Escalation: What would Jack do after Mary Kelly?

[Tani]

not sure i understand your point. one dosnt have to know about escalation or mental illness to exhibit them. they happen, even if they havent been named,understood or scientifically researched yet.for example, the ripper and society didnt understand and hadnt named signature, but he definitely had one.

he also most definitely displayed his victims. many killers will sometimes make a small attempt to hide or cover up their victims. the ripper left them in tje most exposed and gruesome position possible given tje circs.undoubtedly he was also motivated by shocking tje public, police, press with his displays.

and no, he didnt take what organs he came across first, tjeres no way you come across a kidney first when dissecting a body.its hard to find and get to. especially in the dark and under time pressure. or take two uteri by chance. or purposefully cut around the naval when gashing the midsection. he very probably had a bit of medical and or anatomy experience.and there is no evidence he took his victims home...all evidence is he left them where he killed them.

I get you, but I think you have misunderstood me. I agree that Mount Everest was still the highest mountain before it was discovered, kind of thing, but that wouldn't have been the POV of the people at the time is my issue.

Jack may have been mentally ill, but to put our understanding of his psychology onto him wouldn't explain for him why he did what he did

My issue with displaying the victims theory is the time factor; I just don't think he had time. MJK was displayed outside, for instance, when he has time to do as he wanted. She was inside a covered room and for all he could had lain there for days without being found. So I'm really not sure on that; again, though, I see where you're coming from.

Lastly, yes, he may have searched more or less for what he wanted but I don't know. It may be hard to just come across a kidney, but if you're a manic, desperate killer pressed for time, you might just do.

I'm refraining from saying anything for certain though. My point is just that we need to think like a mid 19th c. person to understand him, even if we think we know better.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

I think that when we're analysing Ripper we should take similar cases into the account. Similar in regards to the ritual (mutilation) and MO aspects. Clearly Ripper was a so-called 'lust murderer'. This term was coined first, i think, by Richard von Krafft-Ebing and we can find some examples in his "Psychopatia sexualis". Often this term comes with the connection to mutilation of the victim after death - especially abdominal and sexual areas. From history similar examples are:

• Richard Chase "Vampire of Sacramento" - very disturbing story;
• Robert Napper "Plumstead Ripper" - especially the case of Samantha Bisset in which her body was severly mutilated and body trophy taken;
• Herbert Mullin - one case in which he admitted to killing a woman and doing dissection of her body;
• Ed Kemper "Co-Ed Killer" - admitted to the dissection of his victims bodies;
• Jack Owen Spillman "Werewolf Butcher" - murdered and mutilated three victims in horrible manner.

There's probably a lot more of them. There was also one case from US in which the killer was apprehended after two murders and they were also very much close to what the Ripper did. Often times that kind of mutiliation comes with some sort of serious mental dissorder, e.g. paranoid schizophrenia. I have to admit that even though I've read and seen crime scene photos of the victims of mentioned murderers, I've never actually seen anything as disturbing as Mary Jane Kelly case. In her murder mutilation is so horrific, destructive and disgusting that it's really hard to believe that the killer was not mentally ill in some capacity. Her body was almost completely destroyed with fury, lust and morbid curiousity that's unmatched I think - there's passion in this you could say. Even when mentioned killers had time to do the same thing we don't really see such grotesque. So it begs the question if it's not true that the Ripper was very ill mentally and after that murder he was apprehended - in some way - as it was impossible to really hold that kind of destructive tendencies inside. To be clear: I'm not suggesting that he was looking clearly as a lunatic but he would've been weird for sure in some way. Schizophrenics most of the time can seem completely normal, if not addressed directly. But again - it's possibility not certainty. Still it's also probable that the killer was seemingly normal and only his fantasy life was such that he dreamed of doing horrible things to women.

Lastly In my oppinion FBI profile of the killer is the closest to what his personality would've been: classic unorganized serial killer (more lucky than cunning), with great hatred and fear of women, from lower class, with deep fantasy life, loner, shy, his anger is internalized (meaning he was taught to keep his anger inside probably by means of harsh discipline and neglect), possibly young and prone to drink (he might've done most of the murders while being intoxicated - alcohol lowers inhibitions). And speaking about escalation it is not necessarly the case that next murders would've been more horrible. It all depends on the circumstances but his primary motive was to mutilate after killing. Killing was just means to reach the goal.

Excellent points, and I agree 100% when you say the Ripper, by the time of Mary Kelly's butchering, was fully in the grip of his mental illness. Anyone who can kill with such savagery either has some severe personal issues, or, as my Southern aunt used to say, "I do believe the cheese done slid off his cracker!" For me, this is precisely why I disqualify Charles Lechmere/Cross as a suspect from a psychological viewpoint: while it is true that serial killers do stop and go dormant, it would require that I believe Cross simply decided, "hey, I think I'll eviscerate half a dozen women! Gee, that feels much better, now I can go about my life!" And he does so, leading nothing but what can only be seen as a normal, productive life. I believe that, by the time the Ripper got to Kelly, his mind was faltering. The escalations of the mutilations bear this out. I also believe that the Ripper injured himself removing Eddowes' kidney and this injury, combined with the intense manhunt that followed, made him go to ground and kill no one the entire month of October. Perhaps his injury was more severe and he contracted sepsis, which is serious even today. I think he was so bursting with the urge to kill, that Mary Kelly and the privacy of an indoor room offered him the chance to paint his masterpiece, so to speak. But where do you go from there? I'd like to think he died soon after, but who knows?

Welcome to the Casebook!