Unidentified Female Advertiser (4:50)

I'm not throwing shade, but the whole New Year's resolution thing kind of slippin. No offense. Anyway, my best friend Jenny's dad crushing it. He uses Blue Apron. He says he ordered one pan assemble and bake meals and these things called meal kits. They're all super easy to make. He keeps yelling protein and fiber, baby. Also the food. We tried it so good, so maybe check it out or whatever. Blue Apron get $50 off your first two orders, plus free shipping with Code Stir. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more.

Vanessa Richardson (5:21)

In October of 1888, the East London neighborhood known as Whitechapel was in full on panic mode. Over the past two months, a sadistic killer known as Jack the Ripper had claimed the lives of at least four women who'd been earning a living through sex work. Their names were Maryanne Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, and Catherine Eddowes. There was also another woman named Martha Tabram, who'd been murdered before any of the other victims. However, Martha had been stabbed 19 times, while the other victims throats and abdomens were slashed before they were disemboweled. So as the murders continued, investigators started to disagree about whether Jack had killed her. Only the other four women were officially considered Jack's victims. Part of Jack's M.O. also involved stealing some of the women's organs he'd taken Annie Chapman's uterus and Catherine Eddow's uterus and kidney. Then, in mid October, half of a human kidney was sent to George Lusk, the leader of a local vigilante group. When news of this incident reached the press, the media went wild with speculation and lies. In reality, authorities weren't sure if the kidney belonged to Catherine, but many outlets claimed that it did. On top of that, some tabloids used the grotesque story to feed into anti Semitic hatred in London. They said no one who was from England could commit such horrendous crimes, and they published images of the killer with exaggerated, stereotypically Jewish features. Of course, there was no hard evidence that Jack was Jewish. These stories were just pure bigotry. So while the media coverage ramped up fear in Whitechapel, it didn't do much to actually help people stay safe, which meant sex workers kept looking for clients at night. As scared as people were, they still had to make a living, even if that meant putting themselves in harm's way.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (7:20)

We talked about this a little in episode one, but the reality is, human survival instincts aren't just about avoiding danger. They're also about meeting immediate needs. And sometimes those needs override other safety concerns. When you're concerned about immediate needs like food and shelter, the brain is focused on the right now, not the what ifs or any possible dangers like Jack the Ripper. You have to prioritize like that under scarce conditions. And I don't think they're doing it unknowingly. I think they're just calibrating their risk in ways that many people haven't had to. Danger is just a normal part of the environment for many of the people in Whitechapel. I also think optimism bias likely plays a role, too, because, yes, Jack the Ripper is a real threat, but how many times have people been aware of a threat and thought, that won't happen to me? It's not necessarily that they're being naive. It's just a way to psychologically distance from a real threat that you have no choice but to survive among. So if they had ideal choices at their disposal, they would have left Whitechapel, they would move. They would buy a house. They would never work in sex work again. But those aren't options that people in that level of poverty and scarcity necessarily have. And remember his victims, they were divorcees, some with children, some of whom had disabilities. So it wasn't just about them either,

Vanessa Richardson (8:41)

despite how anyone interpreted the media coverage. Like you said, sex workers in Whitechapel still had to make ends meet, and they were in even more danger than they realized. One of Those women was 25 year old Mary Jane Kelly. Mary Jane was born in Limerick, Ireland, and moved to Wales when she was young. She'd married a coal miner when she was around 16, but just a few years into her marriage, her husband was killed in an explosion on the job and Mary Jane became a widow. In 1884, four years before the Jack the Ripper murders started, she moved to London to try and make a living. But finding steady work was hard and she turned to sex work. She was young enough to get a job at a high end brothel in London's posh West End. In general, working in brothels was safer than finding clients out in public. Not only were the workers sheltered inside, but they encountered clients from a wealthier and ostensibly more respectable class. Mary Jane was able to start building a new life for herself. However, a few years into her new job, there was a movement in the city to end sex work by closing the brothels, which meant that by 1885, Mary Jane was forced to find work on the streets.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (9:55)

Brothels initially being legalized likely gave the public the perception that it was somewhat socially acceptable, at least to some degree. It was private, it was regulated, and so it was out of public view and therefore likely more tolerated. But when they were shut down, down, it was subsequently labeled illegal. And that creates a shift in public perception. And with that, empathy decreases. Sex workers are not being seen as women trying to survive. They're being seen as problems now that need to be removed. And closing the brothels made their work more dangerous for everyone involved. Not only are they on the streets where they're exposed to more risk, but they're visible and visibility gives way to stigma. And this also deepens the existing in group, out group thinking within the community that we talked about in episode one, where empathy and protection are reserved for, quote, people like us, while those labeled as outsiders or the out group are viewed as part of the problem rather than members of the community. And in that kind of environment, harm against marginalized people, such as harm from Jack the Ripper, can feel more distant to them, less urgent, and tragically easier for them to ignore.

