Women On The Ripper

[How Brown]

Lets face it....the Tumblety angle has sort of drifted away. The Maybrick angle has maintained a steady stream of adherents,due to the revenge angle to their views. Barnett,likewise,who should have been the first guy collared for the Kelly murder by professional cops,EAGER to make a pinch to satisfy the public( because,whether we want to admit it or not, every one wants an easy way out) was let go as a non-suspect. His candidacy is likewise,as Maybrick's, heralded by a mostly female coterie. Is it an accident that the 2 best selling Ripper books of the last 11 years have been by Mrs. Harrison and Cornwell????-------------My question is....Does it appear to you, dear reader, that the reason that Barnett and Maybrick have placed so highly on the list,in fact the top at some places,of suspects is due to the revenge angle ? Just a question.....not an indictment of female logic. I ain't a sexist. I am surrounded by women and girls who will stomp me if they thought otherwise. Wimpy Howard

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

In my personal observations, it certainly seems they are included in the list of suspects, based soley on the motive of "revenge". As unpopular as this may sound, I STILL believe the Tumblety should be included in that list.

[How Brown]

Ghost: I phrased my comment on Tumblety improperly. I meant that the din and huzzah about his candidacy have waned as of late. I apologize for the misinterpretation. HB

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

I totally understand what you're saying, Howard. No apology is necessary. I beileve the crux as to why his candidacy has been on the decline, can be directly linked back to the supposed eyewitness accounts of "The Ripper". In other words, the majority of those accounts point to a men younger then Tumblety appeared. Having said that, there is no absolute proof, that the person they witnessed was indeed the killer. Although, it is interesting to note, that over the course of the last few years, one of the most heated debates in criminal law revolves around the accuracy of eyewitness accounts, and whether they should be regarding with any substance at all. Taking into consideration how often they are inaccurate. This alone, is why I still consider him very much a suspect. People should take in several factors about those eyewitness accounts, before they completely rule out Tumblety as a possible suspect, due to his age. For instance, public lighting during this time was extremely poor and very minimal. Making for less and optimal visual conditions at night. Also, these accounts occured during hours of the night and early morning, when it was not that uncommon for a person residing in this area to be rather intoxicated. Again, very detrimental to one's vision. And then there is simple genetics. We all know there are people who, by hook or by crook, simple do not appear their age. I'm one of them, and on more than one occasion I've been assumed to be in my late teen's/early twenties, when in actuality I'll be 30 this coming March. So having said all this, to me, on these principles alone, he has to remain a suspect in my eyes.

[How Brown]

Ghost...check out the thread about Eyewitness Accounts under URL's of interest. Somehow people within the "ripper studies" field take eyewitness accounts as articles of faith,if of course it supports their favorite suspect,but dismiss similar equally credible or shady eyewitness accounts from people walking about ( most of whom where under the effects of drinking ) at 2 or 3 A.M. I saw probably 200 people yesterday and would be hard pressed to give a Hutchinson-photographic memory-etched in stone-as if looking at a picture of them-type account of any of them.

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

The case studies you pointed out only further my belief, that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are far, too many variables, that taint or effect a person's credibility, or perception of events.

[How Brown]

This "cot death" you mention, is it what we call "SDS" here in the States? Or is it when an unfortunate baby has been unattended by a moronic father or mother to smother ? The SDS refers to "shaking" the child to quiet it,but sadly,it kills it. Probably,"Crib Death"="cot death"....Correct?

[How Brown]

Ghost.....I hear you regarding being labeled as younger than your actual age. In 1992, I made a trip to West Virginia. After about 7 hours of driving, a man gets thirsty. Besides,the keg of beer I had hooked up to my arm by hypodermic had run dry. Anyway, I was near Droop Mountain,near Hillsboro, and ready to huff gas for a buzz. So I stopped in the local convienience store in Knuckle Shuffle,W.V. and purchased a six-pack for the final quarter mile of the journey. The gap-toothed woman actually asked me for ID. I told her I was from the USA and was 39 years old,which I was !!! She went, "yuk,yuk,yuk".,not catching the Stuka-like assault on her woeful age-determining skills. I had to show her my ID.

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

Howard,

It's West Virginia.

No explaination is necessary!

[Birgitte]

Personally I find the whole 'revenge' motive rediculous in this case. I'm sure there have existed serial killers who killed prostitutes because their mother was one, but JTR wasn't one of them.

The main motive was, is and remains killing women in order to get organs. I can be persuaded with the idea that the killer too pleasure in the mutilations, but that's as far as I would derive from the main motive, which stands firm in my view: organs.

So there goes you're theory Howard :p

Birgitte

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

Personally, would never rule out the motive of "revenge" completely. Because one could also argue, that the amount of evisceration, coupled with the nature of the wounds, could have been done in a hightened state of anger. Not to mention, to also send a message as well.

