JtR's Ideal Victim Type

[Errata]

We have a saying down here I am fond of which is "I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid." And God help us, there are a lot of those types out there. Uninformed, incurious, not knowledgeable, ill educated. Clever, but not smart. Capable of learning at normal to high speeds, but lazy. Adaptable, but unmotivated. So you get these people who are seemingly incapable of anything more challenging than working a drive through window, but are highly sophisticated killers. Killing, like a few other hobbies has an insanely acute learning curve. If you don't want to get caught, or killed, you adapt quickly. People can motivate themselves for things they enjoy. How many people out there dropped out of school because they were "Attention-Deficit" yet can concentrate on a complex video game for a solid day? How many kids are making bad grades, yet can recite from memory every Pokemon ever known to man? It would not surprise me in the least if Jack the Ripper displayed little intelligence and even less motivation in his daily life. But I think that looking at the murders, he may be dumb, but he ain't stupid.

[corey123]

Hello All,

Narcissism, has nothing whatso ever to do with him being a Lust Killer. Garza, I believe you mmisunderstand the use of the term. Lust murdering is neither a motive nor a method of killing. It is rather a classification. It means the killer attacks places of their satisfaction. It doesn't have much to do with whether they are female or male, but rather the area's subject to attack.

It does however, set a likely gender to the killer, of coarse this case the killer is a male. Tis is due to(also where Lust murderer comes in) the attack preference(ie. throat, abdomen, private areas).

Narcissism is a personality defect and has nothing to do with Lust. It actually can explain why he attacked those areas.

I don't believe Jack the Ripper was a mastermind, but the murders were premeditative and were performed in a fairly organized maner.
This characteristic makes it hard to conclude that he was schizephrenic. Now if the murderer was Jacob Ineschmid, then perhaps he was, but I truly doubt this is the case.

Maria,

When Ruby said he was charming and clever, this means that allthough not actually extreamily intellegent, he was smart enough to create a loving self image, and was seen by that image.

And of coarse you can look at the murders witha "learning curve" however, the results would differ by how you choose to look at it. In truth, Jack the Ripper was smart, and I am using the generic term of Intellegnce.

[mariab]

Yes, Jacob Levy is a viable suspect (was he perhaps identified together with Eddowes before her murder?), but then again, many-many inhabitants of Victorian Whitechapel have been abandoned by their alcoholic mother/have witnessed prostitution with possible traumatic effects when they were children/have been ailing with syphilis. For instance, Barnett's mother disappeared when her kids were still small, leaving Barnett to take care of the family as a boy, and Eddowes' steady boyfriend John Kelly was treated for syphilis. So it's really hard to say...

[Mycroft]

[QUOTE=mariab;143336]I agree with Chava about victim selection, and I guess we won't know, unless we find out who he was, if it was sheer opportunism or if it was more personal – i.e., if he had mother issues, being perhaps abandoned by his mother, or if he had witnessed women engaging in prostitution as a little kid, ensuing in some kind of trauma (kinda like Mary Bell). The same about sane (sociopathic) or insane (schizophrenic), we can only speculate about this in relation to the different suspects.


Hi there, my no.1 suspect, Jacob Levy, fits all of that. His much loved mother died, not long before the killings started,he suffered from syphilis more than likely caught from the local prostitutes and died he in a mental asylum. (Also,he lived locally, matched the height given by witnesses and was a butcher, as well as many other little coincidences...it's him I tell you!!!)

[mariab]

I agree with Chava about victim selection, and I guess we won't know, unless we find out who he was, if it was sheer opportunism or if it was more personal – i.e., if he had mother issues, being perhaps abandoned by his mother, or if he had witnessed women engaging in prostitution as a little kid, ensuing in some kind of trauma (kinda like Mary Bell). The same about sane (sociopathic) or insane (schizophrenic), we can only speculate about this in relation to the different suspects.
Ruby, I agree with you that Hutchinson (regardless of if he might have been the Ripper or not) went through a very cunning gamble when he came forward as a “witness“, but, as you say, possibly in his own mind it was the only way to “clear himself“, since he had been seen waiting for hours in the rain outside of Mary Kelly's dwellings. But then again, everybody knew that the Metropolitan Police was desperate and would grab the opportunity to lay the blame for the murders on some “foreigner“, Jew, Irishman/American, or visiting sailor.
By the way, the only likelihood in which I'd be prepared to take Hutchinson's testimony at face value would be if he has possibly seen an overdressed Tumblety. I'm sure that Stewart Evans would agree with this! But this thread is going way off topic now...

[Rubyretro]

[.

If he was Broad Shoulders or Hutchinson, for instance, he certainly wasn't smart

.

Claire -I DON'T want to hijack this thread to Hutch, so I'll just write this and leave it at that.

