Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Evolution of a Killer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by David Jackson View Post
    Hi All,

    This is my first night on the forum, so forgive me if (as is likely), something like this has been raised before.

    I am sure beyond doubt that Mary Kelly is the last possible Ripper victim because nothing close to the violence and savagery was seen since.

    But at the other end, it's struck me that the treatment of Polly Nicholls is not that of a first murder. The Ripper would doubtless have abused or attacked women before Nicholls, but also may have killed someone in a more basic way.

    That's where Tabram comes in. I'm by no means sure she's a victim, but at the minute, i'm around 65% sure she was. A criticism for her inclusion in the canon is that the method was different (i.e. her throught wasn't obviously slit), but I think, in some ways, this is actually evidence that makes her MORE likely as a victim.

    Her throat wasn't cut, but from what I can tell, it was mutilation he really cared about, not method (he may have later slit throats as an easier and more efficient method).
    Hi David,

    I think most issues have in one form or another been tackled before, but one never knows when a new thought might spark something, and one cannot always go through all the existing threads

    Kelly: I'm no longer sure at all; I once had the same thought, that the particular savagery pointed to a climax, from where it'd be hard to come back, or at least which would have made anything following less satisfactory.
    But not only could that latter point hit the fact, still not meaning that he stopped altogether, but there's also the issue of the indoor location providing the opportunity for the extent, while not representing a change of MO, as he likely met her outside, her leading him to this discrete place (in this case a room), which is the same as with the others.
    He might very well have continued as always, but later possible victims - McKenzie, Cole - just like earlier not having such a place.

    Polly not the 1st: I completely agree with you! Ally Ryder put it well in one podcast, the unlikelihood that the killer would have gone from 0 to 60 (or 0 to 100 if one would believe Kelly not to have been a victim of the same man)

    Different method of killing: I agree again, although I wouldn't call the contrary evidence.
    I think we must ask ourselves why he brought the larger blade in the 1st place. To me it looks not only like clear premeditation but also like the large blade for the specific purpose of killing (i.e. incapacitating) the victim 1st, before tending to the priority for him.
    He could well have found another knife later, which itself incited the idea of throat-cutting as an easier way for him.
    We might try and see heart-stabbing as a precursor to strangling & throat-cutting.

    Comment


    • #32
      Daniel:
      Quick in and out here.....thanks for the articles on Bierman/Wilson, Two Knives,and for kickstarting this thread back up

      Much appreciated, sir.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
        Daniel:
        Quick in and out here.....thanks for the articles on Bierman/Wilson, Two Knives,and for kickstarting this thread back up

        Much appreciated, sir.
        Hi Howard,

        my pleasure and honor, and gratitude be reflected back to thee

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
          There was a horrific sexual component to the attack on Emma Smith. If there was a pervert driven by sexual lust in one of the gangs, I don't see why he wouldn't have progressed from robbing and stripping victims for profit, to sexual assault. I have even considered that such a man might have become JtR, and that part of the reason he got away was because fellow gang members protected him.
          2 of 2:

          I spent the last 45 min on thinking what makes me to suspect that JtR would not have been a gang member at any point in his life.
          As I said, this is primarily an intuitive response, and I'd say there are 2 components to it, the individuality of respective serial murderers and my vague image about certain components in regards to JtR.

          When we're thinking of serial killers in general it's often about what can we determine to be common denominators. There are some, for me it's primarily an inability to leave their childhood, which is a problem not exclusively reserved for them (--> Donald Trump); the 'child in the man', and of course the woman, that's often thought of as a rather nice term, referring to attributions not reserved to children alone, though. For me it's more Hitchcock telling Tony Perkins that Norman Bates is The Boy-Man. He and Bloch got that absolutely right. This child in an adult body is something very unhealthy. And it's something I believe to be the common denominator when it comes to serial killers - and others.

          But meanwhile all serial killers are still individuals; everything about what they do, including repeating aspects between serial killers, reflect them. Which is why I could imagine some beginning to commit atrocities as mambers of a gang easily (as said, I could see some torturers and rapists going that way as well, to me serial rape and serial murder are
          very much comparable, not to mention the cases when they are committed together).
          I'd certainly not be too perplexed to see, say, a young Dennis Rader, someone like him, starting off as a gang member, provided they commit atrocities.
          I'd have more problems with David Berkowitz.
          Ted Bundy I couldn't see in a gang either, but with him it's more because of his ego.

          As for the Whitechapel murderer, I believe it's to do with with some elements that have to do with fetishism, not as in sexual preference like the SM culture, and I don't mean any form of altar, but focus, focus on The Object. In this case, e.g., the organs. I think there's a lot of importance for him in touching, handling. But primarily, there is a fetish-aspect.
          Where the realization of fetish-treatment is not shared to begin with, it's not only a preoccupation that requires solitute, it is one that decisively leads away from community of any sort, especially if combined with this dominating child in the grown up body.
          This is what makes me tend to rather believe he wouldn't even have joined a gang.

          It's not a solid argument in terms of evidence, of course, it's a more intuitive attempt to understand.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
            Hi Anna Morris, hi everyone,
            although having registered a longer while ago, I only just now get to posting here.

