Where Jack got his Start?

[Lex]

When somebody "graduates" from hurting/torturing/killing animals to doing the same thing to human beings, then what we see is a methodology transferred inbetween different types of victims. We go from battering, maiming and cutting a, say, cat or dog, to battering, maiming and cutting a, say, woman.
We get a radical change in victim type - but we are left with the same urge to inflict pain, to dominate, to hurt, to allow yourself access to another creatures life and do what you wish to do with that creature.

But if Jack the Ripper tortured and maimed animals in his early years, then we are faced not only with a change of victim type - but also with a change in methodology. The fact of the matter is that Jack seems never to have tortured his victims, but instead dispatched of them at record speed. His interest was not focused at getting reward by harming the women he killed - instead he wanted to get access to the inside of a woman and in order to reach that goal, he needed a dead body.
Therefore, if he was an animal torturer, then this was something he did not bring along with him on his nightly expeditions through Whitechapel!

Good point. Jack slit their throats first thing, and didn't dawdle around to torture them why they were still alive. He was a quick killer, and a lot of people think he was also a chance killer. If he saw a woman he wanted as victim, it is said that he wasn't able to help himself, he went in for it. He didn't follow or stalk or choose his victims beforehand.

Also, I guess that's kind of where my stressor theory comes in. Especially if he didn't torture animals as a child. It would be one thing for him to escalate. I didn't even think about the methodology until you mentioned it, which makes me think it was even more unlikely that he simply just escalated.

[Fisherman]

Lex writes:

" A lot of signs in childhood (not just Jack's) that supposedly point to murderous tendencies in adulthood are --
Bedwetting.
Disturbing and often extensive, detailed destruction of toys (i.e., cutting off teddy's head or strangling dolly ).
Harming and/ or killing animals, even an overly-obsessive fixation on torturing bugs.
Fascinations with fire starting."

A good deal of well-informed things have been said on this thread about the classical triumvirate bedwetting-cruelty to animals-setting fire to things. And true enough, this is a background that seems often to produce kllers of people in the end.
I have been given this matter some thought, and I find that we may be missing one thing here. It has to do with the "cruelty to animals" part, and I would welcome any input on this! Here it is:

When somebody "graduates" from hurting/torturing/killing animals to doing the same thing to human beings, then what we see is a methodology transferred inbetween different types of victims. We go from battering, maiming and cutting a, say, cat or dog, to battering, maiming and cutting a, say, woman.
We get a radical change in victim type - but we are left with the same urge to inflict pain, to dominate, to hurt, to allow yourself access to another creatures life and do what you wish to do with that creature.

But if Jack the Ripper tortured and maimed animals in his early years, then we are faced not only with a change of victim type - but also with a change in methodology. The fact of the matter is that Jack seems never to have tortured his victims, but instead dispatched of them at record speed. His interest was not focused at getting reward by harming the women he killed - instead he wanted to get access to the inside of a woman and in order to reach that goal, he needed a dead body.
Therefore, if he was an animal torturer, then this was something he did not bring along with him on his nightly expeditions through Whitechapel!

What I would like to get input about is the question: Is it likely that a man who ended up as a mutilator of dead women who he had killed himself, using a method that did not allow any rewarded traditional sadism, had been hurting or torturing animals when growing up? Surely, one can imagine a boy killing animals with, for example, a quick blow to their heads, after that opening them up to get at their insides. But that would be another thing altogether than the classical animal torturing stage. And do we have any exapmles at all of people who have gone from mutilating quickly killed animals to mutilating people?

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Lex]

Oh, god, I love profiling.

So. A lot of signs in childhood (not just Jack's) that supposedly point to murderous tendencies in adulthood are --

• Bedwetting.
• Disturbing and often extensive, detailed destruction of toys (i.e., cutting off teddy's head or strangling dolly ).
• Harming and/ or killing animals, even an overly-obsessive fixation on torturing bugs.
• Fascinations with fire starting.
• Their families often have criminal, psychiatric and alcoholic histories.
• As children, they are abandoned by their fathers and raised by domineering mothers.
• They tend to show intelligence but are often quiet & reserved.

Parts of profiles of Jack the Ripper that I actually found on the "Suspects" part of this site (not the board). These directed toward him as an adult and child.

• Three already mentioned. Domineering mother and absent father. Developed destructive emotions in younger years, expressed by lighting fires and mutilating animals. An asocial loner; quiet and shy. In childhood, there was an absent or passive father figure.
• Lived or worked in Whitechapel.
• White male, aged 28 to 36.
• The killer probably had a profession in which he could legally experience his destructive tendencies.
• Jack the Ripper probably ceased his killing because he was either arrested for some other crime, or felt himself close to being discovered as the killer.

Anyhow, it's kind of hard to tell how he "started." Partly because that can be taken in more than one way. Yes, he most likely tortured animals -- but can that really be referred to as a start? It's unlikely that one day he decided that "oh hey, I'm tired of killing the neighbors' cats, I'll kill some prostitutes instead!" Even if he happened to decide to escalate, maybe by killing a different variety of animals, what was the leap in his childhood to his adulthood? Is it possible that he continued to prey on animals up until the murders, in which case the profile says he would've been mid-twenties to late-thirties? He probably would've been figured out by then. No one who went around slaying animals for hobby would've been considered normal by any stretch.

