Ripper Psychology

[clark2710]

There are 4 different types of Serial Killers:

1. power/control oriented - These serial killers are hooked on the satisfaction of having complete control and gaining power over their victims. They enjoy the process of murder, stalking, capturing, and torturing their “prey.” They are often patient and sadistic, finding fulfillment in dominating and humiliating victims
2. Visionary - suffer from psychotic breaks with reality, sometimes believing they are another person or are compelled to murder by entities such as the Devil or God. The two most common subgroups are "demon mandated" and "God mandated",
3. Hedonistic - Hedonistic serial killers are compelled by the thrill of it, sexual gratification, or financial gain
4. Mission Oriented - A Mission-orientated serial killer is someone who kills in order to “rid” society of a specific group of people. For example, they might be racist against a certain ethnicity or religion. Or they might target sex workers or homosexuals. These kind of killers often believe that they are doing society a favor.

Some of these are very obvious that JtR fit into. For instance, it's not a stretch that JtR was mission oriented, but what type do you think that He would fit into?

Also, would you feel he's a sociopath or psychopath. I would Love to hear about some of your theories regarding the psychology of the Ripper himself. We may not know WHO the Ripper was but we DO KNOW what he did and can surmise why from that.

[erobitha]

Psychology is an area of great interest to me. Firstly, not everyone fits snugly into one pre-conceived view. To gain an insight to his psychology you must first gain insight into his actions. Psychopathy is prevalent in all walks of life, especially in blue chip company boardrooms and cannot be limited to just murderers.

Aside from Stride, all his victims were mutilated. Including Stride, all the victims were murdered efficiently and quickly with the slitting of the left carotid artery. Both of which indicates that the act of murder was admin and not the main event for the killer. In Strides case the admin could have been so that she could not identify him later, or he was simply interrupted as is the most common view. There is no doubt she was killed by the same hand that murdered Eddowes.

What other behavioural traits did he exhibit? Even if we took a random cross-section of eye witness statements, it would still show someone who was at ease in talking with these women. If he was having a manic episode or psychotic break, these women would have stayed clear and avoided, or alerted others. He may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but he was coherent and trust-worthy enough for the women to speak with and potentially look to transact with. The idea that some crazy-eyed Jew just walked up to these women in a frenzied state of schizophrenia (or similar mental illness) and was able to commit these atrocities undetected by anyone, including the victims themselves just seems beyond improbable. Hence why I rule Kosminski out. He was unlikely to exude the necessary basic charm.

The presence of mind to kill in the efficient manner he did, and to extract organs (when he did quickly), shows someone who was not in a frenzied mindset, he was focused. Many of Nichols wounds were superficial. He was exploring. Also on Nichols it appears he tried a second time to find the left carotid artery and was successful on that attempt. By Chapman he was much more confident.

He most likely had Necromutilomania, which would make him an extreme sexual sadist. His focus on prostitutes would have ticked a few boxes. Ease of access, the fact they represent sexuality at its most basic level, and no-one would likely miss street "vermin".

He was someone who did not alarm these women with his behaviour. He had laser-like focus on the admin of murder as a means to an end. His fascination with the internal organs suggests a fascination with sex and the dead. He had some basic knowledge of human anatomy. His knife work was efficient but not necessarily professional. He most likely enjoyed touching and feeling the organs against his own skin as he dissected and removed them. The parts he took away were for his release at his own time and pleasure. A multi-sensory joy. I would not be surpised if he mixed the organs he chose to extract as to compare and contrast for his own pleasure.

A sexual sadist undoubtedly. This is the extreme end of his sadism, but I would take a guess he enjoyed dominance and power over women previously. They may have been asked to do things or suffer things no woman should endure. He was not a nice man. There was no gentleness here.

He would not have stood out physically aside perhaps from his clothing, but even then I would wager he was aware enough to mix it up a little in order to give conflicting witness accounts. I have a theory he had numerous hats, but that's a theory. He looked like you and me.

Then so did John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nilsen, Fred West, Ian Brady, Randy Kraft, Reg Christie, Ted Bundy and so many more.

[Sleuth1888]

The FBI in the 80s compiled a psychological profile of the Ripper. Might be worth a look -

[erobitha]

The report was compiled in 1988 by John E. Douglas, one of the founding fathers of behavioural intelligence within the FBI. It was done as part of some kind of centenary to the murders.

I think on the whole it is a fairly accurate assessment. My main issue is his insistence on JTR being a disorganised killer and as such as focuses on the common traits of those killers. I believe since he said he is open to JTR being a mix of organised and disorganised. I can’t help but see anything but an organised killer.

It boils down to whether he wrote any of the letters or not. Douglas believes he did not.

[Sleuth1888]

The report was compiled in 1988 by John E. Douglas, one of the founding fathers of behavioural intelligence within the FBI. It was done as part of some kind of centenary to the murders.

I think on the whole it is a fairly accurate assessment. My main issue is his insistence on JTR being a disorganised killer and as such as focuses on the common traits of those killers. I believe since he said he is open to JTR being a mix of organised and disorganised. I can’t help but see anything but an organised killer.

