Motives

[chudmuskett]

Hi, I just wondered what the general feeling on the motive for these murders were. For example, did aka.Jack do it for the Thrills? Mental issues? Profit? Work? Or maybe you might think its something else.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

It's a cliché and a cop-out, but I'd say a mixture of sexual gratification and misogyny.

[Gman992]

I don't think that he hated all women...I think that he hated a certain type of woman---early 40s with a motherish way about them. Maybe Mary Kelly treated him like a child when he was walking through the neighborhood. Most likely, his mother either molested him or sexually humilitated him in some way during his early children, pre-puberty years. He could probably have a normal conversation with regular women, but that's probably just all. Since, he couldn't bring himself to be sexual with a woman, this sent him off the deep end. He turned his sexual frustration into angry when he killed those women. I don't think that he "got off"--ei there was no penetration, and I don't think that he went home and masturbated--but he felt satisfied at the end of each murder. I also don't think that he was impotent, but whenever he was getting sexual with a woman, painful memories were brought up, and that destroyed the atmosphere. That prevented him from being "a man."

[smezenen]

Any answer you could possibly give to this question is at this point just a guess. You will never be able to answer this question until you prove conclusively who the killer was.

Modern criminal profiling is in my opinion useless in this case because it is a science based on observation of modern humans. People living in 1888 had a completely different mindset, they had different values, they had different taboos, they lived with a different psychological attitude then we have today.

Just my 2 cents worth for what its worth.

[Hunter]

Hello everyone,

Modern profiling has been incorrect many times in modern cases. Often, when the killer was aprehended he was a different sort than who they originally thought they were looking for and since our subject was never caught speculation is just that, and nothing more.

If this individual had a troubled childhood in some way, there was probably other lesser abhorent behaviors long before the series of murders , but at this late date we will never know.

If his penchant for murder and mutilation developed after reaching adulthood, I've always thought that it may be as simple as contracting a STD from a prostitute and deciding to extract vengence on that class of women. Diseases such as syphllis progress slowly with the advanced stage causing mental disorders. It could explain the sudden onslaught of the murders; the gap between the last 2- if he was seeking treatment- and the abrupt end of the killings as he became more mentally and physically disabled. Of course, this is all speculation.

Perhaps the reason for the organ removals offer the only tangible clue to this person's mindset.

[corey123]

Hello All,

In the way Hunter says profiles are almost always wrong, many will say this because it is a popular belief and is wrong.

Profiling is at best a eudacated guess, but such is most things in this case.

To find a motive is picking a needle from a heystack, you will be presented with many possibles and it will be a stride if you happen to get it right.

We can hypothesise and guess, but I am afraid we will never know what the motive was for this killer.

Hunter,

You really need to give offinder profiling a chance. At least look at it before sending it away. Not many profiles have been 100% wrong. There are many people who think they can "Profile" and those are the ones who are wrong.

Profiles DO work.

Give them a chance.

I happen to believe we can look at a motive group as a whole and attempt to fish the right one out. I am one of the profilers who likes to look at behavior and psychological profiles and make them for killers(even of this killer, many will go against this, but like I said, it is popular belief that profiles are wrong. Tip- DONT JUMP THE BANDWAGON). I even do geo-profiles.


Anyways, in a case this old, we are really never going to get the oppertunity to prove our many profiles right.

There are many profilers on this site. One of the best Geographical Profilers I have ever seen is a poster on this site.

yours truly

[Supe]

Smezenen,

People living in 1888 had a completely different mindset, they had different values, they had different taboos, they lived with a different psychological attitude then we have today.

I quite agree and have argued for years that those in the LVP thought differently from us in the 21st C. Anyone interested in a different take on the question of motive should read "What's Wrong With Being Unmotivated?" in Ripperologist 110 (January 2010).

Don.

[corey123]

Smezenen, supe,

People had the same motives for muder, same disorders, same conditions, same illnesses, same problems.

Its not like we are another species.

Your right they did have different taboos. What would you define as modern? Profiling is nothing new. They did it in 1888 and they do it now. It is based on HUMAN behavior, and, as far as I am concerned, they were humans in 1888.

Read Bonds profile.

I agree, killers don't need a motive. Jack the Ripper may have not had one.

But saying they thought completely different than we do today is pure nonsense.

Yours truly

[cerburusuk]

I remember the police saying, before he was caught, that The Yorkshire Ripper was a loner, unmarried and probably couldnt hold a job down. Yet when he found, Sutcliffe was married, held a good job and had many friends. His motive? Just pure evil for evils sake.
I always wondered, if Sutcliffe had never been caught, and just vanished like Jack did, if 100 years from now people would be claiming he was Arthur Scargill because he went mad during the Miners strike, or Dennis Thatcher because he was always in Maggies shadow and was killing her every time he killed a woman...You can bet that no one would have said he was Peter William Sutcliffe a lorry driver from Bradford!!!
Best wishes,
Sean.

[corey123]

Sean,

Well guess who the profilers were? POLICE! Exactly my point. You need to know HOW to profile to profile.

You can't just make things up.

Yours truly

[Supe]

Corey,

People had the same motives for muder, same disorders, same conditions, same illnesses, same problems.

No they didn't. But then motive is a snare and quite unnecessary for an investigation and prosecution. But do read the Ripperologist article.

Don.

[Supe]

Corey,

But saying they thought completely different than we do today is pure nonsense.

I certainly didn't say "completely different." They did, however, think differently than we do, just as native speakers in different languages have different modes of thought. As an example, a speaker of a language that does not have words for "yes" or "no" will have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world than those whose language (e.g. English) does.

But do read posts more carefully before you ascribe words to others.

Don.

[protohistorian]

Supe is correct. A number of modern conditions are culturally bound in method of diagnosis and presentation. While the physiology remains more or less constant, the expression can and does fluctuate wildly. Dave

[corey123]

Don, Dave,

I read correctly.

I agree, thought processes have changed, a bit. However, the brain has not evolved. It works the same way it worked in 1888. We know more and have created more, but the psychological aspect of the brain is still the way it used to be.

Modern profiling, whenever you think modern to be, is based on observations in human behaviors based on scientific knowledge. We can pin point behavior clues of the psychological make up of people based on their actions.

Profiling, like I said, is nothing new. We can veiw Dr.Thomas Bonds profile which he created based on his medical knowledge and experiance, and look at our profiles for the killer, and see some little differences, not many.

Don,

I am sorry for saying "compltely different" you are right, you didn't say it.

I will read the Ripperologist article. Thought processes are different, but the way someone kills is no different as it was 122 years ago. Yes, every killer kills differently, but dismissing profiling because of mere time, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

I agree, motives, like I said, are needle in a heystack and only are useful AFTER prosecution.

Yours truly

[Hunter]

Corey,
... motive is a snare and quite unnecessary for an investigation and prosecution.
Don.

That is a good point. In the end, if these individuals are caught, it is hard evidence that leads them to an arrest and subsequent prosecution. Serial killers are the most difficult because they rarely leave any evidence and the usual suspect pattern, or search for a motive is hampered by the fact that there is no apparent rhyme or reason. They continue killing for some time until enough pieces of evidence are finally accumulated. Once this is done, Corey, then some forms of profiling can be helpful to narrow down the search.

Our subject killed, in comparison, very few people, over a short period of time and left little if any clues. If he had continued at the pace of the canonicals he probably would have been eventually apprehended. But, he apparently didn't, for whatever reason, and we are left to speculate.