Blame it on Mom

[perrymason]

The only reason Fleming is a suspect is because of his link to MJK, who seems quite clearly to be the work of the Ripper. The suspects are only good for people wanting to publish their theories in books and there's not many suspects who give an indication of being a killer other than the suspects that actually are murderers, but the problem with those suspects is that most if not all aren't in the same league as to whoever the Ripper was in terms of how they killed as individuals.

Hi M & P,

I captured the above portion of your post because I dont think it reflects the viability of Flemings candidacy as a possible killer of Mary Kelly....and as you point out, since so many believe she was killed by Jack, ...as a possible Ripper candidate also. He is a known "lover" of Marys, known to be committed within a few years, he is not found and questioned regarding his relationship with Mary or his whereabouts that night, and he might be one of very few people that knew of her broken pane/latch entry method...if it was used.

I agree with you that many if not all the people we call "suspects" have no basis in fact for the claim. But in this case he knows the victim of the most savage attack during that period, is seeing her on the side....and has mental illness. Its at least grounds for investigating him for Marys death.

Cheers M & P

[Ben]

The only reason Fleming is a suspect is because of his link to MJK

No.

Joseph Barnett is only a suspect because of his link to Kelly.

Joseph Fleming is viable for other, non-Kelly reasons.

[Pinkerton]

sexual sadism

The most likely reason Jack singled out women instead of men was because of his likely motive--sexual sadism. Years of research have shown this to be the motive of most serial killers, though certainly not all. And one does NOT have to either have sex with victims or masturbate at the scene to be a sexual sadist. There have been many serial killers who did neither but were driven by having power over the object of their lust. Had Jack been gay he likely would have killed men as did John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and William McDonald.

The thing that I've always been unsure of is are straight sexual sadist serial killers driven by misogyny, or are they basically just sociopaths who kill women because women are the object of their lust? After all gay male sexual sadist serial killers usually kill men and are not said to be driven by "misandry". A friend of mine argued that perhaps it is internalized homophobia, or guilt over their homosexual proclivities that makes them kill other men. I would be interested to see research in this area.

[perrymason]

Im curious about something that people who study profilers or who know the specific legal definition.....a man who kills randomly twice is a multiple murderer,....does 3 victims warrant the "serial" label...or more?

Im asking because so many people refer to the unidentified murderer as a "serial" killer, based I suppose on the Canonical grouping of 5 victims.

I personally dont see the evidence that likely links the 5 women to one person, and often wonder if categorizing the killer to study him is warranted without a fixed number of victims we can be almost certain were linked to one killer.

The point being of course, that he isnt a "serial" killer at all....until we have enough victims to use that designation with any accuracy. The unknown killer who is named "Jack" due to a hoax letter with the same pen name being sent to to The Central Press in September has no fixed number of victims we can claim with any authority. The chap may have killed only one or 2 women if the truth be told....which would make any "serial" studies useless.

Best regards all.

[protohistorian]

Im curious about something that people who study profilers or who know the specific legal definition.....a man who kills randomly twice is a multiple murderer,....does 3 victims warrant the "serial" label...or more?

Im asking because so many people refer to the unidentified murderer as a "serial" killer, based I suppose on the Canonical grouping of 5 victims.

I personally dont see the evidence that likely links the 5 women to one person, and often wonder if categorizing the killer to study him is warranted without a fixed number of victims we can be almost certain were linked to one killer.

The point being of course, that he isnt a "serial" killer at all....until we have enough victims to use that designation with any accuracy. The unknown killer who is named "Jack" due to a hoax letter with the same pen name being sent to to The Central Press in September has no fixed number of victims we can claim with any authority. The chap may have killed only one or 2 women if the truth be told....which would make any "serial" studies useless.

Best regards all.

I expect your right about the validity of thec5 grouping. As for inferences from modern serials, while a shallow and understudied field, it is the best data as a whole on the subject of repeat killers. We should not expect it to transfer in it's entirety. Dogmatic application of the probabilities wont be helpful. On the other hand, being mindful that serials apply binary thought, evaluation in the changes within the crimes strongly suggest traits of the killers worldview.

[protohistorian]

I expect your right about the validity of thec5 grouping. As for inferences from modern serials, while a shallow and understudied field, it is the best data as a whole on the subject of repeat killers. We should not expect it to transfer in it's entirety. Dogmatic application of the probabilities wont be helpful. On the other hand, being mindful that serials apply binary thought, evaluation in the changes within the crimes strongly suggest traits of the killers worldview.

Serial is 3 or more killing events seperated by time and committed with similar or same motivations.

