He was sick in the head

Corwall's books are the biggest load of bunk I've ever read. Absolute nonsense. I wonder if she's ever even looked at the other strong suspects, as she claims that she previously had no knowledge of JTR before she even wrote her first book! Just another greedy author trying to cash in on this famous case, not to mention the pure arrogance of claiming to have 'solved' the case! A case that will never be solved. What an ego!

KBDollar Take the following story as you will.... Several years ago I was was seeing a bona fide trance channel at the time Cornwall's book came out. I said I felt I had been around that scene. the guides said it was not appropriate to go further with my experience at the time but that Cornwell was a victim of the Ripper and in this lifetime seeking justice by exposing him. Sickert was the culprit. That explains the obsession of her mission. Several months later I had a three part continuous nightmare. part 1was seeing a ghastly attack on a victim. I awoke hyperventilating and went out on my deck to recover. part 2 was a scene of a man in a top hat and cloak walking with a woman in the Victorian garb in the setting of the neighborhood of the Ripper events. As an observer I wanted to warn the woman to get away. the man's eye caught mine. Again I woke up in a terrified state. Part 3 Someone was coming at me with a shiv to murder me. I woke up just as that was happening and was out of my mine in terror. The next day I had a reading with my trance channel. As she was looking at the scene she started crying. Evidently in that life I had been a 12 year old pickpocket who had witnessed one of the murders and a subsequent victim to be. Because of that I was brutally murdered myself by a minion of the Ripper. I have the feeling that Cornwall was Cornwall in that lifetime. I don't claim this as proof. Just my experience, the intensity of which I never felt before.

I meant she was Kelly in that lifetime.

@@laurastokes4777 Interesting. Cheers.

@@laurastokes4777 you can't write evidently because you didn't provide any real evidence. There was no 12 year old pickpocket murdered by a Jack the ripper minion as he didn't even have any minions to murder for him. Also there is no life before our life. Even if there was, you weren't a 12 year old pickpocket who got murdered...

100% agree with Patricia on this no doubt,he wrote letters and sent to Scotland Yard its matches gusbon his stationary used.Look at his lifestyle he scoured music halls late at night, he painted women that looked dead with a necklace replacing a slit throat cmon now people let's get with it who put more of an effort into finding jack the Ripper ever,Patricia did end of story

As are the other Ripper victims if you've dared seen the photographs...

I'm the opposite. Can't stop looking at it trying to figure out which bit goes where.

Yes! That's the face of mysogyny!

@@janetlieb2507 ????? What-

@@janetlieb2507 the Victorian era wasn’t woke. No such thing as misogyny back then

yes, it is definitely possible that Sickert a mischievous practical joker (you can see it in his eyes) was most likely an atheist. his mother was highly religious and always preaching and harping about God and the sins of the flesh. Sickert secretly hated her and would have loved to have stabbed her to death but took out his anger on the selected victims. Sir Henry irving for whom he worked was a secret pagan and Dr. Robert Donston Stephenson was a Satanist. young Aleister Crowley was accused (by his mother) of being the Devil incarnate after having raped the housemaid and drunkenly pissed on her flowers. this was because of the bad influence of his uncle Jonathan Sparrow Crowley who "adopted" young Aleister in order to be closer to the small fortune he had inherited when his father died of tongue cancer. his father although a church minister was ironically the owner of a beer brewing company, but Aleister's father did not drink alcohol himself. his uncle Jonathan, however, was the black sheep of the family and taught evil little Aleister all the things that he wanted to learn. but when his uncle suddenly died in October 1888, Aleister was already under the spell of the evil Dr. Stephenson and his carriage driver Walter Sickert. yes, Sickert allowed himself to be talked into becoming a part-time carriage driver because he needed more excitement in his life. the evil Dr. Stephenson and his new demonic disciple Aleister would prove to be very exciting!! he would pretend to be as interested as they were in black magic and the occult. but when Dr. Stephenson's black magic spell backfired, and he became weaker and weaker and weaker, Aleister journeyed to Switzerland to do some mountain climbing, and Sickert decided to devote more time to painting. Stephenson supposedly moved away to a coastal town to retire and get fresh air. although he sometimes visited London from time to time for brief get togethers. he at some point disappeared mysteriously (just like his wife who had mysteriously disappeared without a clue), and no one knows when he died or where he might have been buried. it is possible that he may have drowned at sea while on a voyage during a storm.

she was pregnant when she was murdered and she was actually killed by a woman who was a midwife there's a whole bunch of information on it in fact it's believed that Jack the ripper was not even a man but a woman the same woman who killed Mary Kelly

How do you know

If I recall correctly: it was beleived that Walter Sickert was in France during the later stages of of the Jack the Ripper saga, certainly by the time of Mary Kelly's murder. Nonetheless Ms. Croenwell makes a compelling case against Sickert. Alternatively DNA evidence suggests that Aaron Kominski was Jack the Ripper; but like a finger print it doesn't necessarly prove someone commited a crime, it only proves they were at the scene, the DNA really only shows that he had contact with the victim at some point.

