Serial Killers, A pattern???

[joelhall]

Re-opening....Any new ideas??

To either narcissism or OCD???

yours truly

i certainly do, but im afraid you probably wont like it (risk i always take, hehe).

firstly i cannot understand what your sources are for 'narcissism' or which definition you are using. im assuming you refer to a narcissistic personality disorder (path. narcissism), rather than being a narcissist or being narcissistic (personality trait), although i have not seen anything resembling diagnostic criteria in your theory yet.

having said that virtually all serial killers, especially those who do not get caught or go to lengths to avoid being detected would of course have elements of narcissism in their personality, as do the vast majority of people to varying degrees, as the very act of the murder gives them of power over someone else - indeed its hard to think of anything which would give someone else a more powerful feeling than that of life or death over someone else.

whether or not this element of their psychology would explain the killings is hard to tell, as the very motives themselves are still conjecture, regardless of ho sure we feel about them (e.g. sexual killer, misogynistic, psychotic episodes, etc), assuming a lone killer, as there is a distinct lack of any real forensic evidence, or for that matter even solid witness testimony of the crimes.

based on the scant evidence available this would not be simple for a psychiatrist or psychologist to declare with a good degree of certainty. i would like to know which parts of the evidence are 'scientific' enough for your psychological profile to hold weight? it does seem more like supposition, and then building up a profile around a supposed diagnosis.

im familiar with narcissism and have a very good working knowledge of ocd, yet i cannot see any evidence for the latter, save the 'double-event'. this is of course if both killings were by the same hand; i.e. that an anxiety state could exist unless he fulfilled his 'ritual', although the murders are anything but diagnostic of this. i cannot really see what pointers you are using for odc in this instance. not that i am saying the killer did not have ocd, just a cannot see what pointers led you there.

i think a breakdown of specific points in the evidence and how they relate to the diagnostic criteria would be more helpful than simply claiming the science points towards it. any useful indicators of the psychological make-up of the killer are long gone, leaving only some anecdotal evidence, which sometimes does not tie up particularly well, from one view to the next.

it seems more as if you have started with a quick diagnosis and then looked for evidence for it rather than deducing the diagnosis from the evidence itself.

hey... i pick holes, its pretty much all i can do

joel

[corey123]

Hello,

First of all this isnt a psychological profile of the killer.
Its a possible theory.
I am supposing that Jack had Narcissistic personality disorder.
And I do see some OCD traits.
If you believe the 'double event'
to be by the same hand( as I do)
you may catch the same ritual which I see.

But again it is all purly assuming.

p.s I am still working on finding more and more out about narcissism(which I too have a good understanding of the disorder) and finding clues the killer left pointing to it.
Im still workig on it, not done yet.

yours truly

[joelhall]

Hello,

First of all this isnt a psychological profile of the killer.
Its a possible theory.

in which case stating behavioural patterns, such as jack was a bed-wetter, or had a domineering mother, is somewhat pointless. this is a profile you are building.

am supposing that Jack had Narcissistic personality disorder.

based on what though? it could be assumed that jack was schizophrenic, or was bi-polar or any other type of psychological problem, but unless theres evidence it doesnt really make sense to assume any type of psychiatric disorder. this sort of way often clouds your view of the evidence youll see, and could lead you along the wrong path (were all guilty of this at some stage).

And I do see some OCD traits.

which traits exactly, and what are these based on?

you believe the 'double event'
to be by the same hand( as I do)
you may catch the same ritual which I see.

i admit that its possible certainly that the killer had 'traits' of ocd. however id like to point out (in a fairly long-winded reply, hehe) the difficulties and counter-arguments this throws up, and of course the complexity of introducing mental illness into any theories, and to make sure you research this fully...

some of what follows is a little graphic so if anyone is easily offended (despite the irony of this being a site devoted to a serial killer) i would prefer it if you do not read the following.

note this is not an argument against your thinking, but demonstrates some complexities and probabilities which you may have overlooked, and to demonstrate the problem of labelling individuals with a specific type of disorder without knowing more of their personality... basically some pondering points:

- the only 'ritual' i see which could be evident of ocd is that he had to kill in order to stave off any sort of anxiety or intrusive thought he may have had if he did not. that in itself is of course purely guesswork assuming he was obsessive-compulsive. however this throws up more problems if we are supposing a case of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

- if indeed this was the result of ocd, then surely by definition he would have mental distress at his own thoughts, which would of course lead him to display behaviours noticable to others. it also begs the question - why not more often? why stop? why such a very short period and why had he not done this before? signs of anxiety would become obvious to any observer in such an extreme case (and butchering people would certain indicate a very extreme case indeed). indeed, his killings dont really show repetitive behaviours (aside from the fact these are serial killings of course) during their course which does not suggest ocd.