But if he did, as the profile said, engage in some line of work that allowed him to legally express these destructive behaviors (which would've allowed him to continue from childhood torturings into adulthood) . . . what made him murder?

I guess my point is, I'm about 99% sure there was some kind of stressor. Something managed to push all that rage to it's full potential. But still, I wonder. What if he really did just decide to move on to murdering women? Or, what if he didn't have some kind of job that allowed him to somewhat satisfy his cravings? What if he wasn't able to quench his thirst anymore and simply snapped, without a prominent stressor?

But hey, I'm not a serial killer, so maybe my viewing of it doesn't matter. I don't think Jack the Ripper by any means was insane, so I'm not going to say you can't rationalize crazy. You can't rationalize cold, calculating serial killer (that sounds so lame, but cut me some slack, it's late & I couldn't think of anything better).

[Fenris]

Both Dahmer and Rader started on animals. The story in the link is cause for alarm, not just for animal lovers. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/...led/index.html

I wish we could access the records of the RSPCA for the 1800's. There might be a valuable clue there.

The links theory assumptions made in the article have come under severe criticism in the UK.

See:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3894/

And for a history of the RSPCA see:

http://www.animallaw.info/historical/articles/arukrspcahist.htm

[bellirikidickie]

being a chef myself I have learned thru this trade to deftly and accurately debone and gut many different species of mammals and fish.A good hand and sharp knife is all that is really needed.The offall and intestines are pretty distinguishable after a short while.Just sayin.

[Radical Joe]

The Society for the Prevention of Animals was founded in the 1820's, and given royal status in 1840.

That should, of course, read 'The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals'.

[Radical Joe]

THERE WAS NO RSPCA IN THE 1800's IN A CITY OF 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE WHERE OVER 65 PERCENT OF WERE HOMLESS AND STARVING... THE CITY WAS FILTHY...DISEASE RIDDEN... AND DOGS AND CATS WERE ON THE MENU 7 DAYS
A WEEK IN MOST PARTS OF IT... DURING THE HARSH AWEFUL WINTERS THERE WAS NOTHING TO EAT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION AND THE HOMELESS..

AND I CANT HELP BUT WONDERING... YOU WHAT... THINK THAT SOME NON EXISTING AGENCY HAD THE MANPOWER, MONEY, AND TIME TO DO NOTHING BUT WRITE UP THE MAJORITY OF 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE WHERE THEIR WAS NO
TELEPHONE, NO COMPUTERS, NO CARS... NO TV, NO RADIO... IN A GIGANTIC CITY...WHERE MOST PEOPLE COULDNT EVEN READ OR WRITE !!!!!

GAWD IM ROLLING IN THE FLOOR ...PLEASE SEND OXYGEN....

The Society for the Prevention of Animals was founded in the 1820's, and given royal status in 1840.

[Sam Flynn]

"... but I am prepared to believe that if ..."

Don't be!

You should find some useful perspective, by the way, by clicking here and here.

Thanks for the referral, Colin

[Limehouse]

Thanks Septic. Very interesting and very helpful.

I doubt if the homeless figure was 65% but I am prepared to believe that if you mean that 65% did not have a permanent home (ie many lived in doss houses).

"... but I am prepared to believe that if ..."

Don't be!

You should find some useful perspective, by the way, by clicking here and here.

[Limehouse]

Actually, by the 1880s, most people COULD read and write. I doubt if the homeless figure was 65% but I am prepared to believe that if you mean that 65% did not have a permanent home (ie many lived in doss houses). Many people were seriously undernourished, certainly, but few were actually starving as there were places where people could obtain at least one small meal a day (soup kitchens and the like).

[WEREWOLF HUNTER]

I wish we could access the records of the RSPCA for the 1800's. There might be a valuable clue there.[/QUOTE]

THERE WAS NO RSPCA IN THE 1800's IN A CITY OF 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE WHERE OVER 65 PERCENT OF WERE HOMLESS AND STARVING... THE CITY WAS FILTHY...DISEASE RIDDEN... AND DOGS AND CATS WERE ON THE MENU 7 DAYS
A WEEK IN MOST PARTS OF IT... DURING THE HARSH AWEFUL WINTERS THERE WAS NOTHING TO EAT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION AND THE HOMELESS..

AND I CANT HELP BUT WONDERING... YOU WHAT... THINK THAT SOME NON EXISTING AGENCY HAD THE MANPOWER, MONEY, AND TIME TO DO NOTHING BUT WRITE UP THE MAJORITY OF 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE WHERE THEIR WAS NO
TELEPHONE, NO COMPUTERS, NO CARS... NO TV, NO RADIO... IN A GIGANTIC CITY...WHERE MOST PEOPLE COULDNT EVEN READ OR WRITE !!!!!

GAWD IM ROLLING IN THE FLOOR ...PLEASE SEND OXYGEN....

[Sam Flynn]

Neither showed evidence of any struggle, and both were cut while lying down....perhaps without any noise. To me that suggests unconscious or at best semi-so.

Or a quick "whoosh!" with an extremely sharp knife when they weren't expecting it.

But for another thread is better, as you say....

... aye, Mike

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.

Neither showed evidence of any struggle, and both were cut while lying down....perhaps without any noise. To me that suggests unconscious or at best semi-so.

But for another thread is better, as you say....

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

He had options before he killed anyone....

I doubt that can be taken as fact, Mike. But, again, that's a topic for another thread.