It boils down to whether he wrote any of the letters or not. Douglas believes he did not.

I think parts of the profile are interesting and make sense. Such as the idea he drank in the local pubs. That could be where he picked up the victims and could also point to him being a local and blending in to the local area, just "one of the crowd" not raising any real suspicion.

I also think it makes perfect sense in the profile that he caught an infection from a prostitute and this fuelled his anger and was a catalyst for the murders.

I agree with Douglas that the letters weren't written by the killer, I prefer the idea that they were written by the press to "hype up" the murders.

[Scott Nelson]

Some variants are compared and contrasted in an article, "Murder Most Foul" (Ripperologist issues #153 and #154).

1. Psychopath/Sociopath
2. Sexual Deviant
3. Criminally Insane
4. Product of the Environment
5. Hatred and/or Anger
6. Revenge
7. Drug-induced Psychosis
8. Brain Tumor, Syphilis or other mental condition
9. Evil
10. Political/Ideological
11. Misogynist
12. Sexual Frustration/Dysfunction
13. Jealousy and/or Unrequited Love
14. Religious Fervor
15. Liberal Social Reformer
16. Killing by Impulse
17. Profit
18. Just for Jolly
19. Schizophrenia
20. Daydreamer of Notoriety
21. Public Service
22. Cover-Up for other crimes
23. Somnambulism (sleepwalking)
24. Atavistic Throwback (including cannibalism)
25. Business
26. A Cry for Help
27. Paranormal
28. Occult
29. War Veteran
30. Royal Cover-Up

In particular, #5 could involve "Cathathymic Killing" - characterized by explosive outburst from some sudden event.

[caz]

There are 4 different types of Serial Killers:

1. power/control oriented - These serial killers are hooked on the satisfaction of having complete control and gaining power over their victims. They enjoy the process of murder, stalking, capturing, and torturing their “prey.” They are often patient and sadistic, finding fulfillment in dominating and humiliating victims
2. Visionary - suffer from psychotic breaks with reality, sometimes believing they are another person or are compelled to murder by entities such as the Devil or God. The two most common subgroups are "demon mandated" and "God mandated",
3. Hedonistic - Hedonistic serial killers are compelled by the thrill of it, sexual gratification, or financial gain
4. Mission Oriented - A Mission-orientated serial killer is someone who kills in order to “rid” society of a specific group of people. For example, they might be racist against a certain ethnicity or religion. Or they might target sex workers or homosexuals. These kind of killers often believe that they are doing society a favor.

Some of these are very obvious that JtR fit into. For instance, it's not a stretch that JtR was mission oriented, but what type do you think that He would fit into?

Also, would you feel he's a sociopath or psychopath. I would Love to hear about some of your theories regarding the psychology of the Ripper himself. We may not know WHO the Ripper was but we DO KNOW what he did and can surmise why from that.

No 2: If this man only killed during psychotic episodes, I can't see him having had much luck getting any woman to go off with him, no matter how desperate she was, let alone getting away with all the murders. If an identified killer plays the "God/Satan/the voices told me to do it" card, I would say he was as sane as the next man and his delusions are faked.

No 4: I am equally sceptical about the killer "on a mission". Does he genuinely think he is doing society a favour by offing a handful of examples from a specific group? Or is he merely playing the sympathy card, by using the prejudices of that society to pretend he is only doing what others would like to do themselves? Again, I see a faker, not someone with genuine delusions about the evil he does.

Delusions of grandeur and superiority would be another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

No. 31 One sick MF'er.

c.d.

[caz]

Some variants are compared and contrasted in an article, "Murder Most Foul" (Ripperologist issues #153 and #154).

1. Psychopath/Sociopath
2. Sexual Deviant
3. Criminally Insane
4. Product of the Environment
5. Hatred and/or Anger
6. Revenge
7. Drug-induced Psychosis
8. Brain Tumor, Syphilis or other mental condition
9. Evil
10. Political/Ideological
11. Misogynist
12. Sexual Frustration/Dysfunction
13. Jealousy and/or Unrequited Love
14. Religious Fervor
15. Liberal Social Reformer
16. Killing by Impulse
17. Profit
18. Just for Jolly
19. Schizophrenia
20. Daydreamer of Notoriety
21. Public Service
22. Cover-Up for other crimes
23. Somnambulism (sleepwalking)
24. Atavistic Throwback (including cannibalism)
25. Business
26. A Cry for Help
27. Paranormal
28. Occult
29. War Veteran
30. Royal Cover-Up

In particular, #5 could involve "Cathathymic Killing" - characterized by explosive outburst from some sudden event.

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

[clark2710]

The FBI in the 80s compiled a psychological profile of the Ripper. Might be worth a look -

Thank you for including this I enjoyed reading it and it was very enlightening. It eluded to the idea that Jack the Ripper's identity could be found in small areas of a "brat" little kid setting fires, mutilating small animals, etc. Very fascinating

[clark2710]

Psychology is an area of great interest to me. Firstly, not everyone fits snugly into one pre-conceived view. To gain an insight to his psychology you must first gain insight into his actions. Psychopathy is prevalent in all walks of life, especially in blue chip company boardrooms and cannot be limited to just murderers.

