What Was The Motive? Sexual Serial Killer..

[How Brown]

Thread devoted to discussion of the opinion that Jack The Ripper was merely a sexual serial killer, with a sexual basis to his crimes.

No patterns...no conspiracies..no occult mumbo jumbo...no revenge killing...no Paleyite "kill to scare" or Radkian "kill to coerce" basis going on here...

...just a rank and file sexually motivated serial killer.

[Maria Giordano]

I guess I belong here more than anywhere.

Certainly conspiracies be they Royal or Radkanian are out of the question for me.

Was the killer a psychopath? That word has been WAY overused and misunderstood.

Was he mentally ill? I think probably a schizophrenic.

But still in all more of a garden variety sexual serial killer than anything else.

[Big Jon]

Bump up!

[Currerbell]

Why is he classed as a sexual serial killer when there was 'no recent connextion' between him and the victims???

Thats one thing Im not too sure about!

[How Brown]

Currerbell:
Long story short ( at least from me), the prevalent ssk theory is that the action of him eviscerating the women stimulated him sexually...sort of a substitute for the sexual act. In that theory,one need not actually be connected to the victim by way of organ, just in mind.

What do you make of it,dear lady?

[Currerbell]

Ahh ok....yeah he did go for the sexual organs womb/vagina/uterus etc, but I associated this title with a sexual act as in rape/masterbation for instance rather than just the total mutilation of what makes a woman a woman, physiologically anyway! Are we talking a sexual fantasy of completely destroying the opposite sex? Not just take their life away, but also their chance to survive in future bodies, ie their children

We have serial sex killers in history but I dont think I would classify the Ripper in my mind as one...

[Big Jon]

Sexual serial killers don't always rape victims. He may have orgasmed by the act of killing, or masturbated later. It can be much more complicated than rape and he could have been stimulated by many more things than just removing organs.

I'm actually in the research stage of an article I'm writing on whether the Ripper was a sexual serial killer.

[How Brown]

That sounds good,Jon. If its anything like the material you sent on that other project you were working on,I'm looking forward to it.:kiss:

[Currerbell]

That sounds interesting, will it be available anywhere to read when u have finished it?

[Big Jon]

I'm hoping to have it published in the Rip.

[Currerbell]

Excellent news!:)

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I had always thought that if we could go back in time and see if Jack had an erection while he worked we'd know if sexual excitement played any part at all in his murderous behaviour.

But I'm now pretty much convinced he would not have had the time to put a tent up at the murder scenes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Currerbell]

LOL 'put a tent up':faint:

[String]

I always thought it was more of a hate crime thing.
He certainly 'went' for the sexual organs but in my mind he hated those things given the ferocity and damage he caused I think his motive was to destroy these things rather than be turned on by them.
I don't think he got off doing the deeds it just satisfied a need to destroy those things that for some reason he hated. Perhaps he couldn't get an erection and this was one way of venting his frustration.
So I do think it was a sex crime in a way but I think there was more hate than sex involved.

[Currerbell]

I highly agree with you there String, hate definitely fuelled a large part of this killers motive for certain :banghead:

I wish we could find out why...

[Big Jon]

I think the biggest problem with people trying to understand the notion that the Ripper was a sexual serial killer is that they do not understand what a SSK is.

A SSK does not necesarily rape their victims, he does not necesarily attack sex organs, it is the act of the murder and the feeling of power that gives him arousal. An erection is not even necessary for them to recieve sexual pleasure from the act. They gain sexual gratification and orgasm from dominating and humiliating their victims. It is the sexual fantasy, not a sexual act that makes them kill.

[Currerbell]

Is that like sadistic then?

[Big Jon]

Can be very similar to being a sexual sadist. Just much more intense.

[Currerbell]

Do you know if there has been a SSK since who has topped the Ripper for this kind of intense hatred?

[Big Jon]

I'm not as well versed in other killers so couldn't tell you for definete. That is something I want to include in my article, so I'll let you know when I've done some research.

[Sam Flynn]

Do you know if there has been a SSK since who has topped the Ripper for this kind of intense hatred?Not sure it was "intense hatred" as such, Bell.

[Big Jon]

I read "intense hatred" as meaning the violence such as that used in the Kelly murder.

[Sam Flynn]

I read "intense hatred" as meaning the violence such as that used in the Kelly murder.
I read "hatred" as a clear statement of "motive"... whether intense or not :)

[A.P. Wolf]

'They gain sexual gratification and orgasm from dominating and humiliating their victims.'

