|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 307
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:42 am: | 
|
Guys,
You may want to check out this website:-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html
It tells of Countess Elizabeth Báthory who was a sexual killer of young women. On this page is describes her as a female Jack the Ripper if not worse. It also says "In fact, the crimes attributed to her would make her one of the worst mass murderers in history."
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 289
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:14 am: |
|
This is the usual sensationalised account of the crimes of Erzsabet Bathory, mostly based on rumour and supposition. What it fails to mention is that she was a widow in possession of the estates of her late husband Count Ferenc Nadasdy, which came to a considerable fortune. This fortune would pass into the hands of her relatives on her death, and also on her conviction for murder.
However, Bathory had provided funds to Prince Gabor of Transylvania to help in a war against the German Emperor. There were rumblings of a trial for treason as a result of this, and if found guilty of this crime her estates would be siezed and pass into possession of the state.
Bathory certainly was a hard mistress and mistreated her servants. However there is no historical evidence of murder other than the confessions extracted under torture from her servant Darvulia and others. The likelihood is that the charges were trumped up by her relative (through the marriage of her daughter) Count Gyorgy Thurzo to prevent the estates from passing out of the control of the family. |
Conor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 10:55 am: |
|
WC Murderer
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).
Now if there was anyone going around at the time that was seen on a regular basis with the women supposedly murdered by Jack the Ripper wouldn't this put big suspicion on this person? I have never heard of any one person having regular links with all the suspected JtR victims and if there is someone who had regular contact with these woman I'd hold them as a very high suspect. |
Karen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Several people have discounted Jill the Ripper theories because there is no solid evidence that Jack was a she, but it is also true there is no solid evidence that Jack was a he. This assumption is often made because the 'average' serial killer is male, but this is hardly an average case as you tell since it is still being discussed well over a century after the fact. Although it may not be likely that JtR was a woman, it is certainly a valid posibility |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:14 am: |
|
Hi Karen,
I don’t know about the ‘average’ serial killer being male, I was under the impression that documented cases of heterosexual female serial killers acting alone could be counted on the fingers of a hand with almost all the fingers missing.
So if Jill must be considered a possibility, I think it has to be Jack and Jill working together or a Jill in – ahem - comfortable shoes with big strong muscles (Jill, that is, not the shoes).
Love,
Caz
PS Politically correct posts will be resumed after midnight 
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 373
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 5:18 am: |
|
Caz,
So maybe it was a homosexual female killer?? We probably wouldn't know of that many today as it was a very "hush hush" topic back then. Maybe she was taking out her frustration.
I don't know but I still don't believe it was a woman but I suppose it is a possibilty.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
It was a man – I wasn’t being serious.
Anyway, why would such a woman feel frustrated among the East End prostitutes? I thought it was only dear old Queen Vic who denied the existence of women who – ahem – go on walking holidays.
Not that I would dream of making a habit of casting nasturtiums at royal personages.
Love,
Caz
|
Katylynn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Jill the Ripper could not have killed all those women because back in those days women did not have the knowledge to remove kidneys and such.
|
Brittany
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:59 am: |
|
I agree totally. It's very possible because women were considered too meed and mild to do something like that. And to Katylynn: what if she had a brother who was a doctor? Took one of his books and researched exactly what to do. There are so many possibilities in this case, that it may never be solved. |
Sarah K
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:37 am: |
|
Katylynn I have to disagree. You don't need to be a doctor or even a butcher to know enough about anatomy to slash the abdomen and pull out parts. Kidney was and is part of the diet of the English and they don't look radically different from a sheep or cow. In pulling out organs it would be the most readily identifiable (and easiest to carry) organ he/she could take. I admit I seriously doubt "Jill" but only because it's statistically the least probable option. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Sarah
I have to agree with you here. Just because women were considered inferior to men, it doesn't make them less likely to commit murder such as those in Whitechapel.
