Getting inside the Ripper

[Harry D]

Professionals and armchair detectives alike have been profiling and psychoanalyzing 'Jack the Ripper' for many years. Needless to say, if we were able to understand what made the Ripper tick, we'd have a better chance of narrowing down who he was. In theory, at least. The odds of solving the case once and for all are practically zero, unless someone happens to find some groundbreaking new evidence.

When we examine the killer's motives, what do the murders tell us about them? The murders are often viewed as an attack on the victim's femininity, through targeting the abdominal areas, stealing the reproductive organs and defacing two of the victims. What kind of satisfaction do you think it brought him to remove the innards of his victims, and the complete butchery of Mary Jane Kelly? Why remove the uterus in one case, then the uterus AND a kidney in another? What significance did these 'trophies' possess, if any? Was Jack trying to steal their womanhood? Was he taking pride in his work?

Jack was not an ordinary murderer, he didn't appear to kill for killing's sake, or betray a sadistic streak (in the strictest sense), as his victims were killed almost instantly. It could be argued that killing was just a means to an end that facilitated the post-mortem mutilations. What was Jack trying to SAY with this signature and the positioning of the bodies?

I don't want this to descend into a typical "There was no Ripper" or "x wasn't a victim" etc., not because those arguments don't have merit, but because I feel they've been done to death, and would no doubt digress from the overall point. Looking at this from the accepted viewpoint that Jack the Ripper killed at least the canonical five, what can we surmise from those murders about our man? Or are we guilty of looking into things too deeply, when in truth Jack might not have had any method to his madness?

[Abby Normal]

Professionals and armchair detectives alike have been profiling and psychoanalyzing 'Jack the Ripper' for many years. Needless to say, if we were able to understand what made the Ripper tick, we'd have a better chance of narrowing down who he was. In theory, at least. The odds of solving the case once and for all are practically zero, unless someone happens to find some groundbreaking new evidence.

When we examine the killer's motives, what do the murders tell us about them? The murders are often viewed as an attack on the victim's femininity, through targeting the abdominal areas, stealing the reproductive organs and defacing two of the victims. What kind of satisfaction do you think it brought him to remove the innards of his victims, and the complete butchery of Mary Jane Kelly? Why remove the uterus in one case, then the uterus AND a kidney in another? What significance did these 'trophies' possess, if any? Was Jack trying to steal their womanhood? Was he taking pride in his work?

Jack was not an ordinary murderer, he didn't appear to kill for killing's sake, or betray a sadistic streak (in the strictest sense), as his victims were killed almost instantly. It could be argued that killing was just a means to an end that facilitated the post-mortem mutilations. What was Jack trying to SAY with this signature and the positioning of the bodies?

I don't want this to descend into a typical "There was no Ripper" or "x wasn't a victim" etc., not because those arguments don't have merit, but because I feel they've been done to death, and would no doubt digress from the overall point. Looking at this from the accepted viewpoint that Jack the Ripper killed at least the canonical five, what can we surmise from those murders about our man? Or are we guilty of looking into things too deeply, when in truth Jack might not have had any method to his madness?

Hi Harry
Great idea for a post.

First of all, post mortem mutilator serial killers are very rare and the removal and taking away of internal organs rarer still. In fact, when comparing the ripper to other serial killers, I have found no one, who was like the ripper. The closest I have found was William Suff the Riverside (CA) prostitute killer.

As for motive, I believe the murders and the crime scene indicate a fascination with what his knife could do to the female body and the trophy's were a way to prolong the sensation. And yes I do believe there was a sexual component to the crimes. God knows what he did with the organs, but with other post mortem serial killers, I don't think cannibalism and masturbation would be to far off.

Also, as a way to prolong the thrill, I think the ripper had a secondary motivation of enjoying the "game". As in he liked the notoriety, reading about it in the press, shocking the public and the chase-not only in the hunting for the victims but in evading the police and making them look bad.
I think the posing of the bodies, the GSG, and possibly the letters are indications of this as is the general events of the double event.

