Practicality or madness?

[AuroraSarintacos]

Has anyone on this thread tried to conduct an appropriate psychological review of the Whitechapel murderer that preyed upon vulnerable, poor class (high risk) women?

If one were to dwell inside the brain of this killer, I am sure most of you would be revolted and terrified to find what is "underneath the hood" as one would say. This man is clearly mad; whether the method in which he went about to dispatch and extinguish his victims had any planning to it I can not say, but I am of the opinion that he was an unorganized, blitz serial predator and attacked his victims suddenly and violently.

From what I gathered from previous replies to my past inquiries, he either killed the victims before inflicting the injuries to the body. Therefore I can speculate that the pain of his victim was not something he was after. It was the mutilation/dissection aspect. And this escalates with each killing till it blows up with the MJK murder.

While knowing what the motive was for the killer and what drove him to kill, understanding this and applying it so one may therefore understand what was going on in his mind are two different things.

Everyone may love a good murder mystery but the more I study this case the further I now try to steer away from it.

These were people who died in terrible ways. This man was an absolutely TERRIFYING little bloke. And I mean that in every sense of the word: this man is SCARY.

I mean, whatever was going on in his mind, what he was thinking/saying to himself, the self-satisfaction that he got from these killings; what he did to that poor woman in Miller's court - THAT is the thing made of nightmares, and is true horror and the closest thing I could ever imagine to Hell.

[Batman]

I think he literally has to transform from a regular normal looking Eastender into a monster when he attacks. As in his facial features would contort. Ted Bundy was reported to transform like this by many witnesses. This was apparently even witnessed by the jury who got a glimpse of it during a trial where he interrogated his own victim. No wonder why serial killers shouldn't represent themselves. Dahmer would start chanting and his eyes change and he would go into a trance almost getting himself charged to murder.

So in a funny way, there is a connection with Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde which was playing in theatres at the time. The press cartoons even got the crossover and people wrote in letters suggesting the actors may be JtR.

It is the level of hatred that gets me. This man was one of the most extreme misogynists that have ever existed. Yet, even an unfortunate, who needs money, seems to have not been worried about meeting this person, even at the height of the Ripper murders.

Peter Sutcliffe's friend, Jimmy Saville... errr... I mean Trevor Birdsall knew that Sutcliffe had a mega hatred for prostitutes. Even watched him try to attack one before the serial killings. Trevor Birdsall eventually put 2 + 2 together and informed the Yorkshire police about Sutcliffe, who was in their database. The information got lost in a chaotic system.

I wonder if the identity of JtR may in the many letters sent to Scotland Yard and the Newspapers.

[AuroraSarintacos]

I do not think any of the victims expected to have been harmed in that extreme. I am sure most of them were used to violence enacted out and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were not brutalized by their husbands, lovers, or random men of the street a fair amount of times. They were just desperate and at the wrong place at the wrong time.

From my general understanding, most of the victims were not actually supporting themselves by prostitution alone. Most of them may have not even been soliciting the night of their murder.

And what a way to give me nightmares! Are you trying to not let me sleep tonight? Jimminy Crickets!

Yes, he was a hateful little bloke. But was it really hatred that drove him, or was it fear or something else? Did he possibly get any sexual relief from his mutilations?

I wonder if it was something else besides a pure hatred of women that drove him. . .I do not want to get into the mind of a killer. They have no empathy and everyone is a tool at their disposal. To think of meeting someone who will look at you and think of dissecting you apart is terribly frightening.

[Michael W Richards]

So he killed her in her own room?

This is a point that has surfaced a bit lately Sam, is the woman on the bed the same woman that Joe Barnett knew and later barely identified as Mary Kelly, or is it a woman that is found in Mary Kellys bed disfigured almost beyond all recognition, or is it a woman who called herself Mary Kelly but was not actually a Mary Kelly, or was it a woman that was legitimately named Mary Kelly?

Ive been here long enough to see how good some member/researchers are and it troubles me that there has still been no solid confirmation of her story. That and the fact that this woman was mutilated, as I said, almost beyond a reasonable identification, makes me consider an alias or a misidentification as pretty plausible.