I don't believe in this theory for a minute but I still think a women was physically capable of it, even back then.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
John Porter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 12:55 am: |
|
Putting the 'strength' factor aside, it is inconceivable for a woman to do such horrendous things to another woman. Women would shoot their lover or poison them ( a womans preferred method as it is non confrontational) but I just can not see a woman systematically disembowelling another woman. In the case of Mary Kelly that could only possibly be the work of a man ie. a scorned lover in a jealous rage. It was a crime of passion and only a man could be that passionate about a woman and let her drive him to such a deed. It does appear that Mary Kelly was the ultimate victim, the one that satisfied the rage and only someone very familiar with Kelly and her schedule would have the confidence to set about the task without fear of being disturbed (not to mention the mystery of the locked door!). There is no doubt that we are looking for a man and while I find the Jill the Ripper theory intriguing, any serious investigator has to discount it. Remember that the witnesses saw the victims talking to men just before their deaths, not women! |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
John,
Very Good points all around. Women just dont
cut open the abdomen and pull out someone's guts.
That's pretty cut and dry. No pun intended.
Paul |
Lovely girl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:14 pm: |
|
I would. Never been to a January sale? |
John Porter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:17 am: |
|
If only you'd have been around at the time Lovely girl, you would have caught 'Jill' in January 1889 in Harrods, getting 50% off a new set of knives!!!
Cheers to you too Paul. I will look out for you guys on other threads as I'm moving on. JTR was clearly a man or men, which doesn't seem to leave much to debate. Can't waste time as we've wasted 116 years already! JP |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Lovely girl,
You too get an A for creativity. I have been to a January sale and unfortunately have witnessed the disembowelment that you speak of. My girlfriend went to one and came back with a spleen and a gall bladder.
Paul |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I'm afraid that I am unfamiliar with Jill the Ripper. Would anyone care to enlighten me? I read through the forums but I can't seem to understand the why you all are relating a suspected killer to a January sale, short of pure humor, that is.
Much Thanks,
Angel_Eyes |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:37 pm: |
|
John,
I am afraid that I have to disagree with you. The prospect of Jack the Ripper actually being a woman is indeed Probable. If you think for one second that a woman is incapable of such a deed then you haven't met the worst of us. Personally, and this is just me speaking about myself, I believe that any woman back in those days would be capable of this. MORESO, the "unfortunates", primarily because they were all pining for money and eliminating the competition seems a likely solution, thus, awakening in them a disgusting passion that we all as human beings have and, thankfully, don't use. You wanted to put aside the strength issue and in doing so, you brought it up again. Maybe not strength of body but definately the strenght of mind and soul. John, I implore you to check your ideas that women are non-confrontational and mild, docile creatures because the reality is, women are the worst and the most violent creatures around and if you don't believe me, then you need to begine dating REAL girls. (assuming you aren't gay)
Thank you,
Angel_Eyes |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 346
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Angel_Eyes,
The theory is that Jill the ripper was a rival prostitute, insane midwife or female with some issues regarding prostitution. My personal feelings are that Jack was a man. They were just joking above about the January sale thing, but it was pretty comparative with your "real girls" theory that a female could be a murderer.
Mikey |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 4:03 am: |
|
Everyone -
I'm new to the JtR mystery. I mean as a human being I had heard of it but have only recently gotten into the intrigue, and research. Based on what I have seen thus far though, I would have to say that the Jill the Ripper theory is questionable, but worth the questions. From what I have seen there is absolutely zero physical evidence to substantiate any of the theories, no witness sightings or anything of the kind. The closest thing to it would be the theory that the people claiming to have seen Mary Kelly AFTER her time of death, and the theory that the killer was wearing her clothes, seeing as how the woman who claimed to have seen her had only seen her twice previously in her life. As far as that goes I can buy it, especially looking at the time period, the prostitutes in this end of town were all very fond of the drink, and knowing how i personally react while under the influence, had i seen someone i had only run into twice, and i was severly intoxicated, it is very plausible that I would mistake them as well. A further not on the Jill theory is that if there was ever an unsolved mass murder in history to be carried out by a woman, this is it.
A) A Midwife would have enough knowledge and the tools of the trade
B)The elimination of competition is plausible
C)What about the prospects of a jealous housewife? Find that her husband is throwing three pence at these unfortunates she loses it. In a time period where woman as regarded as lower life forms and abused every day it is not so steep of a mental climb to assume that a woman who has given herself to a man goes nuts after finding him tossing away their love to street scum.
