Why Women?

[Supe]

99% of serial killers' victims are women

Documentation, please.

Don.

[ghoulstonstreet]

That's It!

That's very well put, ghoulish.

One word from me: testosterone.

(And I don't mean the triangular shaped Swiss chocolate.)

Love,

Caz
X

Too much Toblerone in the system! How did you know that was my favorite? Thanks for the good funny. And I agree: in one word: testosterone (or in two words, testosterone amiss).

[ghoulstonstreet]

Wrong percentage

99% of serial killers' victims are women

Documentation, please.

Don.

Oh, I'm sorry. It was 89.768% female victims.

[perrymason]

Thank you Nell & Michael
if we just take one side of the argument from those who would have Jack as a sexual serial killer, that being he preyed on women/prostitutes because they were weak and vulnerable targets.... then hang on a minute, for Catherine Eddowes had just finished working the hop season down in Kent, hard and exhausting manual labour, and then walked the eighty miles back to London. And what about Mary Kelly, a fit and feisty young minx who I reckon would have given any man a good slapping in the pub any day.
But no, they were weak and vulnerable victims of a sexual serial killer.
Tosh.

Isnt there a quote somewhere about Mary Jane that supposes she could have knocked a cow, ox or horse over with a punch .....and as you say AP, Kate was tanned and fit and she also had a knife on her person.

Ive always held a suspicion that murders of other than women during that time may have held more Ripper clues than the ones attributed to him. Perhaps Jack was dealing with various classes rather than just genders.

Best regards

[babybird67]

Isnt there a quote somewhere about Mary Jane that supposes she could have knocked a cow, ox or horse over with a punch .....and as you say AP, Kate was tanned and fit and she also had a knife on her person.

(my emphases)

Suppositions and inclinations do not make facts. Nobody is strong with a knife at their neck. Nobody surprised by a knifeman and despatched as swiftly as those women were would have a chance, even if they were historical reincarnations of Goliath! How strong Mary or any of the others were is completely irrelevant...the killer did not approach his victims announcing, "S'cuse me Miss, but i am finking of slitting your throat but myth has it you could fell a large quadruped so i fought i would announce that to you to give you a chance to fight me." They could have had loaded guns in their hands, but taken off guard, they would still have had no chance of defending themselves against the killer.

I think flights of fancy take us further into assumption, or perhaps it is better expressed as 'presumption' in some quarters, than any alleged assumptions others are making regarding the possible sexual motivation of the killer.

The evidence shows the femininity of these women was treated savagely, breasts cut off, wombs torn out, faces mauled, scarred, destroyed. As Frank has pointed out, their skirts were left pulled up, exposing them to onlookers, their legs were splayed. There is enough evidence there to suggest to me there was a sexual motive at play...at the end of the day, this evidence is some of the strongest we have linked to the individual who murdered those women. And at the end of the day, as i have learned from many of those on here, the evidence is what we would be advised to be basing our conclusions on.

[perrymason]

Well on the subject of Mary Jane baby bird, there is physical evidence that says she likely engaged with her attacker physically, she has the probable defense wounds to support that.

If Jack liked weakness and women were the gender choice based on that premise, and he wanted to kill without struggle,...which the evidence suggests.... maybe he should have tried to kill Mary where and how he killed all the others.....he was obviously more successful suppressing their ability to fight back while acting as a client outdoors in the dark.

My best regards BB

[babybird67]

hi Michael

Well on the subject of Mary Jane baby bird, there is physical evidence that says she likely engaged with her attacker physically, she has the probable defense wounds to support that.

The marks are disputed arent they. They could be defence wounds but on a body covered in knife wounds it would be difficult to know for sure. Besides, anyone being attacked would automatically put up their hands to defend themselves...the fact that this may have happened gives us no information about her physical capacity to fight. And if she really could fell an ox with one blow, surely there would be more evidence of a much fiercer struggle than that?

If Jack liked weakness and women were the gender choice based on that premise, and he wanted to kill without struggle,...which the evidence suggests.... maybe he should have tried to kill Mary where and how he killed all the others.....he was obviously more successful suppressing their ability to fight back while acting as a client outdoors in the dark.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting he was unsuccessful with Mary where he was successful with the others? I don't see how you can make such a distinction since they all wound up dead, didnt they, whether inside or out?

my best regards to you too Michael

[Supe]

Ghoulston,

Plucking whatever numbers you want out of the air doesn't provide documentation for an assertion. Be your figure 99 percent or 89.768 can you cite a source?

Don.

[Edward]

Women as victims

Hello All

Found this while trying to answer the question of women as % of victims of serial killers:

Women account for as much as 67% of the victims in serial murders.

