jack the ripper
Five records more important than the Whitechapel letter
▲ Cover of the incident – Unfolding the records
A string of murders in London's East End in 1888 created the name 'Jack the Ripper'. However, the name, letter, and identity of the criminal are not proven facts to the same degree.
The undisputed center of the Jack the Ripper case is not the nameless criminal but the recorded victims and locations. There is still no name for the culprit, and a strong narrative cannot replace gaps in evidence.
Prologue: The night that broke records
When I laid out the case data on my desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer but an imbalance. Some scenes were overly clear, and some time periods were completely blank. People try to explain the entire incident by focusing on one clear scene, but I instead marked the blank section first. Mysteries can arise because there are many clues, but they can also arise because the distance between clues is too great.
Police and researchers usually group Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddos, and Mary Jane Kelly as the so-called "regular five" victims. This classification is also a historical arrangement based on similarities in crime patterns rather than the final determination of the investigative agency.
I did not view this incident as confirming an already known conclusion. The records were arranged chronologically, the movement paths of objects were drawn separately, and sightings and interpretations were indicated in different colors. The most popular explanations were then deliberately reviewed last. Because when you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues seem to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ On-site reconstruction — last confirmed movement route
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| number | confirmed record | current reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crimes were concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields areas in 1888. | high |
| 2 | The name ‘Jack the Ripper’ was popularized in letters sent to the media and police, but not all letters were confirmed to have been written by the criminal. | high |
| 3 | This was an investigation before modern forensics, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited. | middle |
| 4 | Numerous suspects have been suggested, but no one has been officially convicted. | middle |
The extent of the damage, the authenticity of the letter, whether the criminal knew the area well, and the reason for stopping the crime have all not been confirmed. Suspect theories presented after the fact differ in their reading of gaps in contemporary records.
The sentence ‘It is not explained’ is not the same as the sentence ‘It is supernatural’ or ‘Someone intended it’. I didn't use the blank space as evidence.
▲ Timeline – Flow before and after the event
Reconstructing the Scene: Finally, a Certain Point
I changed the location where the incident took place to the actual route rather than the stage in my head. We divided the starting point, final confirmation point, and discovery location and calculated the time needed in between. In the process, several later dramatic depictions were omitted. Instead, the recorded sounds, weather, means of transportation, and locations of objects came to the fore. The novelistic atmosphere arose from the very texture of the facts. There was no need to add unidentified secret passageways or nameless accomplices.
When reconstructing the last scene, I did not determine the character's feelings. The same behavior can be caused by fear, planning, mistake, or fatigue. So, I wrote down the actions first and left the emotions to the extent possible. Thanks to this principle, events became less flashy but more concrete.
Clue 1. The crime was concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields areas in 1888.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was differentiated from who observed it and when, and whether it was written down on the spot or added from memory later. The older the clues to an unsolved case, the more seamless the story becomes. However, what is needed in an investigation is not smoothness but provenance. The moment I discerned whether this clue was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation, the outline of the incident changed.
If we leave out this clue, a one-way conclusion seems very plausible. But I immediately tackled the next record: “The name ‘Jack the Ripper’ was popularized in letters sent to the press and police, but not all letters were confirmed to have been written by the criminal.” If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still just a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question “If all letters are excluded, what is the strongest clue in the case?” will ignore the remaining records instead of explaining one clue.
So I created three spaces in my case notes. The first is a confirmed fact, the second is an inference that goes one step further from the facts, and the third is a possibility that cannot be selected without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of parts that are close to the first space and parts that stay in the second space. I didn't erase that boundary. Leaving boundaries is the only way to modify your reasoning later when new records emerge.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. The name ‘Jack the Ripper’ was popularized in letters sent to the press and police, but not all of the letters were confirmed to have been written by the criminal.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was differentiated from who observed it and when, and whether it was written down on the spot or added from memory later. The older the clues to an unsolved case, the more seamless the story becomes. However, what is needed in an investigation is not smoothness but provenance. The moment I discerned whether this clue was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation, the outline of the incident changed.
