Jack the Ripper was really Jacqueline the Ripper

09/13/2010 at 2:28 pm (Human Behavior, Personal Opinion) (, )

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.

Advertisements

Permalink 2 Comments

The Anti-Smoking Wrongs Groups Need To Stop Lying To The Public!!

08/03/2010 at 12:29 pm (Human Behavior, Politics, Trauma, Truths, and Truisms) (, , , )

Smoking cigarettes will not cause cancer!  You read correctly.  This is so very important, I’ll say it again, Smoking cigarettes will NOT cause cancer!  The anti-smokers wrongs groups have spent the last four decades telling you and me a big fat lie that smoking causes various cancers, as well as other terrible diseases, like cardiovascular disease (heart attack & stroke, etc.).  The absolute, unvarnished truth is that ALL cancers are the body’s reaction to a virus (a couple of other things (like asbestos, radiation, and environmental toxins) might also be able to directly alter the DNA of the body).

     Basically, you contract a particular virus, your immune system kills off the virus, however, because of an error in the means by which it does this, an auto-immune condition develops (the immune system continues to work long after the virus is dead, resulting in damage to the organ system, including alterations to the DNA).  Have you ever heard of HPV?  It’s a virus which is responsible for cervical cancer.

     As cancer researchers have found recently, and believed for at least 4 decades, that viruses cause cancer.  The problem is, until those same researchers come up with an inoculation, their benefactors (the pharmaceutical industry) can’t reap a reward, so everyone remains silent, or risk losing their research funding.  Unless there’s a drug (like chemotherapy) or an inoculation (like Gardasil) which will generate Billions in sales, the silence is deafening…and the lie continues to be propagated.

      The lie give the anti-smokers wrongs groups power.  The silence give the pharmaceutical companies power.  Ignorance is power, and power is control.  I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being controlled by people who don’t actually have my best interests at heart.  What about you?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Dave and HAL remembered or was 2001 a Space Odyssey prophetic?

07/10/2010 at 6:43 am (Human Behavior, Personal Opinion, Technology) (, , , )

When does technology become evil?  I think technology (computers, smartphones, iPads, the internet, etc.) only becomes evil when we, as a society) believe we can’t function without it, or it replaces actual human contact (social intercourse).  In some (maybe many) ways the current generation might have crossed that line.  I guess we’ll have to see if our society, over time,  stagnates and dies, or continues to grow and evolve.  I not sure which will happen.  But I am afraid for our kids.

On the other hand, a product of that technological revolution, are miniature electronic tags, that are implanted under the person’s skin.  What with the ever increasing amount kidnapping of woman and children for the purposes of human trafficking and the increasing number of human predators out there stalking, and torturing, our children, tagging our kids sounds like a really good thing.  At least we can find their bodies once the bad people are done with them.

All of this may sound cynical, and I guess it is, but regardless, technology, and our increasing dependence on it, is both good and evil.  We, as humans, must strive to keep our humanity, and positive human interactions, in the face of the dehumanization of our society by our own dependence on technology.  Computers have no conscience.  Only humans have a conscience (or at least we’re suppose to have).  We, as a sentient species, must choose whether or not we wish our interactions with other human being (and other species, for that matter) are warm and friendly, or cold and brutal.  Something to think about, while you’re reading this blog over the internet on you desktop, notebook, or netbook computer.  Enjoy your day.

Permalink Leave a Comment