What Was The Motive? Sexual Serial Killer..

[Howard 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.

[AP 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.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. 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.

[AP 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 Brown]

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 Brown]

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

[DarrelX]

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

Such acts as murdering and mutilating women could be the only way for the Ripper to ejaculate, as in the case of Andrei Romanovich CHIKATILO, "The Red Ripper".

He is an interesting case that was motivated merely by the fact that he realized that violence towards women, and in some cases young boys, caused him to ejaculate.

Is ejaculating that important - that is a moral issue.

The Red Ripper also stopped for a whole year because he was afraid of getting caught. He also decapitated some victims and these were not able to be identified.

He even cut nosed of, cut eyes and ate private parts, ewwww. I mean actually ate them.

All this was what it took for him to gain sexual fulfillment.

This could have been JTR's motive as well.

I doubt whether JTR would have stopped suddenly after only 5 victims. He probably layed low then changed his M.O. to not get caught.

This is only based on The Red Rippers case and cannot gospel.