However, interestingly enough, post mortem mutilators generally do NOT have this secondary motivation-which again makes the ripper very rare.

Or are we guilty of looking into things too deeply, when in truth Jack might not have had any method to his madness

Oh, he definitely had a method to his madness-I just don't think he had a serious overt mental illness. Definitely a sociopath, but I doubt schizophrenia as I don't think a schizophrenic could have not only gotten his victims to go with him to a secluded place but also evade capture by the skin of his teeth.

[Rosella]

Possibly Jack had a twin focus during his murders. He probably enjoyed what all serial killers enjoy, having the power of life or death over his vctims. However, for the Ripper, I think the mutilations were just as important. They may well have been the re-enactment of fantasies he had had for years. Maybe they were connected to feelings about his mother or/and females in general.

I don't think Jack wrote to the police. He may not have liked the name Jack the Ripper. His not seeking publicity in that way doesn't mean that he didn't enjoy the thrill, the excitement of 'winning' each time, of police trying in vain to capture him.

I think he was probably amused by the terror and panic his murders had evoked in locals and he may well have hung around crowds near murder sites on occasions, listening to conversations about himself.

Jack probably wasn't certifiably insane, though he was sociapathic, I think. He enjoyed his souvenirs for a couple of days, maybe, gloating over them, getting a sexual thrill, re-living the taking of them. Then he could have burned them or eaten them.

William Macdonald was a serial killer and a Sydney postmortem mutilator in the early 1960's. He would lure homeless derelict males to dark locales and strangle and stab them about the head and neck with a long-bladed knife. After death Macdonald would remove his victim's penis and testicles, later throwing them away. In his case he was conflicted about his homosexuality.

[lynn cates]

respecting the proviso

Hello Harry. My answer shall show respect for your proviso.

Given the disparity in both "signature' and "positioning," his OBVIOUS motive was to enjoy diversity.

After all, he was NOT a robot--was he?

Cheers.
LC

[Barnaby]

We construct elaborate theories as to why serial killers do what they do, but I wonder about the diversity and to what extent serial killers can verbalize their own reasons for murder. How many can articulate something beyond "I feel an obsession to do it and it feels good." And of those who can, is it an after-the-fact interpretation that has little bearing on the actual causal variables involved or is it an accurate reflection of them?

[Errata]

We construct elaborate theories as to why serial killers do what they do, but I wonder about the diversity and to what extent serial killers can verbalize their own reasons for murder. How many can articulate something beyond "I feel an obsession to do it and it feels good." And of those who can, is it an after-the-fact interpretation that has little bearing on the actual causal variables involved or is it an accurate reflection of them?

I think serial killers can verbalize their motivations as well as anyone. With PET scans and FMRIs we have the ability to gauge not only the truthfulness of any statement, but also see what areas of the brain light up when describing their crimes, and know what emotions in general we are talking about. So yeah, the serial killers that researchers regularly talk to (and there are some who do very well in the research process and are subjects of multiple studies) are pretty good at articulating what was going on in their heads at the time. And of those serial killers, many are remarkably self aware.

[K-453]

Has any modern serial killer ever been asked about his opinion of the Ripper?

[Bridewell]

Has any modern serial killer ever been asked about his opinion of the Ripper?

I don't know, although I did read that David Berkowitz supposedly sent the letters he did in imitation of "Jack the Ripper".

[Errata]

Has any modern serial killer ever been asked about his opinion of the Ripper?

I doubt any modern serial killer has been informed about the Ripper. Heard of him, like most people, but not informed. Serial killing is evidently intensely personal. The ones who engage in it tend not to be interested in the work of others.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

In my opinion, the mutilations were the primary objective. The murder were a way to assure complete control over the victims.

If I was to compare Jack to other serial killers (I admit I don't know that many), I'd say Albert Fish was the closest to what JtR was.

And we know he did write letters.

[K-453]

I doubt any modern serial killer has been informed about the Ripper.

