A Murderer That Doesn't Murder

[c.d.]

We'll start with the assumption that Stride could not have been a Ripper victim because she was not mutilated and that is what the Ripper did. No mutilation? Then her killer was not Jack.

We are aware that there were intervals between the murders. I think we can reasonably assume that Jack was out on the streets during those intervals and interacted with women yet those women were not killed. How is that possible? Doesn't a killer (i.e., Jack) always kill?

I think you can see where I am going with this. This could be comparing apples and oranges but I do think it helps make a point.

c.d.

[Astatine211]

https://vault.fbi.gov/Jack%20the%20Ripper/Jack%20the%20Ripper%20Part%201%20of%201/view

I think this document should answer your questions. To summarise it's most likely Jack did interact with many other women with the intention to kill but felt the location wasn't secure enough or another aspect of the situation prevented him from killing.

Also compared to most serial killers the interval between murders was tiny which to me make it even more of mystery of why they suddenly stopped.

[c.d.]

Hello Astatine,

Thanks for your response. I probably didn't make myself clear enough in my initial post. I was trying to determine the validity of saying that a mutilator will always mutilate in light of the fact that we have a murderer who doesn't always murder.

c.d.

[Astatine211]

Hello Astatine,

Thanks for your response. I probably didn't make myself clear enough in my initial post. I was trying to determine the validity of saying that a mutilator will always mutilate in light of the fact that we have a murderer who doesn't always murder.

c.d.

Ah I'm very sorry, I understand now. I completely agree with what you're saying.

With Stride I did originally think she was killed by someone else but now I'm certain she was killed by Jack and he was most likely interrupted.

[c.d.]

Don't be sorry. I wasn't clear enough.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

We'll start with the assumption that Stride could not have been a Ripper victim because she was not mutilated and that is what the Ripper did. No mutilation? Then her killer was not Jack.

We are aware that there were intervals between the murders. I think we can reasonably assume that Jack was out on the streets during those intervals and interacted with women yet those women were not killed. How is that possible? Doesn't a killer (i.e., Jack) always kill?

I think you can see where I am going with this. This could be comparing apples and oranges but I do think it helps make a point.

c.d.

I have often wondered about this too.

I very much doubt that JTR would have achieved a 100% hit rate.

It's highly probable, as you say c.d, that there would be other interactions with women which did not result in murder.

Maybe he only killed when certain circumstances aligned to make it possible.

Maybe he was a regular user of prostitutes, but there was something in particular about the victims which triggered him.

I strongly suspect there would have been some false starts and aborted attempts, although who knows what form these would have taken.

I've often thought that it would have been worthwhile for a local eastend woman (perhaps a wife of one of the vigilance committee) to interview the local unfortunates about their encounters.

This may have illicited some significant down and durrrrty details, which the women would have felt uncomfortable relating to a man/ police officer.

Did any punters behave strangely?

I'd be particularly interested in details of men who solicited them, then bottled it before services were rendered.....

There may have been relevant details that they would have been more comfortable disclosing to a local woman rather than a male police officer.

[erobitha]

My theory is that he knew of them - perhaps with exception of Eddowes which was a frustration killing. I believe he knew these women by sight - which would tie in with the FBI profile that he frequented the pubs. I believe he was drinker in many of those pubs these women also frequented. My guess is he kept a mental hitlist and I include Kelly in that.

When he came upon any from his hitlist whilst hunting I fathom that’s when he would try and do his thing. It’s almost certain he considered others, but for whatever reason the conditions he sought were not right. These women were most likely never going to report this man to the police. Other similar women definitely had contact with him.

[Scott Nelson]

Depends on a killer's mindset at the time. Something the victims said to set him off, possibly.

Explosive homicidal anger is the so-called ‘Cathathymic killing’, first described by Swiss psychiatrist Hans W. Maier in 1912 and can be defined as ‘in accordance with emotions.’ The term was subsequently used by F. Wertham in 1937 in his elaboration of reasons for acts of severe and out-of-character violence. This type of killing is characterized by an unexpected explosive outburst of impulsive, often destructive behavior, understandable only in terms of unconscious motivation. Such motivations have been identified as having something to do with a perceived challenge to the individual’s sense of sexual competence.

So why didn't he kill others? Maybe they didn't set him off as much as the known victims did.

[c.d.]

I think I still might not be making myself clear and that is my fault. I think it is pretty obvious that Jack interacted with women that he did not kill. The reasons why are really not important to my point. The point is that there were reasons whatever they may be and so we readily accept the idea that a murderer does not always murder. If we accept this premise then why would anyone believe that a mutilator would always mutilate without exception?

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

I think I still might not be making myself clear and that is my fault. I think it is pretty obvious that Jack interacted with women that he did not kill. The reasons why are really not important to my point. The point is that there were reasons whatever they may be and so we readily accept the idea that a murderer does not always murder. If we accept this premise then why would anyone believe that a mutilator would always mutilate without exception?

c.d.

Hmmmm!

I get you now, c.d!

I can't really answer though, as I don't for a minute subscribe the theory that a mutilator will always mutilate.

There are likely different factors (both internal and external) which will dictate the likelihood of mutilation.