Vanessa Richardson (11:05)

How do certain social biases tend to influence some criminals?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (11:09)

Well, they tend to use them to their advantage. It influences their victim selection. That's priority one. I mean, Jack the Ripper and most predatory offenders prey on vulnerable targets, mainly marginalized ones, for accessibility. It makes it easier to dehumanize them and to justify their crimes. They Believe that their victims are someone that won't be missed or believed or where they deserved what happened to them and that no one cares about their victims. Social prejudices can act like psychological permission to them by narrowing their empathy, if any exists in the first place and making extreme behavior feel more acceptable to the person committing it.

Vanessa Richardson (11:51)

For a couple of years, Mary Jane kept scraping by as best she could. And by 1887, a year before the murders, she thought she'd finally found a way out. That year, she met a man named Joseph Barnett who swept her off her feet. They started a relationship, and soon Mary Jane moved into Joseph's apartment in Whitechapel. When the murders started in the fall of 18, 1988, Mary Jane was grateful to have a safe, steady place to live. But the same couldn't be said about some of her friends. Another sex worker Mary Jane knew hadn't been as lucky as her. She'd been struggling financially and she had nowhere to live. So Mary Jane asked Joseph if her friend could move in with them temporarily, but he said no. This led to an argument that got so bad, Joseph left Mary Jane. He moved out of their apartment, which meant her friend could move in. But now the two women were responsible for all the rent. By early November, about five weeks since the last murder, Mary Jane had racked up a huge debt to her landlord. She contacted Joseph and asked for his help, but he refused. So Mary Jane looked for help from others. She took to the streets not to solicit sex work, but to ask complete strangers for a loan. At around 2am on November 8, she approached a man named George Hutchinson and asked if he could spare the money. But George said he didn't have it. Mary Jane thanked him for his time and crossed the street where she encountered another man who looked wealthy. He was wearing a thick gold chain and a fur trimmed coat. George Hutchinson kept watching Mary Jane as she talked to the man. The two of them talked and laughed for a few minutes before the man put his arm around Mary Jane and they entered her apartment building together. No one saw or heard from Mary Jane for the rest of the day. Then at around 10.45am on November 9, her landlord's assistant knocked on her door. He'd been sent to collect her overdue rent money. When she didn't answer, he peeked in through a broken window pane. That's when he saw what looked like pieces of human flesh sitting on a table. The man couldn't believe his eyes. He looked at the room more closely and realized there were even more horrors to be found, including blood all over the floor and Mary Jane's mutilated body on the bed. The man notified the police, who arrived 45 minutes later. Once they stepped into Mary Jane's room, they could barely maintain their composure. They were convinced that this was the work of Jack the Ripper, and it was his most vile, gruesome murder yet. Mary Jane's face was sliced beyond recognition. And Jack hadn't simply opened her abdomen. He'd completely removed her midsection, along with the surface of her thighs and her breasts. Then he emptied her abdominal cavity entirely and placed her kidneys and uterus underneath her head. Finally, he left a pile of her remaining organs next to her. The only organ police didn't find was Mary Jane's heart, which they realized Jack had taken with him.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (15:12)

With the exception of the murder of Elizabeth Stride, because he was interrupted, each murder was an escalation. He escalates in time spent. His focus on anatomy and which organ or organs he takes and his postmortem ritual and activity. This kind of extensive mutilation suggests it's less about killing and more about his own psychological need. And often, again, it's about fantasy fulfillment. He hasn't been caught. And with every murder, he gains confidence and becomes less constrained. He's likely acting on compulsion and urges that what he was previously imagining and rehearsing in his mind for years. And those compulsions and those urges are getting stronger. And so is his need for personal symbolism. This is about fulfilling his own personal needs.

