who was/is jack the ripper?
141360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper
465471
Jack is a nickname of John.  It's that simple.  Nothing mysterious here.
27269
I don't know if he murdered someone in his family, but this site has some interesting information.  I have not yet determined its accuracy,\nhttp://www.reformation.org/columbus-unmasked.html
828509
Charles Babbage\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
710152
OMG!  Thanks for the fond memories - he was a staple of my childhood as well.  Unfortunately,  I have no idea what the man did during the time proceeding his death.  One thing is certain he is greatlly missed  <sniff>
250323
John Lennon, even though he's dead. He was a really good man with a beautiful heart and I hope Mark David Chapman rots in hell for murdering him!
266327
I have no idea. I don't think they are anyone famous. A web search has only turned up links to the UK census and historic documents. Do you have any other information about this person such as where they lived, in what context you came across their name, age etc etc. There are lots of websites that can help you track down people, both living and dead, but you need a little bit more than just a name.
55159
who killed JFK?\nwhat happened to jimmy hoffa?\nwhat happened to charles lindbergh's baby?\nwhat happened to amelia earhart?\nis the shroud of turin real?\nwhat happened at tunguska, siberia in 1908?\nis there really a loch ness monster?\nwhere did the statues on easter island come from?\nwho was the man in the iron mask?\n\n..etc
861001
I need some more points so will comment on zachs mom's (if that is your real name!) answer.\n\nReal good attempt but I think you got over excited in your rush to answer this question. This resulted in a poorly styled answer with way too many capitals and further mistakes in punctuation.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four United States government investigations, responsible for the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. On November 22, 1963, Oswald was arrested on suspicion of killing President Kennedy and Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit earlier that day. Oswald denied the charges, claiming he was a "patsy". Two days later, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live television while in police custody. Public opinion is still divided regarding the official version of Oswald's culpability in the assassination.\n\nI obtained this information from http://en.wikipedia.org/ for you as you got confused or you don't even know your own history.\n\nYou do redeem yourself a bit by suggesting the questioner should re think his question but even that is poorly written. He should rephrase his question to something like "Do you believe the JKF conspiracy theories (do a web search for info on many of these)? I believe that would have got him a bit of credibility. Your suggestion was frankly naff.\n\nI believe OK is accepted shorthand for okay.\n\nYou think too slow for your typing speed and type to much. I should know all about that last one. Look how much I typed for a measly 2 points.\n\n\n\nP.S. "Och well in fer a penny in fer a pound" as somebody once said. Can I get the 10 points please dngnbrn? My answer is a) What and b) No.\n\nP.P.S. To the Yahoo Answers admin staff. If I get the 10 points  can you double it for me as it's a two part answer?
1025004
Fanciful theories of Doctors, Royalty and Freemasons aside (they are amusing but unlikely) there are several reasons why the police didn't catch the Ripper:\n\nLack of resources--there was no forensic science to speak of at that time, fingerprinting did not exist, nor profiling, DNA, blood analysis.\n\nLack of Experience--There had never been a killer like the Ripper before.  Over a hundred years later, serial killers are still statistically unlikely to be caught, despite a lot of knowledge about them.  In 1888, only a fluke or a foolish mistake would have caught him.\n\nLack of Evidence or accomplices--The Ripper left virtually no physical evidence of his crimes, not even enough for the primitive investigative techniques of the time.  In 1888, the police relied mostly on catching someone in the act, or having an accomplice turn them in.  Neither happened in the Ripper's case.\n\nInterference--The Ripper crimes inspired the public to get involved in the investigation, causing problems and tying up the already stretched resources.  Phoney letters, lying witness, vigilantes and the press all muddied the waters.  Political ineptitude and the fact that the crimes took place in two seperate jurisdictions who refused to cooperate with each other.\n\nThere are other reasons, but I think these are the main ones.\n\nAny suggestion that the police didn't want to catch him or didn't care about catching him are utterly wrong.  The Ripper's escape was very damaging to the police force at the time, and they would have done their best to clear the embarassment of the Whitechapel crimes if they could.\n\nedit:\n\nOh, and btw, it was the Prince of Wales' SON who was accused of being the Ripper and hiring prostitutes, and the theory has been debunked so many times that it's depressing that anyone still believes it.
1042571
Who was he?? I want to know what he was on!
1162085
It is presumed to be Jack the Ripper.
673801
Jesus Christ married his favourite prostitute and left descendants who are alive and well and working as pizza delivery drivers in downtown Manhatten under secret identities. The crucifixion was a fake, the Holy Grail is being used as a sauce-boat in the North British Hotel near the Rosslyn Chapel, and anyone who can figure out antediluvian Greek puns can work out the truth from a series of ancient monuments, tablecloth labels and car registration numbers. \n\nI could tell you their names but then I'd have to kill you.
824331
why on earth would you want to know this - this has me really intrigued......\n\nIt's Pete of course but everyone else beat me to it (apart from the person who thinks it's Boris!
531859
dahmer, bundy, gacy, and jack the ripper, \n\n\nand the boston strangler (added the fifth one for bahamadude who by the way needs to learn what a serial killer is and also learn how to spell their names.  its Dahmer, not Bahmer)
971495
Mark's character finally figures out that Matt's character was the one kinda behind all of it. And he is the reason why his patner was killed, so he killed him. And Matt's character never knew that Jack's character secretely had another informant. Does that kind of make sense. Sorry I forgot all of their names.
907944
Who is he? What are you talking abot? Please provide links.