[etenguy]

I think I still might not be making myself clear and that is my fault. I think it is pretty obvious that Jack interacted with women that he did not kill. The reasons why are really not important to my point. The point is that there were reasons whatever they may be and so we readily accept the idea that a murderer does not always murder. If we accept this premise then why would anyone believe that a mutilator would always mutilate without exception? c.d.

Hi c.d.

I'm not sure where you are going with this - bringing in more potential victims or including Stride with no interruption necessary?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this murderer was likely to mutilate his victims - more so as the murders progressed. It seems to me, based on how the victims were attacked after death, the mutilation was more a focus for him than the act of murder itself (which seemed quickly and efficiently executed with all five canonical victims). When he had time in relative safety, he spent a significant amount of time on the mutilation. We can speculate the reasons why he might want to mutilate but not know for sure of course. So, based on his actions in relation with the C5 (minus Stride), I think he would unlikely murder without mutilation being his primary focus/driver - but I cannot know this, and it is of course entirely possible that he could kill without mutilation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the point that c.d. is making, and he can correct me if I’m wrong of course, is that we can’t assume that the killer was working to a set of in-built instructions. To assume this would lead to people saying things like “well he did this at crime scene ‘a’ and so we would expect him to have done the same at crime scene ‘b.’ We have more knowledge of serial killers these days of course but we surely have to accept that these people aren’t ‘normal’ thinkers and so what level of confidence can we have in making statements like the one that I quoted? There’s no collective serial killer brain. Add to this the fact of possible outside influences like interruption, injury to the killer, greater fight back from a victim and the difficulty in connecting the dots becomes more difficult. Especially when we try to use details like the depth or angle of a wound or the type of weapon used or bruising on the victim. An injury to the killer might affect the wound depth or angle. A damaged knife might lead to a different weapon being used (or the killer might have some twisted reason for owning a knife for each day?) More bruising might mean greater struggle by the victim. All of these and others might lead investigators to believe that a second killer was at work in any series of murders. I just think that we should be wary of assuming.

[etenguy]

I think the point that c.d. is making, and he can correct me if I’m wrong of course, is that we can’t assume that the killer was working to a set of in-built instructions. To assume this would lead to people saying things like “well he did this at crime scene ‘a’ and so we would expect him to have done the same at crime scene ‘b.’ We have more knowledge of serial killers these days of course but we surely have to accept that these people aren’t ‘normal’ thinkers and so what level of confidence can we have in making statements like the one that I quoted? There’s no collective serial killer brain. Add to this the fact of possible outside influences like interruption, injury to the killer, greater fight back from a victim and the difficulty in connecting the dots becomes more difficult. Especially when we try to use details like the depth or angle of a wound or the type of weapon used or bruising on the victim. An injury to the killer might affect the wound depth or angle. A damaged knife might lead to a different weapon being used (or the killer might have some twisted reason for owning a knife for each day?) More bruising might mean greater struggle by the victim. All of these and others might lead investigators to believe that a second killer was at work in any series of murders. I just think that we should be wary of assuming.

Hi Herlock

I hope you are keeping safe and well in these slightly better but still difficult times.

What you say makes complete sense to me, I may have read c.d.'s post too literally.

[c.d.]

I have to say that generally I am pleased with my posts but this one is piss poor to put it mildly. My ability to communicate seems to have rapidly deteriorated. Maybe I shouldn't have smoked that joint when I was in college but I digress. Let me try one more time.

My post was strictly related to the Stride killing and whether the argument that she could not have been killed by the Ripper because she was not mutilated is valid. Rather than list reasons why the Ripper might not have engaged in mutilation I tried to sneak in the back door as it were and attempted to draw a comparison with the argument why would a murderer not murder? Basically trying to follow the same line of reasoning. Show reasons why Jack might not have murdered some of the women he came in contact with and extrapolate that to why he might not have mutilated Stride. I guess I was trying to focus on what to me seems an inconsistent argument -- that is readily accepting that a murderer does not always murder for various reasons but then saying a mutilator will always mutilate period.

Even now I am not sure I am clear. Apologies all around.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

I think I still might not be making myself clear and that is my fault. I think it is pretty obvious that Jack interacted with women that he did not kill. The reasons why are really not important to my point. The point is that there were reasons whatever they may be and so we readily accept the idea that a murderer does not always murder. If we accept this premise then why would anyone believe that a mutilator would always mutilate without exception?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Well, if JtR is anything like other people who have committed aerial murder, then he absolutely has interacted with other potential victims and for whatever reason chose not to follow through at that time. Also, while 4 of the C5 show a recognisable signature, deviating from that is also common. A modern investigation would include talking to local sex workers and working out who the regular punters are as it would be likely he was known to frequent their services, or at least was regularly seen by them. Stride's lack of mutilations, while explainable by her not being a victim of JtR, is not sufficient on its own to rule her out. In fact, if there were a victim who was killed by blunt force trauma, that too could be considered if other aspects suggested it. While there is often a usual pattern, some will have victims who deviate a lot from it. The unusual pattern for JtR is useful for being sure of linkage, but deviation from it is not in and if itself sufficient to discard a case from consideration. At least, that is what history has shown.
.jeff