In studies of sexually sadistic criminals, it was reported that 73% of the
offenders only victimized females, compared with 17% who only victimized
males. Ten percent victimized both genders.

Dr. Kelley Kline, Applied Behaviour Analysis Faculty. Psychology Dept. Florida State University

https://www.kelleykline.com/ppp/Serial%20Killers2.ppt

Best Regards

[perrymason]

From your reply BabyBird....."I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting he was unsuccessful with Mary where he was successful with the others? I don't see how you can make such a distinction since they all wound up dead, didnt they, whether inside or out?"

The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make ....
is that the question of whether this killer chose women due to their abilities to "fight" with him physically....i.e. he picks fights he expected to win so handily that they leave no evidence that they occurred at all.....then Mary was a bad choice for him to start attacking women with the knife in his hand, if she did fight with him as it appears.

There is no evidence to support, and there is evidence that would contradict, that the killer of C1 and C2 ad C3 even had a knife out before the victim was lying down without obvious struggles. If he choked them somehow, and kept them quiet...thats probably using both arms.

Not related to the question of whether he made distinctions between genders when he chose to kill, I realize....but it does suggest that the killer in the 3 cases mentioned could easily overpower his prey... quietly, if not in total silence without knife usage....and Marys killer met resistance when he starts the attack with a knife.

All the best BB

[Sam Flynn]

There is no evidence to support, and there is evidence that would contradict, that the killer of C1 and C2 ad C3 even had a knife out before the victim was lying down without obvious struggles.

Whether a struggle happened or not is primarily down to the victim, rather than the killer. As such, one could not use this as a distinguishing mark between the murders even if one knew that a struggle had occurred or not. As it is, we simply do not know whether the victims struggled or not, because nobody was close enough to tell us. Where there were witnesses - as in Chapman and Stride - there are unquestionable indicators that some sort of struggle was indeed involved.

Honestly, the verbiage expended in promoting and sustaining various idées fixes on these boards would put Proust himself to shame

[c.d.]

"the verbiage expended in promoting and sustaining various idées fixes on these boards would put Proust himself to shame."

...and some idees are more fixed than others. No doubt about it.

c.d.

[caz]

If Jack liked weakness and women were the gender choice based on that premise, and he wanted to kill without struggle,...which the evidence suggests....

But who says Jack only chose women because he thought they would struggle less? That would be like saying that someone only bought fish and chips every Friday because it was easier to eat with their fingers than Irish stew.

How about Jack only chose women because in his own tiny mind he only fancied mutilating women? I'm not saying that has to be right; I'm saying we just don't know either way, but the evidence certainly doesn't indicate otherwise. We only know that he mutilated females. We don't know that he mutilated any males, nor that he would have done so like a shot had he come across a seven stone weakling one night.

After Kate and Mary, it should have become painfully obvious to even the most eccentric of theorists that Jack didn't only choose women because men don't have wombs.

In studies of sexually sadistic criminals, it was reported that 73% of the
offenders only victimized females, compared with 17% who only victimized
males. Ten percent victimized both genders.

I wonder if that is roughly in line with the percentages in society who are straight, gay or bi-sexual.

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward]

Hi, Caz

Caz asks, "I wonder if that is roughly in line with the percentages in society who are straight, gay or bi-sexual."

I don't have a clue ... Dr. Kline did not reference the statements that she made within the PowerPoint presentation, so we cannot go to the original literature. Review the presentation. It is interesting, but again, it only describes tendancies. The killings attributed to Jack contain a number of features common to serial killers. I wonder how many other common features Jack engaged in (of which we have no evidence).

http://www.kelleykline.com/ppp/Serial%20Killers2.ppt

Best Regards,
Edward

[Edward]

Sexual Orientation Percentage

Hey Caz

Found this on line at:

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=605&grandparentID=477&parentID=591

This is apparently American data, because the Center for Disease Control was involved.

How many people identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?
Estimates of how many people identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual vary widely and there is not very much research done on the subject.
The National Survey of Family Growth [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nsfg/abclist.htm]
asked respondents a number of questions about their sexual orientation and attractions. Males and females ages 18–44 were asked ‘‘Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else?”
• 90.2% of males ages 18–44 identified as heterosexual, 2.3% identified as homosexual, 1.8% identified as bisexual, and 3.9% identified as “something else.”
• 90.3% of female ages 18–44 identified as heterosexual, 1.3% identified as homosexual, 2.8 % identified as bisexual, and 4 % identified as “something else.”

Best Regards,
Edward