, at any rate, and here’s the controversy, the name of the team is ‘The Rippers’. Complete with a fiendish fellows snarling face.
Huge controversy. Violence against women opponents all up in arms. I thought it was sure to die down, but it continues to rage. Now there is talk of the city not renewing their contract for the park unless they change the logo, it reflects badly on the city, yada, yada, yada.
Really? It was decades ago, and, um, not in this London. I’m not seeing it myself.
I heard that it was Obama.
I read a book once where it was said to be the doctor of Edward the VII (at the time Prince of Wales). It started out that the Prince frequented low dives, so he could have visited a place where one of the victims was.
A few chapters later it had become almost certain that the Prince was the father of the baby she was carrying. In between there had been nothing said to connect them. Talk about a leap of faith.