Vanessa Richardson (16:02)

What can we glean from the fact that he kept Mary Jane's heart?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (16:05)

So if we look at the pattern across his murders, There's a clear progression from extreme violence to increasingly deliberate targeted postmortem behavior. Early on, the injuries are brutal but comparatively less elaborate than they are now. And by the time we reach Annie, the uterus is removed. That organ is biologically specific to women. And because his victims were women engaged in sex work, that can be interpreted as symbolically tied to femininity or sexuality. With Catherine, he took her uterus and her left kidney. Now, some people could argue that the kidney is also symbolic because kidneys filter toxins. And she was released from jail for being drunk in public, and they thought she was an alcoholic. But I think in this case, it's better understood as behavioral escalation. He's spending more time taking greater risks and engaging in more complex behavior. That tells me his confidence is rising, because then he takes Mary Jane Kelly's heart. Accessing the chest cavity is so invasive, it's much More time consuming and it requires privacy, which he seemingly had in her home. So this is another escalation because he's immersing himself in his crime because he could. He's lingering, he's manipulating and he's arranging. He's becoming more confident. And I think he knows he has a captivated audience in the public and he's enjoying that. His crimes have begun to reinforce his sense of power, mastery and superiority over both his victims and the authorities trying to stop him.

Vanessa Richardson (17:44)

As the news of Mary Jane's murder spread, the people of Whitechapel realized just what level of brutality Jack the Ripper was capable of. They thought they'd seen the worst already, but now he left a scar on the neighborhood that would never heal. To add to their dismay, investigators didn't find any evidence at the scene. People had hoped that since this murder was committed indoors, there might be something left behind, but there wasn't. Soon, members of the public realized something else too. That they may be partially responsible for what happened to mary jane. At 4:00 clock that afternoon, a horse drawn cart pulled up outside Mary Jane's building. Her remains were placed in a casket and taken away. As a crowd looked on, murmurs started to ripple through. Some of Mary Jane's neighbors confessed to each other that they they'd heard her scream and didn't do anything. They said she'd only screamed once, so they brushed it off.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (18:43)

Let's talk about why people might have ignored hearing Mary Jane scream. There's something called the bystander effect. When many people live close together, responsibility becomes psychologically diluted. Each person assumes someone else is closer or they heard more or is better positioned to intervene than the other. That shared uncertainty reduces the likely that any one individual takes action. The Kitty Genovese case, although it's since been debated heavily, brought attention to this very real phenomenon. Fear also plays a role in this. People knew there was a violent offender targeting vulnerable women. Intervening could mean putting themselves directly in harm's way. And when personal safety feels threatened, self preservation can override the instinct to help, especially when the situation is ambiguous. And importantly, screams from were not rare in that environment. Whitechapel was crowded, it was dangerous, and it was often very loud at night. When distress signals become part of the background of daily life there, people can become desensitized to that, not because they don't care, but because their brains can learn not to treat every sound as an emergency.

Vanessa Richardson (19:56)

This particular attack happened inside, which went against Jack's usual mo. Could this have influenced people's reactions oh,

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (20:04)

absolutely, because the attack happened indoors. Like you said, it didn't match the public's mental picture of how Jack the Ripper operated. So it's possible an indoor scream was more likely to be interpreted, maybe as a domestic dispute, something people were used to hearing and often tried not to interfere with. I mean, even today, neighbors hesitate to involve themselves in what appears to be a private conflict because they have to continue living near their neighbors. That social hesitation combined with the unexpected setting could easily have led people to dismiss the scream instead of recognizing it as an emergency.

Vanessa Richardson (20:40)

At least one person wanted to do right by Mary Jane in the wake of her death a few days later on November 12, George Hutchinson, the man Mary Jane had asked for alone before she encountered Jack, gave police a description of the man he saw her talking to. He said the man was well dressed and seemed wealthy. He also described him as having Jewish features. Whether this was driven by prejudice or not, George's statement didn't lead the authorities to any suspects. By now, the public was used to the lack of progress in the investigation, and as time passed, authorities were met with even more disappointing and shocking twists of fate. Rula makes therapy something you can actually access without all the stress There was a time when I was dealing with constant anxiety and burnout and I knew I needed support. But every therapist I found online either didn't take my insurance or the out of pocket. Cost was just too high. It felt impossible to get the help I needed. Rula changes that. They partner with over 100 insurance plans, which makes the average copay just $15 per session, sometimes even $0 depending on your benefits. That means licensed in network therapy that's affordable. Rula is personalized. They take your goals, preferences and background into account, giving you a curated list of therapists who truly fit your needs. No wait lists, no back and forth. Appointments can be available as soon as tomorrow and they stick with you along the way to make sure your care is actually helping. Thousands of people are already using Rula to get affordable, high quality therapy that's actually covered by Insurance. Visit rula.com serial to get started. After you sign up, you'll be asked how you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. That's r u l a.com serial. You deserve mental health care that works with you, not against your budget. Parle tu francais hablas parle italiano?