What about some researcher handing him reading material about the Ripper to ask him about his opinion later? (When the serial killer is in prison already.)

And I doubt serial killers are not interested in their "colleagues". I even think all modern serial killers are to some degree copycats. This being unique about the Ripper, by the way - him not being a copycat, as he was the first the media got into a frenzy about.

[Errata]

What about some researcher handing him reading material about the Ripper to ask him about his opinion later? (When the serial killer is in prison already.)

And I doubt serial killers are not interested in their "colleagues". I even think all modern serial killers are to some degree copycats. This being unique about the Ripper, by the way - him not being a copycat, as he was the first the media got into a frenzy about.

Serial killers are often copycats to an extent. The degree to which it is purposeful is rather unclear. A strangler is not necessarily inspired by another strangler, but may have heard about a harvester and that set him on the path in a way. But ego and comfort driven psychopaths do what feels good. They don't research. Put two serial killers in a cell together, I'm sure they would compare notes. But only clinical sadists are going to get off on what the other guy says.

It would be like if you and I compared our favorite sports. I'm a swim fan. You may be a hockey man. No matter how much you talk about how much you love hockey, it is never going to interest me. I'd really just be waiting for you to stop talking so I could start talking. I don't object to hockey, but since I can't follow the puck and I was a swimmer, it is literally less interesting to me than watching grass grow. Now if I'm talking about football and you are talking about rugby, it's not the same but there is some common ground. The conversation might last longer, but I'm still not going to end up a rugby fan.

The truth is that being a serial killer is a little embarrassing. Not the murder part of it, but the little obsessive details that make the experience worthwhile. Bundy was not a fan of people knowing that he was a necrophile. It was embarrassing to him. It was embarrassing to Jeffrey Dahmer. As was the cannibalism. Kemper is quite cooperative with researchers but he is embarrassed that the only way he had the confidence to initiate opposite sex relations was if they were dead. This is not stuff you want people knowing. The amount of secrecy needed for a serial killer to function does not particularly leave room for research into other killers. It doesn't occur to them that the behaviors they are hiding can be found about other killers. And when they are found, like on Ed Gein's Wikipedia page, they are not comforting at all.

Serial killing is as personal as sex. It replaces sex in many ways. I might be curious to know why someone uses a paddle in the bedroom, but I'm not THAT curious. I don't really need to know what makes other people get off. I need to know how I get off. And serial killing is no different. It doesn't matter to a collector why someone else might be carver. Or even why someone else is also a collector. The reasons are personal. Embarrassing. Not socially acceptable. And it's only the sadists and the severely socially dysfunctional who will talk about the details at all, or is really particularly willing to listen.

Junkies don't revel in stories of other junkies. It's the same principle.

[Defective Detective]

I can understand and appreciate the psychosexual resonance of stealing a victim's uterus. It's basically a way of forcing yourself into the innermost reaches of her femininity; it is a perpetual rape.

But what the Hell does a kidney have to do with sexuality, of however perverse a nature? There is no eroticism of which I know that focuses upon that organ. The bladder is also questionable to me - on one hand, it is connected to the vagina and so can be associated with it; on the other, none but a urine fetishist is likely to find much arousal in the notion of owning one.

I would caution those trying to read a direct psychosexual motivation into the pilfered organs themselves, rather than an indirect, broad one into the act of body cavity exploration itself. The acquisition of organs may have been secondary to the act of opening a woman up in itself.

[GUT]

G'day Defective Detective

The acquisition of organs may have been secondary to the act of opening a woman up in itself.

Or the opening a woman up may have been secondary to the acquisition of organs. If so where does that leave any sexual motive?

[Defective Detective]

I feel that, had the Ripper been a pathological collector of organs (whose murders were fueled by the need to possess them), as opposed to an opportunistic colllector (who rummaged when the opportunity presented itself), the missing specimens would have been the same items in each case.

Instead we have two uteruses gone; one bladder; a heart; a kidney; and so on.