Ripper Psychology

[clark2710]

Hi Scotty,

I think a combination of two or more of the following would be most likely:

1. Psychopath/Sociopath
2. Sexual Deviant
5. Hatred and/or Anger
9. Evil
11. Misogynist
16. Killing by Impulse
18. Just for Jolly

I am really relieved there's not a category for 'Childhood Abuse by Mother'.

That's another one I put down to the faker, who will always find a way to blame the female of the species for what he does as an adult male. All too often we see people falling for this kind of rot from offenders who are just rotten to the core.

Love,

Caz
X

It is an easy cop out to blame mom. I don't think it's a faker type thing to have that as a category as I've always thought of the Blame Mom thing as to include dad and/or to simply say; this kid had a messed up childhood, in a nice neat little phrase.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

we'll take Bundy for instance, many women were said to have an odd feeling around Bundy. That there was something about him that was off putting

You mean Ted, right?

[clark2710]

You mean Ted, right?

Sorry I forgot there's more than one Bundy in the pages of crime; yes I meant Ted.

[Pcdunn]

I very much enjoyed reading your take on the Ripper's psychology. One thing of note is that with many, we'll take Bundy for instance, many women were said to have an odd feeling around Bundy. That there was something about him that was off putting despite how charismatic he was. I can't help but wonder if the Ripper put off a similar feeling to some

If I recall, the unidentified gentleman in Bethnal Green (spelling? I am a Yank!) who accosted two young ladies and suggested they walk wirh him *definitely* put out something off-putting. But hardly surprising, given the time and place.

Apparently the Victorian #MeToo thing was for assorted males to scare women with "I'm the Ripper!" And laugh at their frightened responses. Jackasses!

[Wickerman]

If I recall, the unidentified gentleman in Bethnal Green (spelling? I am a Yank!) who accosted two young ladies and suggested they walk wirh him *definitely* put out something off-putting. But hardly surprising, given the time and place.
....

This same 'gentleman' deserved more than just a passing reference, he was also seen outside the Britannia around 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's murder.
Sarah Lewis first saw him in the company of a woman while she was on her way to Millers Court. Mrs Kennedy reports seeing the same man about 30 minutes later, around 3:00am, but this time in the company of two women, one being Mary Kelly herself.
Given the various cries of 'murder' were reported as being heard between 3-4:00am, in my view there's a good chance this character had something to do with her murder.

[Pcdunn]

Yes, he seems to get around a lot. I think he is likely involved somehow.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

... the Victorian #MeToo

#OnesLikewiseCircumstantialHappenstance

[caz]

I've always thought of Jack the Ripper to be a Hedonistic Serial Killer. He did it because, put simply, he enjoyed it. Whether it satisfied one or more particular fetishes or some deep seeded desire; he did it because he enjoyed it in my humble opinion.

I tend to agree with this, clark. Nobody could make a man do such things against his will, or for anyone else's benefit. He did it because it gave him something that was missing in his life, and the kick he got out of it made him feel temporarily better about his own existence. Not much more complex than that, I'd have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

[caz]

It is an easy cop out to blame mom. I don't think it's a faker type thing to have that as a category as I've always thought of the Blame Mom thing as to include dad and/or to simply say; this kid had a messed up childhood, in a nice neat little phrase.

I suspect it's the psychiatrists/psychologists who are more to blame, clark, by implanting the suggestion that a messed up childhood turns people like Fred and Rose West into monsters - and the monster then laps it up because he/she wants to believe it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Sorry I forgot there's more than one Bundy in the pages of crime; yes I meant Ted.

Whoosh....

[erobitha]

I suspect it's the psychiatrists/psychologists who are more to blame, clark, by implanting the suggestion that a messed up childhood turns people like Fred and Rose West into monsters - and the monster then laps it up because he/she wants to believe it.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree. Actually when you analyse the statistics of serial killers backgrounds, only a third may account for what you call childhood abuse from a parent. Similarly the results show the same for other ‘typical’ traits such as bed wetting.

Killing animals such as pets is probably the biggest red flag than any other indicators. The abusive parent thing is usually to garner more attention and the hope of sympathy. It’s a tool to manipulate.

[rjpalmer]

Please, Caz. You're talking nonsense.

Study after study has shown that severe childhood abuse is a great risk factor in violent behavior among adults. How could it be otherwise? It has nothing to do with making excuses for the offender; it has to do with trying to understand why such behavior exists in society.

It is true that some offenders, given an extremely bad roll of the genetic dice, can be monsters even though they had a decent upbringing. (Dahmer, comes to mind).

But a significant percentage of those who inflict violence on strangers had utterly appalling childhoods--neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse.

Much of this abuse was independently documented by case workers, hospitals, foster parents, etc. Was that, too, "implanted" by the psychiatrists?? I think you'll find that many of these professionals aren't quite as naïve as some people here apparently assume.

A recent European study suggests that childhood abuse could be the dividing line between those multiple murders who commit sexual abuse, and those that don't:

Serial killers: Relation between childhood maltreatment and sexual relations with the victims - ScienceDirect

What we now know is that there is a profound and not fully understood interplay between environment and genetics.

Given the right genes, people can endure childhood trauma without turning into monsters. Others can't. It's not usually a matter of nature v. nurture. It's both.

Clearly, most of those who commit extreme savagery had a bad roll of the genetic dice to begin with. Beating the living daylights out of them as a child didn't help.

To the contrary. It can be a necessary ingredient in creating such a person.

[erobitha]

Please, Caz. You're talking nonsense.

Study after study has shown that severe childhood abuse is a great risk factor in violent behavior among adults. How could it be otherwise? It has nothing to do with making excuses for the offender; it has to do with trying to understand why such behavior exists in society.

It is true that some offenders, given an extremely bad roll of the genetic dice, can be monsters even though they had a decent upbringing. (Dahmer, comes to mind).

But a significant percentage of those who inflict violence on strangers had utterly appalling childhoods--neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse.

Much of this abuse was independently documented by case workers, hospitals, foster parents, etc. Was that, too, "implanted" by the psychiatrists?? I think you'll find that many of these professionals aren't quite as naïve as some people here apparently assume.

A recent European study suggests that childhood abuse could be the dividing line between those multiple murders who commit sexual abuse, and those that don't:

Serial killers: Relation between childhood maltreatment and sexual relations with the victims - ScienceDirect

What we now know is that there is a profound and not fully understood interplay between environment and genetics.

Given the right genes, people can endure childhood trauma without turning into monsters. Others can't. It's not usually a matter of nature v. nurture. It's both.

Clearly, most of those who commit extreme savagery had a bad roll of the genetic dice to begin with. Beating the living daylights out of them as a child didn't help.

To the contrary. It can be a necessary ingredient in creating such a person.

For a fleeting moment in time we had agreed on one or two things, now we are back to where we should be. In total disagreement on most things. Prevalence of abuse in childhoods of serials killers is 36%

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...=rep1&type=pdf

[rjpalmer]

Different studies give different numbers. Some studies show that childhood neglect among multiple murders is as high as 50%.

Are you naïve enough to think that that is insignificant??? That 36% isn't significant?

I have no desire to try and agree with you, and I dare say I've read far deeper on the subject than you have.

There is such a thing as 'twin studies.' Twins who have the same genetic make-up, but were raised in different homes, and what this tells us about environment influences.

But google to your hearts content and come back and tell us what to believe.