Jack the Ripper was really Jacqueline the Ripper
Everyone knows about Jack the Ripper, right? What if I told you that Jack the Ripper was really Jacqueline the Ripper? Well, it might very well be true, and what follows is my argument in support of this hypothesis.
For what it’s worth, I studied, and hunted, serial killers (and got a doctorate for my troubles), with a little help from the FBI. And one thing I’m reasonably sure of, without actual sexual contact (and with obvious sexual content — uterus removal), and a knife as the weapon of choice (although this is not as certain an indicator), you almost always have a female unsub (unknown subject or suspect). The nature of the kills (namely, slitting of the victims’ throats…from behind) also indicates the possibility of a female killer. The other thing I’m even more sure of, the disfigurement of Mary Jane Kelly, makes her killing personal, meaning that Jacqueline likely knew Mary, maybe even vice versa, it’s possible they were even related.
It’s possible that Jacqueline was also a prostitute, though I very much doubt it. It seems more likely that Jacqueline saw her victims as lesser than herself. So, she might very well have been one of the multitude of “Church-ladies” common to the area at the time, all trying to save these women’s souls. If this hypothesis is correct, then it is more likely that Jacqueline was a religious zealot who saw the working-girls as temptresses, servants of the devil, a common belief at the time (as it is today).
A serial killer who believes they are doing right, by cleaning up the streets of the trash (the ‘trash’ being the prostitutes and the beggars), a belief she would have shared with many in the middle- and upper-classes of her day, is referred to as a ‘house-cleaner’. House-cleaners, like Angels-of-Death, refuse to accept that they are doing anything wrong, let alone committing a crime. If true, this hypothesis explains why the police of the day, never caught Jack the Ripper, cause Jack didn’t exist, and it’s unlikely that anyone in law enforcement circles would have even entertained the possibility that a woman could commit such brutal kills, and a woman certainly could not be a serial killer. Today, Jacqueline would be described as anti-social personality defective AND disordered, and a predator type. I can’t be sure if she was a narcissist or not, though it seems unlikely.
Well gentle-readers, that’s the gist of my argument. If you wish to counter this argument, please feel free to post a comment.
Jadescribe's Blog 
Susan said,
10/05/2010 at 2:26 am
Well you certainly could be right afterall.
JJ said,
10/05/2010 at 3:00 am
It’s funny, recently, DNA on various pieces of evidence has suggested that Jack was a woman. However, as I said in my blog post, from a psychological perspective, the kills indicate a female killer. And besides, women are by and large far more vicious killers than men, they’re also far more efficient…they don’t waste time on intercourse, that’s also the way most male serial killers get caught, seman left in/on the victim from intercourse. Think about lionesses and mother bears.