[How Brown]

Birgitte: I think you may have misunderstood the question. While I agree with you that I likewise don't feel revenge was the motive of the Ripper, my question was do women,especially in light of the seemingly inordinate amount of women at various sites that discuss the Ripper,tend to view Barnett as their suspect,based on the fact that since Barnett was romantically linked to MJK,that revenge was his reason for killing her? Thats not to say I think Barnett did it,but do the people who think he DID kill her,do so because of revenge ? Again,its certainly not my theory on why the Ripper killed at all. On the contrary. I feel as you do.

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

Howard,

Does the name "Gary Condit" ring any bells?

He was tried in the media for murder, when his alleged "mistress" Chandra Levy went missing, and eventually turned up dead. Meny women in the media were quick to make the giant leap that, if a man could allegedly cheat on his wife, then naturally he would also have what it takes to murder as well. So romance-related revenge as a precursor to murder, has been used many times before, and it doesn 't surprise me to see it used in the instance of Barnett.

[How Brown]

Thanks Ghost.......great example.

[Vila]

Howard, it occurs to me that the revenge motive could go the other way as well. IE. the female Ripper writer could be seeking revenge on a specific male she feels wronged by, or all men in general, and displaces that desire for revenge onto a specific Ripper suspect. Revenge is a very complicated motive, when it is impossible to pay back the person who originally motivates it.

Running parallel to that, some killers, rapists, what-have-you, have been motivated by a desire to get revenge on a particular person in their lives, but displace that desire onto others - their victims - because it was impossible for them to attack the object of their revenge.

Or am I totally off track, here? :confused:

Vila

[Tom Wescott]

As myself, Howard and others have noted before, women Ripper writers have thus far not amounted to much of anything. Hopefully, an exception to the rule is right around the corner. Or at least the corner after that. And incidentally, Vila, what you described in your post is exactly the approach Patricia Cornwell took. Generally, though, women just gravitate towards the 'romantic' suspects - royalty, artists, Maybrick, Barnardo, or supernatural nonsense. Or they just use it as a sounding board for feminist propaganda. Some chicks on the scene who are not a waste of space, however, are Debra Arif, who has been an amazing help to me in my recent research, also Jennifer Pegg for the most part, and Jane Coram. Coral Kelley has written many great pieces on the East End. Caz is the bomb, and if she'd get over her Maybrick crap, I'll bet she'd be THE woman who could write a Ripper book that would stand head to head with the most respected tomes out there. If only...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Vila]

Well, I really should have said "some female Ripper writers" in my last post. I certainly didn't mean to lump all the ladies of Ripperology in with Cornwell. Nor did I mean to insult Mrs. Harrison, even though I disagree with her theory too, I've never heard anything about her that would imply that she has a grudge against men in general.

Vila

[How Brown]

Danny:

I don't believe you missed anything,my friend. I think your post makes perfect sense. Invariably,when we get mad at one thing and that one thing is not accessible, we take it out on the closest thing around us in some way or the other. Thats because we are human,all too human.

I think that Tom,as well as I at times,and maybe some other folks as well...forget that in this particular situation: that of a man totally annihilating females in a male-controlled society ...that women may approach the Case from a different perspective than men do . I'd ask Lyn about this,since she is tuned in to the community for verification.

To use a crude analogy....women look at the Ripper,in many circumstances,not all...from the outside of the "cage" he's been put in....where men go into the cage to investigate him. Fortunately women...only 3 percent of the total murders committed by percentage in the U.S....aren't hard wired like men appear to be....otherwise we would all be in that cage....and thats probably to the rank and file male's benefit.

Now,I know most people think the same way as I do about the crimes and would like nothing more than to be able to return the favor to the Ripper ( No need to study him for any "reports" by lab coat types....just waste him.). What I think Tom means by the "feminist" head that often rears itself is in line what you have mentioned,but in a different way.

Of course, there haven't been "fundamental" books similar to Evans' Ultimate or Sugden's and a few others written by the better half to date. Yet,99.9 % of all male Ripperologists have likewise not done so either.

In the area of articles in magazines,I can't qualify as a true critic because I approach the articles from a different viewpoint than others may. I enjoy them without gender being of any importance.

Where the "feminist" stance fails is that some,not all,ladies don't realize that despite the manner in which we males discuss the case,thats just the way most males are by nature. Women,by nature,identify with the victim, while men,not remotely close to being able to claim kinship with a Ripper victim, look at the case with a lesser emotional attachment.....maybe not consciously,but perhaps subconsciously.

I have to admit it irritates me when I read or hear about this sweeping generalization of Ripperology being some sort of boys club affirmation of the old school approach to violence towards women. For all her mouth, it isn't Pat Cornwell spending her time and money ( which she has but doesn't ) compiling accurate and sympathetic works on the victims....its Neal Stubbings. Cornwell is of course, a feminist,as many men ( including myself ) are. There's nothing wrong with being a feminist,but like many ideas,its not the idea but those who mouth these sentiments that ruin or discredit an idea.

