Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:08 pm |        |
In the graphic novel "From Hell," the authors resurrect two baseless bits of speculation from Ripper chroniclers: Mary Kelly's bisexuality and M. J. Druitt's pedophilic tendencies.
As far as I can tell, it was Tom Cullen who suggested that Kelly might have been a lesbian or bisexual because she invited that hooker friend of hers to stay with her and Barnett, her boyfriend. (Friends said it was simply because she had a big heart and couldn't refuse friends in need.)
And as far as I can tell, it was Donald Rumbelow who first suggested that Druitt could have lost his teaching job because of accusations that he interfered with his young charges. He even leaps upon a graphologist's contention that the author of the "From Hell" letter was a latent homosexual and thought, "Aha! Homosexual Ripper letter writer = pedophile Druitt may have been the Ripper." (But Druitt was clearly undergoing a mental breakdown at the time of his dismissal, and this could just as plausibly have led to it.)
Does anyone really take these allegations seriously? Why have they "hung around" for so long? |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 10:56 am | |
| Dear J.J. If you browse through the list of serial killers,there are an inordinate number of s.k.'s who have been homosexuals,based on what percentage of the population they are said to comprise. Are you objecting to the MENTION of their sexuality or just to the possibility of Druitt and Kelly being homosexuals? Later...Howard |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:39 am | |
Dear JJ:
I agree that there is little to support the theory that MJK was a lesbian or bisexual; it probably sprang from a comment from Barnett:
Barnett states at the inquest that he left her because she was allowing other prostitutes to stay in the room. "She would never have gone wrong again," he tells a newspaper, "and I shouldn't have left her if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping at the house. She only let them (stay there) because she was good hearted and did not like to refuse them shelter on cold bitter nights." He adds, "We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room; I objected: and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere."
And of course, the theories regarding Druitt are pure conjecture.
If we look at the time frames of such theories, homosexuality was not regarded as an acceptable lifestyle (and it still isn't to many, though it is tolerated easier than it was 20 years ago) and many thought that you must be mad if you were homosexual.
Also, it makes it more interesting to sell books if you talk about sex and violence, peppered with depravity.
If I read you correctly, you are objecting to the fabrication of such nonsense and I agree. It clouds the facts more than they already are.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:17 pm | |
| Dear Mr. Brown, As the kind lady in the above post said, it's the fact that these speculations are pulled out of thin air and then latched onto by a sensation-hungry public to which I object. Witness the Prince Eddy marriage-Gull-Masonic conspiracy, which has been aired in nearly all of the popular fictional dramatizations of the Ripper case in modern times. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:31 pm | |
The question of Montague John Druitt's sexual proclivities was first raised by Macnaghten in his memoranda. Cullen merely used the information provided by this source.
In the apparent earlier working version of the memorandum held by his daughter, Lady Aberconway, Macnaghten stated, "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man, (Druitt), of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane."
In the final official version Macnaghten changed this to read, "He was sexually insane and from private info I have little doubt that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."
The Victorian term "sexually insane" should be taken to mean homosexuality. It is unclear where Macnaghten obtained this information but I wonder if a Victorian family would discuss this "shame" to an outsider. The assumption that this was the reason that Druitt was dismissed from Valentine's school may be the answer and that Macnaghten received this particular information from the school.
Wolf. |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:08 pm | |
| Dear J.J. Now I see what you meant. I misunderstood your query,sorry ! Wolf and Divia did get your drift and hopefully provided the answer. Later, J.J. ! Howard |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:29 pm | |
Wolf Vanderlinden wrote:
The Victorian term "sexually insane" should be taken to mean homosexuality.
As I've seen various interpretations of the phrase, I wonder if anyone has really pinned this down (or can do so), by reference to a late-Victorian source in which it's used in an unambiguous context? |
Author: Garry Ross
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:51 pm | |
Chris,
'Self abuse'(as they called the art of winking in those days)(sic) was also seen as "sexually insane"...as was cross-dressing by both sexes too as well as a number of things
take care
Garry |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:56 pm | |
Greetings all:
Leave it to Garry to expand on the definition of "sexual insanity".
*whistles as she exits stage left*
Divia |
Author: Garry Ross
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 09:03 pm | |
Divia,
*blushes* but I'm far too innocent (and young..) to know what any of it means...