Unidentified Male Advertiser (22:49)

If you've used Babbel, you would. Babbel's conversation based technique teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com listen spelled B A B B E L.com listen rules and restrictions may apply.

Vanessa Richardson (23:19)

In November of 1888, Jack the Ripper is believed to have claimed the life of 25 year old Mary Jane Kelly. Her death and mutilation were far more shocking and grisly than any of the victims before her. In the aftermath, everyone in Whitechapel waited in fear to see just how far Jack would take things next. As investigators chased leads that went nowhere, the town was consumed with dread. And on November 21, two weeks after Mary Jane's murder, it became clear just how much Jack the Ripper's influence had taken hold. That day, a woman named Annie Farmer allegedly invited a man back to her apartment. It's not clear whether Annie was a sex worker, but once they were alone together, she tried to steal the money he was carrying. A struggle ensued, and Annie ended up nicking herself in the throat. Accidentally. Annie screamed for help, which caused the man to take off running. Unlike how people reacted to hearing Mary Jane scream, Annie's neighbors and the police rushed to check on her. When she managed to calm herself down, she told them what happened. Annie said she'd been attacked by Jack the Ripper. People were dumbfounded. Was Annie the first victim to escape Jack's clutches and live? And if so, would her testimony lead to him finally getting caught? It seemed like the case had reached a turning point. But then when investigators dug more into Annie's story, they discovered the truth of what had happened. That Annie wasn't attacked. Her minor injury was just an accident.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (24:57)

So let's talk about a few reasons why Annie claimed that Jack the Ripper attacked her. This could have been genuine fear and panic. When communities are exposed to repeated, highly publicized violence, people become hyper alert to threat. Annie just invited a man, a stranger, back to her apartment. After Mary Jane was found dead in her own apartment and Annie lured him there to steal from him. So she was probably already on high alert for that reason. But on top of that, she had just experienced a struggle and sustained a cut to her neck. So adrenaline shock and pain could easily have pushed her mind toward the most available explanation, which is that Jack the Ripper did this, or Jack the Ripper was in the room with her. But at the same time, though, because she was also conspiring to commit a crime herself, we can't rule out that this was self preservation. By claiming she was attacked, she might have felt it would divert suspicion away from her intentions entirely. There are many reasons why she might have made this claim, knowing it was false. And it could have come from fear, confusion, survival strategy, or social pressure, or some combination of all of those things. But in times of widespread terror, the stories people tell about what happened to them are often shaped as much by the environment as they are by the event itself.

Vanessa Richardson (26:17)