But one doesn't need to kill and mutilate a woman to achieve that purpose.
Just ask several million husbands how they treat their loved ones.

[Big Jon]

Sam -

Think we need to ask what the author of the remark intended then.

Currerbell -

Can you clarify for me and Sam please?

A.P. -

For such men (or monsters) that is obviously not enough.

[Currerbell]

Sorry, dont always make myself clear...

I just imagine him feeling so overwhelmed with this hatred feeling to continue ripping up Kellys body, she was obviously dead long before he started cutting her up, to carry on and on mutilating for some time, he cant have felt any love for her so the opposite of love is hate

Big Jon knew what I meant...

[Big Jon]

The mutilation is more an expression of rage then?

[How Brown]

Currerbell:

I, along with A.P. in this regard I think..unless he's changed his mind...feel that someone engaging in violent manifestations of "power and control" issues are often hard to distinguish from those of a ssk's manifestations of violence.

As a man, I have a hard time distinguishing what isn't or wouldn't be considered sexual-in-nature about the female body if I was to attack one with intent or not....and how someone else could come to a conclusion as to what I had done based on what they think I had done it for.

Serial killers are liars...and regardless of their confessions as to the reasons they did this or that,I still wouldn't trust it.

Typically a serial killer is a man with identity issues ...or a mental imbalance, of course. Therefore, any rationalization could find overlapping "reasons" and no one specific, one all defining reason. Just an opinion by an armchair headshrinker.

[A.P. Wolf]

I aint changed my mind, How, you have sex with a good woman not a dead one.

[Currerbell]

I think its a bit over my head now, so am going to bow down to the rest of you and admit I dont know enough on SK's to comment any further, I like to read and learn from you lot and nudge in when I can!!

AP - Having sex with anyone as long as they are alive is better than dead!

[Sam Flynn]

she was obviously dead long before he started cutting her up, to carry on and on mutilating for some time, he cant have felt any love for her so the opposite of love is hateAn interesting syllogism, Bell... but what if it was a case of his "loving to cut" more than his "hating" women? We have people today who seem to enjoy cutting and/or mutilating each other as an expression of their mutual love. The issue of consensus aside, it follows from this that isn't necessary to suppose that Jack harboured a hatred of women - or at least if he did, it might not have been his primary motivation.

[Big Jon]

I recall a case from when I did A level law - R v Brown. It involved a group of adult homosexual men who engaged in sadomasochistic acts with each other over a number of years (with items such as knives, nails, and a cheese grater - I really do dread to think...) and video recorded these acts for their own private use. If I remember correctly, one member of the group left a copy of a tape in a public place (a bus I believe) and charges were brought against them.

The main issue of the case was if consensual abh/gbh is a crime.

Details of the ruling are here:

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Jon, Sam,

I think that just goes to show how impossible it ever is to do more than guess a man's motives for mutilating the dead body of someone he has killed.

You simply can't use the ripper crime scene evidence to establish what motivated the individual concerned.

We could look at the modern day murder of Samantha Bisset by Robert Napper and say that because it was so similar to the murder of Mary Kelly in 1888, the motivation (whatever we think Napper's was - another difficult question, if he may not even know himself!) was likely to have been the same or similar.

And we could be utterly and completely wrong.

Napper could have been in an unholy rage, while Jack could have felt like a kid in a sweet shop. Or they both could have acted like robots: unemotional, methodical and trance-like. One could have had an orgasm at some point, the other not even get a semi on.

The results could be almost identical.

Love,

Caz
X

[How Brown]

Amen,Senorita Morris. Thats a good analogy. I believe A.P. has been pushing the automaton idea for a while and it,to me, is just as valid as the notion of a ssk. Roger Palmer has also gone into that area too.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Howie,

My point was that 'pushing' one idea over another, regarding what buttons Jack was pressing (or hoped or thought he was pressing) could well be an exercise in futility without any evidence of who he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Big Jon]

I agree Caz, which is something I hope to explore. If you notice in this thread I haven't stated that I think the Ripper was a sexual serial killer, I've only distinguished what motivates the perpetrator of that type of murder.

I want to try and examine all the psychological myths that appear in the case, and see if there are any preconceptions that we can question. Everything from psychopathy, to sexual serial killing.

[Currerbell]

Maybe I should have started my thread in the 'hate' sub forum, its just so many of the reasons cross dont they?

[Big Jon]

I think they probably do with quite a few different motives.