*does moonwalk out of thread*
take care
Garry  |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 09:11 pm | |
Dear Garry:
Sure you are... I believe you.
*sings "Billie Jean" as Garry moonwalks out of the thread*
Divia |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 04:17 am | |
Chris, I think you are right to ask if there is an unambiguous context but will be very lucky to find one. I a society where table legs were covered in order to steer thought away from legs in general, euphemisms would abound and clear definition would be impossible.
This is at the very heart of the crimes. In a sexually repressed era the Ripper must have come as a big shock to society, even bare ankles were frowned upon yet he attacked the centre of female sexuality, the sexual organs and reproductive organs.
The only person who knows what Mcnaghten meant was Mcnaghten and he was an authority figure who would be vilified if he attempted to explain further. I think the only conclusion we can draw is that any sexually aberrent behaviour (By Victorian standards!) would be described as such. This probably would include male and female homosexuality, masturbation etc.
'Solitary Vices' is my favourite phrase. Clear and to the point methinks. |
Author: John Savage
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:10 am | |
Hi All,
Should we not think about Aaron Kosminski, a lunatic at Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, were the Admissions and Discharge book tells us that "the existing attack was six years and the cause was self abuse"(Jtr A-Z)
Perhaps this would satisfy the request of Chris. Phillips I think. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:34 am | |
| Ignore this...damn work computer. Read the next one. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:35 am | |
Hi all,
The whole homosexual Jack line of thinking is a bit flawed, in my opinion. While there have been a large number of homosexual serial killers, the vast majority have only killed other men. Since most serial murders are sexually motivated, it is typical to find that they are targeted towards the opposite sex - although, of course, there have been notable exceptions...I remember reading something about an Australian gay couple who were murdering women.
But, in any event, I think it is doubtful that the Ripper was a homosexual, simply because of the victimology.
As for Druitt, the only reason that he was on anyone's lists was because he killed himself shortly after the murders - there was nothing linking him to the East End (except a very tenuous connection to his brother), there was little or no margin for error in his "scheduling" of the crimes as he was frequently playing cricket the morning after a murder which makes that unlikely, and no one has been able to determine what MacNaughten meant by "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man". If he meant that Druitt's family thought him the killer, why not simply say that? Why hedge?
And while I tend to agree with the suspicion that Monty was gay, as that tidly answers the questions of "why did he get fired" and "why did he kill himself", I don't think it makes him a likely a candidate to be the Ripper.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:54 am | |
It is a bit of a mystery why he was included in the list of suspects at all. I don't remember exactly what the circumstances were but the trio were actually a reponse to another officer naming his favourite culprit whereupon McNaghten produced the Druitt/ostrog/Kosminski list. It was just a list of people who were more likely to be the ripper than the other officers candidate.
Apart from that the poor man just happened to commit suicide at exactly the right time. He would have to have been quite an energetic man to keep running backwards and forward committing murders then playing Cricket a few hours later.
I can think of no other reason than a liaison with one of his pupils that would get him fired instantly so I'd say he was at least bisexual but as to a suspect, I think Mcnaghten may have been exaggerating to make his point. In fact the whole Druitt case seems to stem from this 1 mention. Before that I can recall no other references to him in relation to the Ripper murders.
Also I would have thought, given his mothers mental problems, the sacking from his post and his own declining mental health give us all the reasons we need for his suicide without looking to him being a serial killer. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:05 am | |
No one knows what the "private information" was that made Macnaghten suspect Druitt, although he made a number of statements that allow an educated guess, and don't, to my mind, suggest that it was anything to do with interfering with pupils. Unless the statement about "sexual insanity" implies that.
Really, I was asking whether anyone has any definite evidence as to what the phrase about sexual insanity was intended to convey to the Home Office officials in the 1890s. Homosexuality is one suggestion, being a (heterosexual) "sex maniac" is another, and John Savage above seems to be suggesting it referred to masturbation. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:07 am | |
| I don't think Druitt need be accused of being a child molester. The Victorians would have been as horrified at any overt non-sexual indication of insanity or breakdown - turning up to teach class without his shirt on would probably have been regarded as equally disastrous. Unless of course he had always done it, in which case he'd have got away with being thought interestingly eccentric. |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:16 am | |
Hi all
Quite a few intresrting points raised by this thread!!!
