Blame it on Mom

[protohistorian]

Hmmmm. Certainly, we can imagine the deleterious effects of a mother's misconceived or plain evil actions, but if you're looking specifically at a Freudian model here, it's probably worth remembering that Freud's scope didn't include the poor and downtrodden living in overcrowded slums (ie. the demography our killer likely was part of). Further, although to get out of a professional hole, Freud stated at times that his theories were literal, there is much to suggest that they were figurative (ie. these weren't literal individual mothers he was talking about, but the relationship of self with the feminine, and the tensions that that produced). Lastly, Freud's model is hardly an analytical manual, despite certain practitioners' attempts to make it so.

On another matter, how do we know JtR didn't kill men too?

For the love of all that is holy, NO ONE is invoking Frued.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I think this is an interesting question when considering that the first 2 victims, and also Martha Tabram if she was a victim, were middle-aged rather matronly looking women. In fact they seem quite similar in features too.

The suspect age range is 28 to 35 approximately, which would make him young enough to be a son to any of those 3 had they delivered in their mid-teens.

If he is making women pay for any issues he had with his own mother, then an attractive 26 year old woman is not likely going to be a target.

Best regards all.

[diana]

We can probably exclude the possibility of male victims because we are not told of any men or boys found in London with horrific mutilations.

However there were two boys murdered and mutilated at the end of December 1888. They were found in Bradford and Kilwich, two villages near Leeds. http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ld/881229.html

If (and this is a very big if) Jack killed these boys, then it would show that he didn't care about the gender of his victims, any person weaker than himself would do.

It would also show that he changed his base of operations, not unreasonable in the face of all the hoopla that undoubtedly followed the Kelly killing.

It is, however, true that SKs tend to feed off of each other. The ones that have been caught talk about how they were inspired by news stories of other SKs. It is possible that is what happened here.

[protohistorian]

Hello all,

I think this is an interesting question when considering that the first 2 victims, and also Martha Tabram if she was a victim, were middle-aged rather matronly looking women. In fact they seem quite similar in features too.

The suspect age range is 28 to 35 approximately, which would make him young enough to be a son to any of those 3 had they delivered in their mid-teens.

If he is making women pay for any issues he had with his own mother, then an attractive 26 year old woman is not likely going to be a target.

Best regards all.

I agree, but I tend to see the overkill with Kelly as multiple experiments in methodology. If this were so, Kelly has a much better chance of being a victim of opprotunity.

[caz]

If he is making women pay for any issues he had with his own mother, then an attractive 26 year old woman is not likely going to be a target.

God, give it up, Perry.

If he is making women pay for any issues at all, then any woman is likely going to be a target - unless she is built like a wrestler, stone cold sober or accompanied.

He was probably not with the older ones long enough while they were alive to inspect them closely for age or attractiveness, even if the light was good enough for him to do so. And assuming his interest was confined to mutilating their dead bodies, there would not have been a lot of point in making sure they all resembled mother in life. More likely he considered all women to be the same under the skin - not worth tuppence or a kind thought. Considering what Marilyn Monroe looked like after death, he'd have been wasting his time filtering out the nubile.

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

Hi M&P,

But how do you know what his type was? How do you know that he was such a young, slim and sober specimen himself, or that he would automatically target slim and sober young things if mutilating women got him off sexually? Could he not have been a podgy, older drinking man, who found it easier to 'impress' and overcome women who were drunk or past their prime or just desperate?

I can't help but think the killer was only interested in ripping up female bodies, even if he was not primarily motivated by any sort of sexual fantasy. If suitably weak and vulnerable males had been equally available to him, would he have bitten? I don't think so somehow.

I have no doubt that inattentive or overbearing mothers can make a child's life bloody miserable and leave permanent emotional scars. But unless a man also happens to be mentally ill, the moment he becomes a man and takes out his childhood resentment on others, he alone is responsible and he alone must take the blame. I don't think there are many of us who could not conjure up tales of woe from our early days if we wanted an excuse for bad behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

I think your partially right. IMO his target in his own mind resembled his victims.

[protohistorian]

We can probably exclude the possibility of male victims because we are not told of any men or boys found in London with horrific mutilations.

However there were two boys murdered and mutilated at the end of December 1888. They were found in Bradford and Kilwich, two villages near Leeds. http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ld/881229.html

If (and this is a very big if) Jack killed these boys, then it would show that he didn't care about the gender of his victims, any person weaker than himself would do.

It would also show that he changed his base of operations, not unreasonable in the face of all the hoopla that undoubtedly followed the Kelly killing.

It is, however, true that SKs tend to feed off of each other. The ones that have been caught talk about how they were inspired by news stories of other SKs. It is possible that is what happened here.

Thanks that really helps

[protohistorian]

God, give it up, Perry.

If he is making women pay for any issues at all, then any woman is likely going to be a target - unless she is built like a wrestler, stone cold sober or accompanied.

He was probably not with the older ones long enough while they were alive to inspect them closely for age or attractiveness, even if the light was good enough for him to do so. And assuming his interest was confined to mutilating their dead bodies, there would not have been a lot of point in making sure they all resembled mother in life. More likely he considered all women to be the same under the skin - not worth tuppence or a kind thought. Considering what Marilyn Monroe looked like after death, he'd have been wasting his time filtering out the nubile.

Love,

Caz
X

yes, but only one attractive young woman and then full stop on that methodology.

