The amazing yet illogical myths

Between the two myths that were discussed in the article “National hero, a prisoner of myths” by Ambeth Ocampo, I was only familiar with the first one, saying that Josè Rizal is the father of Hitler. The second myth, stating that Rizal’s the notorious Jack the Ripper of London, amazed me. Rizal as JTR is a new tale for me.

Hitler

I was in second year high school when someone told me that Rizal was probably the father of Hitler. I frankly didn’t care about it. Granting that Hitler is a son of Rizal, what’s the big deal there? Rizal is Rizal. Hitler is Hitler. You ought not blame the parent for a grown-up son’s mistakes or terrible acts, specially in the case of Hitler, who was once a very religious child. Hitler has his own fully-developed mind and no one’s controlling it except he himself.

But we should not speculate anymore because the truth is very clear. As stated by Ocampo, Hitler was born in 1889 and Rizal didn’t return to Germany neither to Austria, where Hitler was born, after 1887.

I wonder who made this unbelievable myth, and I wonder too if Hitler is an orphan because people, or just Filipinos, are not sure who his father is. But one look at an encyclopedia will give you the truth – Hitler’s father is Alois, believe it or believe it. And Hitler’s mother is a farm girl, not a Viennese prostitute.

Some people say Rizal’s the son of Hitler. Now, that’s more ridiculous.

Jack the Ripper

Jack the Ripper is not a new personality for me. I first knew about him when I watched Phantom of Baker Street, a Detective Conan Movie. But the theory that Rizal’s Jack the Ripper? I’ve just recently known about it, and honestly, I was surprised and fascinated, so fascinated that I immediately read the statements under the subheading “Jack the Ripper” when I received the copy of the article.

However, the arguments that Rizal is Jack the Ripper are full of fallacies.

The myth-inventors said “Jack the Ripper liked women and so did our own Rizal.” Their fondness in women was very different. Rizal liked women because he’s attracted to them and he loved them. Jack the Ripper, on the other hand, liked women, as in he liked to kill them.

If Rizal’s attitude toward women’s like Jack the Ripper, how come he didn’t hurt any of his girlfriends? If I were Rizal with the mind of Jack the Ripper, I would have killed Segunda Katigbak first for breaking my young heart.

“JTR left London”

A woman named Karen insists that Rizal is Jack the Ripper simply because, according to her, the Ripper Murders stopped when Rizal left London.

Let’s make it clear. Rizal was in London from May 24, 1888 to January 1889. The Ripper killings started on August 31 and stopped on November 10, 1888. How could you say that “The Ripper killings stopped when Rizal left London”?

You probably have observed that JTR killings’ duration is very short, just within three months. Of what had happened why he stopped killing, that I don’t know. There are some possible answers though. One, the police captured JTR but didn’t want to expose his real identity to the people because he’s a famous personality. Two, JTR died, maybe because of a disease. I’ve read in one of his letters to the police, he ate the kidney of his victim. Maybe he ate anything, which could probably lead to his death. Three, JTR changed the way he kills and chose other kinds of people, because he’s tired of the prostitutes. However, Jose Rizal has no space in these possible answers.

Normal → madman → normal again?

Furthermore, Rizal didn’t kill anyone in Philippines or in any other country. The theory of Karen can only be possible if Rizal is a normal person who can shift into a madman when in London, and then change back again into a normal person.

Path to Perfect Killing

And maybe Karen didn’t think about this. Perfect killing takes long planning. Rizal was just a foreigner in London. It would be hard for him to escape if he killed someone. Jack the Ripper could easily outwit and escape from the police so it’s more probable that he’s a long-time London resident.

The Alibi

Karen’s still not giving up despite the fact that someone said Rizal was in Paris when Jack the Ripper killed Annie Chapman. Karen said Rizal’s doctor friends probably killed Chapman for him.

Let’s speculate Rizal’s JTR. First, if Rizal could ask his friends to kill his target, why did he bother to kill the other five women? Why did he let his hands be stained by blood if he knew somebody could do the killings for him?

Second, was Annie Chapman a threat for him that he even asked his friend to immediately kill the woman while he was in Paris? Couldn’t he wait? Patience, that’s what most skilled killers have.

Third, no one saw Jack the Ripper. His identity was a massive secret. He had escaped from the police many times, so why would JTR reveal his true identity to a “friend”, knowing that such act could lead to his imprisonment? JTR’s not brainless to do such thing just to be able to kill one woman.

Like dissecting a frog

Karen’s suspects are all doctors: Dr. Jose Rizal, Dr. Antonio Regidor, Dr. Reinhold Rost. Maybe she doesn’t know that a person doesn’t have to be a doctor just to be able to get a particular body part of a person without leaving a blood. It’s like simply dissecting a frog, if you have the basic knowledge in anatomy of a human. Moreover, the police in 1888 received a letter they believed to have come from JTR. There JTR wrote that it’s ridiculous that people think he’s a doctor just because he knows how to dissect a woman.

Playing Detective

Karen’s playing detective  but it seems she doesn’t know the basics  in being a detective. Why doesn’t she investigate the killings itself first before her suspect Jose Rizal? It’s more probable that she would know who the killer is by investigating the  connections between the killed women, and checking the evidences left in the crime scene, if there’s still any. Is there an evidence in the crime scene that leads to who the suspect is? That should be the first question answered and not whether Rizal is Jack the Ripper or  not. It is always wrong to form theories before having facts. It biases the judgment.

Confessions

The discovery of Rizal’s diary containing his confessions about the killings is totally bogus. The JTR murders happened in 1888. How come the new owner of Rizal’s apartment in London had discovered his diary in January 1986? So what are they trying to imply? That the previous owners were living like filthy scavengers who didn’t clean the attic of their house for 98 years? Furthermore, a clever killer like JTR won’t make tangible evidence that can lead him to jail. I wonder if National Historical Institute (NHI) compared the handwriting of the entry in that journal with Rizal’s other writings, or maybe they didn’t bother. The speculation that Rizal’s JTR is illogical, anyway.

Although Rizal’s prophecy that people will make many myths about him is right, he’s wrong that educated people will believe it, because apparently, those myths are unbelievable• Besonia, Jenn