- ocd in extreme cases would also act as a fairly disabling condition to the sufferer, with repetitive cycles of obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviours (which in this case does not mean acting on a whim or spur of the moment), rather than an in control killer - such as one who could keep secret and escape. ocd 'traits' if you are not of course refering to a full blown illness, then these would be seen to occur in most people - simply repeating a learned pattern of behaviour, or the most efficient way of doing something, and not lending itself to diagnosis of a disorder.

- for an extreme case of ocd leading someone to murder in a very horrific manner, 6 cases in a brief period also seems very odd.

- there are various specific personality disorders which might cause the fits of rage you indicated earlier in the thread, although it is fairly unlikely they would act controlled enough to flee to avoid capture, or for that matter even notice others around being 'in the moment' as it were, as in this case they would not feel so much 'in conrol' of their actions. although this in turn negates any sort of methodical or ritualistic type of killing, and more towards frenzied killings.

- all is not lost with regard to your theory of mental disorders however - certainly for one there is a strong case for some type of psychopathic (anti-social) personality (which is often a given in serial murder cases) - the post-mortem mutilations themselves especially in kellys case indicate a lack of remorse for the victim, and this could of course indicate a trait of narcissism... he clearly did not empathise with the victims, and mutilating their bodies after death shows a seeking of power - 'i can do whatever i like to you', although it is hard to see how he would believe this if they were already dead. could it be possible that some mutilations were carried out while the victims were still alive or dying?

- with npd, we have the conundrum if we look at one accepted view - was he narcissistic and therefore had the urge for power over the victims, or was he a sexual killer seeking gratification? one would predominate over the other rather than both conditions having an equal sway over the killers actions. or would a narcissistic trait be the reason leading to his urge for gratification (i.e. seeking sexual gratification through gaining control over the victim)?

this latter possibility of course lends itself to serial rapists rather than killers seeking to exert power in order to be sexually satisfied (i.e. controlling someone leading to sexual arousal) rather than power for its own sake due to some type of psychological disorder. in either case, he does not really ive himself the time to indulge in any type of gratification or 'bask in the glow' of his power - the crimes themselves, bar the dorset street killing are over in a relatively short period of time. there could be a case for this in the argument he strangled victims first, and then slit the throats while they were still alive though powerless to defend themselves.

- in the case of both narcissistic personality disorder and ocd, the illness itself would not be confined purely to murders of very short duration, but effect the sufferer pretty much constantly.

- an argument could be made that these killings were sexual in nature and even that he would secrete at crime scenes in the case of sexual gratification through power - which seems unlikely, unless:

1. semen or traces were found in locations on the victim (i.e. about the person rather than internally), which could or could not be noticable dependant on all sorts of factors - the weather, darkness, etc. of course it would be likely he would not do this onto clothing but directly onto the victim, such as on the face if he were being personal (as has been suggested with the facial mutilations), or on the external genitalia if this was of course his intended 'target' of the killings... he could even have done this into the opened abdomen of the victimsin which case it would, possibly, be noticed, 'though wed have to assume that they would even look there for anything unusual, which seems very unlikely (and of course being only human, it is unlikely anyone would even think someone would commit an act like this no matter how gruesome the killings). this of course lends itself to the power/sexual gratification theory, which may be related to any number of psychiatric or sexual deviations.
2. he engaged in necrophilia before, during or after mutilations, which given time constraints and the danger of discovery 'while his back was turned', seems unlikely.
3. rape before the killings, which also seems unlikely given not just he above, but also that these women were (apparently) prostitutes and so would most likely have assumed this was another customer.

also remember these were working girls from the victorian east end - if they were raped im sure he wouldnt have gotten off injury free despite them being the worse for drink.