Police and the public had hoped they would finally learn something about Jack the Ripper that would help identify him. But they were wrong. After Annie's incident, people continued to fear when he would actually strike again. But he never did. As the years passed, many people believed that Mary Jane Kelly was Jack the Ripper's last murder victim. However, others thought he may still be at large. One team of investigators at Scotland Yard kept building a list of possible suspects. And by 1894, six years since Jack's last known attack, Sir Melville McNaughton, the Assistant Chief constable of Scotland Yard, had narrowed it down to three men. Their names were Montague John Druitt, Michael Ostrog, and Aaron Kosminski. McNaughton felt most strongly about the first name on the list, Montague Druitt. He was a wealthy lawyer who'd also worked briefly as an assistant headmaster at a boarding school before being dismissed under mysterious circumstances. McNaughton knew Druitt had gotten into serious trouble, but he didn't know exactly what for. So during the initial investigation, he spoke to Druitt's family to see what else he could learn about him. Druitt's own loved ones described him as, quote, sexually insane. They told McNaughton they thought it was entirely possible he was Jack the Ripper. McNaughton thought he might be closing in. But then, at the end of 1888, his line of inquiry came to a crashing halt when Druitt's lifeless body was found floating in the Thames River. He'd taken his own life. McNaughton thought Druitt's death could explain the sudden end to Jack's reign of terror. But there was still pressure to bring someone to justice. So he kept working his way down the list of suspects. Next on the list was Michael Ostrog, a doctor from Russia. Michael was highly educated, and on the outside, he was professional and polished. However, he had a long history of fraud convictions. On top of that, he'd also spent time in various psychiatric hospitals. It's not clear exactly what he was admitted for, but Michael's most recent hospital stay had been in the spring of 1888. He was released that March, then failed to check in with authorities as was required. McNaughton thought Michael could have gone off the grid when he became Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, Michael was still nowhere to be found, so McNaughton had to move on. The final suspect on the list was Aaron Kosminski, a Jewish barber who was 23 at the time of the murders. His family was originally from Poland, but moved to Whitechapel to escape religious persecution in Eastern Europe in the early 1880s. But even though they'd gotten a fresh start, Aaron's mental health had deteriorated significantly. By the late 1880s, his family first noticed something was wrong when he refused to bathe. Then things escalated. Aaron started hearing voices. He even claimed that a higher power spoke to him and controlled his every move. Around this same time, Aaron began expressing a deep hatred for women, especially those who engaged in sex work.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (29:42)

Severe mental illnesses that involve psychosis, such as disorders where someone hears voices or holds fixed false beliefs, can distort how a person interprets the world. If someone already lives in a social environment where certain prejudices exist, psychosis can take those themes and magnify them into rigid delusions. In that sense, the illness doesn't create prejudice out of nowhere. It can intensify ideas already present in their environment. Psychosis can also lead to misattribution of meaning. So a person may begin to believe that specific groups are responsible for their suffering, that they are being controlled or targeted or morally corrupted by others. These beliefs can feel absolutely real to them, even if they're not grounded in reality. That's when we sometimes see extreme fixed hostility that goes beyond typical prejudice. That said, it's very important to emphasize that mental illness alone does not make someone violent. And most people with psychotic disorders are not violent. Prejudice, hatred and violence usually arise from a combination of factors, like personality traits, life experiences, social attitudes, and opportunity. Mental illness may distort perception, but it doesn't automatically lead to harm.

Vanessa Richardson (31:00)

Do Aaron's symptoms suggest that he always harbored these feelings and they just came out once his mental health had deteriorated enough? Or do you think his hatred toward women was caused by his mental illness?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (31:11)

Severe mental illness doesn't typically invent a brand new belief system out of nowhere. People who develop psychosis still draw from cultural, social and personal material already in their minds and environments. So if anti sex work Attitudes and misogyny were already common in London at the time, which they were. Those themes could have become woven into his delusional framework once his mental health deteriorated. So, in other words, it's more likely that any hostility he expressed was shaped by the social climate he lived in or from his home environment and then intensified or were made more rigid by illness. Psychosis can remove nuance and flexibility. So that said, we also can't assume he always harbored extreme hatred. Mental illness can change how someone interprets people and events in dramatic ways. Suspicion, paranoia, or feelings of being controlled can get projected outward, sometimes attaching to specific groups. But that's different from saying the illness created misogyny by itself. What's more likely is his social environment provided the themes and his mental illness may have distorted and intensified them.

Vanessa Richardson (32:24)

Aaron's misogyny, along with his experience wielding a blade as a barber, raised red flags for Sir Melville McNaughton. The more McNaughton looked into Aaron, the more suspicious he became. And when he looked into the suspect's health records, he became even more convinced. Aaron had been admitted to the psychiatric hospital twice. Once in 1889 and again in 1891, this time indefinitely. Which meant two things. One, that Aaron had been roaming freely during the year of the murders, and two, he was still in custody. So McNaughton could potentially press charges and bring him to trial. He might be able to catch Jack the Ripper soon. McNaughton got another big win in his investigation. It turned out there was witness testimony placing Aaron at the scene of one of the murders back in September of 1888. A bystander had seen Jack trying to pull Elizabeth's stride into an alley. Jack noticed the man's so called Jewish features and shouted a slur to scare him away before he could stop Jack from killing Elizabeth. The bystander's name was Israel Schwartz. He was in fact Jewish, and he told investigators exactly what had happened at the time. Israel's statement didn't result in any solid leads, but investigators claimed they spoke to him again once they had a short list of suspects. According to them, Israel picked Aaron out of a lineup. Authorities were equally shocked and thrilled. However. However, when they asked Israel to testify against Aaron in court, he refused. He said he didn't want to be the reason a fellow Jewish man went to the gallows.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (34:09)