            Anna, would you be able to find a link to this article?

            And I agree, Tom Wescott's book is one of my very favourites on the subject.

            As for the possibility of whether the murderer of later victims could have been a gang member at some point, I think there are pros and contras for this.
            We can fairly suspect people, who use the context of war for the purpose of torture for the torture's sake as being people with whom something is quite wrong . The same might go for violence as committed by gangs, particularly that kind of gang that commits rape. I have no troubles seeing members of such gangs, and torturers as potential serial murderers in an environment that fits their mentality, and thus doesn't have them appear like serial killers.
            At the same time I'm having troubles fitting the Whitechapel/Spitalfields murderer into this, and it's more of an intuitive rejection. Some aspects of the murders imply to my mind a tendency for solitude and problems with groups/packs - I'm happy to elaborate, if needed.

            But I think one issue with Emma Smith is the question whether it was indeed a gang who'd set upon her.
            Hi, Daniel:

            Glad you are posting. The more minds working on the subject(s), the better.

            I apologize I cannot name the case to which I referred. I frequently go through masses of information looking for patterns. I am pretty sure it was an Old Bailey case. I do a lot of research there, using, generally, 1882-1888. This is more or less MJK's time in London, give or take. Sometimes I expand that to 1875-1895.

            I was just pondering whether or not Emma Smith was beset by a gang or not. Debra A. dug up all the good information on (presumably) Ada Wilson. The first time I read about Ada Wilson it was said there was a knock on her door, she opened it, a sunburnt man demanded money, she gave him none and she was stabbed in the throat. She was a seamstress. (I'd swear I read this in Tully's book about James Kelly but can't find it there.) At some point in another place someone questioned the story and suggested Ada may have been a prostitute....

            Point being, I think many times we don't get full stories behind criminal happenings. The excuses given in Old Bailey cases are interesting. Man walks up to woman and stabs her for absolutely no reason...except...they spent the night together and she absconded with all his money the next morning. Etc.

            One argument in favour of JtR being solitary is the removal of organs. That is something one could hardly share with confederates.

            Yet, serial killers have been known to get thrills from violence by others, slaughter houses, etc. If he was a sadistic gang member perhaps he became too mentally sick even for a brutal gang.

            Whoever did whatever to Emma Smith was a sadist.
            Last edited by Anna Morris; October 8, 2016, 05:52 PM. Reason: correction
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
              Hi, Daniel:

              Glad you are posting. The more minds working on the subject(s), the better.

              I apologize I cannot name the case to which I referred. I frequently go through masses of information looking for patterns. I am pretty sure it was an Old Bailey case. I do a lot of research there, using, generally, 1882-1888. This is more or less MJK's time in London, give or take. Sometimes I expand that to 1875-1895.

              I was just pondering whether or not Emma Smith was beset by a gang or not. Debra A. dug up all the good information on (presumably) Ada Wilson. The first time I read about Ada Wilson it was said there was a knock on her door, she opened it, a sunburnt man demanded money, she gave him none and she was stabbed in the throat. She was a seamstress. (I'd swear I read this in Tully's book about James Kelly but can't find it there.) At some point in another place someone questioned the story and suggested Ada may have been a prostitute....

              Point being, I think many times we don't get full stories behind criminal happenings. The excuses given in Old Bailey cases are interesting. Man walks up to woman and stabs her for absolutely no reason...except...they spent the night together and she absconded with all his money the next morning. Etc.

              One argument in favour of JtR being solitary is the removal of organs. That is something one could hardly share with confederates.

              Yet, serial killers have been known to get thrills from violence by others, slaughter houses, etc. If he was a sadistic gang member perhaps he became too mentally sick even for a brutal gang.

              Whoever did whatever to Emma Smith was a sadist.

              Hi Anna,

              thank you

              I most certainly agree about the last sentence.

              And about the previous paragraph as well, I'm just wondering if it could apply to this man.
              But yes, and after all, there have been serial murderers working in tandems (Bianchi, Buono), in case of the Wests even a married couple. And the idea a particularly disturbed gang member could later continue his life with serial murder isn't at all far out.

              I do suspect with JtR that it would have bee different, and that - and that might sound very strange now - that sadism wasn't the basic drive.
              The thing about this sort of fetishism, I believe, is that it essentially drives the person away from a focus on people to a focus on the object. That's not only difficult to share, it obliterates the impulse for sharing. Not a human is the desired, but the object.

              It was Ada Wilson's upstairs neighbour, Rose Bierman, who told a version of events that differed significantly from Wilson's.
              Funny you should mention this, I wrote a piece on the 2 which I'd just posted here today:

              http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=26349

              Thank you for narrowing down, I thought you might not know where it was, as you said you read it somewhere.
              I'll keep my eyes peeled.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
                Hi Anna,

                thank you

                I most certainly agree about the last sentence.

                And about the previous paragraph as well, I'm just wondering if it could apply to this man.
                But yes, and after all, there have been serial murderers working in tandems (Bianchi, Buono), in case of the Wests even a married couple. And the idea a particularly disturbed gang member could later continue his life with serial murder isn't at all far out.

                I do suspect with JtR that it would have bee different, and that - and that might sound very strange now - that sadism wasn't the basic drive.
                The thing about this sort of fetishism, I believe, is that it essentially drives the person away from a focus on people to a focus on the object. That's not only difficult to share, it obliterates the impulse for sharing. Not a human is the desired, but the object.

                It was Ada Wilson's upstairs neighbour, Rose Bierman, who told a version of events that differed significantly from Wilson's.
                Funny you should mention this, I wrote a piece on the 2 which I'd just posted here today:

                http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=26349

                Thank you for narrowing down, I thought you might not know where it was, as you said you read it somewhere.
                I'll keep my eyes peeled.
                I'm going to have to access that other article another way since I am going around in circles on it.

                There are differences among serial killers and some similarities. One similarity seems to be the inability to feel empathy. This seems to be a lifelong trait. For all of them it is personal. More than one involved together is rare. Concerning Jack, keep in mind the offer of absolution offered after Mary Kelly's murder. Provided the reporter was not the murderer, if he came forward with information, he would not be charged. The authorities seemed to believe someone else knew something. Of course maybe they were just trolling for family members who had sheltered the killer.
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  I'm going to have to access that other article another way since I am going around in circles on it.

                  There are differences among serial killers and some similarities. One similarity seems to be the inability to feel empathy. This seems to be a lifelong trait. For all of them it is personal. More than one involved together is rare. Concerning Jack, keep in mind the offer of absolution offered after Mary Kelly's murder. Provided the reporter was not the murderer, if he came forward with information, he would not be charged. The authorities seemed to believe someone else knew something. Of course maybe they were just trolling for family members who had sheltered the killer.
                  Absolution: Yes, that was, as I understand, more directed at people who knew who he was and didn't come forward, which might be interpreted as being accomplice. Where it may concern real accomplices, these murders were something rather new, and the possibility that they were in fact gang-related was at the time perhaps more plausible than it is today, at the head of a history of serial murderers.

                  Empathy: You're probably right where it concerns most serial killers.

                  I'm not so sure about sadism.

                  And where sadisms is part of a serial killer I'm not sure about my own judgement or even ideas. I'm thinking of Dennis Rader.

                  Outside this, the thing with sadism.

                  This is going to very, very dark now:
                  when I think of torturers, reports, especially one brought to me by a friend from Kosovo,
                  I think the idea of these monsters not feeling empathy is our way to turn them into classical monsters.
                  The, much more depressing, reality is probably that without empathy the torture would not make sense for the torturer. He want's to understand the pain he causes. Otherwise he'd see nothing.

                  But you're probably right about most serial killers.
                  And part of this could be because this capacity has been diverted.
                  Hence the take on ritual.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
                    Absolution: Yes, that was, as I understand, more directed at people who knew who he was and didn't come forward, which might be interpreted as being accomplice. Where it may concern real accomplices, these murders were something rather new, and the possibility that they were in fact gang-related was at the time perhaps more plausible than it is today, at the head of a history of serial murderers.

                    Empathy: You're probably right where it concerns most serial killers.

                    I'm not so sure about sadism.

                    And where sadisms is part of a serial killer I'm not sure about my own judgement or even ideas. I'm thinking of Dennis Rader.

                    Outside this, the thing with sadism.

                    This is going to very, very dark now:
                    when I think of torturers, reports, especially one brought to me by a friend from Kosovo,
                    I think the idea of these monsters not feeling empathy is our way to turn them into classical monsters.
                    The, much more depressing, reality is probably that without empathy the torture would not make sense for the torturer. He want's to understand the pain he causes. Otherwise he'd see nothing.

                    But you're probably right about most serial killers.
                    And part of this could be because this capacity has been diverted.
                    Hence the take on ritual.
                    People are capable of doing terrible things in times of war and anarchy. It took a lot of people to staff Hitler's camps, certainly more in number than there were actual serial killers available.

                    I am doing some other research concerning Croatia. My interest is in history and the languages but recent horrors keep popping up. Truly awful for so recent times.

                    I think none of these sorts of things is related to actual serial killing as a crime. Though I have an idea some of the horrific things done by ISIS may be more related to serial killing. A number of the terrorists they catch over here seem to be seriously mentally disturbed.
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                      People are capable of doing terrible things in times of war and anarchy. It took a lot of people to staff Hitler's camps, certainly more in number than there were actual serial killers available.

                      I am doing some other research concerning Croatia. My interest is in history and the languages but recent horrors keep popping up. Truly awful for so recent times.

                      I think none of these sorts of things is related to actual serial killing as a crime. Though I have an idea some of the horrific things done by ISIS may be more related to serial killing. A number of the terrorists they catch over here seem to be seriously mentally disturbed.
                      Give our species a context of impunity, and see what'll happen...

                      It's true, I've read about this as well. But it doesn't surprise me for a number of reasons. Both religious believes and ideologies belong to the things one can drive over the edge the easiest, if one knows how.

                      I agree, it doesn't relate directly. I can imagine that certain contexts could be welcomed temporarily by people, who'd otherwise show their disturbance in other ways, though.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X