Science

4° London Hi 11°C / Lo 4°C

Was Jack the Ripper a woman?

By Kathy Marks in Sydney

The notorious serial killer who stalked London's East End, butchering prostitutes and terrorising the population, may not have been Jack the Ripper - but Jill.

An Australian scientist has used swabs from letters supposedly sent to police by the Ripper to build a partial DNA profile of the killer. The results suggest that the person who murdered and mutilated at least five women from 1888 onwards may have been a woman.

Ian Findlay, a professor of molecular and forensic diagnostics, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that he had developed a profiling technique that could extract DNA from a single cell or strand of hair up to 160 years old. Conventional DNA sampling methods require at least 200 cells.

Dr Findlay, who is based in Brisbane, travelled to London, where the evidence from the still-unsolved murders is stored at the National Archive. The material, which was kept by Scotland Yard until 1961, includes letters sent to police at the time, some of them signed "Jack the Ripper". Most are believed to be fakes, but a handful are thought to have been written by the killer.

Dr Findlay took swabs from the back of stamps and from the gum used to seal envelopes, and possible bloodstains. He took his haul back to Brisbane, where - concentrating on swabs from the so-called "Openshaw letter", the one believed most likely to be genuine - he extracted the DNA and then amplified the information to create a profile. The resultswere "inconclusive" and not forensically reliable, but he did construct a partial profile and based on this analysis, he said, "it's possible the Ripper could be female".

The victims were all prostitutes, murdered and mutilated in the foggy alleyways of Whitechapel. By the surgical nature of the wounds, the killer was assumed to have some surgical knowledge.

The chief suspects, who included a barrister, a Polish boot-maker and a Russian confidence trickster, were all men. But Frederick Abberline, the detective who led the investigation, thought it possible the killer was a woman. This was because the fifth victim, Mary Kelly, was "seen" by witnesses hours after she was killed. Abberline thought this was the murderer running away, in Kelly's clothes.

The only female suspect was Mary Pearcey, who was convicted of murdering her lover's wife, Phoebe Hogg, in 1890 and hanged. She apparently employed a similar modus operandi to the Ripper.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

mt Haplotype W.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 12:01 pm (UTC)
Low copy dna profiling is notoriously inaccurate. The Scotland Yard letters like "Wearside Jack" were hoaxes. It was probably a high ranking member of the Victorian establishment.
Rippah
[info]rttech82 wrote:
Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)
I dunno dude, he seemed like a pretty rational guy to me!

www.anonweb.pro.tc
Re: Was Jack the Ripper a Woman?
[info]plato_z wrote:
Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 08:41 pm (UTC)
I see you have omitted Patricia Cornwall's conclusion that it was the painter, Sickert, who did the deeds. Any reason?
Re: Was Jack the Ripper a Woman?
[info]madlori wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 03:22 am (UTC)
Because Cornwell's conclusions were very dubious, I hope. Cornwell used the investigative method exactly backwards. She decided who she thought did it and then went back and found evidence to support her conclusion. Using that method you can "prove" that anyone did anything. It's supposed to be the other way around, and correlation doesn't imply causation. Her book is full of statements like "Such-and-such body part was found in River X, which was only TWO MILES from Sickert's house!" It's ridiculous. She tested tons of Ripper letters, totally ignoring the fact that it's extremely unlikely any of the Ripper letters actually came from the Ripper. Sickert was certainly tangential to the investigation, but at MOST Cornwell might have demonstrated that he wrote some of the letters. Weird as it sounds to us now, writing Ripper letters back then was kind of a morbid pastime, a laugh. Hey, we have reality TV, right? The Victorians had to get their giggles somehow. :-)
Re: Was Jack the ripper a woman...
[info]siglny wrote:
Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 10:14 pm (UTC)
That this even got published is a little silly. Short of stone cold evidence that Jack the Ripper was a woman the likelihood that Jack the Ripper was a woman is almost nil. The circumstances of the crime, the selection of the victims, the violently sexual nature of the wounds...these are the murders of a mad misogynist male. 'Jill the Ripper?" What a bunch of hogwash!
Re: Was Jack the ripper a woman...
[info]madlori wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 03:37 am (UTC)
Amen. I'll not be the one to totally discount the possibility, but the odds are vanishingly small. Female serial killers are very rare, for one, and when women DO commit murder, even serial murder, most of the time they use poison or guns. It's a male pathology to sexualize the intimate slaughter of a human being. Men turn hate outwards, women turn it inwards. I don't suppose it's impossible for a woman to exhibit this pathology, but you have to jump through so many logical hoops to make this work that Occam's Razor applies.
Re: Was Jack the ripper a woman...
[info]zina99 wrote:
Sunday, 21 June 2009 at 05:20 pm (UTC)
The fact that none of the victims were raped already makes it suspicious. Besides, the letters found showed that the writer could hardly string a sentence together, most females in Victorian times were unable to write. For all we know, it could have been some schitzophrenic female on a rampage.
Re: Was Jack the ripper a woman...
[info]madlori wrote:
Sunday, 21 June 2009 at 05:32 pm (UTC)
Again, the probability is not zero. And while the women were not raped, the mutilations were sexual in nature, focusing on the reproductive organs and abdomens. If a serial were focusing on prostitutes (which is by no means certain, they may have just been easy targets) and his hatred of them, he may not have been driven to sexually violate them. As for the illiteracyq uestion, well, most men in that neighborhood were illiterate too, and while the letters were poorly written, they were written by someone who was NOT illiterate. Further, using the letters as any kind of evidence is problematic, since it's very unlikely that any of them were actually written by the killer.
walking tour
[info]mermayd_london wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 12:00 am (UTC)
this theory comes up when you do the Jack the Ripper walking tour. All this test can conclusively say is that the letters might have been sent by a woman but not whether that woman was indeed the killer.

