| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:19 pm: |       |
I have never taken the idea of Jill the Ripper very seriously, but a thought occurred to me yesterday. Suppose one of the Whitechapel prostitutes was large and strong and not very mentally stable (perhaps a touch of paranoia). Those women must have been a violent bunch. Just recall the brawl Chapman got into over a bar of soap. Now suppose Jill is rejected by a customer who then chooses someone else. Consider the reaction of someone who is financially desperate and large and strong and not playing with a full deck. Jill might go after her rival with murderous intent, killing her, then removing the reproductive organs because they were the means of her rival's victory over her. Lastly she takes the victim's money considering it rightfully hers.
To someone who is paranoid the "jolly bonnet" remark might come off as a taunt or a put down. So would the comments about having earned and spent doss money several times that day. We don't know how many times Nichols said those things or who she said them to, or in what tone of voice she said them. She might even have meant them as a taunt delivered to a less successful competitor.
It would not be hard to figure out how Kelly would have one-upped our putative Jill. She was still young and pretty. It is probable that after leaving the jail Eddowes made her way to St. Botolph's and joined the parade there. She might easily have taken a customer from another prostitute in that kind of environment. I confess that Chapman is a little harder to figure, but if she took a customer from somebody at five thirty in the A.M. that person was probably up all night and pretty desperate. They wouldn't take it kindly. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:15 am: | |
Hi Diana,
That theory would certainly go a long way in understanding why the killer was never caught, Who would be looking for a woman?.
But Alas all the witnesses reliable or not , have never mentioned seeing the victims in the company of a female, but you are not alone in thinking of the possibility, none other then Sir Arthur conan Doyle believed that also.
To my mind it is a better assumption [ sorry Brian] then trying to fit Sir William Gull, Randolph Churchill,Druitt, tumblety,and a host of others into the fray.
Regards Richard. |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:39 am: | |
Suppose one of the nurses at the London Hospital was built like a nine-inch brick ----house and had a 'down on whores' because of the misery of disease she witnessed daily at the hospital... |
Wallis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 10:51 pm: | |
Naming Jill the Ripper as a suspect really is going way out of line. All the claims to back her up are "supposes," "perhaps'," "maybes," etc... I have not heard one GOOD speck of evidence against Jill the Ripper. All the claims are that she MAYBE was paranoid, that she MAYBE dressed as a man, and that she MAYBE was a lesbian, etc... It's even crazy to think that there was this woman dressed as a man with a manlike build that} decided to kill prostitutes. It doesn't make any sense. Everything is a "maybe" and there never seems to be a "sure". Sounds like a Stephen Knight type theory to me without any reality put into it. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 8:29 pm: | |
I admit as the originator of the "rival prostitute" hypothesis, that it is only a hypothesis. Is there anything in the evidence that would point in that direction? |
jennifer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 4:44 am: | |
I don't think jill the ripper did it because there is no evidence that concludes that anyone had been jack the ripper. I am suprised that Elvis Presly hes not been accused of killing them.} |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
He was stuck in the loo with a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich at the time. But seriously, instead of a disgrutled prostitute, what if Jill the Ripper actually was Jack? I can buy that Jill the ripper would have escaped detection because Victorian sensibilities didn't allow the police to suspect a woman. But what if Jack dressed up as Jill? from the descriptions I've seen bandied about, he was not a big man(Six feet plus or over say 180 pounds)He might have made a homely woman but he probably could have passed himself off especially if he wore a high collared dress or blouse. Kindest regards. Neil |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 6:28 am: | |
The main reason I have seen people put forward for a 'Jill the Ripper' theory, is that Jack was never caught.
The fact that Jack was never caught- is certainly not a reason for believing he was a woman (or even a man in drag). Think of all the men in the area who were never even questioned. They far outweigh the number of men who were.
I think that Jack had to have been a man, considering the force and speed of attack that was used in the murders. Also consider that the victims were found in places where prostitutes took their clients for sex.
I don't think Jack could have been a man in drag- in all honesty, I've yet to see one that's very convincing close up. Particularly back in 1888, when make-up was not as sophisticated as it is today. |
Bell Huey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 4:48 am: | |
Bruce might have an idea there: not saying that I believe in Jill theory - how about a married woman who had veneral disease thu his husbands whoring? And going insane from the syphilis? |
The Doctor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 12:12 am: | |
I don't think it's plausible. Remember the surgical precision of the cuts. Thought to br doctor like, and in those days there were NO female physicians or females receiving the type of training for that. |
Vanessa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
Actually, the London School of Medicine for women opened in 1873/4, and prior to that female doctors had been allowed to qualify at continental universities.