@@Aurochhunter correct he was, IN FRANCE it all point 👉 to j. BARNETT 🔪 💯 LEFT I HER CLOTHES ( CIRCUMSTANTIAL) AFTER BURNING 🔥 HIS OWN I THE FIRE ! MOST EVIDENCE IS O J BARNETT!

Also N ! The boys on buzzfeed pick J BARNETT 👍🔪 out of 10 suspects!!! On you tube just hit jtr buzzfeed

@@Aurochhunter Martin fido takes this apart !!!! And proves it was mix up with a Nathan kosminski !!! 💯👍🔪

I cant believe nobody had commented on that heart tattoo before. A simple zoom of the original photo, and it pops out clearly. In enhanced renditions, it's even more visible. I don't think it's a blood splatter. It's quite clearly a symmetrical heart.

Mary probably got that tattoo when a prostitute, late teens, Bute St., Tiger’s Bay, Cardiff docks, sailors, pubs, fights, tattoo parlours, opium dens

Me to

I have a feeling it was him. Lived slap bang in the middle of all the murders and was a meat cart driver. So he would’ve been prowling the streets early hours on his way to work. Wouldn’t have been unusual to see him with blood on him with him working in a abattoir

@@linnyt987 how do you feel about being possibly related to Jack the Ripper ?

@@linnyt987 in other words he’s your great great uncle. Yeah I’ve always been fascinated by the ripper since I was young.

@@C-U-IN-H3LL You think he was the only person in that entire area who lived or worked near the murders?

George Hutchinson is the name of that man. And I for one have always found him to be highly suspicious, given the amount of detail in his description of the man he saw. And seemingly 'inserting' himself into the investigation, being overly helpful. I wonder if he were JTR hiding in plain sight. Others, too, are now looking into Hutchinson as being another strong suspect.

Yes,I found him odd.He even goes into tiny detail,like,the type of gloves he had on and other things.You'd be like "What are you looking at".Stood there with his little pencil jotting things down, pmsl.Unless he had a photographic memory.I was convinced it was Charles Lechmere,after watching a documentary on him a few years back.Too many coincidences,one after the other.I still do think that he is the most likely suspect.I'm not sure why a touch of doubt creeped in.

George Hutchinson does seem suspicious. When he spoke to the police he was either lying or telling half lies, half truths or telling the truth. He was not seen at any of the other sites of the murders of people who saw men near the victims before they died. All the evidence against the Jack the Ripper suspects is all circumstantial.

Jean Blondini I have always believed he was obsessed with Mary then that night he snapped and killed her but I don’t think he had anything to do with the other murders.

But his description matches another eyewitness to the suspect

😳

I believe its merely what he had in mind for all his victims, he just was not able to go that far out in the open due to the constant threat of being caught in the act. He simply didn't have time. Most of the killings it seemed he was disturbed, he heard footsteps approach so had to flee , sometimes the blood was still seeping out the neck like it had only taken place within several minutes. Police passed by ever 15 minutes or less . It was he'll of a chance he was taking, virtually nobody on that area had private rooms they all shared rooms with several families all in the one place or doss houses with 10 beds to a room. It just so happened Kelly had a room to herself where he could do everything he wanted to do to any victim

I simply think that the ripper eventually grew tired of being interrupted , or worse, risking to be caught in the act. So eventually he decided to pick a victim with which he could take his time and have it his way. I also think police back then and we all now, didn't even get close to figuring out who Jack really was. I think whoever did all of this went COMPLETELY unoticed, unsuspected and completely got away with it.

I dont think the ripper killed Mary Kelly I think her boyfriend Joseph barnett did the degree of mutilation shows it was a crime of passion he attacked her face which disfigured her as she was known as very beautiful her body because she was a prostitute it was well known that he didn't like her hooking I think he just got on the band waggon knowing people would blame Jack and not look at him

So I just tried your theory that it would be a weird angle if she laid like that and he used his right hand. So me and my husband tried it out, and no it wouldn't be hard or a weird angle at all. It's even more optimale than if he was left handed.. So no problem here with the right hand.

