Doing some research on who Jack the Ripper actually was, I came across one interesting site which talks about the identity of the serial killer and if the killer was a man. This got me thinking of how the public has always had a preconceived notion about "Jack the Ripper" and why the idea of the serial killer being a woman is less convincing to the public.In my opinion I think we find it easier to believe that Jack the Ripper was a man because of the assumption and possibly the fact that by nature men are more violent.Therefore such brutal murders and this act of violence would have been committed by a male.But some have challenged this idea in saying that "Jack the Ripper" just might have been a woman.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n16368279
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n16368279
2 comments:
I think your right, it is easer to believe that a man had commited the murders rather than a women. It just seems easier to come to terms with than actually thinking a woman could actully have beeen so brutal and merciless to another woman.
However, aside from a doctor, the most likely person to be walking around the streets of London covered in blood would be a midwife. In fact a midwife would go undetected by police, even when the murders were taking place, whereas doctors may have found it more difficult.I think 'Jill the Ripper' is a sinister but realistic possiblity.
I also agree, i think that the idea of the killer being a woman should be very believable because a woman would be trusted by other women and let into places that maybe a man wouldnt and have access to things a man wouldnt. I think that the idea of a man in a cloak with a doctor's bag is just more media friendly than a woman killing another woman. It doesnt even sound as interestin when it is written down and having a man as a killer creates more motives etc.
Post a Comment