[admin tim]

http://www.amandahoward.com.au/sex_or_no_sex.htm

Sorry, kids; ADULTS ONLY


Er, any relation here, Howard?

[R.Rowell]

Do you know if there has been a SSK since who has topped the Ripper for this kind of intense hatred?

Sorry to dig up an old post, yes, Peter Kurten-The Vampire of Dusseldorf, Gerald Stano, The Monster of Florence there are more but this is off the top of my head.

[Rob House]

The Psychology of Lust Murder
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7348422/The-Psychology-of-Lust-Murder

Complex issues at work here... the answer is not a simple "he was motivated by hate" or "if he had an erection then it was sexually motivated."

However, I do not think there is much doubt that the Ripper was this type of killer... specifically what Roy Hazelwood called a disorganized/asocial lust murderer.

Peter Kurten was a lust murderer, so was Jeffrey Dahmer.

A few quotes:

"Lust murderers exhibit a progression of brutality, and each subsequent murder becomes more vicious and sadsistic. Erotophonophiliacs establish a violently sexualized relationship in their minds that they have rehearsed repeatedly while masturbating.... They are impulsive and unable to escape their fantasy world. This is a sexualized imagined realm that is robust with themes of power, control, sex, violence and mutilation."

"research suggests that the assailant's thought configurations are established early and exist in a context of social isolation."

etc.

[Rob House]

More quotes on lust murder:

Hazelwood: "It is the authors' contention that the lust murder is unique and is distinguished from the sadistic homicide by the involvement of a mutilating attack or displacement of the breasts, rectum, or genitals."

"The victim's body exhibits gross mutilationand/or displacement of the breasts, rectum, or genitals, and may have been subjected to excessive stabbing or slashing with a sharp instrument."

"The investigator may find that the victim has been bitten on the breasts, buttocks, neck, abdomen, thighs, or genitals, as these body areas have sexual associations. Limb or breast amputation, or in some instances total dissection, may have taken place.... the asocial individual approaches his victim in much the same way as an inquisitive child with a new toy. He involves himself in an exploratory examinationof the sexually significant parts of the body in an attempt to determine how they function and appear below the surface."

"Penis penetration is not to be expected from the asocial individual, but is predominantly associated with the nonsocial type, even to the extent of "necrophilia." These activities on the nonsocial's part reflect his desire to outrage society and call attention to his total disdain for societal acceptance. The asocial type more commonly inserts foreign objects into body orifices in a probing and curiosity-motivated, yet brutal, manner."

"Frequently, the murderer will take a "souvenir," normally an object or article of clothing belonging to the victim, but occasionally it may be a more personal reminder of the encounter—a finger, a lock of hair, or a part of the body with sexual associations... as previously mentioned, the perpetrator may commit an anthropophagic act [i.e. cannibalism] and such an act is indicative of asocial involvement."

Individual withdraws from society which he perceives as hostile and threatening.

"Through this internalization process, he becomes secluded and isolated from others and may eventually select suicide as an alternative to a life of lonelines and frustration. The authors have designated this reaction to life as disorganized asocial. This type possesses a poor self image and secretly rejects the society which he feels rejects him.""

[Nemo]

I think I'm a bit asocial...

Great quotes there Rob

Interesting that, in a sense, the fantasies could have been escalated through excessive masturbation

That's definitely a good description of a possible Ripper, indicating someone who may have been somewhat of a loner in personality, or actually alone in the World

I'd like to see examples of lust murderers committing suicide

I've seen it postulated that some serial killers commit mental suicide in the sense that they become more and more daring, begging to get caught, often communicating with the police and the like

[Nemo]

There was speculation that some/all of the Monster of Florence murders were done at the behest of a Black Magic "cult" or similar

I haven't read into the claims much, surprisingly, but I think some of the female victims external genitals were supposedly removed to be used in some kind of ritual

[ShawnaK]

The Monster of Florence is a good example for comparison with the Ripper, Nemo (& R. Rowell). Some might dismiss the comparison because of the gun but, in this case, there was also the so-called "scuba knife". Left breast and vaginas were removed.

An SK like Il Mostro is still misplaced in the streets of London as compared to the backcountry, lovers lanes of Florence. There had to be more to the Ripper's mutilations than sex. Same for the Monster.

Up for some Dietrologia?