@@wioi She was turned facing the wall and not as she was found. It's worth remembering it's not a good angel if you use that hand.

@@MrBeckenhimself she was found totally mutalated so I am certain that whoever killed her, moved her quite a bit as well. So you don't know how she got killed or in what position exactly she was. He cut her intestines out, cut her ties off to her bone. He spent quite a while with her and he certainly moved her head around as well. So for you to say he had to be left handed because he cut her neck and it would be a weird angle, sorry but that's just laughable. If someone had no idea about the case and would read your comment, they would think that just her throat got cut and nothing else. But that just wasn't the case

@@wioi She died from the cut to her throat. Sounds to me like SOMEONE doesn't know all that much about that murder. So before you use words as laughable and such first make sure you know what you talk about. They even said it in the report Kelly was facing AWAY from her killer when the throat got cut. Simple to understand. Now if you want to play a lame game of insults let's go. Otherwise next time try to write something you actually know and while you're at it leave the lame attempts of insults to yourself.

Yes but the bodies can tell forensic scientists lot of information

@not tryna argue but I know it's freaks me out

In what way?

I think Mary Kelly is the ripper

where do you base that claim?

By my family , my cousin

@@denysephenix2349 what does that mean? Your cousin claims he/she was related to a victim that we might not even know her real name.

He told me when we went to london , this november and said that he was told about this from a family member but could not reveal more for the time being. He paid my trip and said : '' Do you think , I would pay for your're trip if this wasnt true. '' I will try to find out more as time goes on. Elizabeth Weston Davies , was the mother of our maternal grand -mother . Our grand mother was adopted in Quebec and came from London , she was between 2 and 4 at the time.

@@denysephenix2349 First of all I dont think there is evidence proving she even had kids. How is it possible she has grandkids etc etc? Even if she didl, noone knows the truth. But I learned to never trust people who say they cant reveal more. Like why not? Jack the Ripper's great great grandson will come to finish the job? The case is pretty much dead by now. Unless someone takes Mary's body out of the burial site and does a dna test. I do not understand why people want to connect themselves to a horrific incident of the past. Mary's body was hacked and mangled beyond recognition and people try to act like its something to be proud of.

I think the fact it was indoors meant he had more time with the body. Each murder saw the level of mutilation increase.

I think this might be only a part of the answer. He had already mutilated the face of Catherine Eddowes, but Mary Kelly was completely disfigured. It is possible that he took some kind of interest in her...or that she refused his advances in some way (Mary Kelly was said to be an occasional prostitute), or mocked him and he 'snapped'. Who knows ? Many authors (like Patricia Cornwell with Walter Sickert) have bent the truth to suit their 'favorite' suspect but I'm glad to hear her say : "Well, let's put the killer aside this time and let's hear what the victim has to say"

Exactly what I though!!! It could of also been a way for him to up his killing or pleasure for killing.

no way, the serial killer just had more time to do what he really pleased with her

not personal. the killer made her look like a daemon. regular women were safe it appears. he only hated prostitutes. reason? maybe his own mother was one. it may look personal probably because in his mind he's killing his mother. the mutilation... he thinks they are hideous beings with no souls on the inside and so he tries to make them look like hideous beings on the outside. he isn't going to feel bad over what he has done because to him it's a moral crusade. the police probably didn't try nearly as hard enough to catch him as society at large back then had a very low opinion of prostitutes. they already know alot about the killer from crime scene photgraphs. the cutting open.. the inside is important. this is a statement. he's removing the fetus.

Yes, stupidly wrong! It was Aaron Kosminski, a polish jew.

@@tiffanylove6713 So some claim. The issue with that is they base it of his dna on the shawl. That alone would not have gotten him convicted in any court of law. How many other mens dna is on that shawl? I bet you there is a few. What does that tell us? Remember the victims were all unfortunates as they were labelled back then. They sold their bodies to men to survive. They did what they had to do as simple as that. All his dna on the shawl proves is that he came in contact with the victim at some point. Like other men did. We need much more than that to be able to make the claim it was Kosminski who did it, and honestly we don't have anything more.

No, it was Sickert

STEVEN1987 a metaphor

By "speak", she means to give information through the examination of remains. She is essentially asking that permission be granted for Kelly's remains to be exhumed and studied with modern technologies, and in so doing, the victim "speaks" to us by giving more information than what was possible to ascertain in 1888.

Well he existed ENOUGH for the victims 🤷🏼‍♀️

@@jourellebautista3914 damn right lol