Is there evidence to suggest that Jack the Ripper was male? It seems that the list of suspects only suggests males, however I haven’t read any evidence that eliminates the possibility that the culprit was female. I did see one woman was suggested by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but there was no evidence, it was just a suggestion.
Plenty of women don’t like prostitutes, and sending the authorities messages signed ‘Jack’ would be a great way to lay a false trail and watch everyone bark up the wrong tree.
The vast majority of violent serial killers who target prostitutes have historically been male. So, there may not exist direct evidence that JtR was male, it’s a fairly safe assumption.
It’s not as though the possibility was left unexplored; at least one female suspect was investigated at the time. In any case, other than some letters purporting to have been from the killer (which were, in fact, inconclusively analyzed for DNA a few years back,) there wasn’t any evidence gathered that I’m aware of which would have yielded DNA. And DNA alone doesn’t identify anyone; you must have a suspect for a comparison.
No women have been seriously suggested for Jack the Ripper because there is zero evidence that a woman was involved. You can try to turn that into a theory but where do you take it?
Not really. He’s never been identified because, unlike in the movies, in the real world here, plenty of people got and gets away with all sorts of crimes.
And I can’t really see what DNA could do to help at all- look, it probably was just the Victorian London version of John Wayne Gacy, some random moron completely unremarkable in any way. It was probably a male because that’s what 99.999 of serial murderers are. There’s not a lot of mystery here.
DNA may not, in and of itself, implicate anyone, but it could be used to tie the murders together. It’s assumed that the 5 key murders were connected, but it wasn’t really proven. The one or two women who had been suggested around the time were only suggestions, what ifs, there wasn’t any actual evidence established that confirmed the sex of the perpetrator either way. It’s amazing that such crimes can leave such a clean trail, even when the police missed the action by mere minutes in one or two occasions.
Incorrect. Mary Pearcey was seriously considered as a suspect. The letters I mentioned earlier are mostly believed to be hoaxes, but a few are widely considered to be genuine, and the DNA extracted from these, although largely inconclusive, appears to have come from a female. It’s not strong evidence, but neither is it zero.
I figured you were referring to Mary. She was just a suggestion though, a ‘what if’. There wasn’t any evidence to suggest she was “Jill” the Ripper. There really wasn’t any hard evidence either way. That is intriguing to a degree being that hygiene wasn’t something people paid much attention to until the 1920’s. No hair, stink, anything left after a struggle telling any tales one way or the other. It’s probably true that whoever it was was probably a nobody street thug. The fact that murders stopped (in a manner) may mean something. Who knows. Obviously it’s a question that will never be answered, but it seems grossly overlooked that more women weren’t investigated.
In addition to what Q.E.D. said, Sr Siete is right that serial killers are almost always male. Granted that this was probably not known at the time, but there’s not much chance a woman was Jack the Ripper.
To say that the murderer was male just because they usually are doesn’t prove anything, it’s still just a guess. Unless that can be said to be valid 100% of the time, it can’t be assumed that the killer was male on the sole basis that serial killers who attack women ‘usually’ are male. It’s entirely possible that it was a guy, but it’s also possible, perhaps less so, that it was a woman. It would certainly explain why the police had such a difficult time identifying the person as they were assuming the perpetrator was a man, despite 0 evidence either way.
Evidence isn’t proof, either. The evidence that the killer was probably male is the empirical data that most serial killers, and particularly serial killers of female prostitutes, are male.
Agreed. I’m only stating that it seems to be a consensus that the killer was male, but there is no evidence to suggest that (nor is thee any that suggests that the killer is female). It’s possible that the killer was just a low life scum-bag that had fun leading the police along. It’s also possible that the killer was a woman, sending letters to the police signed ‘Jack’ in an attempt to detract them from following a trail to her doorstep (assuming she had one). I am not saying it wasn’t a dude, I’m only saying, it could have just as easily been a woman.
it’s not really evidence. It’s a guess. You can call it an educated guess, but it’s still an assumption. As long as an exception to the pattern is possible, it can’t be relied upon.
As far as evidence that actually was collected, you’re probably right, since the police of the time wouldn’t have had any incentive to try to get tissue samples. But if some of the victims were able to attempt to fight back, there’d probably be some usable material under their fingernails.
That picture is really freaky, though. I think the evidence that it was her is weak, but she certainly doesn’t look like someone I’d want to meet in a dark alley.