[Cris Malone]

I don't subscribe to the notion that there was a 'cult' aspect to these murders, but one can't help regarding the placement of one of Kelly's breast, kidney and her uterus under her head as symbolic of something...maybe just further demeaning her as a female; same with the clipping of Kate Eddowes' nose, which has been seen as symbolic of a woman of loose character or syphillic. The removal of organs - as we have recently been reading - can be viewed as a ritual by some, although I would believe that the obvious overkill in the majority of these murders would have been unnecessary in a pure ritualistic sense.

Like Nemo, I find it difficult to imagine that a 'lust murderer' might be suicidal. They seem to enjoy what they do. There may be exceptions. One that comes to mind is a suspect in the 'Jack the Stripper' murders of the 1960s who did himself in. Dalmer's refusal to be separated from other inmates, knowning the danger that might entail could be viewed as a death wish I guess, but he didn't really have a chance to do what he enjoyed in prison and may have figured life wasn't worth living in those conditions.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

I think that Rob makes a very good case for the murderer suffering from an extreme and degenerative illness, one which matches what little we know about Aaron Kosminski.

As for an alternate motive to just an insane and/or evil killer?

Macnaghten believed that the fiend was Druitt. He thought his motive was 'sexual insanity'; gaining an erotic thrill from violence towards women.

Yet if Mac was right about the fiend's identity, why would Druitt go to the East End to murder and mutilate prostitutes? He could have done this anywhere in London, including Blackheath.

Why keep returning to the East End, to Whitechapel, once he knew that the police -- and others -- were searching frantically for him? Was that another thrill? To outsmart the authorities.

The American Leftist, Tom Cullen, in his flawed but brilliant 'Autumn of Terror' (1965) argued that Druitt's other motive was to bring about social reform to the blighted East End -- with considerable success.

This was a notion considered in 1888 and promptly rejected as just too ghastly.

George Bernard Shaw suggested the 'social experimentalist' solution as a satirical condemnation of the upper classes. That the Nobs were shamed into helping the destitute because some 'independent genius' was 'offing a few dregs'. If only the next victim could be a Duchess, the young Irish wit lamented.

But Shaw did not mean this idea of a deranged social reformer literally --but Cullen does. The latter argued that the murders were out in the open, the last spectacularly spoiling Lord Mayor's Day. That their primary impact was to crowbar open a rock and expose the real lives of the denizens of the East End scuttling beneath, showing that the 'Dark Annies' were already victims of poverty long before 'Jack' mercy-killed them.

Cullen regarded the theory as strengthened by the identity of the murderer, if it really was Druitt, not being a poor East Ender but instead an Oxonian gentleman -- a sort of Henry Jekyll crossed with Bolshevism [Lenin even makes a cameo walk-on in Cullen's book].

I would add that when the first 'non-canonical' murders started the tabloids can be seen to be sympathetic towards the victims despite being they're being prostitutes. Therefore, seeing this media reaction gave Druitt the idea of murdering Unfortunates, in the 'evil quarter mile' as reformers already called the area in which Jack would strike -- his political militancy intersecting with his 'sexual insanity'.

That's just the sort of selfless-selfish dialectic which might lead to an internal collapse and suicide, despite the police being totally oblivious of your dual identity.

[Cris Malone]

Good points, Jonathan.

Yes, Cullen found a story in the Ripper murders to promote his own socialist agenda. I'm not sure that he envisioned Druitt as a dual purpose killer. He despised the class that Monty came from. I invisioned that he was content to just peg the murders on someone who was not from the same class or district as his fallen martyrs of social injustice. Its been over 30 years since I've read 'When London Walked in Terror' (as it was titled here in the colonies) so I may have forgotten that.

I do recall his setup of the Kelly murder by describing the Lord Mayor's parade... the excitement and the pagentry of this special event being shattered by the sudden appearence of hawkers waving broadsheets and shouting, "Another murder! Another woman cut to pieces!"... and the pandemonium that followed. I bet ol' Tom was drooling when he wrote that.

I don't know what JTR's motive may have been, since we don't know who he was. Every individual is uniquely different; even probable psychopaths such as he may have been. Given what has been learned about serial killers in the interum, 'lust murderer' would be a logical supposition.

There's little doubt what Mr. Cullen's motive was... LOL...great novelistic style though. I read that book so many times in my youth that the pages fell out.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Thanks Cris,

For your thoughtful reply and affectionate memories of Tom Cullen.

I only read him a few years ago and was unexpectedly mezmerized by his Marxist balderdash or compelling insight, depending on your point of view.

Your recall of Cullen's description of the Mayor's parade trashed by the discovery of poor Kelly's remains is spot on.

