Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jill the Ripper

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

  • Jill the Ripper

    Who are the top female suspects if it was a Jill not a Jack? Did anyone ever come up with one? Were there women noted or seen close to the crime scenes?

  • #2
    Jill the Ripper - Google Search
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • #3
      Though I don't think in any way is this a runner for this case. I do have a question? Has a woman ever been implicated in a crime of a similar nature i.e. inflicting similar kind of wounds or is this something that has always been the domain of men (relating to sexual violence?). I cant think of any examples myself.
      Best Regards,

      Tristan

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
        Though I don't think in any way is this a runner for this case. I do have a question? Has a woman ever been implicated in a crime of a similar nature i.e. inflicting similar kind of wounds or is this something that has always been the domain of men (relating to sexual violence?). I cant think of any examples myself.
        The only female I'm aware of that may fall into this category would be Rose West. She was a dismemberer and a mutilator (with sexual overtones) although it is impossible to determine which horrors were inflicted by her and which by Fred. The first hand testimony of two of the survivors; Anna Marie West and Catherine Owens probably give the clearest insight into Rose West's predilections.

        Comment


        • #5
          Lust killers, which Jack was 100%, are overwhelmingly male. If the killer was female there would far more evidence of struggles with the C5.

          Women serial killers generally kill for money or through a care-giving environment. This includes that of their own children. Of course one can never rule anything out completely but I find the woman suspect extremely unlikely in the case of JtR.

          Still the nuances in the differences of the genders (and how they kill) is a topic of interest to me.

          Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2021-04-12 at 20.52.41.png Views:	0 Size:	63.9 KB ID:	755573
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi,

            Katherine Mary Knight, from Australia, murdered her partner (John Price) by stabbing him 37 times, then skinned him and hung the skin from hooks, cooked his buttocks in the oven and his head in a pot on the stove top, and set the table with place cards with the children's names on them (fortunately the police were alerted when John didn't arrive at work and they got there before the kids got home from school).

            She had been in previous relationships where she was violent as well, in one case killing one fellow's dog in front of him as a threat (cut its throat), and other violent acts. So, not quite the same, as she wasn't going out and killing/mutilating strangers, but there is a broad similarity in the sense that there was a lot of post-mortem activity aimed at destruction of the corpse. There appears to be less of a sexual component, but even for JtR and other male serial killers, the sexual component is really often a manifestation of power and control, which her crimes indicated as well. With males, that achievement of what to them is ultimate power and control then creates a sense of euphoria that turns into a sexual release. While there would no doubt be female serial killers who also have a link between inflicting violence on others leading to a feeling of "overcoming that which keeps them down" and then creating sexual arousal, that sort is more rare. Whether that is due to something inherent in the biological differences between males and females or due to aspects of how males and females are raised and the different expectations placed upon them with regards to what to view as measures of self worth, is hard to say. Probably there's a mix of both of those, as is usually the case in nature vs nurture type divisions.

            Here's a news article on the case.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/kat...RNBKTPMFL2FV4/

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DJA View Post
              ".....Abberline suggested, perhaps they were dealing with a murderess..."

              He did?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi,

                Katherine Mary Knight, from Australia, murdered her partner (John Price) by stabbing him 37 times, then skinned him and hung the skin from hooks, cooked his buttocks in the oven and his head in a pot on the stove top, and set the table with place cards with the children's names on them (fortunately the police were alerted when John didn't arrive at work and they got there before the kids got home from school).

                She had been in previous relationships where she was violent as well, in one case killing one fellow's dog in front of him as a threat (cut its throat), and other violent acts. So, not quite the same, as she wasn't going out and killing/mutilating strangers, but there is a broad similarity in the sense that there was a lot of post-mortem activity aimed at destruction of the corpse. There appears to be less of a sexual component, but even for JtR and other male serial killers, the sexual component is really often a manifestation of power and control, which her crimes indicated as well. With males, that achievement of what to them is ultimate power and control then creates a sense of euphoria that turns into a sexual release. While there would no doubt be female serial killers who also have a link between inflicting violence on others leading to a feeling of "overcoming that which keeps them down" and then creating sexual arousal, that sort is more rare. Whether that is due to something inherent in the biological differences between males and females or due to aspects of how males and females are raised and the different expectations placed upon them with regards to what to view as measures of self worth, is hard to say. Probably there's a mix of both of those, as is usually the case in nature vs nurture type divisions.

