Escalation: What would Jack do after Mary Kelly?

[I1ariusz]

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!

Thanks! We won't know for certain what was the core issue of his mental problems - but clearly he was not a sophisticated man with top hat and overcoat; he was more of an insane butcher or savage. It can be that he had hidden it deeply, but with such savagery as with MJK there would be some indication, some overflowing. Perhaps that thing was enought for police to catch him? If he was caught. And yes - injuries with his "work", especially in the dark, is fairly possible.

[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!

[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.

[Tani]

Hi Tani,

Interesting post, but in the above statement you are at odds with the medical opinion that Jack knelt on the victims right side to inflict his injuries.

Cheers, George

That's also what I was getting at. I didn't phrase it so well.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Abby,

Absolutely agree with the first paragraph above.

With regard to the second paragraph, I believe he had far more than a bit of medical and or anatomy experience. Reading the comments of Prosector, the medical experts in Trevor's video, and listening to the medical professional in my family, I think that he either had a lot of experience in dissecting rooms, OR, the highly skilled organ extractions were performed afterwards on a dissecting bench with adequate light and available time. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

I think many of the answers here are good, but I would like to touch on a few things that may have been missed.

Firstly, with reference to the idea of 'do serial killers stop/escalate' etc. I think we have to look at the macro aspect of this question and focus less on the idea of stopping/escalating and more on the idea of such a killer. Jack the Ripper would not have had a concept of 'serial killing' and ideas like those mentioned here, though they may have occurred to him, would not be in the same context. Jack would have no compare. His closest analogy, as mentioned here, would be soldiers, highwaymen, 'werewolves/vampires' (Mediaeval serial killers) and other ghouls. We have some witness evidence for Jack being a sailor or other naval man, which is likely the closest we can go. By and large though, Jack is unlikely to have seen himself as killing in any kind of order, with any meaning attached, especially in the circumstances; he would not have had the luxury of choosing time and place. His killing field was a very small area, populated by lower classes of people who started work early and finished late. JtR had not the degree of control as a Nilsen or a Bundy.

Secondly, he would not have had a concept of mental illness, PTSD, etc. that we have, so even were he mentally ill in any capacity, that would usually have been attributed either to syphilis or some kind of inferior constitution. Even were he mentally ill, had we been able to ask Jack, he himself is unlikely to have given this as an explanation. He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do. We also don't know what Jack considered meaningful. He took organs such as a kidney, a womb, possibly a heart, but only one of these is exclusive to women, and another one considered most sacred (heart). Personally I believe Jack took what he came across first, while with MJK he had more choice.

We're very much in the dark, perhaps more than we realise, for example:

- Did Ripper take victims to his own home? if not, why not?

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

- Did Ripper discriminate re victims?

-Etc.

We see many killers now taking their victims home, and we can't ascertain whether Ripper did so. If he has a family he can't, nor if he lives in a doss house. But he could have had any number of hideaways useful to him.

We need to look at this from his 19th c. pov rather than our post Golden Age of Killers, FBI pov. Ideas like escalation, stopping etc. would not have occurred to Ripper in the same way if at all, imo. We're talking about someone who was likely born in the 1860s and most of the murderers we use for comparison happened almost 100 years later; I think it's pointless to compare these culturally, psychologically and religiously.

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.

[GBinOz]

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

Hi Tani,

Interesting post, but in the above statement you are at odds with the medical opinion that Jack knelt on the victims right side to inflict his injuries.

Cheers, George

[I1ariusz]

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

Hi Tani,

actually this can be explained. It may be like you're saying. But often times you're gonna see that serial killers are posing their victims, even unconciously. It often goes in hand with other ritualistic behaviours like we can see with Annie Chapman and her personal items ordered at the scene of the crime. Also they will do something to the body and it's gonna say something: e.g. covering or cutting up of the face can mean depersonalization (he doesn't want to see his victim as a person), at the same time - covering of entire body with leaves, blanket, or hiding it in some way can point to (if we can put it that way) somekind of remorse. In case of the Ripper it's more in a sense - after the mutilation he didn't do anything to cover his victims 'shame', he didn't do anything to hide what he had done, which would mean at least that he was thinking of them as a 'trash'. We could say it was because of time, but in case of MJK it's not gonna be this. But I would agree that he wasn't doing anything conciously.

