Ripper Psychology

[DJA]

"The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. 9

As with Dr Openshaw's supposed findings, this is a stunning paragraph which would seem to put the provenance of the Lusk Kidney beyond question."


Ironically Sutton had stepped down from the Pathological Museum the previous year making Openshaw his boss.

[Wickerman]

Didn't they say that the kidney was delivered in a jar of alcohol? Too bad no one preserved it, I mean I hate to be gruesome, but it'd be easy to match the DNA from that kidney to a known direct relative of hers and verify it was actually from her. If it was that would 100% verify that it was either from the killer himself or, less likely, some sicko that did it for thrills or attention. If it doesn't match then it may have been a med student prank or something. But I agree with your logic

Possibly preserved in spirits of wine, but here is a comprehensive paper on the kidney.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

[clark2710]

I definitely think that out of all the letters the Lusk letter is the most likely one to be genuine. The fact it was the only one with an organ included that was missing from a victim. Whether it was a hoax or not, the fact a kidney was included means it has to be accepted it could be from the killer. Simply due to the presence of a kidney that was missing from Eddowes it cannot be ruled out as being the real deal. In my opinion the Lusk letter was the one most deserving of being investigated and prioritised at the time by the investigators.

Didn't they say that the kidney was delivered in a jar of alcohol? Too bad no one preserved it, I mean I hate to be gruesome, but it'd be easy to match the DNA from that kidney to a known direct relative of hers and verify it was actually from her. If it was that would 100% verify that it was either from the killer himself or, less likely, some sicko that did it for thrills or attention. If it doesn't match then it may have been a med student prank or something. But I agree with your logic

[DJA]

Good grief, Dave, is that letter for real?! This is the sort of institutional indifference feminists should be upset about!

William Ewart Gladstone - Wikipedia

[Pcdunn]

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.

Years ago I told a friend who was a social worker that I'd overhead a boy in his early teens sitting behind me on the bus boasting of killing birds and cats with firecrackers. She said soberly "That's a serial killer in the making." Scary!

[Pcdunn]

Good grief, Dave, is that letter for real?! This is the sort of institutional indifference feminists should be upset about!

[erobitha]

I definitely think that out of all the letters the Lusk letter is the most likely one to be genuine. The fact it was the only one with an organ included that was missing from a victim. Whether it was a hoax or not, the fact a kidney was included means it has to be accepted it could be from the killer. Simply due to the presence of a kidney that was missing from Eddowes it cannot be ruled out as being the real deal. In my opinion the Lusk letter was the one most deserving of being investigated and prioritised at the time by the investigators.

I actually agree. I also believed the person who wrote the Lusk letter also wrote the Openshaw letter.

If I was a narcissistic serial killer I would taunt those looking for me. Zodiac did this.

It is somewhat odd that the Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jack postcard were sent to the central news agency. In modern times that would be equivalent to Reuters or the Press Association (who were also competitors at the time). It is exactly the place to send correspondence if you want sensationalist newspapers to pick it up. The obvious thing is to say here is that he wanted it printed in the papers, so that’s why he sent them. Somewhat convenient for the newspapers is it not? The agency itself was to face many accusations of false reporting across numerous news subjects after.

The Lusk Letter in particular is interesting for the points you raised, and for the deliberate attempt at trying to disguise his ability to spell correctly. A trait also used on the Openshaw letter. A man proud of his handiwork but not proud enough to use the language he knew naturally.

[Sleuth1888]

I totally agree but I prefer the idea that there was/is a true Ripper letter written by the Ripper himself. It could be one of the ones that we have but it could also have been one of the many that the press got from copy cats or wanting attention or was dismissed as not being from the Ripper himself. Too bad they didn't have the idea of fingerprinting back then. if you look at the "Dear Boss" Letter from September 17th 1888, where it starts with "They think I'm a yid," if you go down to where the "signature" is: Jack the Ripper, to the left of the J is a blotch of I'm assuming blood, but it looks like there's a fingerprint there. I could be wrong.

I definitely think that out of all the letters the Lusk letter is the most likely one to be genuine. The fact it was the only one with an organ included that was missing from a victim. Whether it was a hoax or not, the fact a kidney was included means it has to be accepted it could be from the killer. Simply due to the presence of a kidney that was missing from Eddowes it cannot be ruled out as being the real deal. In my opinion the Lusk letter was the one most deserving of being investigated and prioritised at the time by the investigators.

[erobitha]

Erobitha - If you want to educate yourself instead of just trying to score some cheap point against me, can I suggest a book?

