Why Women?

[ghoulstonstreet]

Thanks

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

Okay, fair enough. That pretty much establishes my statement. Different agencies will provide slightly different numbers. The "Aileen Wuornos"s are few and rare.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Yes

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.



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

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, of course. What is so striking about the Whitechapel murders is that they are so MODERN! They are precursors to the stuff that's going on now on a daily basis in the US, Germany, Britain and probably other Western countries. In my mind there is no question whatever that these were crimes of hatred and aggression perpetrated by a man who not only hated women but who regarded them as objects of his sexual desire. This is what always happens. Andrew Cunanen, who was homosexual, carried out killings against OTHER homosexual men. Not women. Ted Bundy, who was straight, killed women, NOT MEN. Gacy, who was a homosexual pedophile, killed BOYS, not girls etc and so on. So Jack the Ripper was a twisted heterosexual male killing WOMEN. This fact is what makes the Tumblety theory questionable.. Tumblety was GAY. He wouldn't have collected or even touched female sexual organs in my opinion. The gay guys I know don't want to!

[caz]

The "Aileen Wuornos"s are few and rare.

Hi ghoulish,

And anyway, I don't think she killed those men for sexual gratification. It was more a case of having murderous contempt for men who wanted her for their sexual gratification.

Rose West was into sexual sadism (all young women or girls), but did she need her husband Fred's approval and participation to set her on that path?

Love,

Caz
X

[Maggyann]

I have been wondering if the victims were women because the killer was looking for something - something that he/she knew a woman had and kept for safety in her body?
Drug runners carry drugs inside themselves eg so it can be done.
I just wondered if it may be that there was 'something' that 'somebody' wanted back or wanted to get hold of and all that was known was some 'Kelly woman calling herself Mary, Mary Jane, Mary Ann, Ann, Annie etc and living/hiding out as a 'pro' in Whitechapel carried the 'something' stuffed in her innards for security.

Or is that too weird?

All the sexual deviant stuff etc sounds a bit off to me as there was so little time with the victims (except MJK) and maybe we are just trying to make it all a bit more complicated than it really was.

Women were ripped up because the killer was or killers were looking for something. Even in the case of Emma apart from some superficial wounds she was badly damaged 'down below' by a blunt object which could I suppose have been a hand looking for something. That attack was not good because she lived long enough to talk so from there it moved onto kill them then gut them to find the 'something'.

[lynn cates]

modern

Hello Maggy. No, it is not too weird, but it is, perhaps, a tad modernistic.

On the other hand, both Chapman and Eddowes' mutilated bodies (except for the facial mutilations of the latter) give an impression of someone looking for something.

Too, I don't think we can rule out the psycho-sexual aspects (read Freudian) of the killings. Although the doctors thoroughly examined the victims for signs of "recent connection" and examined their thighs (ostensibly for traces of semen) and remarked the absence of body fluids, it is still possible that "Jack" yielded his body fluids (if you'll permit the euphemism) INSIDE his trousers as he cut away at the unfortunates.

But this is highly speculative.

The best.
LC

[caz]

He was looking for his mojo.

I don't think he went out looking for a specific woman or women - I see him more like a pathetic Peter Sutcliffe figure, who would have tried to claim they were all as bad as one another and he was keeping the streets clear for 'decent' people, when all the while he murdered and mutilated purely for what it did for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[DarkPassenger]

For some reason people are very cautious to admit that serial killers are driven by a sexual motive. Possibly because society treats sex as a consensual act between two people and cannot accept the idea of victims being complicit in their murders. In this case - and every other serial killer case - the victims had little choice either way.

Jack was a pervert. A lonely, perverted, wanking little cretin. And he liked to overpower and slice up women because it got his rocks off, basically. He sought women specifically, he ripped them deliberately and he took steps not to get caught. Just like most serial killers, he was a man driven to kill women by motives rooted in his sexual make-up.