Ripperology,if anything,is not a glamorization of the man,but an historical investigation of every possible angle relevant to the Case,which naturally includes male-oriented insights to what made the Ripper tick as well as from female perspectives.

If there were an equal amount of "fundamental" books used as the Ultimate is,for an example, by both sexes, it would do nothing to change how both sexes see the Case at all. It would remain the same. It had better stay that way too...I would miss many of the insights women have from a female perspective that I naturally would miss otherwise without their voice.

If and when a female Evans or a female Begg appears on the scene ( not that what women DO write is somehow inferior, but that no female so far has written a upper echelon book like these two....), that will be praised and then this issue will vanish. Its really not an issue whatsoever to me,but I mention this,in case it is to anyone else.

What will remain is the occasionally annoying female and even male trumpet blowing Bflat in our ear at 2 AM....this unnecessary feminism that does seek revenge and like in Vila's example from previous....often hits the wrong target because the original target is no longer accessible.

Just as efforts to get people to discuss the articles in the magazines always winds up a flop ( Maybe if SPE said "Do it"..people would respond to him more than if from someone else)....attempts to get women to organize threads here and maybe even at Casebook have simply flopped.

Thats because Tom and I and maybe some other hardankles forget or overlook the fact that most of the ladies in the field have better things to spend their time on on trying to "rehabilitate" a basically unrehabiliatative animal...the average guy.

Anyone else?

[Tom Wescott]

Howard,

You're about as much a feminist as I am, you big lug. Another female newbie is on the Casebook now bitching that we men live vicariously through the Ripper and our discussion of him while ignoring the victims as true human beings. I get pissed off more and more every time I hear that crap. Why? Because almost every sliver of research that has gone into the victims - and there's been quite a bit - has been done by men. Not ONE of these women bitching about it has actually taken to doing any research whatsoever into the victims. Nor has a single one bothered to produce a quality Ripper book. No doubt some will view my words as sexist. They are not. What I'm stating is bald undisputable fact. I will also state, as I have in the past, that most Ripper books written by Americans have, to date, been crap. That will change.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

I have to agree with Tom on this one. I take it as an insult when someone starts slinging around interpretations about my interest in the case based on my gender.

:judge:

[Debbie D]

I agree with and am in no way offended by what Tom has written here. There haven't been many women who have written books on JtR, and a select few of them have sucked.

But at this stage in the game is there really any point in writing another encyclopedia with the same information regardless of the authors gender? It seems to me that most of the known information is already in one of the major books. While there are new discoveries happening all the time, some of them are not worth having their own book.

I see some of the authors publishing updated editions, but they still have all the old info in them as well. Why not just publish a "book 2 update" and tell how the new info ties in with book one? I've enjoyed most of the Ripper Notes becasuse I always learn new things in a short essay (rather than sifitng through the same information just to get to the "new" part).

As far as the women shoving their opinions down your throat, there are plenty of men that are just as guilty! So becareful in that glass house...:rolleyes:

Back to the Ripper... I don't think JtR butchered the women solely for their organs. There was definitely some sort of rage or "revenge" going on. Wether it was due to a mommy issue or other abuse, it's hard telling. He could have years of mommy issues but it was that one time that an old lady cut him off in the soup line or whatever that finally set him off. Sometimes it's the simpliest yet most off-beat of nuances that will finally push the "over the edge" button in a persons brain.:offinhead:

I look at the case NOT from the typical female viewpoint of "oh those poor women, they had feelings, womens rights blah blah blah" but rather from an investigative point of view. I do feel sorry for them as human beings and victims of a terrible crime but that's about it. I want to read the facts (just the facts ma'am) while learning more about the Inspectors points of view and why they did what they did. From the facts and logical reasoning I eliminate some of the suspects on my list and maybe add a suspect here or there.

I will deter from "just the facts" for the occasional "theory" that is based on fact, IF it is well written and well researched. That being said, it took forever and I had to force myself to finish reading Cornwell's book as it was nothing but pure drudgery from start to finish. I will NOT be doing that again as I will be waiting for the reviews ;)

[Debbie D]

Generally, though, women just gravitate towards the 'romantic' suspects - royalty, artists, Maybrick, Barnardo, or supernatural nonsense.


I agree with Tom & I'm glad I don't fall into that category.

My top suspect is John Doe who was unknown to officers at the time and is most likely unknown to us now. :(

[How Brown]

Vila...you done good there pardner..its good to see this thread rejewven..er..rejuiven..ah...brought back up.

Tom,I actually am in many ways a feminist,bubs. I base that on what I see at work. If ever a reason for feminism to exist,its based on work. Plus,I have two daughters...which of course encourages that line of thinking..

It may be worth mentioning that even though its been 118 years since the Kelly murder,Ripperology may ( hopefully) have only just begun.

Good comments Debbie. Now I see where Carmine gets his brains from. I know he gets his looks from me. Seriously,Debbie...you make some very good points and honestly as well.:thumbsupbud:

Thanks again Vila...