4. ive spaced this out as it is one of my 'favourites' (no the best choice of words ill admit) - he murdered during the act of intercourse. i forget who first suggested this (not only the once), but it is not bad as theories go.

for instance it has been suggested that the women could have laid down for sex (which doesnt seem too likely if one was 'walked in on' or the police popped round the corner) and sliced the throat either whilst they were at a disadvantage or before he achieved orgasm, or that he penetrated the victims from behind - either vaginally or anally - and strangled or slit the throats of victims from behind, while they would be at a disadvantage he would of course, if they were against some sort of support (such as a fence) reach around and mutilate the genitals from behind without covering himself with blood. of course how likely this is is open to conjecture and much argument. i find it a relatively plausible method, as it explains a good way of how he dispatched and began to mutilate victims, although he would also have the awkwardness of holding up a dying victim, or focussing on orgasm whilst under threat of detection, unless of course he timed the main act with orgasm, or instead of it.

of course he would have to move the victims again in order to finish the mutilations. this however could lend some credence to your idea of a narcissist, if indeed he was a sexual narcissist - the power of life and death during the act of sex, or a masochist of sorts.

of course we have no proof that sexual contact with the killer did or did not take place, and so whether or not any of the above could have happened is unknown. a cursory examination would of course have taken place, although in all probability this would only indicate whether or not the killer ejaculated into the victim, again either vaginally or anally (the latter allegedly being a common form of birth control amongst prostitutes of the time).

of course this is also pure guesswork, much like your own theories.

- there is some agreement on mental make-up and types of serial crime, or serial murder among most psychologists. for instance a difference between organised and disorganised murders indicates some traits of their psychology. this of course is where i believe many of the 'experts' have failed with the whitechapel killings. we seem to be dealing with an organised-disorganised-organised killer. consider:

he makes a mess, and rips people open seemingly in a very violent outburst, rather than a ritualistic or pre-planned organised fashion, yet he is 'organised' enough not only to escape from the scenes most likely with no witnesses and with his clothing devoid of blood, but also no friends, family, neighbours, nor acquaintances know who this killer is.

the cuts he makes are not often neat and tidy but rushed, or 'ripped' quickly as if in a hurry (which he no doubt was), and the organs removed in cases where they were, not exactly done with surgical precision, but including other parts such as sections of the vagina or bladder.

however, he is able to accomplish this usually outdoors, with the threat of passers-by finding him in the act, and in very dark areas, without completely stripping the victims or taking a long time about it - in other words he needs his wits about him.

in the case of kelly, the scene is one of carnage, yet he slips out and gets away and no trail is left behind, not even blood outside the door it would seem.

do we assume low or high intelligence in this case? a stable background or out of work loner? planned or spur of the moment? most of the documentaries we see or writings of various people who claim to offer new insights into the crimes swing one way or the other (like that god awful psychologist last year), yet never account for the converse arguments, and never quite seem to give very plausible accounts of what the killer may have done or how he may have thought.

how any of these facts/suppositions could relate to mental illness or any disturbance is a difficult and complex process.

so before introducing psychology or 'science' into the theory, just beware of the pitfalls.

again it is all purly assuming.

clearly.

although i doubt that you have assumed this simply for the sake of it. what exactly led you to this route? im sure there are reasons which you have not yet shared?

good luck with the theory, let us know how it turns out for you.

[DVV]

Hey Joel,

it's good to see you on top form...
This post is too long...More than Fish can do...
Must be your blog, eh?
Needless to say: agreed all round!
And I will be disappointed if Corey's reply is shorter.

Amitiés,
David

[corey123]

Overview

Hello Joelhall,

Yes as you have pointed out there are some major drawbacks and arguments against the assumption that the killer had NPD.
I have found these.
I am neither a psychologist nor a expert of criminal psychology.
I like to try and grasp some of what the killer of those six women may have thought, his reason for killing, and so on.
It fascinates me hugely.
When I was reading about narcissim the thought accured to me that the killer may have been one.
If fit many critera of what most profiles of Jack consist of(Not saying they are correct).
Like being raised from a broken home.
from what Im aware of narcissism is a result from severe mental or physical pain in childhood at the hands of a powerful idealized mother/father.
Also, as you pointed out, shows no empathy or remorse for the murders.
I have researched other serial killers with narcissism, mainly Ted Bundy and the mass murderer Harold Shipman. Both suffered from NPD.
Harold ship man liked his job because he had the power over life and death in his patients.
Bundy stated that his desires were simple:"control & mastery".
I have a list of questions on a sheet of paper that I wish to know about narcissism regarding JTR.
Some I have answered.
.