[ChrisGeorge]

The thing about Jack the Ripper is that, to me, there's only two clear motives for his killings: sexual satisfaction or misogyny.

Given that he didn't jack off at the crime scenes, there's not much physical proof of these being lust killings other than the women (i.e. prostitutes) and the bodily areas that he homed in on.

Assuming Jack didn't have a sexual preference for overweight and drunken older women, wouldn't he have targeted prostitutes that were more his type if these were sexual murders? To me, the women he eviscerated (apart from MJK) were all the right 'type' to be mother figures in his warped point of view. That on top of the organs he removed (reproductive) makes me inclined to seriously consider that he had a hatred for his mum.

I don't like to put too much thought into it as I think it's a lame and clichéd reason for him to do what he did and it diminishes my view of the killer , but looking at what we know of these murders that's the only obvious motive I can see for him doing so.

Hello Mascara & Paranoia

I like your monicker. Mascara & Paranoia -- which one are you today?

In the latest issue of Ripperologist, in the article "Druitt's Ghost", Jonathan Hainsworth discusses the case against Montague John Druitt by examining closely the wording of the two versions of Macnaghten's memoranda of 1894 (or report as the author calls it), as well as what the police official says in his 1914 memoirs in light of what we know about Druitt's life, the barrister-teacher's dismissal from Mr. Valentine's school, and the idea that Dorset M.P. Henry Richard Farquharson may have been the source of the "family information" that Macnaghten mentions in his report.

Hainsworth makes a good case that Druitt's brother William might have come across some incriminating evidence (bloodied clothes or a confession, conceivably) that led him strongly to suspect his brother was the Ripper. Hainsworth further suggests that Druitt's alleged suicide note was fabricated to make it seem that Druitt had committed suicide, an innocent death, separate to the Ripper murders, because he was afraid of "becoming like mother" (going insane).

Now this is where I think Druitt fits into what you have been discussing. The connection with his mother. If Druitt was the Ripper, could the targeting of older women have been because he was angry with his mother? I really can't think of another ready reason why Druitt would have wanted to target prostitutes, and particularly older women.

Just a thought to ponder. Comments anyone?

All the best

Chris

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hi M&P,

But how do you know what his type was? How do you know that he was such a young, slim and sober specimen himself, or that he would automatically target slim and sober young things if mutilating women got him off sexually? Could he not have been a podgy, older drinking man, who found it easier to 'impress' and overcome women who were drunk or past their prime or just desperate?

Hence why I said 'assuming'. As for him being old and drunk and podgy, he could very well have been, but I'm 90% certain that the man Lawende saw was the Ripper, so...

Now this is where I think Druitt fits into what you have been discussing. The connection with his mother. If Druitt was the Ripper, could the targeting of older women have been because he was angry with his mother? I really can't think of another ready reason why Druitt would have wanted to target prostitutes, and particularly older women.

Just a thought to ponder. Comments anyone?

The only thing about Druitt is that, to me, he's not a likely suspect for these murders - or even murder - at all. Did he ever kill anybody other than himself in his lifetime? I never understood his candidacy for the Ripper.

Ha. ha., glad you like the 'trade name' BTW.

[caz]

yes, but only one attractive young woman and then full stop on that methodology.

What does that mean? That you think the full stop came because this one had been relatively young and attractive before becoming a piece of meat fit only for mutilation?

I have heard many possible reasons for the apparent full stop but never that one before.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

The only thing about Druitt is that, to me, he's not a likely suspect for these murders - or even murder - at all. Did he ever kill anybody other than himself in his lifetime?

That's what we are trying to find out.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

We can probably exclude the possibility of male victims because we are not told of any men or boys found in London with horrific mutilations.

However there were two boys murdered and mutilated at the end of December 1888. They were found in Bradford and Kilwich, two villages near Leeds. http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ld/881229.html

If (and this is a very big if) Jack killed these boys, then it would show that he didn't care about the gender of his victims, any person weaker than himself would do.

It would also show that he changed his base of operations, not unreasonable in the face of all the hoopla that undoubtedly followed the Kelly killing.

It is, however, true that SKs tend to feed off of each other. The ones that have been caught talk about how they were inspired by news stories of other SKs. It is possible that is what happened here.

I agree. Now that it is known you can do it, some chuklehead did.

[ChrisGeorge]

The only thing about Druitt is that, to me, he's not a likely suspect for these murders - or even murder - at all. Did he ever kill anybody other than himself in his lifetime?

That's what we are trying to find out.

c.d.

I do think the case for Druitt has possibly been strengthened by Andrew Spallek's identification of Henry Richard Farquharson as the "West of England M.P." as the source for the information about the drowned suspect, and combined with what Macnaghten said, as Hainsworth implied, Druitt's stock has gone up. After all, as Hainsworth argues, as an English gentleman and a member of the upper classes it must have been hard for Macnaghten to accept that a fellow member of the upper crust could have committed the murders. Much better maybe to suspect a foreigner such as Kosminski (as Anderson did) or Ostrog.

All the best

Chris

[c.d.]

Hi Chris,

If the evidence that Macnaghten had been presented with had been that strong, i.e., bloody clothes or a confession, why does he name Kosminski and Ostrog in the same breath? Furthermore, I can't see Macnaghten having that kind of damning evidence and holding his tongue. I think human nature trumps the Victorian code of honor.

c.d.