Isn't the premise of the movie (who the killer is), patently ABSURD?!!!

It's so absurd that if known, you would not believe who the killer was...oh wait...

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

Also, PAV's marriage was never legal as he didn't receive permission from the monarch and heirs to the British throne are forbidden from marrying Catholics.

The idea came from a British reporter Stephen Knight, who got it from a man named Joseph Gorman, who claimed to be the illegitimate son of the painter Walter Sickert. But Gorman later recanted his story and it turned out that Knight had a brain tumor and may have not been operating with all of his faculties.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

It is entertaining but the plot is definitely absurd and so cliche! The previous poster has already identified some of the issues with the story. At the end of this movie I ended up laughing. The love story between Abberline and the prostitute was really over the top! Overall, the film started well but ended up being incredibly cheesy!



Alas, I am beyond impropriety -Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Downton Abbey)

This ridiculous theory was already discredited long before this film was even made as well. The screenwriters & directors were just too lazy to do any research.

On the DVD features, there is a video of the directors walking around the sets. Their ignorance on the subject is shocking.

They are talking about Polly Nichols's nickname, & not knowing what it is. Her name was Mary Ann Nichols, & Polly WAS her nickname.

They didn't know what street Elizabeth Stride was killed on (Berner Street).

They were at the Miller's Court set talking about how Mary Kelly's landlord lived above her & did not do anything when he heard the cries of "oh murder" in the early hours of the 9th of November.

Um, no. Not only did he not live above her, but any neighbours that did hear the cry didn't do anything because it was such a common occurrence in the area. There wasn't any sinister intentions behind the ignoring like the directors implied.

Then, in another documentary on the DVD (on suspects), one of the directors mentions Joseph Merrick (The Elephant Man), & basically said he should be suspected since he wore a black coat & hat. What a load of crap. ANYONE with a brain can see Merrick was physically incapable of committing these vile murders. People who say he was the Ripper are just saying so purely out of his appearance. They're just wanting to make a name for themselves by dragging his name through the mud. It is despicable.

The Hughes Brothers clearly knew nothing of the subject, but they acted like experts. I'd be okay with the conspiracy angle if they had made the film & dealt with the subject in a thought provoking manner. Look at JFK. It is a brilliantly made film & very fascinating. Same with Zodiac.

Because that’s what royalty does. The queen had gull do it because he’s a physician, much more important than a normal guy. Also, once the jobs done you have to shut him up. The queen probably asked gull to silence the girls, not rip them apart that’s why at the end she says “I dont want to hear about this again” so she had him committed. That’s why never trust your royals or your government. They are not to be trusted and will protect themselves by any means.

If a 70-year-old man was sent out to do the Royal murders, I have to assume it was because he volunteered. And that he volunteered because he liked killing and dismembering prostitutes, and couldn't believe his luck in getting carte blanche to live out his fantasies!

He did a pretty good job, too, never got caught.

I have also toyed with the idea of the particular murder of Mary Kelly as the work of a copy cat. Either someone eerily fixated on Kelly herself, someone who took the opportunity to kill when a notorious serial was active - or someone fixated on the Whitechapel murderer. But this theory askes for too much: not only managed Jack to disappear in thin air, leaving few traces. But a copy cat sharing this mixture of skill and luck?

There is only one way Jack the Ripper could do what he did, and that's to live anonymously in Whitechapel, know every ally and street, and being able to blend in the crowd as a nobody of interest. He must have laughed his head off while pretending to be outraged like all the others.