I want to be clear. I don't think that Israel's refusal to testify is because of guilt, deception or sympathy for a sadistic serial offender by any means. I think this is really about his sense of community, loyalty, fear of contributing to existing prejudice, moral conflict and self preservation. And I think this would be different and less intense if his existing environment wasn't already tense, divided and highly charged as it is. This is a very public case and his name would be connected to it. That's an enormous amount of pressure when you consider the circumstances and the current climate.

Vanessa Richardson (34:46)

How can a lack of witness testimony influence a trial?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (34:49)

It can have a major impact because trials are about building stories a jury can trust and juries trust eyewitness accounts. Without an eyewitness, a trial relies mostly on circumstantial evidence. It doesn't make it weak. Most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence, but it can make it less concrete to a jury without witnesses. It also makes the burden of proof harder to meet. How do you show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when there are gaps that no one can account for and jurors need credibility to anchor the story too? But that said, some cases succeed without witnesses if the evidence is overwhelming. But generally speaking, missing witness tests testimony, makes the prosecution's job harder, and it gives the defense more room to argue that the picture isn't complete enough to justify conviction.

Vanessa Richardson (35:38)

Without Israel Schwartz's testimony, the authorities didn't have a strong enough case against Aaron Kosminski. There was no other evidence tying him to Elizabeth's murder or any others. McNaughton's suspect list was down to zero. He had no more leads. The investigation was never formally closed. But By October of 1896, the team on the Ripper case had run out of funding and were no longer actively looking into it. But the story of Jack the Ripper was far from over. After nearly a decade, the killings had cast an ever present shadow over London. And the more the people tried to move on, the more they got sucked back into the turmoil oil.

Unidentified Female Advertiser (36:31)

If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every pet visit. Which is why Lemonade Pet Insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account get nervous. Claims are filed super easily through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop it.

Vanessa Richardson (37:04)

Why have I asked my H Vac guy? I found on angie.com to change my grandpa's trachea tube. Because I was so amazed by how quickly he replaced our air duct, I knew I could trust him to change Pop Pop's tube while I was on vacation. Make it quick young man.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (37:20)

Aw.

Vanessa Richardson (37:20)

See?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (37:21)

Pop Pop trusts you.

Vanessa Richardson (37:23)

I think we should call a doctor. Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years Angie the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com people who didn't do what John of God wanted them to do, they usually disappeared. John of God was once Brazil's most famous spiritual healer. But in this limited series podcast we

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (37:51)

uncover the darker truth behind his global

Vanessa Richardson (37:54)

empire of faith and fear. From exactly right and adonde Media, this is Two Faced John of God. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you can get your podcasts. In 1896, the official investigation into Jack the Ripper stalled out. Eight years had passed since the last murder and the authorities hadn't been able to provide any answers, let alone justice for Jack's five known victims. Without closure, people sought other forms of healing. The intense media coverage had shed light on other issues like the rampant poverty and inequality in White Chat Chapel. All over the world, people now associated the neighborhood with death, disease and suffering. Some even viewed all of London this way, and the city's upper echelon wanted to do something about its poor reputation. So in the 1890s, London slums were cleared out to make way for better housing for some residents. The problem was not everyone benefited from this initiative. A lot of people were simply pushed into the next impoverished neighborhood. And since the project only went so far, that meant hordes of people were displaced or left with nowhere to live

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (39:14)

after something as traumatic as this. Communities often have this pull to feel that something is being done, and often they lean towards symbolic solutions like clearing the slums or rebuilding parts of the neighborhood where this happened at, because it creates the appearance of progress that can be emotionally reassuring for the public and certainly politically reassuring for leaders, particularly after a failure like this. But it's only beneficial to some residents, like you mentioned, and it's rooted in reputation management. The motive's financial and restoring image. And the problem is it's prioritizing visibility over effectiveness. Displacing residents without providing stable alternatives doesn't reduce poverty, it just moves it. It's not a structural solution. It leads to short term relief for some people, but long term harm for others, especially those who are already vulnerable.