If we leave out this clue, a one-way conclusion seems very plausible. But I immediately tried to confront the following account: “This was an investigation before modern forensics, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited.” If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still just a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question “How strongly do the area and time of the crime indicate a local resident?” will ignore the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I created three spaces in my case notes. The first is a confirmed fact, the second is an inference that goes one step further from the facts, and the third is a possibility that cannot be selected without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of parts that are close to the first space and parts that stay in the second space. I didn't erase that boundary. Leaving boundaries is the only way to modify your reasoning later when new records emerge.
▲ Key Clue 2 — Pieces that do not fit together
Clue 3. It was an investigation before modern forensic science, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was differentiated from who observed it and when, and whether it was written down on the spot or added from memory later. The older the clues to an unsolved case, the more seamless the story becomes. However, what is needed in an investigation is not smoothness but provenance. The moment I discerned whether this clue was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation, the outline of the incident changed.
If we leave out this clue, a one-way conclusion seems very plausible. But I immediately tackled the next record: “Numerous suspects suggested, but no one officially convicted.” If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still just a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question, “Are the criteria for tying the five cases to one criminal sufficiently consistent?” will ignore the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I created three spaces in my case notes. The first is a confirmed fact, the second is an inference that goes one step further from the facts, and the third is a possibility that cannot be selected without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of parts that are close to the first space and parts that stay in the second space. I didn't erase that boundary. Leaving boundaries is the only way to modify your reasoning later when new records emerge.
▲ Key Clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. Numerous suspects have been proposed, but no one has been officially convicted.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was differentiated from who observed it and when, and whether it was written down on the spot or added from memory later. The older the clues to an unsolved case, the more seamless the story becomes. However, what is needed in an investigation is not smoothness but provenance. The moment I discerned whether this clue was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation, the outline of the incident changed.
If we leave out this clue, a one-way conclusion seems very plausible. But I immediately tried the next record: “Crime was concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area in 1888.” If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still just a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question “If all letters are excluded, what is the strongest clue in the case?” will ignore the remaining records instead of explaining one clue.
So I created three spaces in my case notes. The first is a confirmed fact, the second is an inference that goes one step further from the facts, and the third is a possibility that cannot be selected without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of parts that are close to the first space and parts that stay in the second space. I didn't erase that boundary. Leaving boundaries is the only way to modify your reasoning later when new records emerge.
put three hypotheses on the same scale
Hypotheses were not evaluated in fancy sentences. We wrote down the number of explanatory clues, the number of new assumptions required, and the degree to which they can withstand contrary evidence. Even if one clue is completely explained, if the remaining three clues have to be discarded, it is not a good hypothesis.
Hypothesis A. Explanation that a single serial killer committed the key incident
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the proviso that “the crime was concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area in 1888” with relatively few assumptions. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-traced the event from beginning to end. Each sentence linked where and what the character saw, what judgment he made, and then moved to the next location. There was always a hidden assumption at the point where the connection was lost.
The biggest weakness is that it does not sufficiently explain “the investigation was conducted before modern forensics, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited.” If you keep adding exceptions to your hypothesis, you can explain anything, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment there were more than two exceptions. Conversely, scores were increased only when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be taken as a conclusion either. If you read the incident like a novel, the blank spaces will be filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blank spaces remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blank space left is inconvenient, that inconvenience protects the scope of what the evidence can say.
Hypothesis B. Explanation that different criminals committed crimes in similar circumstances
The beauty of this explanation is that it makes relatively few assumptions: “The name ‘Jack the Ripper’ was popularized in letters sent to the press and police, but not all of the letters were confirmed to have been written by the criminal.” I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-traced the event from beginning to end. Each sentence linked where and what the character saw, what judgment he made, and then moved to the next location. There was always a hidden assumption at the point where the connection was lost.