                Here's a news article on the case.

                https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/kat...RNBKTPMFL2FV4/

                - Jeff
                There are some interesting anthropological theories around delayed evolution in moderrn humans vs our ancient ancestors with regards to serial killers of both genders. Generally the belief is the hard-wiring of our genetic code has not fully evolved in some haplogroup lines. Essentially suggesting some of these these killers are simply acting on ancient instinct, but it is mis-directed from it's original use. For example, I am not overwhelmed with any desire to kill any animals. The starting point for many serial killers is exactly that. The ancient females (as they do in many other species) will kill their own children (or allow the male to) to keep the security of the new arrival of a new male. Hunting is ingrained in the ancient male DNA and security in the female one.

                These killers ulitmately are driven by their base needs that were designed in order for them to survive. Of course it does not excuse any murder, as humans can ultimately overpower all sorts of urges that remain ingrained in us, but the fact it could be there is compelling.

                Right now it is all theory with no hard evidence to suggest there is truth in it, but fascinating none the less.
                Last edited by erobitha; 04-12-2021, 09:08 PM.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  There are some interesting anthropological theories around delayed evolution in moderrn humans vs our ancient ancestors with regards to serial killers of both genders. Generally the belief is the hard-wiring of our genetic code has not fully evolved in some haplogroup lines. Essentially suggesting some of these these killers are simply acting on ancient instinct, but it is mis-directed from it's original use. For example, I am not overwhelmed with any desire to kill any animals. The starting point for many serial killers is exactly that. The ancient females (as they do in many other species) will kill their own children (or allow the male to) to keep the security of the new arrival of a new male. Hunting is ingrained in the ancient male DNA and security in the female one.

                  These killers ulitmately are driven by their base needs that were designed in order for them to survive. Of course it does not excuse any murder, as humans can ultimately overpower all sorts of urges that remain ingrained in us, but the fact it could be there is compelling.

                  Right now it is all theory with no hard evidence to suggest there is truth in it, but fascinating none the less.
                  Yah, there are lots of ideas out there. Complex behaviours like serial killing are unlikely to be explained in an either/or way though. It's sort of like arguing which side of a rectangle is more important to the area? While one may contribute more or less, both are required. One aspect where biology can contribute, though, is that serial killers tend to target victims they can overcome quickly and easily. Because males tend to be larger, and develop greater muscle mass than females, there is simply a greater opportunity for males to find adult females they believe they can overpower. Females are more prone to resort to poisoning, which does not involve a physical confrontation (the above example I posted being a rare example where that doesn't apply; so it's not a universal thing). Another well known female serial killer is Wournos, and she used a gun (again, not an uncommon weapon of choice by males either, but it is one that minimizes the need for a physical overpowering of the victim). The threat of a victim possibly getting the upper hand could tip the balance for a number of people, resulting in a reduction in the number of females who otherwise might embark upon such behaviours.

                  Again, these are just thoughts occuring to me at the moment, not verified or tested ideas. Human behaviour is hard enough to study and understand when it's common. Rare behaviours are even more so simply due to the lack of data to study, and even more so when there is a strong motivation of the person being studied to not provide information. Also, rare behaviours can occur due to be extremes on different dimensions that underlie normal behaviours, or may reflect some other dimension not present in the normal population. For example, necrophilia, psychopathy (while as a diagnosis this is outdated, but I'll use it anyway as it's familiar to more people), and psychosis reflect different mental illnesses or abberations that have been suggested to underlie different serial killers, yet they are unrelated other than being a mental disorder. Others are motivated by greed, and murder is a means to a financial gain. While often separated from other serial murderers, these are still individuals who murder multiple people, so the behaviour can manifest for what is considered a more "normal" mental condition (it might be considered a nondesirable trait, but greed is not considered a mental abberation or disorder).

