Where Jack got his Start?

[Sam Flynn]

In Jacks case, theres every reason to suspect that the women were unconscious when their throats were slit,....perhaps not in the case of Liz and Mary Jane

Surely not, Mike? As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Eddowes was unconscious before her throat was cut, and precious little in respect of Nichols either.

But... that's for another thread, I guess.

[Johnr]

Yes Gareth,
Your observations are both correct.
It would indeed have been hard to spot a sadistic animal torturer amongst 19th century working class city grooms and labourers, and country ones.
However, my surmise was - and that was all it was meant to be - that perhaps Montague's middle class behaviour was just a bit too working class for his genteel pig-farmer hosts, the Homers.
Prompting comment, repatriation, abruptly terminated holday visit; and an alarmed but discreet letter to Montague's family.
The assumption being people don't just start hacking away at poor street women from East London, without having had some previous experiences which lured them towards such behaviour.
It is highly likely such family alarm formed the basis, if true, of the "private information". JOHN RUFFELS.

[johnnyerwin]

He had options before he killed anyone....where he would kill them, who he would kill, when he would kill,....and he chose in public, working Unfortunates and after midnight and before 6am.....within the last 2 days of each month to the 9th of the following month.

Hi Mike,

Essentially I agree with what you are saying. I would just say however that given the killer generally chose a public place to do his deed, it therefore mandated that all forms of steath be used to their maximum advantage, including his takedown approach. It might be hard to say what element of everything was most important to him.. ie. was it the location? The victim? The sequence of violations? I would dare say that he may have had to compromise in one or more areas of what he would like to do in order to avoid detection.

Cheers!

Interesting angle on this, however practical limits might also be considered. For instance it would be difficult to perform those mutilations on a fully concious individual due to the subject fighting back, screaming and generally making stealth impossible. The strangulation therefore might have been considered a necessity in order to proceed with the rest.

I highlighted the above words because I feel what we may be looking at is a preferred style, not a "necessary" one. Its very efficient, this phased technique that seems to be the MO used with 3 victims, Polly-Annie-Kate......Overpower/Subdue(perhaps by strangulation)-Cut throat when lying on their backs (can direct arterial spray away from him, victim is not moving about)-Expose and Mutilate abdomens.

He had options before he killed anyone....where he would kill them, who he would kill, when he would kill,....and he chose in public, working Unfortunates and after midnight and before 6am.....within the last 2 days of each month to the 9th of the following month.

There is specificity....you just have to accept it as such.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Actually, Fish, it has far more to do with what I've experienced as an adult - usually in the context of work. I've lost count of the times I've had to suffer the consequences of colleagues who, after a 5-day course in psychobabble, dream up one organisational bright idea after another - none of which have a hope in hell of working."

Thatīs odd, Sam - though we obviously do not work at the same place, it seems we still have the same colleagues...? And they get younger and more determined each year!

The best,
Fisherman

[johnnyerwin]

I think one thing is clear about him....he's not a traditional sadist, in that he enjoys watching the suffering of the animals or people he kills. In Jacks case, theres every reason to suspect that the women were unconscious when their throats were slit,....(perhaps not in the case of Liz and Mary Jane), and therefore not able to winch and moan as he cuts their abdomens.

Interesting angle on this, however practical limits might also be considered. For instance it would be difficult to perform those mutilations on a fully concious individual due to the subject fighting back, screaming and generally making stealth impossible. The strangulation therefore might have been considered a necessity in order to proceed with the rest.

I think one thing is clear about him....he's not a traditional sadist, in that he enjoys watching the suffering of the animals or people he kills. In Jacks case, theres every reason to suspect that the women were unconscious when their throats were slit,....(perhaps not in the case of Liz and Mary Jane), and therefore not able to winch and moan as he cuts their abdomens.

Dan Norder once used the term necrosadist, Im no psychologist but that seems closer to me.

Which might allow another type of person into the possible candidates with some knife skill and knowledge....morticians, and taxidermists for example. Certainly dissection students also.

Ill bet under the same circumstances, few of the contemporary surgeons could have done better...if the goals were achieved as hoped by the killer. Based on time and resulting cuts. Annie's uterus and Kate's left kidney...and perhaps partial uterus... come to mind,...if they were "goals".

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"I don't mind sensible, balanced psychobabble with a grounding in reality, Fish - it's when dodgy psychobabble is used to justify a flimsy case against some poor sod or other that I lose the will to live "

That stance of yours, Sam, is probably grounded on something that happened inbetween you and your parents back in your pre-teen years. Could have something to do with a fear of insects or small birds, perhaps...??