[LTowell]

I hate to be wishy washy, but I don't think serial killers can be fit completely into nature/nurture disputes. Of course, upbringing helps (or hurts) a lot, but as the thread suggests, it's way too convenient to blame Mom.

To me, the end result of this answer would be to help others in the future, along the lines of "If we treat our children better, they won't grow up to be serial killers." I find this highly specious, as Dahmer's father proves, as I'ms sure do many others. And yes, I also remember reading Dennis Rader's emphatic statements regarding his normal childhood.

When bringing up Mom, Henry Lee Lucas comes to mind. Here's a man who grew up being in the same room as his mother as she had sex with many different men, whose mother dressed him in female clothing, and who had real issues with the distinction between "normal" relationships. Yet he targeted young women who did not look like his mother. Did he hold a certain image of his mother suspended in time and target women who looked like that? Was he socially trained to target women he was supposed to be attracted to? Did he seek out women as he would a mate, yet make them victims instead?

I'll also stay way from Freud-but I do think the crimes are definitely sexual, with the knife as a phallic stand-in. The "actual" sexual contact was substituted with symbolic sexual contact.

[protohistorian]

I hate to be wishy washy, but I don't think serial killers can be fit completely into nature/nurture disputes. Of course, upbringing helps (or hurts) a lot, but as the thread suggests, it's way too convenient to blame Mom.

To me, the end result of this answer would be to help others in the future, along the lines of "If we treat our children better, they won't grow up to be serial killers." I find this highly specious, as Dahmer's father proves, as I'ms sure do many others. And yes, I also remember reading Dennis Rader's emphatic statements regarding his normal childhood.

When bringing up Mom, Henry Lee Lucas comes to mind. Here's a man who grew up being in the same room as his mother as she had sex with many different men, whose mother dressed him in female clothing, and who had real issues with the distinction between "normal" relationships. Yet he targeted young women who did not look like his mother. Did he hold a certain image of his mother suspended in time and target women who looked like that? Was he socially trained to target women he was supposed to be attracted to? Did he seek out women as he would a mate, yet make them victims instead?

I'll also stay way from Freud-but I do think the crimes are definitely sexual, with the knife as a phallic stand-in. The "actual" sexual contact was substituted with symbolic sexual contact.

Without exception everyone is on a trajectory, the question quickly becomes what trajectory? By the way, Lucas is probably one of the best analogs we have.

[DarkPassenger]

Problem is that too many people, keen to find the sinister "causes" of criminal behaviour become reductionist and positivist - it has to be some genetic problem, or, it was the mother. They reduce people to either passive receptors of their environments, shells who simply follow the simplistic deductions of pop psychologists who say that being abused by your hooker mom makes you hate women and every time you kill a girl, it's because you're really killing your mom and you use the knife as a substitute pen....*snooooorrreee*

Oh, sorry, nodded off there. Then there are the others who assume that people are just biologically (or neurologically) predetermined to be "criminals." That a serial killer does what he does because he has "frontal lobe epilepsy" or because he had a "head injuiry" in his youth and that's why he kills people. *swigs his black coffe, pops and upper* taking it out of me, keeping awake!

Thing is that people are complex, and that development is never, ever, ever determined by one thing or another, and causes of such deep and complex things like serial murder cannot be reduced to, "he's impotent," or "his mom beat him" or "he's got an extra Y chromasome." Same with the old substitute penis - he does not sit in his room and say, "well, since I'm impotent, I'll use the knife as a substitute penis instead! That'll show my mom who's boss!"

Piecing together the causes and explanations of serial murder is not like clicking lego together - oh, he's probably unemployed, because serial killers are unemployed, oh and he's a mommy's boy, and he's had a head injury, etc. etc...JTR lured women away, he got them facing the wall, he throttled them to the ground, he slashed their throats, he tore their abdomens open, he pulled their guts out and he cut the uterus out - why? Because mommy didn't love him? Because he had a facial deformity? Because he was impotent? No! For his own reasons! Profiling is so villified because too many rely on off-the-shelf, safe bet profiles which tell us nothing

[protohistorian]

Problem is that too many people, keen to find the sinister "causes" of criminal behaviour become reductionist and positivist - it has to be some genetic problem, or, it was the mother. They reduce people to either passive receptors of their environments, shells who simply follow the simplistic deductions of pop psychologists who say that being abused by your hooker mom makes you hate women and every time you kill a girl, it's because you're really killing your mom and you use the knife as a substitute pen....*snooooorrreee*

Oh, sorry, nodded off there. Then there are the others who assume that people are just biologically (or neurologically) predetermined to be "criminals." That a serial killer does what he does because he has "frontal lobe epilepsy" or because he had a "head injuiry" in his youth and that's why he kills people. *swigs his black coffe, pops and upper* taking it out of me, keeping awake!