Finally and then I will let this little diatribe go, Mary Kelly is the only murder where there is absolute prove it was done indoors. Sure there is rather circumstantial evidence that others were done indoors and then the bodies moved, but the only one totally proved to be indoors is mary kelly. This would explain why it was the ultimate murder. It is the only one where JtR had as much time as needed to do what they wanted to do. As far as conjectures about being familiar with the victims to know their habits, it isnt terribly out of the question to assume JtR monitored movements at the house and knew when someone would go out drinking and when they may be able to gain access to the house with time. Especially given the amount of time elapsed between murders 4 and 5, it allows a lot of time to monitor.
As i have said I am rather new to this so consider these the prandial musings of a man attempting to find the truth, like everyone else. As far as the Jill theory, while more possible than given credit for, i dont know if it is correct. and if it is, it would appear that the most likely candidate is the woman who claimed to see Kelly, even though she was placed as dead hours before. Does anyone know anything about that womans life? or anywhere I can find it? was she ever a midwife or even a nanny or married?
Thanks -
Ken Morris |
Ashlyn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 3:56 pm: |
|
What are the chances that a woman in that era would have the talent or the strength? Also, on what pretenses would a woman have to lure a prostitute to a quieter spot? |
Morticia Addams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:12 am: |
|
Was "bottom of the barrel" prostitution (sorry about the expression; I know it is insulting to the victims, but nevertheless, let's call a spade a spade) really lucrative enough to have its purveyors killing each other over the quick penny-a-shag opportunity? Those were rough times and rough places, yes, but c'mon - it sounds like something out of "The Sopranos".
Morticia, not convinced |
Anna Beaumont
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Although I'm as doubtful about the "Jill the Ripper" theory as everyone else, I'm surprised to see people dismissing it on the grounds that "women just don't do those things".
Through-out history there have been rare precedents set by women who have committed murders as bestial as those of "Jack the Ripper" ~ two of the most vicious being the crimes of the Papin sisters, in France in 1933:
"In February, 1933, the whole of France was horrified to learn of an unspeakably savage double murder that had taken place in the town of Le Mans. Two respectable, middle-class women, mother and daughter, had been murdered by their maids, two sisters who lived in the house. The maids had not simply killed the women, but had gouged their eyes out with their fingers while they were alive and had then used a hammer and knife to reduce both women to a bloody pulp. In both cases, there were no wounds to the body. Apart from some gashes to the daughter's legs, the full force of the attack was directed at the heads and the victims were left literally unrecognisable."
http://www.geocities.com/neil404bc/crime.htm
You'd go a long way before finding murder cases as hideous as this; there is no doubt but that they were comitted by women.
I mean yes such crimes being attributed to women are extremely rare, but they aren't unheard of. |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Michael,
I agree with you about Jack being a man. I simply had to give women the credit, so to speak, that they, we, deserve. I'm glad you enjoyed the "real girls" bit that I used and hope to hear from you soon.
Thanks,
Azriel aka Angel_Eyes |
Evil Dolphin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 4:55 pm: |
|
onos its so hard to find info for my project, but I dont think Jack the Ripper was a woman unlessthere is greater evidence but you cant dismiss it completely or you might lose the killer |
Dustin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Don't you guys read from this website? While I am skeptical that it was a woman itself, ya'll should go and click on suspects and then 'Jill the Ripper' right here on casebook. It is very eye opening to say the least. It may or may not be true, but it makes some darn good points; such as
"Thus begins the theory of Jill the Ripper -- sometimes labeled the mad midwife. As ludicrous as it may sound initially, there are several points which add credibility to the theory. First, the fact that all of London was looking for Jack the Ripper (i.e. a man) would allow a female murderer to walk the streets of Whitechapel with considerably less fear of capture or discovery. Second, a midwife would be perfectly common to be seen at all hours of the night. Third, any presence of blood on her clothing would be immediately discarded as a result of her work. Finally, based on the evidence pointing to an anatomically educated murderer, a midwife would have the anatomical knowledge some believed the murderer possessed." |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Dustin,
Ya'll? Oh, well. Skepticism is a wonderful thing. However, one musn't overdo it. As the ever vigilant Evil Dolphin so eloquently put it , " you cant dismiss it completely or you might lose the killer". I should think THAT alone would give YOU specifically less ground to claim on the matter. Which brings me to my question. Who's side are you on, anyway? Are you arguing for or against the Jill the Ripper theory? I mean, simply by stating your little quote, you've somehow managed to contradict your own belief that Jill may have indeed been Jack. I aplolgize for sounding a bit stand-off-ish but I have to know? Who do you think it was?
