Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jill The Ripper Theories

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Harry D
    replied
    That Mary Pearcey waxwork is terrifying. Very manly-looking. She doesn't look that grotesque in the newspaper illustrations. You have to wonder how much 'artistic license' went into her model, or if it was just poor craftmanship.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrister
    replied
    Very much looking forward to hearing Sarah Beth Hopton discussher book and her theories at RipperCon. Fascinating suspect in the Ripper case. Pearcey's confirmed crimes are equally fascinating. Kudos to Hopton for keeping the story of the Hampstead murders in the public forum. Join us at RipperCon in Baltimore April 8 to 10. For information and to register, check our website at RipperCon.Com

    Leave a comment:


  • sdreid
    replied
    Mary Pearcey was hanged for her murders 125 years ago this Wednesday December 23rd.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamNeilWood
    replied
    Mary Pearcey book

    On this day 125 years ago - 24th October, 1890 - the dead body of a woman was discovered on a pile of rubbish in Hampstead, north London. Her arms were lacerated and her face bloodied, her head severed from her body save a few sinews. Later, a blood-soaked pram was found leaning against a residential gate. The following morning the dead body of a baby was found hidden underneath a nettle bush.


    So began the incredible story of the Hampstead Tragedy.
    Eventually, Scotland Yard knocked on the door of No. 2 Priory Street, home to Mary Eleanor Pearcey, the pretty 24-year-old mistress whose crimes inspired speculation that Jack the Ripper was a woman, and whose dying request was as bizarre and mysterious as her life.

    Mango Books are delighted to announce that we will be publishing Sarah Beth Hopton's long-awaited book "Woman at the Devil’s Door: The Extraordinary True Story of Mary Pearcey and the Hampstead Murders" - the first full-length examination of the case.

    Further information will appear on our website:
    Mango Books offer nonfiction books for lovers of crime, detection and mystery.


    Join discussion on the book by joining the official Facebook page here:
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    The death of Phoebe Hogg was certainly precipitated by a frenzied attack, leading to a crushed skull and a near-decapitation. However, although this killing was fuelled by deep jealousy and hatred, Eleanor Pearcey did not possess gigantic strength. She didn't work at a menial profession which built up muscle power. She was kept by a sugar daddy called Crittenden.

    My points still remain. Males were seen with three of JTR's victims shortly before their deaths. Stride was attacked by a male before death. I don't believe in a Jill the Ripper, entertaining though the theory is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosella View Post
    DThe murder of Phoebe Hogg and her baby by Eleanor Pearcey was definitely a crime of jealousy and all-consuming hatred. However Mrs Hogg wasn't mutilated. If Jill was jealous of her husband's lovers surely poison or a stabbing to the heart or even a hatchet attack a la Lizzie Borden would be enough to cause their deaths.

    Why rip their innards open and take a kidney and a womb? Plus, were any women seen with any of the ripper victims shortly before their murders? It may be illogical of me but I just don't see a female killing any of these victims.
    It's worth pointing out that when we are talking about fantasy based murders like these, some people kill the object of the fantasy. The person the fantasy is about, whether it be a potential sex partner or a mother substitute, etc. But some people kill a substitute for the subject of the fantasy. They kill themselves in a weird way. The people who represent them, who can do what they can't, who are what they aren't. That's where a woman might be able to commit these crimes. She would be killing the subject of the fantasy. The substitute for herself, even punishing those who can do what she cannot.

    And some women in this era had jobs that made them wicked strong. You don't mess with a laundress. I had to play one for 4 weeks and I got biceps like a wrestler. That **** is not easy. I wouldn't be surprised if one could choke out a horse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    DThe murder of Phoebe Hogg and her baby by Eleanor Pearcey was definitely a crime of jealousy and all-consuming hatred. However Mrs Hogg wasn't mutilated. If Jill was jealous of her husband's lovers surely poison or a stabbing to the heart or even a hatchet attack a la Lizzie Borden would be enough to cause their deaths.

    Why rip their innards open and take a kidney and a womb? Plus, were any women seen with any of the ripper victims shortly before their murders? It may be illogical of me but I just don't see a female killing any of these victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • sdreid
    replied
    The 125th anniversary of the murder of Phoebe Hogg and her baby by Mary Pearcey is Saturday. It's about the only murder in 1890 that gets brought up in the Ripper Case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pad
    replied
    I'm new here so bear with me. I've been reading about this case from the internet and mainly in here. I've not read any books on the subject.

    I think the theory about the Ripper being a woman is plausible. As stated before, a midwife would have the advantage to be in public with bloody clothes. Not necessary a lot of blood but nevertheless, blood on their clothes would not raise a lot of suspicion. Also, people were looking for a man so a woman being a ripper would allow her move more freely. Midwifes also were regularly seen all hours of the day and had at least basic knowledge of women's anatomy, some would have known more than something basic.

    A woman would have not been seen as a threat and therefore if the Ripper would be a woman, she would have the advantage of surprise.

    The crimes committed were done in anger. It shows how badly the women had been treated. Now comes the most speculative part of my theory. What if the killer was a wife of someone who had been cheating her with those murdered women? "there's no wrath like a woman scorned" is the saying and this could be a motive and also it could explain why the murders stopped so suddenly. All the women who "seduced" his man would have been dealt with. This would also mean that killings were not random but those women had been targets. I know, these victims were not beautiful enough to be called seductress by any means but sometimes a mind plays tricks and you cannot see anything at fault with the one you love so blindly.