The Anatomy of Violence: the Biological Roots of Crime by Adrian Raine, a British psychiatrist who is at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the books I've read on the subject, this is the best and most up-to-date.

He believes--as I do--that there are important genetic factors involved in the creation of a violent criminal.

He just isn't ignorant enough to think that environment doesn't also play a key role. In fact, scientific studies show that it is often the key role. Further complicating matters, there are also societal/cultural factors to consider. If violence is strictly genetic, why are the murder rates so drastically different in different societies?

When Raine and similar psychiatrists speak of childhood abuse (Dr. Michael Stone also comes to mind) they explicitly discuss cases where the offender may have been lying about their childhoods. They aren't stupid. They rely on scientific data.

Environment matters. As does the culture. "Bad seed" doesn't explain everything.

Ciao.

Firstly, I can do math - or the correct way of saying it - maths. If prevalence is 36%, it means 64% is......

I never said anything about genetics alone, not sure who you are aiming that at. I believe environments do play a huge part but that is not limited to abusive parents. That plays purely to narcissism.

Actully “bad seed” is a good description. Those that are interested in lust murder have a low empathy threshold. The value of human life is insignificant to the quest to feel something - often murder provides that something. Childhood abuse is not as prevalent as much as people think. Almost everyone of the worst serial killers you can name had what most would describe as fairly usual upbringings. If you look at studies of the serial killer brain activity, there is usually lack of activity in the frontal lobe versus that of atypical humans.

I’d say Google it, but apparently that is how I fail to be as well read as you.

[clark2710]

Here's my 2 cents. Making a serial killer is a lot like making chili. Every ingredient counts and each time it's a little different even with the same recipe. Follow my thinking here . If you have genetics, say Ted Bundy's daughter Rose Bundy, that's one ingredient, but if she doesn't have the abuse, rotten childhood, picked on when she was younger, witnessed sexual acts, etc and so on it's like making chili with only one ingredient; it's not really chili. Ok that may not have been the best example but you all get what I'm saying. There are a lot of factors that go into the serial killer make up and although there are many commonalities you can't discount the uniqueness of the person themselves.

[clark2710]

Erobitha - If you want to educate yourself instead of just trying to score some cheap point against me, can I suggest a book?

The Anatomy of Violence: the Biological Roots of Crime by Adrian Raine, a British psychiatrist who is at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the books I've read on the subject, this is the best and most up-to-date.

He believes--as I do--that there are important genetic factors involved in the creation of a violent criminal.

He just isn't ignorant enough to think that environment doesn't also play a key role. In fact, scientific studies show that it is often the key role. Further complicating matters, there are also societal/cultural factors to consider. If violence is strictly genetic, why are the murder rates so drastically different in different societies?

When Raine and similar psychiatrists speak of childhood abuse (Dr. Michael Stone also comes to mind) they explicitly discuss cases where the offender may have been lying about their childhoods. They aren't stupid. They rely on scientific data.

Environment matters. As does the culture. "Bad seed" doesn't explain everything.

Ciao.

OOO thank you for the suggestion, I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll make note of the book

[rjpalmer]

Erobitha - If you want to educate yourself instead of just trying to score some cheap point against me, can I suggest a book?

The Anatomy of Violence: the Biological Roots of Crime by Adrian Raine, a British psychiatrist who is at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the books I've read on the subject, this is the best and most up-to-date.

He believes--as I do--that there are important genetic factors involved in the creation of a violent criminal.

He just isn't ignorant enough to think that environment doesn't also play a key role. In fact, scientific studies show that it is often the key role. Further complicating matters, there are also societal/cultural factors to consider. If violence is strictly genetic, why are the murder rates so drastically different in different societies?

When Raine and similar psychiatrists speak of childhood abuse (Dr. Michael Stone also comes to mind) they explicitly discuss cases where the offender may have been lying about their childhoods. They aren't stupid. They rely on scientific data.

Environment matters. As does the culture. "Bad seed" doesn't explain everything.

Ciao.

[clark2710]

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.

I agree, I wrote my above reply before reading your points here. I agree

[clark2710]

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.

I think in some cases you're right, that blaming mom, or the childhood, or what have you is a grand tool for attention and for use in court. After all many have a rough childhood and don't go off killing people. However, having said that, I truly think that it can make a difference in the sense of each case for each person is unique; what one person can handle and move on from is havoc for another. It's not a want all be all THIS makes a serial killer or murderer or whatever but it doesn't help things either.

[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.