Though I would never recommend reading Cullen in isolation on this subject -- and I say that as the last 'Druittist' standing -- its vivid style and mournful tone marks it out as a classic of narrative history, though in a minor key.

[R.Rowell]

Why keep returning to the East End, to Whitechapel, once he knew that the police -- and others -- were searching frantically for him? Was that another thrill? To outsmart the authorities.


I think it was for the thrill and to show that he could get away with it. I think Zodiac and JTR are very similar in this respect as they both wrote taunting letters and murdered in places that they could have been caught at any moment (Zodiac killed Paul Stine in his taxi in a neighbourhood street at 9:55 on a Saturday night).

Although I suspect a couple of working class men of being JTR I also think that just maybe he was an upper class gent trying to prove a point.

[Caroline Morris]

Colin Ireland, from Southend in Essex, kept returning (by train) all the way to the same pub in Fulham, west London, to pick up each of his five gay victims. But because he went home with them and killed them there nobody made the link with the pub for a long time, or linked the victims to a single killer either, and Ireland phoned the police with clues in his frustration at the lack of recognition for what he was doing.

Clearly he would have risked capture sooner if the pub - like Whitechapel - had stuck out as his chosen hunting ground. But whether Ireland used the same remote pick-up point out of bravado or "better the devil you know" is not so obvious.

I tend to think that the ripper (wherever he came from) only felt comfortable killing where it had worked like a charm for him the first time. He may have told himself, all the while he was active, that he was boldly outsmarting the authorities by doing it under their noses. But was it more a case of not being confident enough to try his luck anywhere else? He wasn't active for very long, so maybe he just couldn't take the close calls any longer, but couldn't face starting again on unfamiliar territory.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Caroline

I think that is a brilliant post and a brilliant example.

[Caroline Morris]

Why thank you, Jonathan. :)

It's always so nice to hear when someone appreciates one's posts.

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

Caz, I like your post also.
But I have the feeling that the motivation at work in the illustration you provide is radically different to the motive we pursue here. Colin Ireland was doing a home delivery; our boy here was having a take-away.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi AP,

But why does that necessarily imply a different motivation?

Ireland would surely have envied our boy for leaving all the remains of his al fresco dining in such a small area, assuring his infamy in double quick time. Ireland had to nudge the process along because although his tv dinners were discovered quickly enough, they were scattered much further afield and not linked at first, because the pub regulars he preyed on came from all over London to this venue, and the easiest way to kill them and get away with it was to be picked up and taken back to wherever their home happened to be, using public transport the next morning to get back to Southend.

The only real difference I see here is that our boy's victims had no homes - apart from MJK - to invite him back to.

They could both have killed just for the sake of it, or to make their mark on the world, and their victims were from particularly vulnerable groups.

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

Nicely done, Caz.
I think the nail I am hammering home is that by taking his victims home, Ireland was introducing a degree of personal intimacy that is basically not present in street crime, perhaps that is the most essential detail here; and I'd go so far as to suggest that the degree of personal intimacy involved in our boy's crimes here equate almost exactly with that of a modern 'drive-by' shooting.

[How Brown]

I'd go so far as to suggest that the degree of personal intimacy involved in our boy's crimes here equate almost exactly with that of a modern 'drive-by' shooting.

Well said A.P., with one minor caveat.
If the murders of Tabram,Nichols,Chapman,Eddowes,Stride,MacKenzie,et c...are to be considered comparable to drive-by's ...the factor of revenge would have to be included. We don't know whether...and indeed it may be possible...the Ripper had a revenge motive towards prostitutes. Revenge is born of intimacy or familiarity even if only a minor intimacy. I think you will agree that drive by's are essentially "paybacks" or "hit them before they hit you" acts of violence in virtually every instance.
All in all, a pretty hip connotation in the modern sense, if I may say so,A.P. :thumb:

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks How, I know what you mean about many of the 'drive-by's, in that they have as their source gang related vendettas, but I was thinking of the total stranger 'drive-by's' where anyone stood on a street corner is good enough just because they are there. Simply said there is no other motive than the fact that someone particularly vulnerable is there as the car passes. That is how I see it.
This.

[How Brown]

I hear that A.P.
The "being in the wrong place at the right time" scenario.
Unfortunately, our girls were unoccupied at the time, which, unfortunately, would have meant an entirely different roster of victim names.
In addition, one could also reference the pattern of serial killers such as Joseph Christopher, who used at least three different weapons to dispatch his targeted victims.... all essentially random kills but all from a specific group or entity. A particular weaponry was apparently not a concern of his.