Not quite sure how we arrive at the conclusion that an "inordinate" of serial killers are homosexual. Presumable this means that well above the statistical average must be gay. I know it is very difficult to get any agreement about what is the incidence of predominant homosexual inclination among the population at large but most estimates I have seen fall in the range 10-20%.
Of the well known serial killers, the ones who come to mind who were homsexual are:
Fritz Haarman
John Wayne Gacy
Dean Corll
Dennis Nielsen
Jeffrey Dahmer
Juan Corona (possible)
I'd ne interested to know what other names can be added to this list to make up the "inordinate" number of homosexual serial killers.
I am not objecting to the mention of their sexuality, just asking for evidence to support this statement.
We smile at Victorian phrases such as "sexually insane", "solitary vices" etc but this should not blind us to the fact the EVERY age, including our own, has its own prejudices and assumptions. It it arguable that we have gone from the stifled, euphemistic attitude of the late Victorians to the modern assumption that a phrase such as "serious trouble" HAS to be sexual in nature and the necessary modern interpretation of that is that he was molesting his pupils. Can I just reiterate the fact that IF MJD were doing that he would NOT psychologically be a pedophile since the 1881 census shows that the age ranfe of puiles at George Valentine's school was 14 to 17 years of age. MJD, if he had a liaison with one of his pupile would be an ephebophile - one who is attracted to individuals who are post puberty but below the age of consent.
However, that is emphatically NOT the only possible interpretation we can put on the phrase "serious trouble" in the conext of Montague's dismissal.
Other possible interpretations to my mind are (and I am NOT endorsing ny of these, purely showing that other interpretations of the phrase are possible):
1) The 1881 census for Valentine's school show there were two residential female servants. If Monty had got one of these pregnant, surely this would, to the Victorians, be classed as "serious trouble"
2) If we must have a gay "angle", there is a fellow teacher (Mark Mann)listed who is only 2 years older than Monty. Perhaps some relationship between them was discovered!
3) The only word from Monty (if the letter discovered in his effects was genuine) was that he was "going to be like mother". The most likely interpretation of this is that he had fears for his sanity - but that does NOT automatically imply that his insanity (if it existed) was of a sexual nature. If he had cause to fear his own sanity, it is not too much to assume that his behaviour at the school had been odd, in and out of the classrrom. It may well be this incipient insanity that was the "serious trouble" which caused his behaviour to be odd at the very least. IN a less compassionate age, Valentine may well have seen the pending insanity of one of his staff as troublesome and decided that dismissal was the best option.
Again, I am NOT presenting any of the above options as my preferred option for what really happened. Only that other interpretations are possible and, in some cases, more likely.
Hope this is of interest
Chris scott |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:25 am | |
Oh we English have some weird values. Eccentric or insane. As a rough rule of thumb if you have money/status you are eccentric.
As for Druitt I was merely speculating on the original question about homosexuality. The only clue we have as to that is the sacking from the school.
The message generally was just to illustrate that, no matter what his sexual orientation, he is a weak suspect and that his suicide (Far from being an indicator that he was the ripper and his mind gave way.) was more than justified by the shame of his sacking (For whatever reason.) and his suffering from mental problems similar to his mother. Thus his sexuality really has little to do with it and the case against him is and always has been poor to non-existant. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:43 am | |
Thinking about your post Chris, it proves what I have been saying with regard to some of the more lurid theories (Specially the Royal one). They try to make more of the killings than there were. Similarly, once we connect the sacking with homosexuality it becomes almost accepted that the one was the cause of the other. It probably never crossed our minds that there may have been females there and he might actually be (Drum roll) Heterosexual and an expectant daddy.
Hang me high brothers and sisters cos I was as guilty on this as anyone. Apologies Mr Druitt wherever you may be, for jumping to conclusions.
But I stick to my original premise, there is almost no cause to suspect Druitt except that McNaghten thought he might be the Ripper, based on weak evidence.
I seem to remember that someone offered to name his candidate if his publishers were responsible for any legal repercussions. Perhaps this was on Mcnaghtens mind and is the reason he would not say one of his three suspects was definitely the Ripper. |
Author: Michael Raney
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:00 pm | |
Philip,
Thank you. I couldn't agree more. In the first place, if MJD was molesting a student, that may make him a pedophile or an ephebophile, but not GAY. Homosexual men are attracted to other MEN, not boys.