    I think the Ripper was nevertheless an intelligent individual and the letters would therefore be a form of distraction. Naming the killer Jack would also avoid any suspicion towards a woman killer.

    The only woman suspect we know of is Mrs. Pearcey. She killed a woman similar manner than the Ripper did and was a rather strong for a woman at the time. However, if Pearcey would be the ripper, then theory of the betrayed woman wouldn't work because she had a married lover later on her life.

    Now, I am the first to admit that there's no evidence for my theory and it's a highly speculative one at best. I'm not saying this theory is most likely what really happened but rather that it is plausible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Hi All

    I don't think the ripper was a woman, not necessarily because women are not capable, but because I think the crimes indicates factors that point to a male assailant.

    Though I don't think the ripper was a woman I still think it's worth pointing out that at the very least the ripper may have had a female accomplice. Case studies have shown that female murderers are compliant with the will of male killers.

    There are women in history who have been part of sexual sadistic ritualistic murders. A theme I noticed with these women serial killers was the drinking of blood and bathing in blood.

    As someone has said, a woman would have no trouble gaining the confidence of another woman, this may be a possible reason for the ripper to have had an accomplice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mondegreen
    replied
    This is a theory I've always found intriguing. I should note that I haven't made my mind up about who I believe the killer was, so I'm not trying to convince anyone here.

    I've seen some arguments against this theory that I find honestly baffling. One of them is the idea that a woman wouldn't have been strong enough. That doesn't add up to me. Men don't uniformly have the same level of strength and fitness just because they're men and the same logically applies to women. It's worth nothing that at the time, not all women spent most of their time indoors drinking tea and chatting all day. A woman who had to help on a family farm or on a business where heavy loads needed to be carried, or even one who had to do large amounts of cleaning work, would have developed a certain level of physical strength. Life was physically tougher on most people, regardless of their gender, especially for those who could not afford the luxury of having people who did most of their work for them.

    I also don't know how much strength a woman would have needed to silence the victims. There are many more factors in a physical fight that brute force. Surprise is one of them, if none of the victims suspected her in the slightest or knew they were about to be attacked, they would likely have been thrown off her guard. If any of them were drunk, tired, hungry, or any such factors, that could have made it harder for them to put a lot of physical strength or coordination into a fight (I'm not blaming them for it, it should be noted).

    I don't find it so implausible that a woman could have overpowered another woman in a fight depending on many factors combined together.

    Another thing that I don't find to be a strong argument against this is the idea that a woman wouldn't have committed this sort of crime. We know that there have been women who have committed horrible murders. Something with the exact facts and scale of the Ripper murders seems very specific but I don't believe it to be completely outside of the realm of possibility.

    A woman could have been far more trusted by the victims, if they all believed that the murderer on the loose was a man, they likely wouldn't have thought that a woman would pose much danger. Some of the locations being outdoors could be explained by her luring them there, perhaps under the pretence of having some sort of confidential personal information to discuss with them.

    There are valid arguments against this theory but I don't believe that physical strength or whether a woman would have been capable of doing horrible things are it.

    I should also note, I don't think that Pearcey is a very strong candidate. She did stab another woman but the circumstances seem to have been vastly different and killing someone by stabbing them does not mean they are the Ripper (after all... knives and other such objects were still some of the most popular and easily accessible weapons at the time). As to the notice she supposedly placed in a newspaper, I've always assumed it to be some message thought up by a deranged mind, though the angle that she may have been covering up for someone (either an accomplice or even a sole perpetrator) is a worthy one if the story about the notice is real.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    easy does it

    Hello Martin. Thanks.

    "Go easy on me Lynn, I really, really like your lad for Polly and Annie."

    In which case, the kid gloves are ON.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Sound posting David

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Won't you realize how far-fetched is your scenario ?
    An abortion in the street at night ?
    Bruises on the head, face bleeding, right ear torn.
    Aged 45 (have you ever heard of menopause ?)
    No sign of pregnancy at the post mortem.
    Great force used.
    What else do you need ?
    But don't get me twisted : I don't buy her gang attack scenario either.

    As for the lodging houses (18 and 19 George Street) you've alluded to, good point.
    And you can add Emily Horsnell to the frame.
    And Annie Farmer.
    And Liz Stride also frequented one of Satchell's lodging houses.

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • martin wilson
    replied
    Thanks for the good natured mickey taking.
    Wither the witnesses?, apart from Margeret Hames who saw her at approximately 12.15am, who else saw or heard anything of her until she was supposedly attacked in Osborn street?
    There are more witnesses to sly Jack in the silent dark than there are of 3 men attacking a woman in the street.
    Women did poke sticks up themselves to induce abortion, it's historical record.
    Or someone else did, and botched it.
    Sugden 'Emma Smith lived at no.18 George street, Martha Tabram's last known address was no.19, it is interesting too that Martha Tabram sometimes masqueraded under the name Emma'.
    Go easy on me Lynn, I really,really like your lad for Polly and Annie.
    All The Best.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X