2 responses to “East London killer Jack the Ripper ‘really a woman’: theory mooted in novel”

1. 

   Steven Markham

   July 10, 2014 at 12:28 pm

   OK. So this is fine as a novel and ‘Jill The Ripper’ is a theory (someone else’s) that has been around for a long time. However, if you’re going against the weight of criminal profiling by highly qualified experts that suggest that the crimes were almost certainly committed by a man, then you need some pretty good evidence to oppose that view.
   The Author says “Most suspects are well-known people. Who has ever heard of a serial killer who was a well-known person? I haven’t.”.
   Whereas there are plenty of crackpot theories that suggest the Duke of Clarence, Lewis Carroll, Dr Cream or whoever were responsible, and famous, the majority of the usual suspects are unknown beyond their connection with the Ripper case; Cutbush, Druitt, Tumblety, PIzer, Maybrick, Ostrog – to name but a few. His statement suggests the Author is not very well versed in Ripperology.

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      Bill

      July 28, 2014 at 9:32 pm

      Criminal profiling is only valid if the proposed motive is valid. It is generally accepted that the murders had a sexual motive – but if that wasn’t the case then the profiling would be meaningless, since it would be based on an entirely false premise.

      ‘Well known’ doesn’t have to mean famous. Maybrick became well known through the trial of his wife, who was imprisoned for poisoning him. Tumblety was well known to the police on two continents. Other favourite suspects, as you point out, became well known through being questioned by the police over the ripper murders – but were subsequently dismissed.

      The thing about writing a ‘factual’ book is that you must have a name for your ‘Jack’ – so most theories revolve around people who were in the public eye at the time, and therefore have something for the modern day researcher to work with.

      Loading…

      Reply