Best,
M

[Indian Harry]

He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do.

Excellent post Tani. I have to rebut one point though. Just because Jack the Ripper didn't have a concept of psychopathy wouldn't 'inoculate' him from the condition. I think drawing on modern developments in psychology to understand the Ripper is fair game... but I concede that we do have to make some allowances and accommodations for the time period he lived in.

In terms of escalation, some people think the Ripper totally lost his mind and stopped due to some kind of profound life altering breakdown.

I think a lessor version of this may have occurred. Instead of a total breakdown maybe he freaked himself out a bit and resolved not to ever take things quite so far.

But yeah, it's still baffling that we don't see Catherine Eddowes levels of mutilations in the months that follow.

[Duran duren]

Well said Tani

[Tani]

I think many of the answers here are good, but I would like to touch on a few things that may have been missed.

Firstly, with reference to the idea of 'do serial killers stop/escalate' etc. I think we have to look at the macro aspect of this question and focus less on the idea of stopping/escalating and more on the idea of such a killer. Jack the Ripper would not have had a concept of 'serial killing' and ideas like those mentioned here, though they may have occurred to him, would not be in the same context. Jack would have no compare. His closest analogy, as mentioned here, would be soldiers, highwaymen, 'werewolves/vampires' (Mediaeval serial killers) and other ghouls. We have some witness evidence for Jack being a sailor or other naval man, which is likely the closest we can go. By and large though, Jack is unlikely to have seen himself as killing in any kind of order, with any meaning attached, especially in the circumstances; he would not have had the luxury of choosing time and place. His killing field was a very small area, populated by lower classes of people who started work early and finished late. JtR had not the degree of control as a Nilsen or a Bundy.

Secondly, he would not have had a concept of mental illness, PTSD, etc. that we have, so even were he mentally ill in any capacity, that would usually have been attributed either to syphilis or some kind of inferior constitution. Even were he mentally ill, had we been able to ask Jack, he himself is unlikely to have given this as an explanation. He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do. We also don't know what Jack considered meaningful. He took organs such as a kidney, a womb, possibly a heart, but only one of these is exclusive to women, and another one considered most sacred (heart). Personally I believe Jack took what he came across first, while with MJK he had more choice.

We're very much in the dark, perhaps more than we realise, for example:

- Did Ripper take victims to his own home? if not, why not?

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

- Did Ripper discriminate re victims?

-Etc.

We see many killers now taking their victims home, and we can't ascertain whether Ripper did so. If he has a family he can't, nor if he lives in a doss house. But he could have had any number of hideaways useful to him.

We need to look at this from his 19th c. pov rather than our post Golden Age of Killers, FBI pov. Ideas like escalation, stopping etc. would not have occurred to Ripper in the same way if at all, imo. We're talking about someone who was likely born in the 1860s and most of the murderers we use for comparison happened almost 100 years later; I think it's pointless to compare these culturally, psychologically and religiously.

[John Wheat]

If anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like Gary Ridgeway and Reginald Christie. Both were small unassuming men.

Hi Indian Harry

Definitely.

Cheers John

[DJA]

if anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like gary ridgeway,henry sutton and reginald christie. Both were small unassuming men.

fify

[Indian Harry]

It was apparent to the police at the time that Bury was not the ripper, and the local press described him as "a tired, inconsequential, weak little man" and "Brainless and heartless"

Cheers, George

If anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like Gary Ridgeway and Reginald Christie. Both were small unassuming men.

[I1ariusz]

I totally agree. I've been reading True Crime since I was 12 years old and I had always thought the name Jack the Ripper was quaint and must certainly be an overstatement of some sort....then when I was 27 I started looking into the case and found the Mary Kelly photo. I was absolutely floored. The very thought that someone back in 1888 without any exposure to modern horror movies or media related to 20th century killers could independently, from their own twisted mind, carry out such an atrocious act disturbed me to my core. I had trouble sleeping that night. It was the last time I had that child like fear of the dark that kids get, for instance, after watching a scary movie.

Yes, it was like he was really trying to earn his "Jack the Ripper" title and you can't help to think that John McCarthy was right when he said: it was more work of a devil than that of a man.