I am not a “Ripperologists,” but I have read 4 books on the Ripper. The case and the Ripper investigation and the Ripper facinates me. Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper--Case Closed[/I], by Patricia Cornwell, a Forensic Science and Medical chairman, is considered a laughable book by real Jack the Ripper scholars. She claims she solved the case. Cornwell, an excellent author, should stick to fiction.]

Jack the Ripper is consistently rated as the most “famous” or “infamous” serial killer of all time. Why? Well, he was never apprehended, he killed 5 people, and he butchered his victims.

Yet others were never apprehended, killed more, and their butchery was even more brutal than that of Jack the Ripper (The Axeman of New Orleans name speaks for his butchery). To only name 3, and there are others:

The Zodiac (California, 1960s through the 1970s), The Axeman of New Orleans (shortly after World War I), and The Capital City Murderer (Wisconsin between 1968 and 1984)

[B]QUESTION: Why is Jack the Ripper considered the most “famous” or “infamous” serial killer of all time?

It was speculated he was a doctor or surgeon.

He was one of the first ??

I appreciate that his murders launched the entire tabloid journalism industry. You can thank Saucy Jack for the National Enquirer and Rupert Murdock. For Murdock alone, Jack has forever earned his reigning position in the serial killer hall of fame. I hope the devil is fisting him daily for that little sin.

QUESTION: Why is Jack the Ripper considered the most “famous” or “infamous” serial killer of all time?

Because his identity is still speculative, and people love a mystery.

He was one of the first ??

Doubtful...as long as there's been people, I imagine serial killers have walked among us. I can't see it being a modern phenomena.

Disappearances and deaths are harder to explain now, you can't just bury people in the back quarter and tell the neighbors that Joe fell down the well, took a horse hoof to the head or succumbed to the plague. Few serial killers with half a brain would have gotten caught back when.

He was not the first and others (I listed 3 of them) have never been caught, and most likely, he killed less than the 3 I listed.

I don't know why he tops those lists I referred to, but year after year he tops the lists.

Why does he fascinate me?

There are several factors that fascinates me about him: He was never identified. Actually, he may have killed more than the 5 women most conservative researches list. He sent 3 letters that Scotland Yard believed were from him—like today, they received hundreds of prank letters and false leads, of course—and 1 of these letters was sent the day before he killed 2 women in one night, and the letter mentioned that the next time it would be a “double event.” Maybe, to sum, it is just a mystery in so many ways and areas that I fail to be able to articulate (by word or by my fingers on this computer) that makes it fascinating to me. I think the letter referring to the "double event" that was received and then had happened during the night make his case somehow more fascinating to me, but again, there are many factors, etc.

Yes, the letters are quite fascinating, especially the 1 I referred to.

In contrast, I have not completed the book about Ed Gein (Deviant) because reading the book is unsettling to me. I plan to finish it, and I hope I do.

http://www.amazon.com/Deviant-Shocking-Story-Original-Psycho/dp/0671025465/ref=pd_sim_b_1_img/104-0913216-9605537?ie=UTF8&qid=1185691111&sr=1-1

I appreciate that his murders launched the entire tabloid journalism industry.

You’re right, and I had not thought of it like that. I believe I read where newspapers being sold in London almost doubled during Saucy Jack’s murders.

In America, it is hard to imagine anyone more bizarre and terrifying than Albert Fish. After a long career working with the criminally insane, the psychiatrist who interviewed Albert Fish before Fish's trial said (or wrote),

“I regard Albert Fish as the most wildly deranged human being I ever encountered.”

Incredibly, the jury found him sane and sentenced him to death, although 1 juror later explained that even though he was insane, he should still be executed. He was, too, at the age of 65 in 1936.

It was speculated he was a doctor or surgeon.
I heard somewhere that he was a member of the royal family.

I heard somewhere that he was a member of the royal family.

Prince Albert is sometimes mentioned as a suspect by “conspiracists.”

It was speculated he was a doctor or surgeon.

I have read that, too.

Astonishingly, Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, has been cited as a possible suspect.

“Conspiracists” often state that he was a Freemason, but most scholars believe this to be nonsense at worst or jumping to the wrong conclusion at best.

There is a virtual parade of suspects often cited, but unless new evidence surfaces, we will never know who he really was.

Several serial killers have never been identified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_serial_killers

Bear in mind "serial killer" as a concept was unknown in 1888. The closely linked killings in Victorian London did indeed create a feeding frenzy in the tabloids of the day, with special editions and much editorial comment. The Police were pilloried as incompetent and the killing fields of East London were revealed to the horrified middle classes as sinks of crime and degradation with drunkeness, petty crime and prostitution rampant.