Surely by this point we're never going to find out.
[info]madlori wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 03:00 am (UTC)
I don't know where this researcher got the idea that the Openshaw letter is the one most believed to be genuine, but he's wrong. The Openshaw letter is not believed to be genuine by most researchers. The letter most often believed to be possibly genuine is the Lusk letter.
Did Findlay happen to read Tess Gerritsen's "Bone Garden" before postulation
[info]dcprassrini wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 04:23 pm (UTC)
Commonality between Findlay's theory and Gerritsen's novel is a killer (the novel takes place in 1830's Boston, US) who turns out in the end to be a woman; that Findlay published his theory AFTER the novel was released seems a rather odd coincidence.
The Ripper a Woman
[info]malcuk wrote:
Monday, 19 January 2009 at 04:04 pm (UTC)
As with most conspiracy theories you often get to a stage where you can't see the woods for the trees. However some of the evidence is quite compelling, a couple of things stand amiss, for me the primary one being that the victims were not weaklings, (by female standards), themselves, but were streetwise London prostitutes who would have put up quite a fight against another woman.

However it would be worth noting that the victims would have all been on their guard against unusual behavoiur from men but would not have been so wary of another woman. Also the chief female suspect, mentioned above, Mary Pearcy, was described as being a physically powerful woman.
Jill The Ripper.....
[info]malcuk wrote:
Monday, 19 January 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC)
As with most conspiracy theories you often get to a stage where you can't see the woods for the trees. However some of the evidence is quite compelling, a couple of things stand amiss, for me the primary one being that the victims were not weaklings, (by female standards), themselves, but were streetwise London prostitutes who would have put up quite a fight against another woman.

However it would be worth noting that the victims would have all been on their guard against unusual behavoiur from men but would not have been so wary of another woman. Also the chief female suspect, mentioned above, Mary Pearcy, was described as being a physically powerful woman.
[info]becky_dawn wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 03:07 pm (UTC)
you say it's incredibly unlikely for the killer to be female, perhaps that's just it. Maybe this person, female perhaps, realised most would think it almost impossible to be a woman, thus making it easier to "hide" and carry on the murders. Like some others have said, midwifes had the knowledge to cary out the "intricate" killings.
Jill the ripper
[info]solamenteuno wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:43 pm (UTC)
But, profiling of serial killers wasn't finalized until after Jack the Ripper. So, one can't say that a woman would KNOW that everyone would think it was a guy and therefore she'd get away with it.

What if the serial killer was a frustrated homosexual male, Perhaps, this was a male who was jealous of women and what they had or could give to other men and therefore, prostitution, in some ways, was a disrespect to the female being and body? *shrug* And, to dress in the final victim's clothing to escape from the scene is just... an efficient escape plan. Why does a woman only have to wear women's clothing? I mean, HELLO. Bugs Bunny.
[info]still_birth01 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:45 pm (UTC)
I find it offense that people think there is a zero possiblity that the killer is a female. The investgation was looking for a man, so she could easily has slipped under the rador. The fact that they female victims were not raped is also interesting, considering the violent acts to their reproductive organs. It is possible that, considerng she could be have been a midwife, that she could have also done abortions. Because the killer attacked women and their reproductive system is because she was against abortion. A type of political killing. That, or she had a very bad vendetta against her own sex/women can hold a grudge even for other women. Or maybe she was gay and assulted other women for sexual release, but killed them so they wouldn't tell and damaged the reproduction system so investigators couldn't tell that they were assulted.

I'm just saying that people who think that Jack couldn't be Jill are being ignorant. Since the idenitiy is never proved, there's q fifty-fifty chance of the killer being a girl.