Thing is that people are complex, and that development is never, ever, ever determined by one thing or another, and causes of such deep and complex things like serial murder cannot be reduced to, "he's impotent," or "his mom beat him" or "he's got an extra Y chromasome." Same with the old substitute penis - he does not sit in his room and say, "well, since I'm impotent, I'll use the knife as a substitute penis instead! That'll show my mom who's boss!"

Piecing together the causes and explanations of serial murder is not like clicking lego together - oh, he's probably unemployed, because serial killers are unemployed, oh and he's a mommy's boy, and he's had a head injury, etc. etc...JTR lured women away, he got them facing the wall, he throttled them to the ground, he slashed their throats, he tore their abdomens open, he pulled their guts out and he cut the uterus out - why? Because mommy didn't love him? Because he had a facial deformity? Because he was impotent? No! For his own reasons! Profiling is so villified because too many rely on off-the-shelf, safe bet profiles which tell us nothing

mom is a target by virtue of our species relying on inductive reasoning.Otherwise, you are correct, we are strage monkey's indeed.

[LTowell]

Dark Passenger,

I agree with you. Everything about profiling is intellectually fascinating, because we would love to be able to figure these people out and determine why they did it, if only for the purpose of perhaps giving a nice little pill to future SKs to keep them from committing crimes. Just as we did with Bertillon and physiognomy, as well as phrenology, we hope to reduce people to an answerable question. It's just not possible.

But this doesn't mean the attempt is futile. Perhaps it is boring to see the knife as a substitute penis, but it's no less valid a diagnosis than any other. And it also doesn't mean that the killer himself believed he was using it in that fashion, at least consciously. It is us who impart on him that psychological diagnosis in order to somehow understand him. I understand what you say, and of course, we try to give motive to an almost certainly motiveless crime. But that's what we do. Again, perhaps it is impossible, and perhaps it is incorrect. But I don't see it as futile.

[DarkPassenger]

But this doesn't mean the attempt is futile. Perhaps it is boring to see the knife as a substitute penis, but it's no less valid a diagnosis than any other. And it also doesn't mean that the killer himself believed he was using it in that fashion, at least consciously. It is us who impart on him that psychological diagnosis in order to somehow understand him. I understand what you say, and of course, we try to give motive to an almost certainly motiveless crime. But that's what we do. Again, perhaps it is impossible, and perhaps it is incorrect. But I don't see it as futile.

The substitute penis thing is part of a complex of ideas used by some people who, I think cannot properly grasp the dynamics of psychology and criminology enough to realise that such concepts are not universal or inflexible. What is futile is applying this misunderstanding of concepts to a case or to the field in general - by saying that "serial killers have a dominant mother" or that "they use a knife instead of a penis" you reduce the individuals to cases in a uniform paradigm. Instead, each case must be read with an open mind and a realisation that instead of applying ideas to people, you must understand the creation of knowledge innate in methods of deduction.

[celee]

Hi,

Simply put, Jack the Ripper had a fear of women that grew into frustration and caused great anger towards them. By takeing away the uteris he is takeing away the part of the woman that makes her a woman giving him power and controll over what he fears.

Your friend, Brad

[Sam Flynn]

By takeing away the uteris he is takeing away the part of the woman that makes her a woman giving him power and controll over what he fears.

Why didn't he consistently mutilate the genitalia, Brad, or the breasts? It's those external manifestations of womanhood that resonate the most for me - not wombs.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi,

Simply put, Jack the Ripper had a fear of women that grew into frustration and caused great anger towards them. By takeing away the uteris he is takeing away the part of the woman that makes her a woman giving him power and controll over what he fears.

Your friend, Brad

Hello Brad

Speaking of the killer's possible desire to gain power over his victims, in the January issue of Ripperologist in the article, "Possible Mythological Meanings of Kidney Excision to Jack the Ripper", Dr. Gunter Wolf explored the historical, mythological and mystical meanings of the kidney over the centuries. He concluded, "By removing a kidney from some of his victims, possibly Jack the Ripper was exhibiting psychopathological behaviour in an attempt to obtain control and possession of the victim even after death."

He further stated, "By removing the kidney from Catherine Eddowes, Jack the Ripper may have tried to take possession of the conscience, emotions, and desires of one of his victims. In light of this sexual meaning of the kidney, the murderer may have felt that taking this organ would increase his own power and sexual potency. A kidney was also removed from the body of fifth canonical victim Mary Jane Kelly and placed under her head, this act perhaps suggesting the powerful importance of this organ to the murderer."

Best regards

Chris George