The doctor/lawyer theory was based largely on witness sightings of a "professional gentleman" seen talking to one of the prostitute victims - such a figure attracted notice in the sleazy environment.
Another potential suspect was a Jewish slaughterman, this seems based mainly on good, old fashioned antisemitism and the fact that a slaughterman's leather apron had been found close to one killing (but in fact had only animal blood on it).
The Police Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren stated only in his memoirs that although the Ripper was not apprehended, he (Warren) was sure that the Ripper committed suicide shortly after the last murder.
This led later researchers to comb death records for likely candidates, amongst whom was Montague Druitt, a sickly young lawyer who certainly had access to the area, but seems otherwise not very likely.
The "Royal" sometimes mentioned was Queen Victoria's son, Prince Albert Victor, The Duke of Clarence but his movements recorded in the Court Circular eliminate him.

The simple truth is that the forensics, such as they were were poorly collected and recorded and in some instances (the chalk writing mentioning "Juwes" for instance) deliberately destroyed.
At the same time the police were being pilloried for their helplessness and bowing to public pressure wasted man hours on chasing spurious leads and rumours.

zipper99 you have a lot of knowledge about the Ripper and the setting in Whitechapel and I am glad you shared it. You make some key points in your post, especially concerning forensics. I tend to look at something in history and apply our methods to it, and that is a logistical fallacy, and I believe others do what I do on occasion.

The various newspapers, as zipper refers to, were akin to our tabloids, and they further sensationalized the case and certainly did not help the situation. Yes, the same thing happens in America in 2007.

The novel Bleak House, by Charles Dickens, gives a decent description of the simply horrible economic situation and the high crime rate in east London during the late-19th century, and there were not enough policeman--literally--to stop the criminal activity.

I believe the police and the other authorities were not treated fairly by the press because they tried hard to solve the case. Scotland Yard assigned Inspector Abberline to the case, and Abberline had been an officer in Whitechapel for a number of years before going to Scotland Yard, so he knew the area and was the right man to lead the investigation.

They did have jurisdictional problems with the various police organizations concerning communication that may have hampered the investigation, but it really cannot be definitively claimed that it actually did hamper the investigation. Of course, we have the same problem in America in the year 2007.

Maybe the Ripper fascinates me for the following reasons (and more reasons that I cannot think of right now):

#1, Even with Inspector Abberline joining in the investigation, the Ripper was never caught.

#2, One (or perhaps 2) people believed that they saw him, and I believe they he was described as "mysterious."

#3, The viciousness of his murders increased with each victim. His last victim was butchered to such a degree that some of the policeman became physically ill what they saw here mutilated corpse, and her heart was never found (the Ripper took it).

#4, Then, he (evidently) stopped abruptly. Why? We will never be certain.

The dynamics of so many aspects of the case make the Ripper fascinating to me.

If I could go back in time that is one period and place in history I would go to, but I wouldn’t want to get too close to Saucy Jack.

I see that the "Ripper Diaries" published a few years ago, subsequently declared a forgery are now having a revival.
New "research" is suggesting that perhaps James Maybrick the alleged author and therefore Ripper was involved in some way.
I'm dubious since most of the evidence is a question of re-interpreting certain reports of Maybrick ACTUAL murder trial and his live in general, pretty weak really.
Sir William Gull, the royal physician, often fingered is a non starter. At the time of the murders he was an elderly, sickly man so debilitated he could scarcely walk, let alone grapple with a young woman.
Because one of the women was found near an anarchist's club (an oxymoron surely?) a Russian anarchist arrested for sexual attacks was in the frame for a while, but the police could not offer any coroborative evidence.
There is little doubt that pressure from both The Queen and at the other extreme the many "Citizen's Committees" (basically lynch mobs) caused Warren to pressurise Abberline for a result - which he singularly failed to get.

I see that the "Ripper Diaries" published a few years ago, subsequently declared a forgery are now having a revival.

I presumed that the Ripper Diaries had been so discredited that news of a “revival” concerning them is interesting. Yet the serious researchers that have studied this case never “close the door” on either new evidence surfacing that might be valid and they also never say Case Closed as Patricia Cornwell wrote in her book, or on "old" evidence being proven to be legit. They keep an open mind.

If I recall—and I might not recall correctly—Warren had tendered his resignation shortly before Mary Jane Kelly, presumed the Ripper’s last victim by many, was killed, but the public had not yet been told about it.

imho the pressure to solve the Ripper’s identity was unrealistic, politically motivated, and financially motivated. It seems that it hindered the authorities, at least to a small extent.

imho, we often see this same phenomenon exhibited today in America by various groups who literally scream for “something to be done about it” (fill in an issue for “it”). imho, these groups often have unrealistic expectations, political agendas, or financial agendas.

Ain't us humans swell? :)

It is definately known that he or she was left handed. Otherwise it remains among the most heinous unsolved crimes of all times.