I say this because while we do know the victims of the Whitechapel Murderer were all prosses... either actively engaged that night or with a prior history of such activity... its highly likely that he focused on that group... but one has to wonder whether a derelict woman who was not a prostitute had been sitting on the front steps of a house with no intention of selling herself would have been attacked if the Ripper had been unsuccessful in locating a woman who was in the act of solicitation.

I don't want to derail the thread with talk of Nichols not being in the act when murdered, but that possibility, as with Tabram, has crossed my mind in the past.

Thanks for bringing up the drive by analogy, A.P.

[Mags]

Hi Howie and AP

I tend to think that the victims being prostitutes was just a matter of convenience for the killer and that he wasn't attacking them per se.

The destitute woman sitting on the steps probably wouldn't have followed him -or taken him- to a more private area. Nichols aside, that seems, even with Tabram, to be what he preferred.

[How Brown]

Hi Mags !

A friendly counterpoint to the theory that the Ripper wasn't targetting prosses would be that there wouldn't have been many other unaccompanied women out and about at the times the murders were committed...and those women would be the only ones who would go with him to a secluded spot. I might be misinterpreting what you mean when you said it was a matter of convienence that they were prosses.

So again, who else would be out at that time, who else would go into a secluded spot, regardless of the time of day, but prosses ?

Or was it merely vulnerable women he was out to kill ?

Hope you're well,sweets.

[Mags]

I'm fine, thanks and my humongous project at work is finally done so I hope to spend more time pestering you.

Like so many SKs after him, the WM killed prostitutes, because they were there and because they were so easy to manipulate. I don't think we can say for sure that he ONLY wanted to kill prossies . Some of the theories that revolve around supposed revenge for getting an STD or cleaning up the squalor rely on his targeting them and as you say, since they are so easy to kill even now, that's a weak conclusion.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Mags & How
as I've just said over on another thread, I tend to see his choice of victim class as being driven by a canny street logic that told the killer he would be almost impossible to track, trace or capture.
The 'unfortunates' fought the law, and the law won.

[Cris Malone]

Like so many SKs after him, the WM killed prostitutes, because they were there and because they were so easy to manipulate. I don't think we can say for sure that he ONLY wanted to kill prossies . Some of the theories that revolve around supposed revenge for getting an STD or cleaning up the squalor rely on his targeting them and as you say, since they are so easy to kill even now, that's a weak conclusion.

Excellent point.

Despite the STD theory of our boy hear, I can't recall any 'known' killer of 'low women' that killed for that reason. The Yorkshire Ripper claimed that he was 'cleaning the streets'... but that was after he got caught. Murders of this character ( especially with mutilation and organ removal) usually reflect the fantasy of the murderer himself. The choice of victims has more to do with the availability and vulnurabilty of this class than a motive of revenge for some reason. He could have just killed them and walked away; but he didn't. His post mortem activities were motivated by something else other than revenge.

I think the constricted area in which all of this took place speaks volumes as to what and why these murders happened but is often overlooked.

[Nemo]

The Yorkshire Ripper put forward the first instance of his hatred for prostitutes occurring or arising when one robbed him of £5 and humiliated him in the pub when he tried to get it back - implying a type of revenge motive

His hatred and disgust for the women culminated in his inflicting horrific injuries as we know, whereas initial attacks didn't even involve a knife, in later attacks specialised tools were utilised

His claim of being on a "Mission from God" to cleanse the streets appears to me to be his explanation of the amount of thought and premeditation he had put into the attacks and killings over the years without appearing to be the cold blooded serial killer he was

The vulnerability of the women certainly facilitated his crimes but he didn't necessarily choose them initially purely due to that vulnerability

...at least according to his own statements

[Mags]

Let's remember that one of the hallmarks of SKs is that they lie. they are manipulative.

I remember years ago reading a book by one of the original FBI profilers, Ressler I think, where he described gong into prisons and interviewing SKs. I especially remember him talking about how they would manipulated the setting of the room they were in to the best of their ability and how he never lost sight of the fact that they were toying with him the whole time and how they loved to talk about and relive their crimes.

Then think back to Bundy's last interviews where he blamed everything on porn. Just the solution that was politically correct at the time.


So believing anything that any of these guys say is a very slippery slope.

To my thinking, serial killers so often target prostitiutes because they are just so damed handy.

