I can give you a few books that tackle the issue for you to explore it further. One that I find I really like is:

• The Cases That Haunt Us by John Douglas, FBI profiler. He tries to use modern forensic techniques to figure out who did it, or where the best place to look would be. Results: serial killers typically seek victims near where they live and feel comfortable in. So the killer would have lived in the East End. The type of victim they choose is also important. Highly devious, intelligent, and controlled people will be like Ted Bundy, and handpick attractive young women at fashionable locations, and lure them away to a place where he can do evil things to them in private. Those who are more psychotic and delusionary can't do that because they are too mentally damaged to be seen as normal, and everyone would be on their guard upon seeing them. So such guys will go for the "low hanging fruit"--the most vulnerable, least able to defend themselves, such as prostitutes, the only women who would be wandering alone in such a bad neighborhood at that time of night. And he didn't go after any old prostitutes, but the very dregs of the prostitutes for the most part--alcoholic, homeless, and in one case, she had encephalitis and would likely have been dead in hours or days had he not killed her. And he killed them in the open, with little regard for being seen, which shows a lack of judgment, organization, and sense of reality on his part. The fact that he cut the women up was puzzling to the police of the time. But to a modern forensic analyst, it's a common thing they see. He wasn't a doctor. He wasn't a butcher. The cuts were crude and show a curiosity about the female anatomy that many other serial killers have shown. Douglas then goes on to explain who he thinks did it--it's no one famous, but he makes an intriguing case for London detectives having solved the case, but for their own noble reasons, kept it from the public once they knew that the killer was behind bars.

• Then there's also From Hell by Alan Moore. Great graphic novel. It's not meant to be an accurate depiction of the real Jack the Ripper, but it's very accurate and fact filled and intriguing regarding London 1887. That is, the text, the mood, the lifestyle and historical information is largely accurate, but the actual identity of Jack is not. But I liked it because not only was it a great story, but even better it gave an idea of what life was like at that time and place for the people living there.

• Mystery novelist Patricia Cornwell came out with Portrait of a Killer in which she alleges that artist Walter Sickert did it, and she explains her reasoning--she even went so far as to buy an original Sickert and then destroy it looking for DNA clues. I think her story is BS anyway.

*Edited to change name I got wrong.

I very strongly recommend "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by historian Phillip Sugden. Its not nearly as readable as a lot of the other works about the Ripper, but it is far less sensationalist and incredibly well researched. It doesn't try to propagate a single theory about who the Ripper was but instead goes over the original Scotland Yard investigation as well as those for similar crimes in the area in order to profile the most likely suspects. While Sugden suggests that the best fit for the perpetrator was George Chapman, a psychotic wife-killer, (amongst a myriad of other suspects) he is very clear to state that this is speculation, and by no means accuses Chapman of the crime.

This unwillingness to shoehorn a gripping narrative into his examination of the Ripper makes it the best book in the field I've heard about/read, and I think if you want an objective understanding of the Ripper murders that you don't really need any other. Also, its cheap!