The biggest weakness is that it does not sufficiently explain that “although numerous suspects have been proposed, no one has been officially confirmed guilty.” If you keep adding exceptions to your hypothesis, you can explain anything, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment there were more than two exceptions. Conversely, scores were increased only when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be taken as a conclusion either. If you read the incident like a novel, the blank spaces will be filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blank spaces remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blank space left is inconvenient, that inconvenience protects the scope of what the evidence can say.
Hypothesis C. An explanation that a real crime, the press, and imitation letters combined to form a legend.
The advantage of this explanation is that it makes relatively few assumptions: “This was an investigation before modern forensics, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited.” I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-traced the event from beginning to end. Each sentence linked where and what the character saw, what judgment he made, and then moved to the next location. There was always a hidden assumption at the point where the connection was lost.
The biggest weakness is that it does not sufficiently explain that “crimes were concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area in 1888.” If you keep adding exceptions to your hypothesis, you can explain anything, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment there were more than two exceptions. Conversely, scores were increased only when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be taken as a conclusion either. If you read the incident like a novel, the blank spaces will be filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blank spaces remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blank space left is inconvenient, that inconvenience protects the scope of what the evidence can say.
▲ Comparison of hypotheses – explanatory power and gaps
Conclusions I threw away
When I began my investigation, I too was drawn to the most popular explanation. It summed up events in one sentence and gave intention to every object. But when the data was collated, the explanation required a new coincidence for every blank space. I erased that conclusion and started again. Good reasoning is less about adding things and more about removing unnecessary assumptions.
Pointing out a specific person today requires an independent connection between documents and physical evidence from the time. Later handwriting comparisons or ancestral DNA claims cannot be conclusive evidence unless the source of the sample and possible contamination are confirmed.
In particular, details repeated in later testimonies and on the Internet were separated from the original records. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean there are multiple independent sources. First, we checked the possibility that a single incorrect sentence was duplicated. After going through this process, the size of the case decreased, but the weight of the remaining clues actually increased.
▲ Counterevidence check — the conclusion I discarded
Final Reason: What I arrived at
The undisputed center of the Jack the Ripper case is not the nameless criminal but the recorded victims and locations. There is still no name for the culprit, and a strong narrative cannot replace gaps in evidence.
This conclusion is not a completely definitive ruling. This is a direction that requires the fewest assumptions and simultaneously explains the most clues within the currently available records. It may be revised as new physical evidence emerges. However, it is also clear that the conclusion may change depending on what comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable forensic data, and independent evidence directly linking objects and people are needed.
I do not write that the case is closed. Instead, write down how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of mystery is not that anything is possible. The goal is to find out which of the possible explanations can be discarded.
▲ Final judgment – explanation that requires the fewest assumptions
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the timeline
At dawn, I opened the case sheet again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, leaving only the record, “The crimes were concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area in 1888.” Even events you thought you already knew reveal a completely different picture if you erase the conclusion. I lined up the locations and times and wrote down the minimum travel time. The gaps between records were not filled by imagination but were marked with empty squares. As the square grew, the reliability of the hypothesis explaining that section decreased.
Above that, I put the hypothesis, “An explanation that a single serial killer committed the key incident.” At first everything seemed to fall into place. However, when asked the question, “If all letters are excluded, what is the strongest clue in the case?” a weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must withstand questioning. If you keep bringing in new characters or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation rather than reasoning. I used my creative sense only for the mood of the sentence and did not place it in the place of facts.
The results I got from this section are neither a definitive name for the culprit nor a complete decipherment. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and which ones flipped when new discoveries were made. Even if the case cannot be closed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave behind that narrowed boundary.
Additional investigation record 2. The missing link
At dawn, I opened the case sheet again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, leaving only the record, “The name ‘Jack the Ripper’ was popularized in letters sent to the press and police, but not all of the letters were confirmed to have been written by the criminal.” Even events you thought you already knew reveal a completely different picture if you erase the conclusion. I lined up the locations and times and wrote down the minimum travel time. The gaps between records were not filled by imagination but were marked with empty squares. As the square grew, the reliability of the hypothesis explaining that section decreased.