Vanessa Richardson (40:10)

Many People in London wanted nothing more than to move on from this dark chapter in history. But over time, it became clear that Jack the Ripper's torment and brutality would be a lasting stain. Then, over 100 years later, shockwaves ripped throughout the world. When the case was resurrected in 1992, a scrap metal merchant in Liverpool, about 200 miles from London, named Michael Barrett claimed he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary. Michael said one of his friends had found the diary and gave it to him. It had belonged to a man named James Maybrick, who lived in Liverpool in the 1880s and 90s. If you want to learn more about this story, we highly recommend you check out the episode on Florence Maybrick from our fellow crime house show, Crimes of of. But for our purposes, all you need to know is that James had led a tragic life. His marriage soured after he caught his wife Florence cheating on him. And after he died in 1889, Florence was charged with his murder. She'd allegedly poisoned him to death with arsenic. Many of the diary entries were about James's hatred toward his wife, but others were much more chilling. Apparently, after learning about her affair, James started traveling and taking his anger out on sex workers, including five whom he killed. The diary named those five women, and they were none other than Jack the Ripper's canonical victims. Marianne Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly. The diary went into great detail about their vicious murders. And one of the last entries signed off with a final final confession in which James named himself as Jack the Ripper. Michael knew this diary could be a major breakthrough in the historic case, so he handed it off to experts to verify its authenticity. And when they were done, people were astonished at the findings. The analysts confirmed that the diary had been written during the time period James was alive. Not only that, but they said it matched the handwriting from the letters believed to have been written by the killer and sent to the press and police at the time. Like the Dear Boss letter sent to the central news agency. To many members of the public, it made sense. Some even speculated that James wife had killed him because she found out he was Jack the Ripper. But others quickly noticed that the story was too good to be true. People started poring over old coverage of the case and noticed how many of the diary's details matched the most widespread headlines. And as speculation grew, Michael Barrett finally caved. He confessed that he and his wife had forged the diary.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (43:07)

People inserting themselves into highly public crimes like this is more common than people Realize, and there are several reasons why it happens. Some do it because they are seeking significance of their own. Attaching themselves to a case like Jack the Ripper brings them an instant sense of importance, relevance and identity. Instead of being an ordinary person, someone becomes the person who solved a century old cold case or is the person with the secret. That can be extremely attractive to someone who feels overlooked or dissatisfied with their life and stuck in their own life. In some cases there is an element of fantasy, thrill and deception as well. They want to step into the story themselves and feel connected to something powerful. There are also instances where people are seeking their own notoriety. Sometimes simply for attention, but others for financial motivations. They're hoping that maybe they will be compensated for interviews, publications, or more. Especially with the so called diary of Jack the Ripper. They probably thought maybe there'd be some good hefty payday day turning that in.

Vanessa Richardson (44:14)

What does it say about the Jack the Ripper case that people are still so fascinated with it over a century later? What causes certain cases to stick with people for so long?

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (44:24)

I mean, Jack the Ripper has all the ingredients to make a story psychologically stick with you. I mean, firstly, it's unsolved. We are not wired as humans for unfinished narratives. We are wired for resolution. This is an unresolved mystery, and it's a horrific one that is hard to imagine has gone unresolved, especially for its time. Second, it strikes at basic vulnerabilities. He struck women walking alone or living in poverty that still resonates today. Women walk alone every day, just to and from the parking lot. Is it different from the environment of Whitechapel? Of course it is. Yes. But many women can resonate with this fear because it's universal. It's not confined to one time and place. And lastly, we don't know who he was. Every generation can insert its own theories, fears and cultural concerns into this mystery. He's like a boogeyman. Cases that endure usually combine unresolved questions, that emotional resonance, strong storytelling elements, which this certainly has, and symbolic meaning. And Jack the Ripper has all of that.