Actually, Fish, it has far more to do with what I've experienced as an adult - usually in the context of work. I've lost count of the times I've had to suffer the consequences of colleagues who, after a 5-day course in psychobabble, dream up one organisational bright idea after another - none of which have a hope in hell of working. The mistake they make is to take too literally the watered-down (and often outdated) psychology that typically gets taught at business seminars - as if the human mind behaves in a rigidly formulaic manner, when it does nothing of the sort. As Professor Stanley Unwin might say, this is a "deep folly".

[Sam Flynn]

RE: Are All Farmers Potential Rippers Gareth?

I cannot agree that because I suggest more research might reveal Montague Druitt could have displayed one or all of the "McDonald trio"; or displayed extraordinary behaviour towards animals on the Homer pig farm in his childhood, or even towards other pupils at Winchester.....

I know, I know, no evidence of this thus far.

And that's the crux, really, John - we have no idea whether Druitt experienced an abnormal reaction to the slaughter (or teasing) of animals. If one must speculate in this area, then one should bear in mind that we're dealing with a society in which far more working-class people would have had direct or vicarious experience of animal slaughter, and indeed animal baiting, than did the middle classes. On a percentage basis, therefore (making the crude assumption that a certain small ratio of animal slaughterers/teasers may go on to have psychological problems later in life), there would have been more potential Rippers amongst working-class Londoners than there would have been amongst the middle classes.

Whilst town people are truly shocked at the severe way some country people treat their animals, I do not believe we can tritely suggest this then makes them all potential Jack The Rippers.

Indeed not, which is why I'd never suggest such a thing. In fact, as I indicated, the slaughter of animals in the C19th wasn't confined to the countryside at all.

[HollyDolly]

Could Druitt been caught in the act of perhasp torturing or killing an animal like a cat or a puppy and that was why he was dismissed? Or could it have been maybe that he was engaged in some other behaviour which Valentine discovered by accident, and was disgusted by and again dismissed him?

[johnnyerwin]

This is an interesting thread. Given that there are other examples of animal cruelty in murder cases it would not surprise me at all if the person(s) involved in the ripper murders also "experimented" in this way.

Here's some possible profiles that might use this angle:

1. A slaughterer/butcher/similar (or person with such experience in past). Obviously has a few screws loose, possibly had a troubled childhood. Hatred of Women. Trade gives them the skill with the knife, also the desensitization to the gore involved. Early "experiments" with tradecraft may have desensitized them to acts of extreme cruelty.

2. A given person (with any vocation) that early on in life started to molest/kill/torture animals (any that they would have access to). Possible god complex. Possible rudimentary knowledge of anatomy provided somewhere in lifetime from a variety of possible sources. At some point in life person starts taking risks with larger subjects, at some point making the jump from animal to human. Likely has sexually molested animals and/or children. May be connected to rape/molestation cases.

I have no profiling experience, this is just conjecture and involves in part information I've read regarding other cases. I am personally not inclined to believe that the perp(s) have any extensive medical knowledge, however that is not to say that they were not a student at one time (possibly fitting into category 2 above).

Comments?

[lynn cates]

some obscure remarks

Hello. I suppose the "butchering" would have different effects on different people. But if one has a pre-existing and underlying personality defect . . .

I think Hardy brings out the other extreme in his "Jude the Obscure" when Jude butchers the pig and is sickened by it. On the other hand, the personality type I suggest could be thrilled by the experience and need only some bizarre catalyst--like violent pornography (did Victorian England have such?) to touch him off.

LC

[Fisherman]

Mmm – I tried the old irony approach, but it seems I failed to some extent. Seriously, though, if animal production had instead produced Rippers by the hundreds and thousands, I suspect we would have heard of it...!

The best, John!
Fisherman

[Johnr]

"mr Ruffels" Is Not A Pet's Name!

[QUOTE=Fisherman;98176]Considering how many people were involved in the many aspects of animal farming, we will have plenty of potential Jacks!=QUOTE]

Sorry Fisherman.

It just looked like that was what you were saying!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Fisherman]

John Ruffels writes:

"After all, it was Fisherman who first suggested most farmers are/were potential Rippers."

Actually no; I merely stated that if contact with the many aspects of animal farming were to lead to Rippership, then there would be an awful lot of Rippers around .... so itīs the other way around, to be honest!

The best,
Fisherman