[Fisherman]

I think he literally has to transform from a regular normal looking Eastender into a monster when he attacks. As in his facial features would contort. Ted Bundy was reported to transform like this by many witnesses. This was apparently even witnessed by the jury who got a glimpse of it during a trial where he interrogated his own victim. No wonder why serial killers shouldn't represent themselves. Dahmer would start chanting and his eyes change and he would go into a trance almost getting himself charged to murder.

So in a funny way, there is a connection with Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde which was playing in theatres at the time. The press cartoons even got the crossover and people wrote in letters suggesting the actors may be JtR.

It is the level of hatred that gets me. This man was one of the most extreme misogynists that have ever existed. Yet, even an unfortunate, who needs money, seems to have not been worried about meeting this person, even at the height of the Ripper murders.

Peter Sutcliffe's friend, Jimmy Saville... errr... I mean Trevor Birdsall knew that Sutcliffe had a mega hatred for prostitutes. Even watched him try to attack one before the serial killings. Trevor Birdsall eventually put 2 + 2 together and informed the Yorkshire police about Sutcliffe, who was in their database. The information got lost in a chaotic system.

I wonder if the identity of JtR may in the many letters sent to Scotland Yard and the Newspapers.

There is nothing to prove that the Ripper was a misogynist. He may have been and he may not have been. Killing somebody is not necessarily a sign of hating that somebody. Jeffrey Dahmer was very fond of all the people he killed, and only killed them on account of a wish to be able to keep them close to himself.

[Fisherman]

I am going to use this old thread of mine to introduce to you the serial killer I beleive is the one closest in pathology to the combined Ripper and Torso killer. The thread is named "Practicality or madness" and I personally believe that distinction is vital to understanding what the killer was about. So many speak of the frenzy and madness displayed in Millers Court, for example, and I thoroughly disagreee - I think that murder was controlled from the outset and that the killer worked meticulously to a scheme.

Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed eight women between 1994 and 2004 offers an explanation to what the killings were about, if I am correct. Gillis was a seemingly meek man, romantically involved with a shopkeeper throughout his ten year spree, and he was looked upon as reliable and honest, someone who could be trusted. Had a job, drove a car, was overall very helpful.
He killed his victims as quickly as he could for the simple reason that the killing itself was not what he was after - he was after gaining control over a body. His method of dispatching his victims, involving a wide variety of ages up to 80+ years of age, was to use a large nylon tie lock which he put over the head and pulled tight at the neck. He called the lock his "objectifier", since what he wanted to do to his victim was to "turn them from a woman" into an object.
Gillis also mutilated hs victims, and he cut limbs away from them. He famously explained his urges by saying in one case that he "wanted to see her femur" about one of his victims.
When interviewed by the police after being caught and confessing, the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "I´m talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
"That´s an interesting term you used, that´s exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked.

Just like Ted Bundy, Gillis also said that he felt he became God during his slayings, but whereas Bundy felt God-like as he watched the last flicker of light die out in his victims eyes as he strangled them, Gillis was not interested in the killing phase at all. He only became God in his own eyes as he cut away limbs from his dead victims.

Gillis was inspired by the internet and the many representations of sexual violence depicted out there, whereas our man of course got his inspiration from other sources. Otherwise, I believe the two men are very, very closely connected.

I don´t think the Ripper/Torso killer was about madness or an urge to annihilate at all. I think the Victorians were at a loss to understand the pathology of this killer, but we are in a much better position to understand it today. I think our man - just like Gillis - was about taking control over a body by means of cutting parts of the body away at his will. No other control of a vixtim can be as decisive and total.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcomed.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am going to use this old thread of mine to introduce to you the serial killer I beleive is the one closest in pathology to the combined Ripper and Torso killer. The thread is named "Practicality or madness" and I personally believe that distinction is vital to understanding what the killer was about. So many speak of the frenzy and madness displayed in Millers Court, for example, and I thoroughly disagreee - I think that murder was controlled from the outset and that the killer worked meticulously to a scheme.

Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed eight women between 1994 and 2004 offers an explanation to what the killings were about, if I am correct. Gillis was a seemingly meek man, romantically involved with a shopkeeper throughout his ten year spree, and he was looked upon as reliable and honest, someone who could be trusted. Had a job, drove a car, was overall very helpful.
He killed his victims as quickly as he could for the simple reason that the killing itself was not what he was after - he was after gaining control over a body. His method of dispatching his victims, involving a wide variety of ages up to 80+ years of age, was to use a large nylon tie lock which he put over the head and pulled tight at the neck. He called the lock his "objectifier", since what he wanted to do to his victim was to "turn them from a woman" into an object.
Gillis also mutilated hs victims, and he cut limbs away from them. He famously explained his urges by saying in one case that he "wanted to see her femur" about one of his victims.
When interviewed by the police after being caught and confessing, the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "I´m talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
"That´s an interesting term you used, that´s exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked.

Just like Ted Bundy, Gillis also said that he felt he became God during his slayings, but whereas Bundy felt God-like as he watched the last flicker of light die out in his victims eyes as he strangled them, Gillis was not interested in the killing phase at all. He only became God in his own eyes as he cut away limbs from his dead victims.

Gillis was inspired by the internet and the many representations of sexual violence depicted out there, whereas our man of course got his inspiration from other sources. Otherwise, I believe the two men are very, very closely connected.

I don´t think the Ripper/Torso killer was about madness or an urge to annihilate at all. I think the Victorians were at a loss to understand the pathology of this killer, but we are in a much better position to understand it today. I think our man - just like Gillis - was about taking control over a body by means of cutting parts of the body away at his will. No other control of a vixtim can be as decisive and total.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcomed.

The only difference being is that the ripper did not have any books or tv documentaries or films to work from to get his ideas. So from that perspective he was working totally blind in his pre planning, of in fact if there was any pre planning, other than to murder and mutilate and that would have relied on nothing much more than opportunity.

You need to get rid of this torso killer complex you have. It is muddying the waters of the WM. Because if you remove them and the organ removals of the Whitechapel victims the murders take on a whole new light and are far more easily explainable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I am going to use this old thread of mine to introduce to you the serial killer I beleive is the one closest in pathology to the combined Ripper and Torso killer. The thread is named "Practicality or madness" and I personally believe that distinction is vital to understanding what the killer was about. So many speak of the frenzy and madness displayed in Millers Court, for example, and I thoroughly disagreee - I think that murder was controlled from the outset and that the killer worked meticulously to a scheme.

Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed eight women between 1994 and 2004 offers an explanation to what the killings were about, if I am correct. Gillis was a seemingly meek man, romantically involved with a shopkeeper throughout his ten year spree, and he was looked upon as reliable and honest, someone who could be trusted. Had a job, drove a car, was overall very helpful.
He killed his victims as quickly as he could for the simple reason that the killing itself was not what he was after - he was after gaining control over a body. His method of dispatching his victims, involving a wide variety of ages up to 80+ years of age, was to use a large nylon tie lock which he put over the head and pulled tight at the neck. He called the lock his "objectifier", since what he wanted to do to his victim was to "turn them from a woman" into an object.
Gillis also mutilated hs victims, and he cut limbs away from them. He famously explained his urges by saying in one case that he "wanted to see her femur" about one of his victims.
When interviewed by the police after being caught and confessing, the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "I´m talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
"That´s an interesting term you used, that´s exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked.

Just like Ted Bundy, Gillis also said that he felt he became God during his slayings, but whereas Bundy felt God-like as he watched the last flicker of light die out in his victims eyes as he strangled them, Gillis was not interested in the killing phase at all. He only became God in his own eyes as he cut away limbs from his dead victims.

Gillis was inspired by the internet and the many representations of sexual violence depicted out there, whereas our man of course got his inspiration from other sources. Otherwise, I believe the two men are very, very closely connected.

I don´t think the Ripper/Torso killer was about madness or an urge to annihilate at all. I think the Victorians were at a loss to understand the pathology of this killer, but we are in a much better position to understand it today. I think our man - just like Gillis - was about taking control over a body by means of cutting parts of the body away at his will. No other control of a vixtim can be as decisive and total.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcomed.

