Motive?

[Ryan_Miller]

It seems that the favorite topic of discussion in the Ripper world is "who done it"? While that would be very interesting (though near impossible) to discover, I think the most fascinating aspect of the case is just what could make someone do these things. So, on to the million dollar question... what was Jack's motive? Do you believe the victims were chosen specifically or at random? Was the arrangement of organs planned out or an (extreme) coincidence? There has to be some form of method to the madness... or does there?

I think that we often like to use profiling, to say what a certain kind of person would do in a certain situation. Thats a great route to take and it may give some insight into just what kind of person it takes to create a specific kind of crime. Let's, however, look at the crimes and ask ourselves what a person would feel he/she is proving to society or achieving overall from these murders? Or perhaps Jack murdered just for the sake of murdering. What do you think?

[Mutt]

Mr. Miller,

I believe he hated women, and some fantasy that existed within his mind drove him to these women.

The women were in my opinion targets of opportunity. They played into his plans by making themselves available to the killer, who they thought was just another 'john'.

I believe the placement of the intestines, and the removal of the organs fit into the killers overall fantasy. Perhaps this was done as just another facet of the killers rage. I do not believe he went into the killing with a plan to 'remove this woman's womb' or any such idea. He destroyed what makes them women, and he did this to further demonstrate how reduced and debased the victim was. He was humiliating the women. And at least part of the killer wanted us to see how low he could bring them.

However, I do not think that showing us his work was his concious focus. I think the destruction of the women was his first and foremost priority. He was not a natural showman, so that when the opportunity to move his work indoors came, he took it, and indulged his fantasy of further and more violently.

- Mutt

[Ryan_Miller]

I agree with you on many levels. I too believe that Jack had a vicious hate of women, and that the victims were "targets of opportunity".

Obviously the unfortunates of the day would be the most accessible (no pun intended) victims for many reasons. Mainly, they would know quiet, secluded places to escort their "men", which would prove to be an easy target for a killer.

I however, am not sure that I agree with you on the removal of organs. I agree that he wanted to humiliate them and take from them what makes them a woman.

With that said, I believe that he would watch for a candidate for murder, allow them to lead him to a quiet area, then (possibly)after choking them he would have a plan in mind. I am not an individual that believes our killer had great anatomical knowledge. I do think that he liked the idea of having a souvenir though, to remind himself of what he had taken from them.

In the Eddowes and MJK he mutilated their face horribly, leaving them almost beyond recognition. Why? Not only did he savagely mutilate and destroy their bodies but he took away organs, and their IDENTITY!

[DarkPassenger]

Serial killers are always carrying out acts which fulfil some kind of psychological need they have. Sexual serial killers often are people who are suffering a case of "overcrowded rat syndrome" where they may have powerful sex drives or dominant personalities, but are being constantly repressed by their social/developmental surroundings, such as a dominant female figure (Michael Bruce Ross grew up in a house full of girls, for example) or because of their own shortcomings; deformities or other problems stopping them from socializing properly.

Ryan, it's interesting you note the depersonalization of the victims, it's a strong clue to his motive. He was obviously a sexually driven and disorganised killer seeking to get a sexual thrill from the act of destroying a woman completely, as well as (and no doubt it was a self-justification thing, nothing causal in his actions) "clean the streets." He wasn't a missionary killer, don't get me wrong, but a power- and sex-driven killer. A loner with a hatred for society and a resentment of women, but someone so goddamned useless at everything that even his killing spree was little more than a perverse bloodbath, it's everlasting infamy has been little more than a fluke, and one all down to a bloodthirsty media.

His motive, then, was to fulfill his own personal conviction of his own greatness and the shortcomings of others, but really, it was to get his end away by ripping women to shreds. In his mind, he was enjoying himself to avenge society.

[Limehouse]

Serial killers are always carrying out acts which fulfil some kind of psychological need they have. Sexual serial killers often are people who are suffering a case of "overcrowded rat syndrome" where they may have powerful sex drives or dominant personalities, but are being constantly repressed by their social/developmental surroundings, such as a dominant female figure (Michael Bruce Ross grew up in a house full of girls, for example) or because of their own shortcomings; deformities or other problems stopping them from socializing properly.

