this is the most factually incorrect movie ever

Can't you perhaps realize that it wasn't meant to be a documental piece of film making? It's a fictional take on a true event.

***THERE BE SPOILERS HERE***
Yes, yes, I know it's just a movie, but damn that distance between fact and fiction is always interesting to comment on.

1. We should stop speculating that since there's no evidence the Ripper victims knew each other, well, maybe they did. They did not. Here we can safely say if there had been a shared circle of friends the London papers would have been all over that story. You could never of kept that a secret in the Whitechapel dosshouses, and a victim connection would have been a reporter's dream.

2. One real life drama the movie missed - on the night of Polly Nichols' killing there was a huge fire that was large enough to light up the night sky and cause quite a bit of confusion.

3. Movie has Liz Stride leaving Mary Kelly's place in Miller's Court just before getting killed on Berner Street. That is quite a hike.

4. Both this movie and the 1988 Michael Caine thing make a big deal out of organs being taken from the first (Polly Nichols) killing, actually none were, that started with the next victim, Anne Chapman. Most likely these adaptations feel the need to explain why the police are springing into action without going into the back story of previous murders which most people thought were connected at the time. There were also instances of body parts being found in the Thames which also added to the hysteria - although Whitechappel was a rough, desperate place the murder rate was surpringly low which, conversely, increased the panic when the police were baffled.

5. One thing the movie did pick up on is there is actual evidence that Mary Kelly did not die. Several eyewitnesses testified at the time to seeing Mary the next morning, one woman claimed she met Kelly who was being sick on the street about an hour before the body was found and several hours after the time of death. Another man claimed she came into his store even later that morning. These people were discounted by the police but they were credible enough to make it look odd.

All in all I thought the movie sold short on the actual terror of the killings and I was kind of disappointed. No toffs in coaches did these killings, someone had a plan far more diabolical than maintaining royal prestige - "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is fiendish agiprop, both anti- and pro-semitic at the same time. Designed, it would appear, to have both groups at the throats of the other and all at the bidding of this silent man with bloody hands. Somehow that seems scarier than a white-haired Tory with Masonic delusions.

<< first of all there was only four deaths. >>

Since no one knows who Jack the Ripper was, we really don't know how many murders there were. There were scores of murders in the Whitechapel area at that time, and every one has different theories about which victims to attribute to the Ripper. There's 5 that most agree were the work of one killer, but I think there was one very studious "expert" who said there were "at least three, perhaps as many as nine."

So....really, no one knows.

The film isn't presented as a documentary. It's more inspired by real events.