Folks,
Why would someone make a comment like an inordinate amount of SK's are homosexual? I can find no evidence to back this up. Where did anyone read that? Sorry if I seem rude, I take this kind of comment personally.
Mikey |
Author: John Savage
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:33 pm | |
Chris. Phillips
You originally asked for evidence of the meaning of "sexually insane" during the Victorian era. I have always assumed that it could refer to any form of sexual behaviour other than the accepted norm of that time. As mothers are supposed to have advised their daughters, prior to marriage "When it happens, Just lay back and remember, it even happened to the Queen"; we are reminded that sex in those days was not supposed to be for enjoyment, simply for procreation.
Of course the Victorians being such proods, things never seem to have been called what they were, prostitutes were "unfortunates", "self abuse" would cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands, etc. so I think "sexually insane" probably included anything
from a little harmless fellatio, to sheep worrying.
However I think that the reference to Aaron Kosminski does show contemporary evidence that someone could have been supposed to be made mentally ill through masturbation.
Regards,
John Savage |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:38 pm | |
Michael
The quote and use of the word inordinate refers back to Howard's posting (second one in this thread)
Regards
chris scott |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:53 pm | |
Hi folks
The nearest I can find to a Victorian definition of "sexual insanity" is this quote from Prichard's work "Treatise on Insanity and Otber Disorders Affecting the Mind" in which he defines what he calls "moral insanity":
a morbid perversion of the natural feelings, affections, inclinations, temper, habits, moral dispositions, and natural impalses, without any remarkable disorder or defect of the intellect or knowing and reasoning faculties, and particularly without any insane illusion or hallucination. . . . The individual is found to be incapable, not of talking or reasoning upon any subject proposed to him, for this he will often do with great shrewdness and volubility, but of conducting himself with decency and propriety in the business of life.
So the implication seems to be that someone who is "morally insane" was only mentally affected in that area - i.e. his deficiency was in his moral standards but his other intellectual and mental capacities were unaffected.
If Macnagthen was using "sexually insane" in the same context this may mean that Druitt, in his opinion, lacked the "normal" self constraints on his sexual behaviour but was otherwise able to function within society.
Anyone who wants to read more about this should look at
http://65.107.211.206/science/psych/psychov.html
This is the Victorian Psychology section of the Victorian Web site
Hope this is of interest
Chris Scott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 03:33 pm | |
Hi all,
Thanks to Chris Scott for providing the information!
Assessing someone else's sexual proclivities is always problematical. I do not know if it is fair to say that serial killers who kill women are heterosexual and that homosexual serial killers only murder men.
That thinking, to me at least, seems to ignore the fact that for many people their sexuality is more complicated than that. Categorizing people in such boxes seems to leave out the varying degrees of bisexuality and inclinations that exist in many people.
Homosexuality today, and especially in the times of the Whitechapel crimes, is not something most people with that orientation shares publically.
I have seen written, and stated, numerous times, that homosexuals serial killers do not murder women - they murder other men.
Do we really know the internal proclivities of a serial killer such as Ted Bundy? There is no possibility that he may have secretly been attracted to men or engaged in sex acts with other men? Cannot the same be asked of virtually every serial killer?
One of the criticisms launched against the candidacy of Dr. Tumblety for being Jack the Ripper is that he engaged in sex with men. I do not understand how one can assume that this means he did not find women also sexually appealing.
A few years ago, here in San Diego, the police did a sweep and made arrests in park that homosexuals met for intimate rendezvous. One of the police officials was quoted as saying that almost half of those arrested were married.
My point is that we may know a specific sex act that a person has engaged in. That does not mean we can quantify what sex acts they do not engage in from that example.