Thank You,
Azriel |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 163
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 9:20 pm: |
|
On March 2, 1879 Kate Webster a domestic servant killed her employer an elderly woman named Mrs. Julia Martha Thomas after being fired by her. She chopped her up, boiled her body, and shoved the body parts into a trunk with the exception of one foot and the head. The foot was buried in a manure pile. The victims head was placed in in a black bag and was never found. The Trunk with the body parts were thrown over the Richmond Bridge with the aid of a friend who had no idea what the trunk contained. Kate was arrested on March 28,1879 and hung on July 29,1879 at Wandsworth Prison, she was 30 years old at the time. This case was known as the “Barnes Mystery”. In Kate Webster’s case it was a single murder, as far as we know, and she was caught rather quickly.
Woman can be just as capable as men in performing brutal murders. I believe a woman could murder many in the manner that Kate did provided she was a little more careful about being detected. I’m not suggesting a Jill the Ripper. I find it difficult to believe that a woman would want to take another woman’s uterus. How many do you really need?  But it could be possible that there was a Jill the torso killer.
Nina |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:00 am: |
|
Jill the Ripper has always seemed far-fetched to me - with no real evidence to support it. I read Stewart's bad) book a long time ago and the theory he put forward had much less to commend it than Odell's Jewish schotchet (spelling?) idea.
I suppose that if the question being considered is - why was JtR never caught? one answer might be "because he was a woman and the police were looking for men". But that is only one of MANY possible answers.
But if the question were, who was JtR? then the answer would surely centre round descriptions, period suspects and alledged sightings that are all MALE?
Just my view,
Phil |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 56
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Phil, with your current sexual frustrations I am little surprised that is your emphatic view. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Phil, with your current sexual frustrations I am little surprised that is your emphatic view.
So still nothing useful or accurate to contribute then, Kitty? |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
All,
I have to say that while the rest of us truly are interested in knowing more about who Jack or Jill the Ripper is, all of the rather personal jabs at one another is a bit distracting. So, I REQUEST that the personal issues be taken to another thread. That being said, Dustin still hasn't answered my question.
Azriel |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
The Jill the Ripper theory has just come out due to binary supposition.
Most people believe that the Ripper was a man. Witnesses saw a man with the victims, some people believe the Ripper to be a doctor making it unlikely to a woman and the first Dear Boss letter of the 17th of September (not to be confused with the one from the 27th) was signed Jack the Ripper, not Jill.
All the evidence, thought none of it concrete, point to the Ripper being a man. There is no reason to believe it's a woman. The reason why the female Ripper came to light was when someone suddenly stood up with the mentality that "Because everyone else thinks it's a man, I'm going to think it's a woman,"
It is complete speculation, it's like me saying "Because everyone else thinks it's a human, I'm going to think it's a chimp," It's ridiculous and the only reason the theory exists is because the opposite theory exists. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 125
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
As I said above, the Jill theory is not one that convinces me, but I do see some logic behind the argument, and it is good that it has been explored.
The Kelly sightings and their nature, after she was supposedly dead, and the burned female clothing in the grate at Miller's Court might both point in direction of a woman, or a man in female clothing.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I have a problem with the midwife variation because the killer could find and extract a kidney but when he/she tried to remove Chapman's uterus he/she took a piece of Annie's bladder with it. If a midwife didn't know another thing about anatomy she would know uteri and their surroundings. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 251
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
...and not to forget !
The recent cases [not just one lone incident,but two !] of women either successfully eviscerating a pregnant woman and a thwarted attempt at the same,in order to take the unborn fetus,both in the MidWest of the USA, show that ladies can get funky with their bad selves at times themselves...