1)What are some possible motives(Pertaining the NPD)?
2)why did he pick those particular victim type?
I want to know why he did these things and what fueled his murderous flame, also why was it put out as well?

I am still working on the whole theor but I have fitter some of those together.
I know narcissist need constent admeration from sociaty.
They are pathalogical liers.
The rage of little things.
What If Jack didnt get all the attention he needed?
What if he felt abandoned by sociaty?
what if he killed to release pent up anger?
I have so many questions of his psychological state.

I think he first murdered to release that anger but, the more and more he thought about his murders, he realized he enjoyed killing.
As with OCD, the folded clothes(again assuming he did fold them)
thee way in annie and kate the intestines were thrown over the shoulder( I do not believe he did this mearly to move them out of the way).
His fairly costent MO and fantasy(mutilation).
His constent victimology.
Ect.

Also, as it seems that the killer tryed several times to saw through the neck, more or less trying to completly sever the head from the body. What if this only added fuel to the flames? resulting in more sever forms of mutilation??

I am but only bridging the mind of jack.

I dont know if you are extremily familiar with psychology in serial killers but if you are, tell me what you think of my theory? And maybe any pointers to add that might help.

yours truly

[corey123]

Research

I have been researching Narcissistic personality disorder fora couple of months now, reading many medical articles about it, so many more questions pop into my head as I read them that I fear I may not live long enough to answer them all. .

I have looked at NPD,narcissism as a trait, aggressive narcissism, malgent narcissism(spelling?),sexual narcissism.
Different serial killers suffering from narcissism.
Noting their MOs and victimology for each.
Finding characteristics shown in his victims pointing to it.
In his writing(this cannot help me though, I only believe the lusk letter to be from the killer or at least someone just a disturbed as a serial killer,leaning more to it being from jack. But as this is not relyable I have not put too much effort on that part)
In their motives.
I have gone through countless senerios of the murders, motives, and MOs.
I have linked the killings(again not reliable to the reader of my theory because it is based on my opinion and my personal cannon)
Looked at countless possible behaviors and patterns.
re-read every bit of info that may help or hold clues.
I have spent many nights thinking of what he may have thought(this drives me insane I must admit) and thinking of reasons of why he did such horrible deeds.

Its a bit mindracking but It is very interesting.
I believe jack the ripper had narcissism but that is no motive for the crimes he commited.

DVV,

sorry if the post wasnt long enough, but it would take up three times that of what joelhall wrote to truely state what Ihave come upon and why, when, who and any other questions I have asked myself and answered.

I also realized, I love psychology. Great field.
One day i might go to school to learn upon it.
In the meantime I bought "Criminal shadows" by david canter(which should arrive any day now) to learn more on criminal psychology.

yours truly

[joelhall]

Hey Joel,

it's good to see you on top form...
This post is too long...More than Fish can do...
Must be your blog, eh?
Needless to say: agreed all round!
And I will be disappointed if Corey's reply is shorter.

Amitiés,
David

as they say david, never use a long word where a diminutive confabulation will suffice

[DVV]

.

I also realized, I love psychology. Great field.
yours truly

Hi Corey,

This we know! (And appreciate.)

Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

Also, as it seems that the killer tryed several times to saw through the neck, more or less trying to completly sever the head from the body. What if this only added fuel to the flames? resulting in more sever forms of mutilation??

im doubtful this is the case, narcissist or otherwise. if indeed he wished to cut the head off no doubt he would have achieved it, at least in the kelly murder.

this is one of those areas where the narcissist would of course not allow himself to fail if it was his true intention - as far as he is concerned he is bordering on omnipotence and if he wants to sever someones head, then he can and will.

my own theory here of course is far less grandiose - he simply cut the throat violently enough to get down to the bone.

be sure that you take a very open-minded view when trying to sift through information rather than making quick evaluations, and always keep note of other highly probably scenarios in case you need to go back a few steps and rethink things.