So, was Jack the Ripper heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual? There really is no way, at this point in time, to know.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 04:54 pm | |
| Mikey and Chris..I should have used the term "disproportionate' NOT inordinate,regarding the amount of homosexual serial killers....Eiler,Baumeister,Gacy,Coryll,Lucas and his buddy without the teeth,the ones Chris named,Kraft,Speck( yeah..he was ),Manson,etc. There are numerous sites on the Internet that will provide more details and more names. Where anyone gets the idea that 10-20 percent of the population is homo is beyond( hopefully not behind ) me !!! Thats crazy. No offense,Mike,but why would you be upset if someone said that there were a lot of homosexual serial killers,as in fact there are? I'm not being nasty,so don't you..or I'll scratch your eyes out !!!! HB |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 04:58 pm | |
| "Homosexuals are attracted to other men,not boys..Pedophiles are attracted to boys..." Uhh...whats the difference if the pedophiles are men,Mike ? Its still male to male,ain't it? HB |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:05 pm | |
Hi Brian
A lot of good points have been made for and against Jack's sexuality, and there are so many
unanswered questions.
I am wondering whether or not Jack may have been
born with both organs. We hear of this happening
so much today in comparison to years ago, but I'm
sure it probably existed then. Jack could have been a very frustrated man, not sure whether he
should squat or stand. Or he may have been altered
at birth at the recommendation of the Doctor or
Midwife. The parents opting to sew up the female
portion and bring him up as a male.Maybe he had
a small organ and the prostitutes made fun at him
through the years, until he snapped and had his
revenge. Mary Kelly may have been the one that he
wanted to really destroy but did not have an
opportunity to get to her due to Joe Barnett. Once
Joe left, he was able to do all that he wanted to
her, because he was inside and didn't have to worry about being interrupted.I think he knew her
and the routine of the doss house. As far fetched
as it sounds, he was able to quit killing after
her murder which totally satisfied his pent up rage.
No I'm not nuts, it's just an opinion.
regards julie |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:35 pm | |
| Brian is probably correct..IF Jack was gay,he more than likely would have killed men. However,if he was an alleged gay person,like Tumblety,who was married to a woman of alleged low repute,then..ahh,.......... SHUT UP HB !!! I just saw Mike Raney's picture profile and like Howard rhymes with Coward,I better shut my big yap !! I don't need a broken nose !!! |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:47 pm | |
Chris:
Very good point about "going to be like mother".
Do we have information about the precise nature of Mrs. Druitt's illness? Perhaps that could shed light on what Montague may have been experiencing and was so worried about.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ky
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:12 am | |
Hi All,
Although I'll admit that its an interesting train of thought, I really don't think that arguing about JtR's sexuality will get us anywhere. Unless you've got a list of who was and wasn't gay at the time, how does knowing it help?
Ky |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 09:03 am | |
Tim
Thanks for comment!
Re the nature of Ann Druitt's insanity, according to the A-Z, she "suffered from depression and paranoid delusions that she was being electrocuted."
Hope this helps
Chris Scott |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:53 am | |
Chris:
Interesting. Nice Victorian-era equivalent of the modern "messages through the TV" delusion.
I wonder if MJD had been displaying inappropriate behavior (*not* of a sexual nature, but just generally bizarre), and that's why he was fired?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:09 am | |
chris scott:
Thanks for the post about "moral insanity". That's the closest I've seen to what I was looking for.
On the nature of Ann Druitt's illness, Paul Begg, who located her case papers in the records of the Manor House Asylum, Chiswick, adds a little more: "Mrs Druitt's mental condition took the form of delusions - that she was being electrified for example - an unreasonable refusal to spend money, and the rejection of food." (Jack the Ripper: the Uncensored Facts, p. 176 (1988)). [A curious coincidence with some of the features of Aaron Kosminski's illness!] |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:59 am | |
Hi Ky
Re your question about Jack's sexuality? and what the point is in trying to find it out, maybe the point your missing is that if we cant prove who he was, we might be able to say who he wasn't? and the suspect list could be altered dramaticly. I'm not saying that in this case this line of investigation would yield results but in all crimes where there is a lack of clues to the perp's identity, then this line of investigation is valid if only to shorten the list of suspects.