Hi Fish
happy new year and I totally agree. There is no overt insanity/madness involved here nor any kind of frenzy or anger. I would just add that I think the torso/ripper was also fascinated by what his knife could do to the female body. Yes I think he was about manipulating the body, but I think he also enjoyed using his knife and got pleasure from cutting up the female body and curiosity about what it looked like as he was doing it and afterward.
and while I don't buy the picquerism idea, I think there is also the possibility he did gain some sexual satisfaction post mortem, perhaps masturbation with the parts. Not totally sure about this aspect though.

[Abby Normal]

The only difference being is that the ripper did not have any books or tv documentaries or films to work from to get his ideas. So from that perspective he was working totally blind in his pre planning, of in fact if there was any pre planning, other than to murder and mutilate and that would have relied on nothing much more than opportunity.

You need to get rid of this torso killer complex you have. It is muddying the waters of the WM. Because if you remove them and the organ removals of the Whitechapel victims the murders take on a whole new light and are far more easily explainable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

well there were anatomy books and coincidentally the venus anatomical display at the museum just happened to close shortly before the first torso in 1873 which I find very interesting. he may have had some medical background or experience of cutting up animals if had any type of butchering, hunting experience.

[Fisherman]

The only difference being is that the ripper did not have any books or tv documentaries or films to work from to get his ideas. So from that perspective he was working totally blind in his pre planning, of in fact if there was any pre planning, other than to murder and mutilate and that would have relied on nothing much more than opportunity.

We all know that the Ripper did not have tv or documentaries to use as inspiration. Where you got it from that there were no books around in 1888, I fail to understand. There certainly were, and many of them concerned themselves with anatomy, for example. At the end of the day, the wish to take control over another persons body does not need to have anything to do at all with either of these things.

You need to get rid of this torso killer complex you have. It is muddying the waters of the WM. Because if you remove them and the organ removals of the Whitechapel victims the murders take on a whole new light and are far more easily explainable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We are going to have to disagree on that one too, I´m afraid. My belief is that the waters have been so muddled as to resemble dung over the years of failing to acknowledge that the two series include so common matters as to be impossible to divide up in two (or more) killers work.

I think it is high time to look at the likelier explanations instead of the less likely ones, that´s all.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
happy new year and I totally agree. There is no overt insanity/madness involved here nor any kind of frenzy or anger. I would just add that I think the torso/ripper was also fascinated by what his knife could do to the female body. Yes I think he was about manipulating the body, but I think he also enjoyed using his knife and got pleasure from cutting up the female body and curiosity about what it looked like as he was doing it and afterward.
and while I don't buy the picquerism idea, I think there is also the possibility he did gain some sexual satisfaction post mortem, perhaps masturbation with the parts. Not totally sure about this aspect though.

Happy New Year to you too, Abby! Yes, there are matters that are hard to establish, but overall, I do believe that the murders were led on by a sexual urge.

[Fisherman]

well there were ... the venus anatomical display at the museum

Yes. There was. And I would be interested to know if anyone can think of a more total way to control another human being than being able to pluck him or her apart at will, in a way that resembles what the anatomical Venus had on offer?

I find it extremely compelling to reason that this was exactly what the killer was after. It explains a whole lot of things, the Kelly scene, the exsanguination, the lack of torture and the swift killings, the laid-out colon by Eddowes´side, the apparent choice of victims not previously known to the killer, making them easier to objectify ...

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes. There was. And I would be interested to know if anyone can think of a more total way to control another human being than being able to pluck him or her apart at will, in a way that resembles what the anatomical Venus had on offer?

...

How can a killer control, or have control of a victim when she is dead, make no sense!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

How can a killer control, or have control of a victim when she is dead, make no sense!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

complete control. which is what post mortem serial killers like Dahmer and gillis were after.

[Trevor Marriott]

complete control. which is what post mortem serial killers like Dahmer and gillis were after.

I disagree control over what they do to the living ! before killing them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk