Jill the Ripper
The notion that
Jack the Ripper might not in fact be a man at all, but rather a woman,
was one postulated by Inspector Abberline himself at the time of the killings.
According to Donald McCormick, author of The Identity of Jack the Ripper
published in 1959, Abberline raised the theory in a conversation with his
mentor, Dr. Thomas Dutton after the murder of Mary Kelly. Testimony given
by Caroline Maxwell, who lived in the area, was central to the argument.
The time of death for Mary Kelly was estimated to be between 3:30 and
4:00 A.M. on the morning of Friday, November 9th 1888. This time seems
fit not only due to medical evidence such as temperature of the body and
stiffness of the joints, but correlates as well with the majority
of the testimony given by those who claim to have either seen or heard
her the night of her death. Majority, however, does not include the testimony
of Mrs. Caroline Maxwell.
Mrs. Maxwell testified to have seen Mary Kelly not once but twice
several hours after doctors believe she had died. The first occassion was
between 8:00 and 8:30 A.M. in front of Miller's Court, looking, in Mrs.
Maxwell's opinion, to be quite ill. Mrs. Maxwell stated that she was sure
of the time because her husband returned from work around 8:00 each morning.
The second time was an hour later when Mrs. Maxwell claims she saw Kelly
speaking with a man outside the Britannia public house.
Mrs. Maxwell vividly described the clothes she saw on the woman she
believed to be Kelly that morning as "a dark shirt, velvet bodice
and a maroon-coloured shawl." When asked if she had ever seen Kelly
in this outfit, she replied that she definitely remembered her wearing
the shawl.
Abberline had no reason to distrust this witness, and she continued
to adamantly adhere to the times and descriptions she had given. The problem
perplexed him, and he later approached Dutton about it, asking, "Do
you think it coukld be a case not of Jack the Ripper but Jill the Ripper?"
Abberline based the brunt of the argument on the fact that it was possible
that the killer dressed up in Kelly's clothes in order to disguise herself,
therefore accounting for Mrs. Maxwell's sighting of her the next
day.
Dutton answered that he believed it was doubtful, but that if it were
a woman committing the crimes, the only kind capable of doing so would
be a midwife.
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.
William Stewart was one of the first to write about the possibility
of Jill the Ripper in his book Jack the Ripper: A New Theory,
published in 1939. In it, he attempted to narrow down not the identity
of the killer but the class of person he might have been by asking four
pertinant questions:
1. What sort of person was it that could move about at night
without arousing the suspicions of his own household or of other people
that he might have met.
2. Who could walk through the streets in blood stained clothing
without arousing too much comment.
3. Who would have had the elementary knowledge and skill to
have committed the mutilations.
4. Who could have been found by the body and yet given a satisfactory
alibi for being there.
Stewart's prime candidate, in following with the conversation between
Abberline and Dutton over fifty years before, was that the killer had been
a midwife -- possibly an abortionist. He postulates that "she might
have been betrayed by a married woman whom she had tried to help, and sent
to prison -- as a result, this was her way of recenging herself on her
own sex."
Stewart mentioned the aforementioned amenities of the theory (anatomic
knowledge, reason to be bloodstained, et alia) in order to back up the
assertion.
Specifically, Stewart seems to have been focused on the fact that a
midwife would have been able to "almost instantly produce unconsciousness,
particularly in persons given to drink, by a method frequently used on
patients in those days by midwives who practised among the extremely poor."
In other words it is suggested that midwives found it common practise to
knock out their patients by exerting pressure on the pressure points.
Mainly, however, Stewart banks on the fact that Mary Kelly was three
months pregnant at the time of her death. She could barely afford her lodgings,
let alone a baby, so, according to Stewart, she decided to terminate her
pregnancy. He claims that the murderer was called in to abort the baby
and killed Kelly once she was admitted into the room, later burning her
bloodsoaked clothing in the grate and escaping wearing Kelly's clothing.
This is important, because it explains the sighting by Mrs. Maxwell
at 8:00 the next morning -- she could possibly have seen the midwife/abortionist
in Kelly's garb: the shawl of which she remembered to have been worn by
Kelly.
Stewart provides other points which suggest that the murderer was a
woman. First he claims that Nichols' bonnet, which she had mentioned in
her now famous line to her landlord: "I'll soon get my doss money,
see what a jolly bonnet I've got now," was given to her by the mad
midwife as a gift. He claims that if a man had given it to her, she would
have boasted of the fact.
Also, Stewart asserts that Chapman's pockets were turned inside out
because inside was held incriminating evidence which could have identified
her as the murderer. After the contents were disarranged at the victim's
feet, the midwife decided to arrange them cryptically in order to throw
off the police.
In answer to the question of why the midwife would remove organs from
her victims, Stewart claimed that she would have the sufficient anatomical
knowledge to do so and that it was an obvious ploy to direct attention
away from her. He noted, "the particular mutilations practised by
the killer held a psychological fascination and horror for all women, and
as a result physiological reactions took place among women and in places
remote from the scenes of the murders."
Stewart also believes his theory explains the reason why Mary Kelly
was unclothed and her clothes were neatly folded on a nearby chair -- the
prostitute had stripped for a routine medical abortion from the midwife
she had contracted. Hence, the midwife struck upon her unsuspecting victim.
Having
thus set the stage for the character of his killer, Stewart continued his
assertions by suggesting that the modus operandi between his mad midwife
and a Mrs. Mary Pearcey were similar. She had stabbed her lover's wife
and child to death and cut their throats, later wheeling the bodies into
a secluded street. These crimes were committed in October of 1890.
Stewart claimed there were two striking similarities -- first, the
"savage throat-cutting," and second the m.o. of killing in private
and then dumping the body in a public place (which would explain why there
were no witnesses who heard any Ripper victims scream.)
Mary Pearcey was described by Sir Melville Macnaghten. He wrote, "I
have never seen a woman of stronger physique.... her nerves were as ironcast
as her body." She was executed at the scaffold on December 23rd, 1890
-- but before the execution, she arranged to place an advertisement in
the Madrid newspapers which read, "M.E.C.P. last wish of M.E.W. Have
not betrayed."
Another interesting point -- Stewart disregarded Elizabeth Stride
as a victim, claiming the press jumped hastily to that conclusion due to
the murder of Eddowes on the same night. He cites the fact that her throat
was cut from left to right, whereas the other victims' throats were slashed
from right to left. Following his lead, this leaves four victims and four
strikingly interesting dates:
31 August, Friday. Polly Nichols.
8 September, Saturday. Annie Chapman.
30 September, Sunday. Catharine Eddowes.
9 Novemeber, Friday. Mary Kelly.
The pattern was noted even during the time of the murders, and many
linked it with the arrival of cattle boats on the Thames on Thursdays and
their departure on Mondays. Stewart, however, believes there must be another
explanation.
All in all, the Jill the Ripper theory is an interesting one,
but many consider it to be extremely weak. Many cite the fact that Stewart
placed too much emphasis on the killer being blood-stained by the murders
-- in fact, if the murderer strangled his victims as is commonly believed,
the blood circulation would no longer be sufficient to cause large amounts
of blood to be splatted during the mutilations. Also, many criticize his
conclusion due to the fact that no victim other than Kelly was known to
be pregnant and, in fact, due to many of them being alcoholics, the possibility
of them being pregnant is quite slim.
Tom Cullen, author of Autumn of Terror, believed that Stewart
had overlooked a much more plausible theory along similar lines. He believed
that Joseph Barnett, the male companion of Mary Kelly, had dropped hints
which revealed that Kelly had definite lesbian tendencies. Eventually,
Barnett was thrown out of Kelly's housing and replaced with Maria Harvey,
the suspected lesbian lover of Mary Kelly. Perhaps the possibility of a
vengeful female would have been more worthy.
One final note of interest -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock
Holmes, believed that Jack the Ripper disguised himself as a woman in order
to avoid capture and become more readily accesible to other women.