Ryan, it's interesting you note the depersonalization of the victims, it's a strong clue to his motive. He was obviously a sexually driven and disorganised killer seeking to get a sexual thrill from the act of destroying a woman completely, as well as (and no doubt it was a self-justification thing, nothing causal in his actions) "clean the streets." He wasn't a missionary killer, don't get me wrong, but a power- and sex-driven killer. A loner with a hatred for society and a resentment of women, but someone so goddamned useless at everything that even his killing spree was little more than a perverse bloodbath, it's everlasting infamy has been little more than a fluke, and one all down to a bloodthirsty media.

His motive, then, was to fulfill his own personal conviction of his own greatness and the shortcomings of others, but really, it was to get his end away by ripping women to shreds. In his mind, he was enjoying himself to avenge society.

I agree with most of your post, and I am particularly interested in the idea of a man being repressed by a dominant female and subsequently becoming a serial killer. I know there are firm examples we could point to, but I wonder - are there any firm examples of women who become killers because of repression by a dominant male figure?

I think the killer's motive was sexual - the need to achieve sexual release through inflicting damage - with a strong element of anger. Whether this was anger specifically engendered by women, or simply anger produced by the killer's need to give in to his homicidal drive (and then vented on the women) is unclear to me.

[DarkPassenger]

The whole dominant female concept is more to explain a trigger for a serial killer to kill, not necessarily a causal link. A killer has an argument with his wife and goes off to kill someone because "compensatory justice" demands it.

[Ashkenaz]

but I wonder - are there any firm examples of women who become killers because of repression by a dominant male figure?

.

I have read that women are more likely to internalise their anger, while men more likely externalise theirs. Perhaps thats why most killers are men- Im guessing at that.

[KatBradshaw]

Grrrrrrr



I am not trying to have a go at anyone here but I am soooooooooooooo fed up with the fact that people always seem to bring the blame back on women for these crimes! Bundy killed because he was jilted in College by a woman with long dark hair, Peter Sutcliffe was either laughed at by a pro or was angry with his mothers affairs, Man fell because Eve duped Adam. It just gets my goat. How about his motive was that he was insane and was driven by a desire to destroy human life.

[Limehouse]

I am not trying to have a go at anyone here but I am soooooooooooooo fed up with the fact that people always seem to bring the blame back on women for these crimes! Bundy killed because he was jilted in College by a woman with long dark hair, Peter Sutcliffe was either laughed at by a pro or was angry with his mothers affairs, Man fell because Eve duped Adam. It just gets my goat. How about his motive was that he was insane and was driven by a desire to destroy human life.

Quite so Kat. There is also a strong bias against women who kill compared with men. Myra Hindley, it seems to me, was hated more than Brady because it was felt that she should have had maternal instincts that prevented her from allowing Brady to do what he did. In reality, they were both equally sick or equally wicked, however you want to perceive it.

A few years ago, a local woman was charged with the manslaughter of her six year old son in peculiar and distressing circumstances (she made it appear to be a sex murder). When she appeared in court there was a frenzy of hundreds of people surrounding the court in what can only be described as a hysterical manner.

Two years prior to that, a man who smothered his six year old son was treated with pity and there was none of the uproar that occurred when a woman was charged with a very similar offence.

[KatBradshaw]

Don't want to thread hijack but........

I totally agree Limehouse. There are so many cases where there is a bias against women. In Hindley's case, whilst I have no sympathy for her, she was certainly hated more for being a woman!!
I just object to the fact that women are so often blamed for crimes against them!!! I always felt that way and then I read Judith Walkowitz's book to help with my dissertation and it really encapsulated how I felt.

[Limehouse]

I totally agree Limehouse. There are so many cases where there is a bias against women. In Hindley's case, whilst I have no sympathy for her, she was certainly hated more for being a woman!!
I just object to the fact that women are so often blamed for crimes against them!!! I always felt that way and then I read Judith Walkowitz's book to help with my dissertation and it really encapsulated how I felt.

I have read Walkowitz's book too and found it very absorbing.