Vanessa Richardson (45:36)

Well, Michael Barrett may have lied, but he certainly wasn't the only one still fixated on Jack the Ripper. Ten years after the diary incident in 2002, DNA technology was rapidly advancing. So a crime novelist named Patricia Cornwell decided to use it to try and identify the killer. Cornwell suspected that a 19th century painter named Walter Sickert might have been Jack the Ripper. Some of his paintings depicted murder scenes with female victims or even resembled the post mortem photographs of Jack's victims. Cornwell thought Sickert had been documenting his crimes through his artwork. So in 2002, she obtained some stamps and envelopes which she believed contained samples of Sickert's saliva. By that point, forensics analysts had also discovered some DNA samples on some of Jack the Ripper's old letters. So Cornwell sent the stamps and envelopes off for comparison, and the test showed a possible match. Cornwell thought she had her smoking gun, but DNA experts weren't so sure. Because the analysis had focused on mitochondrial DNA, which up to 10% of the UK population could also share, it wasn't enough to pin Walter Sickert as the killer. Besides, even if the match had been stronger, there was still no way to confirm whether the killer had actually written the letters. And in fact, based on forensic linguistics and handwriting analysis, experts have concluded that many of the letters, including the Dear Boss letter, were fabricated by reporters to boost sales. However, Cornwell's theory did lead to another key theory, that Walter Sickert probably sent a few of the letters. He may not have been the killer, but he was likely a scammer obsessed with the Jack the Ripper case. Like so many others, the search for Jack's true identity seemed futile. But also, almost 20 years after Cornwell's investigation, authorities once again turned to DNA technology to try and solve the mystery. Back in 1888, a blood stained silk shawl had been found next to the body of Catherine Eddows, Jack's fourth victim. It would have been an important piece of evidence if investigators had handled it properly. Instead, one of the constables kept it in his possession and it stayed in his family until 2007 when it was put up for auction. A man named Russell Edwards bought it. He was a Jack the Ripper enthusiast and researcher, also known as a Ripperologist. Edwards had written books about the case, so he was interested in what mysteries the Shaw might unlock. Specifically, he wanted to see if the DNA on the Shaw pointed to Aaron Kosminski as the killer. Edwards had always believed Aaron was the culprit. And by 2019, over 10 years since Edwards bought the shawl, living relatives of both Aaron and Catherine Eddowes were willing to submit samples of their DNA to see if they matched the stains on the shawl. Edwards sent the shawl off to the lab and the results showed matches for both. In other words, there was evidence supporting the theory that the shawl had really belonged to Catherine and that Aaron had killed her. However, this test also used mitochondrial DNA, so there still wasn't a solid conclusion. Not to mention the authorities hadn't maintained proper chain of custody over the shawl, so none of the clues it provided could have been considered official evidence anyway.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (49:15)

Wow, what an emotional roller coaster. There's a sense of closure within reach, which is emotionally revealing. But when the evidence turns out to be inconclusive, that can turn to disappointment or even mistrust really fast, especially when it happens more than once. It can also escalate people because once they believe a solution is close, they become more attached to a specific suspect or theory even. And even when evidence weakens, it can be harder to let go of that emotional investment. The case becomes less about facts at that point and more about defending a narrative people want to be true. That can be harmful if it frames the wrong person. And this is especially taxing on investigators or scientists or anyone trying to make these breakthroughs and solve this crime once and for all. It's a professional setback for them, especially if they've dedicated years of their life to this.

Vanessa Richardson (50:09)

Despite the lack of definitive official evidence, many people still believe that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. However, to many others, the killer's identity on almost doesn't matter anymore, because the case of Jack the Ripper wasn't a game of Guess who it was the story of his victims. Five women just trying to survive another day. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another killer.

Dr. Tristan Ingalls (50:54)

Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a Crime House original Powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on all social media rimehouse and don't forget to rate, review and follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds where wherever you get your podcasts, your feedback truly makes a difference.

Vanessa Richardson (51:16)

And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Serial Killers and Murderous Minds ad free along with early access to each thrilling two part series and exciting bonus content. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson and forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels and is a Crime House original. Powered by Pave Studios, this episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds team. Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benidon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pertzovsky, Sarah Camp, Sarah Batchelor, Dana Rossi, Sarah Tardiff and Carrie Murphy Fee thank you for listening.

Unidentified Male Advertiser (52:09)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive. Most of you aren't just listening right now, you're driving, cleaning and even exercising. But what if you could be saving money by switching to Progressive? Drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average, and auto customers qualify for an average of 7. Discounts multitask right now now quote today@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.

Vanessa Richardson (52:48)

Hi, it's Vanessa. If you're drawn to true crime stories about disappearances, check out the new Crime House original the Fourth Final Hours, hosted by Sarah Turney and Courtney Nicole. Listen to and follow the Final Hours on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday.