This film is a slickly produced effort, although the claims that it may represent the definitive answer to the mystery are extremely tenuous. The plot is watered-down version of the masonic conspiracy theory, in which William Gull, the queen's doctor, committed the murders to silence a group of east end prostitutes attempting to blackmail the government. The more simple premise of the film is that Gull was simply a deranged psychopath. Yet this already three hour production benefits from this by turning it into a classic whodunit. The suspects it puts forward generally weren't regarded as such at the time, but this matters little thanks to the general quality of the production. There are a numbers of "gaffs" in the film regarding historical accuracy:
Annie Chapman is seen photographed at the murder site in Hanbury street. This never happened.
Prince Albert Victor is mentioned as Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He never assumed these titles until 1891.
There is a bloodhound visible at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. While there were rumours dogs were to be used, ultimately they weren't.
Emma Prentice, Inspector Abberline's love interest declares a picture she is drawing is "for strand magazine". Strand magazine wasn't first published until 1892, four years after the film is set.
Annie Chapman is seen photographed at the murder site in Hanbury street. This never happened.
Prince Albert Victor is mentioned as Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He never assumed these titles until 1891.
There is a bloodhound visible at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. While there were rumours dogs were to be used, ultimately they weren't.
Emma Prentice, Inspector Abberline's love interest declares a picture she is drawing is "for strand magazine". Strand magazine wasn't first published until 1892, four years after the film is set.