Perhaps part of the problem is that, where a male has experienced a strong female influence in his life (via wife, mother, sister, matron etc) and he subsequently goes on to commit serious crimes, it is so easy to blame the strong female influence rather than the male's reaction to that influence. It seems there is still a deeply ingrained distaste of strong female roles.

[KatBradshaw]

Absolutely!!
The fault lies with the man, not the female influence (I am aware there are some acceptions to this.) It is the nature of our mysoginistic, paternalistic society that allows people to excuse the evil and madness of a man by claiming a woman made him do it!

[Ryan_Miller]

Kat, I'm sorry if I or anyone else came off as placing the blame on the females. In no way do I believe that women were at fault, however, I do believe you are looking at our suggestions in the wrong light. These ladies were victims of a terrible murder which nobody male or female deserved.

Anyone who could committ such a heinous crime is terribly disturbed psychologically, and I would assume he would be quick to say that his problems are a result of someone else's actions. In earlier posts I was trying to say that I believe his irrational hate of women, for whatever reason, led him to single them out as his targets.

I don't believe that a disturbed mind need reason or rationale for what they believe is true. They just believe it, and thats that. Women were not to blame... Jacks resentment, anger, ill-will, and irrational thinking is to blame.

[DarkPassenger]

I am not trying to have a go at anyone here but I am soooooooooooooo fed up with the fact that people always seem to bring the blame back on women for these crimes! Bundy killed because he was jilted in College by a woman with long dark hair, Peter Sutcliffe was either laughed at by a pro or was angry with his mothers affairs, Man fell because Eve duped Adam. It just gets my goat. How about his motive was that he was insane and was driven by a desire to destroy human life.

No-one is placing the blame on women. The blame lies in how the killers have developed and how they percieve women, not on what women have "done to them."

And serial killers are very rarely insane, and rarely is the aim to "destroy human life," unless you're Joseph Kallinger, who took his 13 year old son with him on a God-given quest to exterminate mankind!

They're fulfilling theyr deep-seated sexual fantasies, fantasies fuelled by a lifetime of experiences filtered through they own personal, and thus warped, view of the world. Sometimes they tell themselves they are doing some great act - like Brady did - but really they're just masturbating with bells and whistles on.

[Wickerman]

What was the motive?

...So, on to the million dollar question... what was Jack's motive?
Do you believe the victims were chosen specifically or at random? Was the arrangement of organs planned out or an (extreme) coincidence? There has to be some form of method to the madness... or does there?

Hello Ryan.
It would seem the words of Polonius are appropriate:
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."
(Hamlet)

...
Or perhaps Jack murdered just for the sake of murdering. What do you think?

Generally, when a killer goes further than the initial killing, we are being introduced to his motive. The killings of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes went beyond the possible initial choking, beyond the cutting of the throat.
If killing was the sole purpose, once he cut their throats he had fullfilled his purpose. This purpose could be argued for Stride and for Coles. The act of Killing for the sake of it could also be applied to Martha Tabram.
The murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and possibly MacKenzie went further, though the MacKenzie murder may have been copycat, trying to give the appearance of a further motive.

The Torso murders are typically excluded from consideration but even back in the late 19th century when Kraft-ebing updated his analysis he at least considered the Torso killings as possibly the work of the same killer.
In truth we have no accurate way of knowing whether the pieces of Torso were the result of murder or possibly failed attempts at hiding medical mistakes, - who knows?

With the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly we are on firmer ground with respect to further motives of the killer. While nothing is certain we can at least admit that the searching for, and removal of, certain organs was time consuming to the extent of downright foolishness unless this had been his purpose from the start.

Anyone can see that the removal of external digits or articles of clothing to represent trophy's would be less risky.
If his motive was the simple act of killing, because he hated women, or because he challenged the authorities, or as some think, because he hated specifically prostitutes, it makes no sense to spend considerably more time with the body mutilating it than he spent in the actual killing of the victim.

Our progression of logic should direct us to recognise, like it or not, understand it or not, that the motive for at least three, possibly four, of the murders was to obtain the organs he removed.

What specific use he had for the organs is quite another question.

regards, Jon.S