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.

Permalink 2 Comments

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

Roostertails and Flat Spins

09/07/2009 at 6:14 pm (Personal Opinion) (, )

Earlier today I went to the Canadian International Airshow here in Toronto and I saw some of the most impressive flying I’ve ever seen.  First there was C130T, nicknamed ‘Fat Albert, piloted by USMC Major Drew Hess.  Then there was the remaining members of the US Navy’s Blue Angels, 6 F/A 18s, commanded by Commander Greg McWherter.  US Navy and US Marine Corp aviators are basically the most incredible fliers on the planet.  Then there was an unmarked, mat-black F/A 22 Raptor, flown by an US Air Force pilot.  This guy performed flat spins, tail stands, and some other moves more consistent with small prop aerobatic stunt planes.

One curious thing, however, no female aviators.  There are 2 female members of the Blue Angels, one is the Events Coordinator and one is the Flight Surgeon, no actual flight performers (aviators), however.  I’m curious about this, how ’bout you?  Is there some reason women don’t perform with these teams or fly hot new planes like the Raptor?  Or is this just a fluke?  And women have flown with the Blue Angels in the past, and/or flown hot planes like the raptor, or the B1 Lancer, or the B2 Spirit? I don’t believe that women are physiologically or anatomically inferior to men, for the purposes of high-stress flying.  In fact, I believe that some US agency (maybe NASA or the US Air Force) did a study that showed that women can actually remain conscious at higher G-forces than men, and function better (physiologically and anatomically — like remaining ‘regular’, for instance) in zero-G environment.

There were other performers, including Canada’s Snowbirds but, I couldn’t take the sun any more.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Lost in the hinterlands

08/10/2009 at 5:53 am (Uncategorized) (, )

A couple of weeks ago I builta new website on Windows Live Small Business site.  I discovered yesterday that it could not be found by searching on Google, Yahoo!, or even Microsoft’s new Bing search, not even under my name or the name of the site.  All because to build the site, I use tools, rather than HTML and I didn’t know about the Search optimization section of Page Properties.  So I change the tags infor and the descprition.  We’ll see.  However, in the not to distance future, I’m going to choose a host where I can build the site from the ground up, Meta Tags and all.

You’d think I’d have figured out about the compromises inherent in using a hosting service’s tools, after all I did have a site on Geocities, and it attracted almost no attention either.  Oh well, gentle readers, Now that I have some experience under my belt, with hosting services,  and I’ve learned how to use HTML, XML, DHTML, XHTML, and JavaScript, I guess I oughta build my next website, the right way (for me), program it from the ground up.  Either it works, or it don’t.  If it don’t I fix it, cause at least I can see and manipulate the actual code that makes it work.

For what it’s worth, I think of websites, computer software, CGI kinda like the Wizard of Oz, What’s behind the curtain, in other words the actual code that makes it work, is far more interesting than the actual illusion of order.  I was a hell of a lot of fun at a magic show as a kid, I just had to figure out what made it work.  And it was the same whether it was the universe at large, or DNA, and everything in between.

And the lesson for today, never be frustrated by how things are, figure out how they work, and learn to fix it yourself.  And at that I will bid you, my readers, adieu.

Permalink Leave a Comment