GF |
Author: Michael Raney
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:46 pm | |
Ok guys, in the first place I do not understand what a person's sexuality has to do with wether or not they are a murderer. I also do not see what relevance it has regarding Jack, as being homosexual in 1888 was a whole lot different than being Gay in the new milenium. The problem I had was ANYONE making a statement that the number of homosexual serial killers was disproportionately high. Once again someone is repeating propaganda that is based on conservative or religious beliefs rather than facts. On another message board I'm on, "GAY ISSUES", we have been having a discussion about this very same thing. A couple of people have done some extensive research on this issue. What they have found out is that there have only been 37 gay or bisexual serial killers documented over a one hundred year period, world wide. These killers have been proven to be responsible for 247 deaths. This is a very small percentage of total serial killers and an even smaller percentage of total deaths. If you assume that 10% of the population is Gay, (a reliable number, let me assure you) the number of Homosexual Serial Killers is disproportionately low compared to the population. Gays have gotten the blame for everything up to and including the 9/11 attacks. We need to stop looking at sexual orientation as a "cause" for anything. If someone commits a crime and is openly Gay, then the fact in evidence is that they are Gay, not that the crime was a result of their being Gay. Please do the research before you state anything as "FACT". I'm sorry if I am rambling here, this is an issue that I'm passionate about. With all respect,
Mikey |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:04 pm | |
Michael,
It's not a cause that we're looking at, it's merely a motive. Granted, it's a crappy motive, and one that I don't think fits the facts, but it's a motive nonetheless.
I don't think anyone is thinking that if the Ripper was gay that this was a factor in his decision to begin killing. Merely that it does fit into some people's ideas as to why he attacked women and mutilated them.
And you are right - social stigma about homosexuality has caused an undue amount of attention being placed on the gay serial killers, like Dahmer and Gacy. And it's unwarranted.
B |
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:16 pm | |
Michael Raney
I can speak only for myself, but I was interested in clarifying a particular statement about a particular suspect, not to make any blanket implication about the population at large.
Nevertheless, if the people who came up with the statistics you quote, could split them up into male and female victims, it might be useful in considering some other particular suspects. Bearing in mind, of course, that we shall never know all the circumstances, and many things are not as simple as they appear! |
Author: Michael Raney
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:26 pm | |
Chris Phillips,
I totally understood what you were asking, which is a legitimate question. It was comments by other posters that I objected to. I will do the research and find out the number of female victims as opposed to male victims.
Brian,
I understand that it could be a motive. It was the blanket statements about Gays that caused me concern. I had to address those concerns.
Mikey |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:49 pm | |
Hi all,
It is impossible to determine with any certainty the precision of one's heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. So, I concur with Michael that it is quite useless and fruitless to make determinations about any suspect regarding their alleged sexuality.
For example, there is no way to know if a person is or is not bisexual if a person has been discreet. That, to a great extent, renders this debate moot.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:37 pm | |
Michael,
I don't blame you for getting miffed with the people saying that Druitt must have been homosexual and then trying to tie that in with Jack the RIpper in some way. His sexuality can't be known and not guessed, as there were many different ways he could have been considered sexually insane by an uptight Victorian official. Just looking around this site and knowing our culture I'd guess that the vast majority of us would be labeled such just for being modern minded.
As far as trying to come up with numbers to prove a point, the whole area has been so politically charged back and forth that I doubt we can trust the data of whichever side is pushing or pulling the numbers. I personally think the most reliable data shows that homosexuals (not including people who have had just one same sex incident, welcome or not, or similar circumstances, which some of the studies use) make up only 2% of the population. But, and I stress this, that doesn't make harassment or marginalizing them any more acceptable than if the number really is 10% or even 20%. Human rights are human rights, regardless.
I think the only possible bearing homosexuality or heterosexuality has to do with the ripper case is that serial killers generally kill members of the group they are attracted to. Since all the victims appear to be female (I've only heard of one theory that might have a single male ripper victim) that means to me it's highly unlikely a homosexual male could be the killer, and a female homosexual killer is unlikely for other reasons.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:13 pm | |
Brian,
I can only assume that the reason you did not
respond to my post is because you think I am
totally off the wall.
That was not the impression that I wanted to pass
on, I just wanted your opinion on my post.
I am not a kook, but I do have a very vivid
imagination. I would really appreciate a response.
Tks julie |
Author: Ky
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 01:03 am | |
Grailfinder,
Oh, I do get the point. I'm just making another, that since we can't truly know who was or wasn't gay at that time, unless you take gossip, rumour or innuendo as fact, this line of investigation won't get anyone very far. If the identity of JtR is ever known I think it would be interesting and possibly enlightening in understanding the psychology of the person. But of course that would be after the fact wouldn't it?
Ky |