But,of course,the Ripper's victims were prostitutes..these contemporary examples weren't.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 525
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Hi exPFC Wintergreen,
I don't think the Sept. 17th "Dear Boss" letter can be used as an argument that Jack was male. First, because it would be logical for a female to continue to let people believe it was a male so it'd be less likely for her to be caught. Second, it's not known whether the true killer actually sent any letters or not. Third, most experts believe the Sept. 17th letter is a hoax document created in the 20th century.
The rest of your arguments are more persuasive, however. Of course, like most things in the case, I don't think we can be 100% sure that Jack was male.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Dan, maybe I should have used the prefix that I used about Jack being a doctor when talking about the 17th sept letter. That being there are some people believe it, I'm certainly not completely convinced of it authenticity and I admit I was just scraping the barrel for a third point.
Phil, I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the clothes found in the grate were explained by the fact that a friend of Mary Kelly had actually left some clothes with her. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Hi ex-PFC
One of the strongest arguments against the killer being a woman is that it is usually thought that the murderer would have needed strong upper body strength, which most women would lack.
You cite the rival prostitute/Jill theory as being proposed because it is an alternative to the generally held notion that the killer was a man, as if the people who propose such a theory are just being contrary.
Rather though, the theory might merit some consideration because it does seem as if the killer had something about them that allayed the women's fears, that somehow enabled him/her to make the victim seem safe and then to escape undetected.
A woman, or else a man masquerading as a woman, might be able to achieve these things. The victim might be more wary with a strange man but lay those fears aside it they thought they were "safe" with a fellow woman.
All my best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Also back then a man dressed as a woman, was a strange man. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Hello,
How about Mary Jane Kelly herself,as Jill the Ripper?
Well,don't laugh,it would explain a lot of unanswered questions:
1.The Maxwell and Co. post ETOD sightings.
2.The reason why Kelly threw out Barnett in favour of putting up potential victims.
3.The false name!
4.The reason why the Millers Court victim was mutilated beyond recognition.
5.An explanation as to why no relatives attended "Kelly's" Funeral.
Kane |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Yes but they were prostitutes, even if they were wary of being with a man they had no choice but to make a leap of faith every so often if they wanted to afford the luxury of food.
Most of them probably suffered from the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. |
C.Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Greetings and salutations,
With many strong suspects for the JtR crown, I am afraid I will have to declare Jill a scratching from the race.This point is just too hard to get around.Jump onto the witness section on this website and have a good look. 14 witnessess all saw men - zero women.The descriptions included:
* moustache
* broad shoulders
* stout
* all dressed in mans clothing
* Jewish appearance - assume facial features
Israel Shwartz saw the ripper attack Stride - it was not a women - case closed.
By supporting Jill you are literally saying none of the men seen right before the murders and during Stride's murder are the killer.If anyone would like I will gladly offer odds of 1 000 000 : 1 and legally honour it if she is proved the ripper! |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Howdy,
Good post C. Shaw.I dont even need that convincing. The type of woman that could do that to Mary Kelly would have alot of facial hair, a deep voice and a pair of nads. Since women didn't start using steroids until the East Germans pumped their female olympians full of them in the 20th century, I would rule out Jill at about a million to one also. Cheers. |
mariam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I saw a program today on TV..- 'Richard and Judy show'. This guy..he is an author came on it claiming that he has found evidence that links his great uncle to the murders. This guy is an author and wanted to write a book about his great uncle, who was a very famous doctor and who had served the royal family. While researching about his uncle and reading his diary etc he stumbled upon a few facts. His uncle was a famous Doctor at the time and was in the whitechapel area at the time and dates of the murders. His great uncle was desperate to have a child with his wife ..but they were unable to have one. He was frustrated and wanted to find a cure as a Doctor to do this. He knew ALL the victims of the murder as he as a doctor carried out their abortions (as they were prostitutes). After the murders his great uncle moved back to Wales and left medicine (at the age of about 44). There are lots of other facts linking him.. but not being a person familiar to this topic.. i cant remember or comment on them that well. I am just telling you all this information as it may help you in ur research.
I hope i have been of some use.