There was also a proliferation of courses and university extention-style lecture series for women intending to become nurses. It's not completely unbelievable that a woman might have the right level of knoweldge.
of course, that's no sort of positive proof for a female suspect, but you can't rule it out purely through lack of education. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:10 pm: | |
Just to point out something to Richard here. You said that "But Alas all the witnesses reliable or not , have never mentioned seeing the victims in the company of a female"
Yes this is true but public opinion was that JTR was a man so why would they comment on seeing the victims with a woman.
I don't think JTR was a women but just wanted to point that out. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 313
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Sarah,
That is an extremely astute point.
We are all 'conditioned' despite our efforts not to be.
The classic case was the Washington Sniper last year. The papers were full of this white box van. So people (possible witnesses) were on the look out for a white box van.
Where was that white box van ??
Again, its a valid point and one we should take note of.
Monty
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 314
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Sorry, posted in error
Monty
 |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | |
I finally made a valid point!! Must go out and celebrate!! 
I don't see any stars though Monty. lol |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 330
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:31 am: | |
Sarah,
Better?
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:56 am: | |
Why thank you kind sir. You have made my day..nay, my year!  |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 339
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Sarah,
Really?
Aw shucks !!!!
Monty
 |
WCMurderer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
You know, there were other jobs people held throughout whitechapel that involved butchery, not just doctors. I think that is one idea which people seem to think is an absolute must : yes, Jack the Ripper (I doubt he was a woman)was swift and had some knowledge of anatomy.
But does that necesarrily mean HUMAN anatomy?
Porters and butchers are an option, though butchers did NOT have the appropriate tools to make gashes as deep as the victims' were. Porters, on the other hand, did. If Jack was a porter, that would explain how he dismembered/ mutilated the prostitutes so deftly - he did it 8 hours (or however many hrs they worked) a day!
I also think the killer must have known the victims, or at least had some interaction with them on a regular basis(that would explain why so many people questioned claimed they'd not seen anything unusual--he was someone familiar). The question now is motivation.  That ought to narrow things down a bit. |
pub byrd
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 12:33 am: | |
Would have to discredit female theory, first victim found skirt up, with condusive injuries, ready to back scuttle - not a female to female act despite the nature of business. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
Her skirt was found up so that JTR could carry out his mutilations. Has nothing to do with JTR being a woman. I am not saying JTR was a woman, as I've said above I don't think that was likely but just wanted to say that the skirt of the first victim being up has nothing to do with the sex of the killer.
Also, yes it must have been a knowledge of HUMAN anatomy. The anatomy of pigs and sheep, etc. is very different to that of a human. That is almost the same as you saying that a vet could be a doctor and visa versa. |
allison s-------
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
i belive that "jill the ripper" was just an axcuse because they couldnt jind the real killer.....my opinion |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
Allison,
The police at the time didn't claim that there was a "Jill the Ripper" so they certainly didn't use it as an excuse for not finding the real killer. That's like saying all these suspects on here are just excuses because they couldn't find the real killer. |
john blosser
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
Consider the history of sexually motivated serial killers, for a moment -- has there ever been such a case of a woman-on-woman killer? Typically, female serial killings come about through poisoning (various nurses, rest home operators with a taste for social security checks, etc.) or, like Eileen Wournos, though robbery. I know of one female case that involved suffocation of infant relatives in their cribs.
It is my contention that the species' behavior seldom changes...we just come to understand it more. Our Jack was a man, I am convinced, and a man who slew from rage, not from political motivations. The mutilations were directed against genitalia, and carried out in a frenzy of sexual depravity. Not uncommon -- look at Ed Kemper, Bundy, Boston Strangler, etc. I am quite certain that Jack shared a motivation with them -- had the same worm in his head -- and that to understand Jack, we need to understand our modern-day representatives of Jack's particuarly quirk. Jack was a man -- not a woman. |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Police Constable
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:40 pm: | |
Excellent point! I don't think it neccessarily rules out a woman, completely, but it is an excellent point and I think JtR was most likely a man. I don't exactly favor the Jill the Ripper theory, myself, but can it be completely ruled out? There are always exceptions to the rules.
Bonedigger
|