I dont know if you are extremily familiar with psychology in serial killers but if you are, tell me what you think of my theory? And maybe any pointers to add that might help.

no, not very familiar with it, only with mental illness in general. other than the advice ive already given, all i can add is that you dont try to rush things, as this will take a great deal of study - and i would recommend doing it in the order i suggested previously, as otherwise youll find youve put in a great deal of effort for little reward or an unworkable theory.

several of the pointers you mention - choice of victim for one - could be worked with if you accept the killer is afflicted with npd. however, they are certainly not strong indicators of an underlying mental condition, and i would not suggest assuming this first off then building the case around it.

one other thing i might add - its good that youre rying to think outside the box. i tend to do that. sometimes my theories are good, other times theyre... well barking frankly... but even so, its good to look at things from an unexpected angle, or ven just forget the details and look at the whole, such as:

what sort of people kill? all sorts of people from religious fundamentalists to spurned lovers to drunks on a saturday night. there is no set 'type' of definable person who will kill someone else, although in the realms of serial murders, it is of course only a select few (which is something to be thankful for).

what sort of people were the victims? what do we know not just about their lives and backgrounds, but their personalities and habits? were they the innocent victims we know them as or was there something sinister about them, or even some moral wrongdoing that someone might want to punish. remember here that whilst most of us here agree noone deserves to be murdered the idea of innocence like most attributes is subjective. these werent nuns were talking about, nor were they hitler and stalins love-children. the rest of the case is similarly in shades of grey rather than black and white.

besides some personal meaning or mental illness, what motives do different people have for killing? you could link this with the first question - for profit? from hate? to impress someone? of all the murders that have ever happened there have been a multitude (sometimes downright bizarre) or reasons for doing so. sometimes a completely wacky one could be the one youre looking for. sometimes it could the mundane or even acceptable! though i doubt sincerely the latter applies here.

of course this goes against one of the grains of wisdom from the medical community:

'common things happen commonly'.

most times the answer is the obvious one. sometimes of course the obvious is as far from the truth as possible.

good luck, and let us know when you find some answers to the questions you posed for yourself.

[corey123]

[QUOTE=joelhall;112799]im doubtful this is the case, narcissist or otherwise. if indeed he wished to cut the head off no doubt he would have achieved it, at least in the kelly murder.

this is one of those areas where the narcissist would of course not allow himself to fail if it was his true intention - as far as he is concerned he is bordering on omnipotence and if he wants to sever someones head, then he can and will.

QUOTE]

I think what he wanted to do was mutilate the body, to de-humanize and de-feminize the women he killed. Which he did so.

yours truly

p.s.
I will write some final theory to this, however it wont be for some while, for I have a whole book to read on criminal psychology, and I have to explain how all the aspects of this homicide case would relate to a narcissist.

thanks for your help.

[DVV]

Hi again Corey,

Joel is right, JtR didn't try to sever any head.

As to your theory, well, I'm not sure you can build one solely on psychology/modern profiling, imho.
But not to say it's not interesting, of course.

Amitiés
David

[joelhall]

im sure your theory cant be worse than my own, which ive been formulating for nearly two years now... and im sure david still wants to know what it is

[corey123]

Im going to do alot more research on this.
I am going to find out not one senerio with narcissism but many. And by the process of elimination I will see which one is the more probable.
I have figured enough out that I can safely say I do believe jack had narcissistic personality disorder but I have yet to creat a Full blown theory regarding it.

In the meantime, I would love to here your theory.

i still have 8 very important peices of the puzzle to figure out(which each question takes so much to answer)befor I make a steady theory.

i do think it is highly possible that Jack had narcissism.

yours truly

p.s. Im was just putting out another possible senerio with the head cutting off theory(not that I believe it) just for a theorys sake.

[DVV]

im sure your theory cant be worse than my own, which ive been formulating for nearly two years now... and im sure david still wants to know what it is

Indeed!

I remember it involved early suspects, such as Pizer and Isenchmid, but that's all.

Amitiés,
David

edit: the old chestnut is back, that's it ?

[lynn cates]

a new piece

Hello Corey.

"I still have 8 very important p[ie]ces of the puzzle to figure out"

9 perhaps? You might wish to start with how many hands were involved in the C5 plus Martha.

The best.
LC