Note: It is very useful to find out more about this as the guy (who is an author) gave some very hard facts to this.Try finding out about him by maybe going to the Richard and Judy show's web site.
Thanks
Mariam |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
If you take into account the fact that in 1888 everyone assumed that JTR was a man, then the question of the eyewitness accounts becomes less of a problem. If someone had seen a victim with a woman shortly before they were killed, it wouldn't have registered, or if it did they wouldn't have said anything, thinking it insignificant. |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Come now, Mariam!
Everyone and their uncle wanted something to do with Jack the Ripper!
Azriel |
Scarlet
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
hello Ripperites.
About the case of "Jill the Ripper."
It's very compelling. However, the modis operendi is very much lacking.
You are also forgetting, laudanam would not have been administered before an abortion or medical, if any thing it would have been the common sedative of pure dry gin. Also no chloric acid was used in the killings of Jack the ripper. And that would have been the most likely to be used in that scinario with a mid-wife.
Although Abberline and Conan Doyle did make an exellent point about the ripper using womans clothing as a disguise. From his "Dear Boss" letters to the police,,,,,errrrm i don't think so.
I know cross dressers, i know masters of disguise, and i know meglomaniacs. The three rarely meet, and they have wildly different writing styles.
Supposing that the "dear boss" letters are correct, and not a fraud, we should be looking for a man with an educated hand. As any historians among you will know, from merely examining victorian letters of the time. Women and men were taught to write in different ways, adhering to their education. The womans hand tended to be more elegant and decrative, and the mans far more swooping and determined.....just a point to think on.
Well if it were to be my guess,,,,my money would be on a little mensioned suspect.
Doctor Farrel. Young, arrogant and with the god complex that can only be possesed by a surgion.
And the modis operendi i hear you yell at the screen,,, back to the main motives in any serial killers mind. 1,Revenge 2,Money 3,Love 4,Hate 5,Power *Revenge on a disease ridden society that had taken many of his friends, *Money(?)possibly if you believe the masonic stories *LOve for a prostitute that turned sour. or love for a friend that he believed was a prostitute,,,,he was once quoted as saying to his best friend "I would rather pour poison down your kneck then see you married to that harpy" *Hate exactly the same thing and finally Power,,,the power over someones life,,,,the god complex, often felt by surgions and killers.
But i digress
The only possibility i see for any near matches to the rippers identity, is pure good old fashioned and somewhat primative detective work,,,,,easy, match up the hand writing of each suspect with that of letters to the police.
so,,,,,,who do you think the ripper is? |
Sam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hey scarlet
Just one point. u say that the only way to match up the ripper is to see if the handwriting is true to the suspect. The problem is that the police don't know if the letters were sent by the ripper, therefore even if they did match handwriting the suspect still wouldn't necasseraly be the ripper |
mercury rising
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
some people believe that the reason why, in history, there has been possibly a handful of female murderers and countless men is because...women are too clever to get caught.
i am not saying that jack could be a woman...but if you were a murderer, would it not be in your best interest for people to think the complete opposite of who you are?
i will not name the case...but there was a hurrendous murder in england a few years ago when two people went missing...the people of the town got together and went on a hunt to find these missing people...one of the people who joined in the hunt - who gave pittying and tearful interviews to police and the news crew - was the murderer.
now...i am not saying that jack the ripper was a woman. i agree with a post by john porter - yes the strength is an issue for women. i myself am bloody weak! and ashamed of it! but i have a female friend whom is into fitness, and can lift up my uncle... very shameful for him, but do you see my point?
as a woman..i do not like to see any harm come to another woman. i would rather give a prositute the last bit of money left in my purse in hope that she would not have to lay with some guy she didn't know that night, but i'm not insane.
if your mind is not right, it does not matter what your gender is...if you are crazy enough to kill...it is possible to be crazy enough to rip up your victims, too. or at least this is what i believe.
and again, its possible that (and i do not one hundred percent believe jack was a woman, but hear me out,) this female ripper could have commited the initial, brutal act of grabbing and cutting the throat to the bone...it's been proven in many cases that people find overwhelming strength in certain scenario's.
