Getting inside the Ripper

[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.

[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.

[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".

[K-453]

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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?