It seems clear to me that the WM's entire thing was mutilation and the the actual killing was a means to an end.

[A.P. Wolf]

I think you are right to advise caution in this regard, Mags, for we are yet again in grave danger of ascribing motives for murder from our present day knowledge to murders that were committed back in 1888 when quite honestly neither the killers or the police knew what they were doing or with what they were dealing. I have often advised interested parties to look for a motive that was relevent and compatible to the social interchange of the LVP, but hey I'm just a fool whose intentions are good, please Lord, don't let me be misunderstood.

[Caroline Morris]

Motive is a tricky one because we can't even say that these killers know themselves why they want to do stuff like this and keep on doing it. The fact that they come up with blame-shifting 'excuses' that are no such thing only shows how out of touch they are with other people's reality. They may be trying to convince themselves, but few others would see anything rational or understandable about righting an actual or perceived wrong by taking it out on a stranger, picked at random, never mind a whole string of strangers. Yet the killer who does this evidently thinks the strategy of blaming his unfortunate habit on an individual person or incident will help him in some way and not make things even worse.

I see him projecting outwards how he feels about himself, and his awkward and confused relationship with a world he is bound to see as hostile and unreal because he doesn't 'fit', and won't or can't adapt himself to fit, as others learn to do. It's all about him, and probably very little about the victim. He is only concerned with doing whatever the hell he feels like doing with as little obstruction as possible. So whether it's Ireland, picking on promiscuous gay men because they made it as easy for him as falling off a log, or Jack, picking on women so desperate that they were forced, unprotected, onto the streets at night, or Sutcliffe, extending his bag to anyone unaccompanied in a frock, it seems to be all about the ease of behaving badly without having to pay society's price.

The man who can temporarily or permanently rid himself of society's chains will behave badly in whichever way floats his individual boat, which may not have to involve sex, or sexual feelings, but will often do so in consequence of being male and aged between fifteen and fifty. Very few men can leave off their sexual chains at will.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Caz

My inclination is to think that the murders did have a sexual motive, but whether that was the killer's main motivation is hard to know from the existing evidence. We can at least say, as is often said about serial killers, that part of the motivation was power. That is, the killer was able to overcome these women, and do what he wanted with them, so certainly I think a drive to wield power over his victims had to be part of the motivation.

All the best

Chris

[Cris Malone]

While A.P. is correct in many ways about being careful in placing 21st century perceptions into Victorian times, I believe this would apply best to the cultural aspects. When it comes to human nature, that remains more constant.

In studying the pre WM cases revealed in Krafft-Ebing's famous book that included mutilation and organ removal, I was struck by the similarities with modern day cases. This is an abomination of the human character that transcends generations; the real difference being only the cultural perceptions of such behaviour as they existed.

The time period of our study was undergoing major changes in the study of human psychology. Beliefs that the shape of the head could determine criminal proclivity, that homosexuality was a mental disorder and even that epilepsy spawned certain behavior, were being replaced with more 'enlighted' views on the subject. There was much debate among professionals at the time ( I don't consider Forbes Winslow as one). Even Krafft-Ebing, himself, changed his notion about homosexuality during the course of his life.

I believe a good example of this is in Dr. Bond's 'profile', submitted immediately after the Kelly murder. His assertions as to the type of individual that would inflict such atrocities are remarkably similar to the characteristics of later, known, serial killers of this type. The 'officials' - such as Anderson and Macnaghten - distorted his findings to match an older predisposition of such an individual. Bond did not imply that the killer would be an obvious lunatic in the classic sense- what we would now call psychotic - but this was what Anderson found in Kosminski. Macnaghten latched onto the 'mental decay' theory; though Bond never suggested this either.

They all did agree that the mental state of such an individual displayed some perversion of the 'sexual instinct'...'satryasis' is how Bond put it and there's no doubt that he read Krafft-Ebing's work to deduce this. Though he didn't state it as such, he was describing a 'psychopath'... an individual who's outward appearence seemed normal - even to family and friends - but, as Caz alluded to, maintained an inner fantasy that became the sole focus of this person's life...and was capable of no remorse or concern for others when the need to act out this particular fantasy overtook them... but, whose outward appearance was mild-mannered and even reserved; the most difficult of individuals to apprehend... then or now.

If the murders did stop with Kelly, it was Abberline's early prognostication on the killer that was most likely correct... that the 'fiend' had finally become satisfied with what he believed he had accomplished... and,thus, dissappeared back into the fabric of society as quickly as he had emerged. His fantasy had come to fruition with the 'awful glut in Miller's Court'. To use a sexual term... he had finally achieved 'climax'.