                  There have been various attempts to try and determine if there are separable "groupings" (the FBI's initial idea of organized/disorganized/mixed classification, for example, which was based upon 36 interviews has generally not fared well when examined more carefully, but it was an interesting starting point). Some have focused on forming groupings of the types of crimes based upon crime scene behaviour (i.e. JtR would fall into the mutilation grouping; hardly surprising) rather than trying to make the next step of inferring groupings of offenders. What I'm looking for, but haven't found yet, is a study where a large sample of serial killers are put together and attempts are made to see if they group, regardless of how their crimes played out.

                  Let's say crime scenes tend to organize into 4 classifications (I believe that's what the study I read decided), and serial murderers clustered into 6 groups (making that number up by the way), then it becomes possible to consider how those 4 groups of crime scenes map on to the 6 groups of criminals. Obviously, if the above were the case, some crime scenes have to at least map onto multiple criminal groups, but as long as some criminal groups become less probable, then we're looking at what behavioural profiling tries to do - make inferences about the criminal from the crime scene, and if those inferences are limited to "either one of these or one of these", that's better than "one of these six types". Currently, behavioural profiling is very generic, and the emperical evidence for its effectiveness is not great, and there's a lot of bias involved with regards to what is reported publically (same thing with geographic profiling - the really impressive outcomes get lots of air time, the less impressive hits and the misses, not so much).

                  Anyway, I think there's lots of potential in this area to actually do some good studies if one had access to the information. And, a lot of that is a direct result of the early FBI work that really got the ball rolling. Nobody expects initial studies to get it perfect, and in fact, the earliest ideas are always flawed in some way, but it gives a foundation around which to frame questions and start examining things to find out how those ideas are wrong. Then, better ideas are put forth, and the process repeats. The idea is, of course, as we reduce how we are wrong, we move towards more accurate ideas.

                  Hmmmm, I'm digressing now, and will just leave it at that. ha ha

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kate Marshal would be a good candidate for a Jill the Ripper in my opinion. Killed her sister in the room above Mary Kelly and lived in Dorset Street in 1888. A very mean woman, she was.

                    Also, there was an idea of a female working in slaughterhouses that was the culprit. IIRC, that was Bachert's or Forbes Winslow's idea.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ohrocky View Post

                      The only female I'm aware of that may fall into this category would be Rose West. She was a dismemberer and a mutilator (with sexual overtones) although it is impossible to determine which horrors were inflicted by her and which by Fred. The first hand testimony of two of the survivors; Anna Marie West and Catherine Owens probably give the clearest insight into Rose West's predilections.
                      Rose West is a good one as is Katherine Knight but well there is Ilsa Koch, the nazi wifey that made furniture, lamp shades, and such out of her victims during ww2, not sure if Nazi war crimes would count her as a serial killer so much as a mass murderer but it is an example of how it could happen.
                      Last edited by clark2710; 04-13-2021, 03:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                        Kate Marshal would be a good candidate for a Jill the Ripper in my opinion. Killed her sister in the room above Mary Kelly and lived in Dorset Street in 1888. A very mean woman, she was.

                        Also, there was an idea of a female working in slaughterhouses that was the culprit. IIRC, that was Bachert's or Forbes Winslow's idea.
                        Was Kate Marshall seriously looked at for the Ripper murders?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by clark2710 View Post

                          Was Kate Marshall seriously looked at for the Ripper murders?
                          Not that I'm aware of, Clark.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Right, no woman was ever suspected at the time as far as I recall. All this "Jill the Ripper" nonsense evolved much later.
                            It's just another later fantasy idea, not a theory, just someone's idea.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Right, no woman was ever suspected at the time as far as I recall. All this "Jill the Ripper" nonsense evolved much later.
                              It's just another later fantasy idea, not a theory, just someone's idea.
                              So Abberline never threw it out there? Saying something to the effect of maybe we're dealing with a woman here?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X