Aside from Stride, all his victims were mutilated. Including Stride, all the victims were murdered efficiently and quickly with the slitting of the left carotid artery. Both of which indicates that the act of murder was admin and not the main event for the killer. In Strides case the admin could have been so that she could not identify him later, or he was simply interrupted as is the most common view. There is no doubt she was killed by the same hand that murdered Eddowes.

What other behavioural traits did he exhibit? Even if we took a random cross-section of eye witness statements, it would still show someone who was at ease in talking with these women. If he was having a manic episode or psychotic break, these women would have stayed clear and avoided, or alerted others. He may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but he was coherent and trust-worthy enough for the women to speak with and potentially look to transact with. The idea that some crazy-eyed Jew just walked up to these women in a frenzied state of schizophrenia (or similar mental illness) and was able to commit these atrocities undetected by anyone, including the victims themselves just seems beyond improbable. Hence why I rule Kosminski out. He was unlikely to exude the necessary basic charm.

The presence of mind to kill in the efficient manner he did, and to extract organs (when he did quickly), shows someone who was not in a frenzied mindset, he was focused. Many of Nichols wounds were superficial. He was exploring. Also on Nichols it appears he tried a second time to find the left carotid artery and was successful on that attempt. By Chapman he was much more confident.

He most likely had Necromutilomania, which would make him an extreme sexual sadist. His focus on prostitutes would have ticked a few boxes. Ease of access, the fact they represent sexuality at its most basic level, and no-one would likely miss street "vermin".

He was someone who did not alarm these women with his behaviour. He had laser-like focus on the admin of murder as a means to an end. His fascination with the internal organs suggests a fascination with sex and the dead. He had some basic knowledge of human anatomy. His knife work was efficient but not necessarily professional. He most likely enjoyed touching and feeling the organs against his own skin as he dissected and removed them. The parts he took away were for his release at his own time and pleasure. A multi-sensory joy. I would not be surpised if he mixed the organs he chose to extract as to compare and contrast for his own pleasure.

A sexual sadist undoubtedly. This is the extreme end of his sadism, but I would take a guess he enjoyed dominance and power over women previously. They may have been asked to do things or suffer things no woman should endure. He was not a nice man. There was no gentleness here.

He would not have stood out physically aside perhaps from his clothing, but even then I would wager he was aware enough to mix it up a little in order to give conflicting witness accounts. I have a theory he had numerous hats, but that's a theory. He looked like you and me.

Then so did John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nilsen, Fred West, Ian Brady, Randy Kraft, Reg Christie, Ted Bundy and so many more.

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

[clark2710]

The report was compiled in 1988 by John E. Douglas, one of the founding fathers of behavioural intelligence within the FBI. It was done as part of some kind of centenary to the murders.

I think on the whole it is a fairly accurate assessment. My main issue is his insistence on JTR being a disorganised killer and as such as focuses on the common traits of those killers. I believe since he said he is open to JTR being a mix of organised and disorganised. I can’t help but see anything but an organised killer.

It boils down to whether he wrote any of the letters or not. Douglas believes he did not.

I would totally agree, the Ripper knew what he was doing, not just in where he committed the crimes but how, he didn't have the time and knew he wouldn't have time with most of his victims but had just enough to satisfy and scratch his itch. Having said that with Mary Kelly he got to just lose himself in his passion of it. I doubt he'd ever had that much time with a victim before. In the modern day that would have gotten him caught because you can nearly guarantee, in my humble opinion, that you'd find semen and his blood in there too

[clark2710]

I think parts of the profile are interesting and make sense. Such as the idea he drank in the local pubs. That could be where he picked up the victims and could also point to him being a local and blending in to the local area, just "one of the crowd" not raising any real suspicion.

I also think it makes perfect sense in the profile that he caught an infection from a prostitute and this fuelled his anger and was a catalyst for the murders.

I agree with Douglas that the letters weren't written by the killer, I prefer the idea that they were written by the press to "hype up" the murders.

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.

[clark2710]

No 2: If this man only killed during psychotic episodes, I can't see him having had much luck getting any woman to go off with him, no matter how desperate she was, let alone getting away with all the murders. If an identified killer plays the "God/Satan/the voices told me to do it" card, I would say he was as sane as the next man and his delusions are faked.

No 4: I am equally sceptical about the killer "on a mission". Does he genuinely think he is doing society a favour by offing a handful of examples from a specific group? Or is he merely playing the sympathy card, by using the prejudices of that society to pretend he is only doing what others would like to do themselves? Again, I see a faker, not someone with genuine delusions about the evil he does.

Delusions of grandeur and superiority would be another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[clark2710]

No. 31 One sick MF'er.

c.d.

Agreed +toasts and sips the wine+