This makes much more sense than chasing psychotics such as Ludwig, Isenschmidt and Kosminski... or the hapless barrister ( they knew almost nothing about depression or 'melancholia'... as they called it), who's decaying mind brought about an increase in the mutilations followed by a complete breakdown with suicide... and may explain why this series of murders started suddenly and in rapid succession... only to end just as suddenly... and why the murderer was never caught. ( Yes, murderer... not murderers because this type of individual is extremly rare... even among killers).

[Chris G.]

If the murders did stop with Kelly, it was Abberline's early prognostication on the killer that was most likely correct... that the 'fiend' had finally become satisfied with what he believed he had accomplished... and,thus, dissappeared back into the fabric of society as quickly as he had emerged. His fantasy had come to fruition with the 'awful glut in Miller's Court'. To use a sexual term... he had finally achieved 'climax'.

Hello Cris

With due respect, I wonder if the idea that the killer achieved his culmination with the murder of MJK in Miller's Court, or as we sometimes hear it said, with this killing "his mind gave way" that this might be an outmoded idea, akin to the apparent police notion that the killer was a raving lunatic. Yes, it might have occurred in that way, although I am not sure such an idea necessarily accords with what we have learned about serial killers since 1888. Rather, it seems to be one of the long-cherished legends about the case.

All the best

Chris

[Cris Malone]

I agree, Chris.

That's why I stated "if the murders ended with Kelly". If there's a link with the Farmer attack, Mylett's strange death and of course MacKenzie and Coles... then who knows? We now know that serial killers do sometimes quit, go dorment for periods, change MO's and even locations. These other events (except Mylett's) did occur in the same constricted area with the same victimology and with no apparent motive.

Having said that ( and despite Macnaghten's and Anderson's reasonings) there's good cause to believe that the link between the murders of Tabram through Kelly is the strongest. The key - besides the constricted timespan, area and victimology - is the targeting of the sexual organs in all except Stride's. That was the 'signature' that set these murders apart from any others that had taken place before or since, and gives the best clue as to motive. Unlike many others, he didn't torture the victims ( and he probably could have with Kelly). He appeared to be acting out a fantasy that culminated in an almost ritualistic sequence with Kelly. The placing of her uterus, one breast and a kidney beneath her head is most significant... and I believe was not realized by the people who viewed the carnage as a whole... which was to them, just total slaughter.

If there was a copycat in this series; it would be MacKenzie. Copycat murders usually take place some time after the initial murders and they are rare. The Zodiac copycat 2 decades after the original comes to mind. MacKenzie's throat was not cut, but stabbed; which is how most knife/throat killings took place. The cut throats of the 'canonicals' were much more efficient and effective. The attempts at mutilation on Mackenzie were more like scratches... as if the murderer somehow lost the nerve to do what was done to most of the previous victims.

Certainly with Coles, interruption could have been a factor, but, again, her throat was stabbed, instead of slashed. I can see the muderer of Tabram changing to the more effective method displayed on the 'canonicals', but not the reverse. It just doesn't seem likely.

For some reason, the type of murders commited in the fall of 1888 were never repeated on such a scale. There could be many reasons, but I don't believe that the murderer commited suicide or was 'safely caged in an asylum'; and history has shown that this most rare type of serial killer - one who eviscerates organs - usually doesn't change his 'signature'.

So, what are we left with?... death from accidental or natural causes; a change of location; illness; arrest for some other offense... or that he had fulfilled his fantasy and just decided to stop.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Cris,

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I'm now wondering if the brevity and intensity of this series could indicate that the killer never intended to keep at it for long, and it was more like the end product of a slow burning ambition - be it fantasy or compulsion - that he may have had for a long time, before something eventually happened (Tabram for instance) to light his touch paper and prompt him to take the plunge with his knife and get it all out of his system over just a few short weeks. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Then maybe he could finally relax - and die relaxed when the time came.

Looking at the Kelly murder I can get the impression of the dramatic burst of action at the end of a firework display, after which another Roman candle or Catherine wheel, oohed and aahed at to begin with, can no longer provide any thrills. October must have seemed an endless month if he was champing at the bit to finish what he'd started, but too damned scared of the streets he had made too hot to handle by the end of September.

Love,

Caz
X

[Irene Adler]

I vote for sexual serial killer