a woman lifted a car up so her daughter could remove her foot from beneith the wheel...when you are unstable...when this person gave into his or her urges to commit these terrible murders....he or she took on another 'face.' it is highly probable that when over come with this urge, the murderer found strength - this has been proven also.
personaly, for what any of it's worth - i don't think it's likely for jack the ripper to be a woman...but then, what do i know? who can say that one suspect is any more likely than another, when nothing in this case has been proven?
my soul point for this post was not over the gender of the ripper, because in this certain scenario i believe it was not a woman. my point is that, you cannot illiminate the prospect of jack being a woman for BEING a woman.
in other words (hopefuly ones that make more sense,) i do not believe that you can say 'there is no way it is a woman, because a woman would not do this that and the other, to another woman.' in my opinion this is ridiculous.
you cannot say that it is impossible for a person to perform an action, be it strength or mutilation. there is no telling what the sick mind can do.
the reasons for me not believeing that jack was not a woman have nothing to do with gender, it is merely through what little evidence there is, which points it towards being a man, in my mind anyway - and only mine.
if you, like me, are thinking of likely suspects, then is it not likely that the very policeman who searched the streets by day, haunted them by night under a completely different intention? This is just as probable as any other conclusion when dealing with something like this...we are all pulling at straws, even if unknowingly one idea stumbles on the truth - sadly we have yet been able to prove it.
it is scary...but true. people can have two very, very different sides to them. jekyl and hyde is not just fictional...i know people who live with this everyday.
to sum it up, my whole point to this post is,,,when dealing with mental illness...you cannot bracket the mind, and rule out things by gender. the mind has no brackets or bounderys, a sick mind will not allow you to commit a murder, but dis-allow you to follow through with other things.
if the mind is ill...sick... all reason, all normality goes out the window.
the only reason i am so passionate on this subject, is because i myself have lived with someone with two faces my whole life - obviously not on the scale of murder, but when you are dealing with a sick mind, you never actualy know what that person is capable of, even for a woman.
you cannot rationalize it or explain it - as all normality goes out the window.
jack the ripper, whoever this person was or was not, was sick - we can all agree on that.
also, people make the mistake of thinking that when you are crazy - you are impulsive and enraged...chaotic with your actions. i can tell you from experience of dealing with people in this frame of mind that, this is simply not always true. some people with mental illness's are scarily the most clever, and calculated people you could ever meet... fact.
the ripper had no intention of getting caught, but he had every intention on getting attention, populating the media... populating peoples minds.
isnt it terrible how he got his wish?
i hope that no one took offence to my post. i am not insulting or poo-pooing anyones belief or idea on who or what jack the ripper was, everyone on here has the right to their ideas, and as i said - due to whole 'unknown' factor to this case, everyone could be right - wrong or half right.
i am also not insulting anyones views or claiming to know anything concrete about mental health, this was only my own slant on it, from my own experiences - and as we all know, people interperate things differently. i am also not stating for a fact that women are capable of disembowling someone just because they are capable of murder, all i am saying is...do not rule it out just because of one small factor...when dealing with issues of the mind like these, you never know what they are capable of.
good luck to everyone in their research, and i hope you all have a lovely christmas =) xxx
|
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 7:24 am: |
|
Mercury,
Thank the Heavens that there is intelligence as well as common sense in the world! I very much support your thoughts on a "Jill the Ripper". Personally, I am more inclined to believe that Jack was a man, however, I do feel that women should be given the respect that they deserve. And while it is hardly flattering that everyone know that women are as capable as commiting horrible acts, it is a necessity, I feel. Not to say that I am a femenist to the core, however, I am a strong supporter in the FACT that women are not the sweet and meek creatures that chauvanism has led most to believe. I believe that it is FULLY posssible that Jack could have been a Jill simply for the fact that it was a desperate time for those who were prostituting. Unfortunately, the debate on Jack verses Jill is not about the capability of a woman to commit an act or acts such as the murders but on the facts. As the ever so literate C. Shaw posted earlier, "14 witnessess all saw men - zero women.The descriptions included:
* moustache
* broad shoulders
* stout
* all dressed in mans clothing
* Jewish appearance - assume facial features"
And as far as anyone knows, those are the facts.
Thank you, |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page