Above that, I put the hypothesis “an explanation that different criminals committed the crime in similar circumstances.” At first everything seemed to fall into place. However, when asked the question, “How strongly do the area and time of the crime indicate local residents?” a weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must withstand questioning. If you keep bringing in new characters or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation rather than reasoning. I used my creative sense only for the mood of the sentence and did not place it in the place of facts.
The results I got from this section are neither a definitive name for the culprit nor a complete decipherment. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and which ones flipped when new discoveries were made. Even if the case cannot be closed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave behind that narrowed boundary.
Additional investigation records 3. Witness distance
At dawn, I opened the case sheet again. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only recorded, “This was an investigation before modern forensic science, and tools such as field preservation, fingerprints, and DNA were limited.” Even events you thought you already knew reveal a completely different picture if you erase the conclusion. I lined up the locations and times and wrote down the minimum travel time. The gaps between records were not filled by imagination but were marked with empty squares. As the square grew, the reliability of the hypothesis explaining that section decreased.
Above that, I put up a hypothesis that said, “The explanation is that the real crime, the media, and imitation letters combined to form a legend.” At first everything seemed to fall into place. However, when we asked the question, “Are the criteria for tying the five cases to one culprit sufficiently consistent?” a weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must withstand questioning. If you keep bringing in new characters or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation rather than reasoning. I used my creative sense only for the mood of the sentence and did not place it in the place of facts.
The results I got from this section are neither a definitive name for the culprit nor a complete decipherment. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and which ones flipped when new discoveries were made. Even if the case cannot be closed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave behind that narrowed boundary.
Additional investigation record 4. The path the object took
At dawn, I opened the case sheet again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, leaving only the record, “Numerous suspects have been presented, but no one has been officially confirmed guilty.” Even events you thought you already knew reveal a completely different picture if you erase the conclusion. I lined up the locations and times and wrote down the minimum travel time. The gaps between records were not filled by imagination but were marked with empty squares. As the square grew, the reliability of the hypothesis explaining that section decreased.
Above that, I put the hypothesis, “An explanation that a single serial killer committed the key incident.” At first everything seemed to fall into place. However, when asked the question, “If all letters are excluded, what is the strongest clue in the case?” a weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must withstand questioning. If you keep bringing in new characters or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation rather than reasoning. I used my creative sense only for the mood of the sentence and did not place it in the place of facts.
The results I got from this section are neither a definitive name for the culprit nor a complete decipherment. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and which ones flipped when new discoveries were made. Even if the case cannot be closed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave behind that narrowed boundary.
Additional investigation records 5. Temptation of false clues
At dawn, I opened the case sheet again. This time, the conclusion was obscured, leaving only the record, “The crimes were concentrated in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields area in 1888.” Even events you thought you already knew reveal a completely different picture if you erase the conclusion. I lined up the locations and times and wrote down the minimum travel time. The gaps between records were not filled by imagination but were marked with empty squares. As the square grew, the reliability of the hypothesis explaining that section decreased.
Above that, I put the hypothesis “an explanation that different criminals committed the crime in similar circumstances.” At first everything seemed to fall into place. However, when asked the question, “How strongly do the area and time of the crime indicate local residents?” a weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must withstand questioning. If you keep bringing in new characters or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation rather than reasoning. I used my creative sense only for the mood of the sentence and did not place it in the place of facts.
The results I got from this section are neither a definitive name for the culprit nor a complete decipherment. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and which ones flipped when new discoveries were made. Even if the case cannot be closed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave behind that narrowed boundary.
▲ End of investigation record — Questions still remaining
· Metropolitan Police History Chronology
· The National Archives — Jack the Ripper
※ This article is a commentary in the form of a personal investigation record based on public records and reliable data. We distinguish between facts and inferences, and we update our judgments when new official announcements are made.