Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Jack the Ripper was a woman, claim.

15 posts in this topic

A BIRMINGHAM author has caused a storm among historians by claiming Jack the Ripper was a WOMAN.

Former solicitor John Morris, 62, has named Welsh-born Lizzie Williams as the Whitechapel monster – and claims she killed her victims because she could not have children.

Lizzie was wife of royal physician Sir John Williams, himself seen as a prime suspect by many other crime experts.

http://www.birmingha...97319-30919572/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again !? It's not the first time that somebody claims the Ripper could have been a woman, I don't know why it "caused a storm". :huh:

Another year, another book about the Ripper, another author writing a book on nothing more than a series of very weak circumstancial evidences. Always the same old story. I'm sick of it.

Just look at the "evidences" the author found against his suspect:

- None of the women was sexually assaulted; Ok so because the victims were not sexually assaulted automatically means that it was the work of a woman ?? Ridiculous, it's very very well documented that not all male serial killer molest their victims, in fact only a minority of them do. Very weak already.

- Personal items were laid out at the feet of Chapman in, according to newspaper reports, ‘a typically feminine manner’ This is by far one of the most ridiculous claim I have ever read in my life. A typically feminine manner ?! How do they even came to stupid conclusion like this !?

Add to this the fact the author have absolutely no evidence that his suspect's husband had an affair with Mary Kelly and there you have it folks, just another theory without evidences, just another author trying to pay his mortgage by writing a book about the mysterious case of Jack the Ripper. It happens every year, it will happen next year, and in 2014, and 2015, until the day we die. Sad.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we will ever know who Jack the Ripper was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that it was not the first time such a suggestion has been put forth (the suspect is new to me I think but someone thinking they've solved the mystery with a new suspect and weak evidence isn't exactly new either).

I've read before that Inspector Abberline himself once put forth the suggestion of "What if it's not a case of Jack but Jill the Ripper?" There was a theory about a midwife and some of the murders were to cover up botched abortions. There was also the theory (also used by Arthur Conan Doyle for a Sherlock Holmes story I believe) that the killer may have escaped attention by dressing as a woman. Fiction writers have used the idea before. I think Robert Bloch had a female teaming up with a male killer in one of his Ripper inspired books and there was a novel called The Michaelmas Girls which supposedly had Mary Jane Kelly as an accomplice and faking her own death. I don't see anything really any more compelling or original in that article and the idea of Mary Jane Kelly being specifically targeted harkens back to "The Satanic Doctor Stanley" (in which a vengeful father was pursuing Mary Jane Kelly as the woman who gave his son syphilis) and the Royal Conspiracy, so it's quite a bold claim to for the Birmingham author to suggest "There's absolutely no doubt the Ripper was a woman".

Tee hee, I still think the best way to catch the killer would be to send everyone a letter saying "I know what you did last 1888!" and see who acts the most guilty or suspicious afterwards ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arghh...it wouldnt surprise me if it was a Jackina....women are better at getting away with things than men.....did i write that out loud...?...oh hell.... :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tee hee, I still think the best way to catch the killer would be to send everyone a letter saying "I know what you did last 1888!" and see who acts the most guilty or suspicious afterwards ;)

Haha that's a good idea. :D

The first woman who was accused of being Jack ( or Jill, whatever ) the Ripper was Mary Pearcey, a woman who stabbed her lover's wife and child to death and cut their throats in 1890. Nothing connects her to the Ripper murders, absolutely nothing. Yes, the savage throat-cutting was in a way similar to some of the Ripper murders, but the reason why Pearcey almost decapitated her victims was practical, she needed to put their bodies in a little baby stroller so she could dump their bodies without being seen. The History Channel's "MysteryQuest" even did a profile of Pearcey in the episode about the Ripper murders, and the profiler clearly stated that Pearcey doesn't fit the profile of the murderer. She killed her lover's wife and baby, it was a crime of passion, a crime towards specific victims, not random attacks. She was a weak suspect, and there's no way she was the Ripper.

This new suspect is weak, very weak to say the least. All you have to do is read the link Still Waters shared in the opening post, just read the "evidences" the author have against his supect. Perhaps the weakest suspect I have ever heard of. I really believe anybody can write a book about the Ripper murders. All we need is the name of somebody who lived in Whitechapel in 1888 and that's it, I seriously believe all of us can write a new book exposing a "new suspect and new theory". I need new tires for my car, let's write a book about the Ripper folks !! :D:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill the Ripper? No way, Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just knew it !!! Sorry SW. I could not help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I've just twigged! "Jack and Jill".......the nursery rhyme :D

I think the revelation claiming Jack is a Jill, is to help sell the book. < Sherlock Holmes B):lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I've just twigged! "Jack and Jill".......the nursery rhyme :D

I think the revelation claiming Jack is a Jill, is to help sell the book. < Sherlock Holmes B):lol:

LOL, heck of an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the revelation claiming Jack is a Jill, is to help sell the book. < Sherlock Holmes B):lol:

Sherlock Holmes is the ******* man ! Still is and will always be. :)

The guy just needed to pay his mortgage, nothing wrong with this I guess, just frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill the Ripper is a load of cr**. Why would a pro go with another woman into a back yard, a side yard, and whever else the victims went? They were out soliciting looking for johns to earn whatever pittance they could. They were not out in that weather at those times of the day looking for abortions or whatever else this writer suggests.

A way to earn money pure and simple.

Jack the Ripper lived in the area, had some knowledge of cutting flesh, and really, really hated women, specifically pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack the ripper was clearly not a woman. If so, the killing of Polly Nichols would have went thus: Go to see Tall Tess, size her up. Nod and walk off. Find Polly Nichols, size her up. Nod walk off. Go to Red Linda, size her up. Nod and walk off. Repeat this process with seven other ladies of the night, before returning to Tall Tess for another trial, then finally going back to Polly and doing what she set out to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whether or not the same person was responsible for the deaths of the prostitutes in the Autumn of 1888 is a cause of great debate; but it was definitely a man. Did you see the images of the final victim, Mary Kelly? Only a bloke could have done that!

Edited by Thaddeus Death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again !? It's not the first time that somebody claims the Ripper could have been a woman, I don't know why it "caused a storm". :huh:

Another year, another book about the Ripper, another author writing a book on nothing more than a series of very weak circumstancial evidences. Always the same old story. I'm sick of it.

Just look at the "evidences" the author found against his suspect:

- None of the women was sexually assaulted; Ok so because the victims were not sexually assaulted automatically means that it was the work of a woman ?? Ridiculous, it's very very well documented that not all male serial killer molest their victims, in fact only a minority of them do. Very weak already.

- Personal items were laid out at the feet of Chapman in, according to newspaper reports, ‘a typically feminine manner’ This is by far one of the most ridiculous claim I have ever read in my life. A typically feminine manner ?! How do they even came to stupid conclusion like this !?

Add to this the fact the author have absolutely no evidence that his suspect's husband had an affair with Mary Kelly and there you have it folks, just another theory without evidences, just another author trying to pay his mortgage by writing a book about the mysterious case of Jack the Ripper. It happens every year, it will happen next year, and in 2014, and 2015, until the day we die. Sad.

Yeah I agree you make total sense with this comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.