Jack the Ripper is the most famous serial killer of all time. For over a century, scholars have searched for his true identity. But were they searching for the wrong type of person? Was Jack the Ripper really…Jill the Ripper?

Who was Jack the Ripper?

The true extent of Jack the Ripper’s murder spree remains unknown. However, historians generally agree he (or she) killed at least five prostitutes starting in 1888. “From April 3, 1888 to February 13, 1891, eleven women were murdered in Whitechapel and subsequently connected in the police docket as the Whitechapel murders. Most, if not all of these women, are believed to have been prostitutes. A majority of experts attribute five of those murders, the so-called “canonical five,” to a single killer. They shared several common features including ‘deep throat slashes, abdominal and genital-area mutilation, removal of internal organs, and progressive facial mutilations.‘” ~ David Meyer, Who was Jack the Ripper?

Was Jack the Ripper really Jill the Ripper?

There are more than 100 theories on Jack the Ripper’s identity. Now, an author named John Morris has added his own theory to the mix. In his book, Jack the Ripper: Hand of a Woman, Morris argues that Jack the Ripper was a woman named Lizzie Williams. She was the wife of royal physician (and suspect) John Williams.

As for evidence, it seems three of the victims had their wombs removed so Morris believes Lizzie Williams was motivated to kill because she couldn’t have children. Also, none of the women were sexually assaulted. In addition, pieces of an unidentified woman’s clothing were found near some of the victims. Finally, one of the victims, a woman named Mary Kelly, may have been having an affair with Lizzie’s husband.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

It should be noted that many writers claim Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of Sherlock Holmes fame believed Jack the Ripper was actually Jill the Ripper. As far as I can tell, the earliest reference for this claim comes from Tom Cullen’s 1965 book, When London Walked in Terror. However, Cullen’s source was not Sir Arthur himself, but rather his son Adrian Conan Doyle. And as for Sir Arthur’s support of the Jill the Ripper theory, well, I’ll let you read his son’s words for yourself…

“More than thirty years having passed, it is difficult to recall his views in detail on the Ripper case. However, I do remember that he considered it likely that the man had a rough knowledge of surgery and probably clothed himself as a woman to avoid undue attention by the police and to approach his victims without arousing suspicion on their part.” ~ Adrian Conan Doyle

So, the idea that Sir Arthur believed in Jill the Ripper appears to be just an urban legend. Truth be told, I think the evidence for a Jill the Ripper is exceedingly weak. And Morris’s research doesn’t change my opinion. At the end of the day, I continue to think there’s one reason no one ever found Jack the Ripper…he didn’t actually exist.