Still doesn't explain his origins to his psychosis or misogyny; or what happens after the ending to the story as I brought up earlier.
Now that I've watched the movie, I see that it is not so much an adaptation of Brian Augustyne's original story as it's a reinterpretation of it. Actually, I wish more elements of the original were still present, especially Jack the Ripper's previous activity in London of 1888. Of course then we would have to have had learned that James Gordon was also in London during the appropriate period. And eliminating 'Uncle Jake' from the film's story narrows our suspect pool for the Ripper, where keeping him in the narrative would have provided the audience with another red herring.