IF Hutch was Jack, then he was very smart indeed. Despite being spotted by a witness at the crime scene of MjK, lurking in the dark at the 'right' time, he managed to deflect a situation where he would become the main suspect and risked being pointed out in the street and finding himself in very hot water. By coming forward voluntarily to be investigated he neatly transformed himself from suspect to witness, and threw the Police investigation into looking in a totally different direction (a 'suspect' matching the description of Astrakhan man ). He would have to be bright to convince the Police of his innocence under interrogation.

Chava -I agree with you -I don't think that JtR was Mastermind either.
However, as you say, he was bright enough not to get caught -and I don't believe that was simply luck ; It was planning.

[Chava]

He was smart enough not to get caught. But I'm not someone who subscribes to the Ripper=Mastermind theory.

I do disagree a little on his victim choice. The first four canonicals were strikingly similar in physicality and situation. MJK...who knows! But I agree, he selected out his victims very carefully and I think he chose his locations very carefully and then acted very carefully afterwards. He doesn't want to get caught and whatever measures he took were successful. Beyond that, sane or insane, we'll never know.

[mariab]

Hello Ruby,
In my case I can't see any danger whatsoever of being impressed by JTR. Killing old women, weakened out by hunger and alcohol and terribly abused by life, shooting fish in a barrel, what's the dif?! We don't even know if he was “smart“ or just incredibly lucky. If he was Broad Shoulders or Hutchinson, for instance, he certainly wasn't smart. And police investigation and forensics were at their fledgling state in the 1880s, so it's not necessarily his merit that he wasn't apprehended.
There are 4 distinctively different types of schizophrenics: Paranoid, disorganized, catatonic, and undifferentiated. The acquaintance you're describing sounds like the disorganized type, which is statistically also the most commun. A paranoid schizophrenic would have hallucinations and delusions (like hearing voices telling him to kill all prostitutes and harvest their organs, for instance), and be totally capable of organized criminal behaviour. A undifferentiated would have psychotic violent episodes where he could succeed with severe harming of others.
I don't know Corey and Hawkley, but the narcissistic behaviour and feelings of invincibility you're describing are symptoms for sociopathy. Which, by the way, would not mean that he would not be declared able to stand trial if he was caught today!
I'm a francophile because I love (almost) all things French (besides the inclination for striking and the cost of living), and I live in Paris for some part of the year.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I don't think that we should exaggerate or “glorify“ the whole thing by imagining he had a high IQ

.

I was extremely well aware , when I was typing that, of the dangers of being
impressed by Jack. I want to make it clear that I'm the sort of person that gets terribly distressed at men shouting at women/women shouting at children, and indeed any hints of violence by a person towards someone
physically or mentally weaker. Even lifting a hand to someone else is something I couldn't accept -so the murders of these poor vulnerable women are (literally) a nightmare for me.

Nonetheless, you've got to look at this case dispassionately -and JtR shows every sign of being very 'bright'.

I absolutely can't accept that he was a Schitzophrenic, because I personally know a Schitzophrenic and believe Me, people would turn to look at him in the street (for example: the person that I know has been a brilliant sucessful business man, but despite having a home and comfort, he has been known to draw out loads of money from a distributer, throw the money up in the air for
passers by, and then go barefoot to beg. Someone like him would be incapable of 'planning' violence -although he can be scarily 'out of control' violent).

My personal diagnostic of JtR would be 'violent narcissum', in line with Corey and Hawkley on Casebook. I feel that he could be charming and clever -and so felt that he was vastly 'superior' to the Police, and to any others trying to corner him, and he thrived on feelings of adrenalin and daring and invincibility.

That he was also a necro-sadist is beyond doubt.

(how come you're a 'francophile , Maria ? -pm Me).

[mariab]

I don't think that we should exaggerate or “glorify“ the whole thing by imagining he had a high IQ. Most probably he had his “learning curve“, possibly with Annie Millwood, Emma Smith, and Martha Tabram as his first victims. I presume that he was a local who knew Whitechapel well and could blend in. But I also assume that he must have gone through a lot of dry runs, until he found an appropriately vulnerable victim in a momentary vacant area. Hence the “double event“, if it indeed was one. It's very possible that he started with young women such as Anni Millwood, encountered practical difficulties, and decided to go for older and weaker women, preferably ill and/or drunk. Unless he was Barnett or Hutchinson, I don't think that Mary Kelly was a more “personal“ matter, just the opportunism of a private room.
As for cleaning up after the murders, there are many conundrums pertaining to this. There's evidence in Mary Kelly's room that he probably burnt part of his clothes, which would have been more bloody than in any of the previous murders. There is the piece of Eddowes' apron stained with blood and fecal matter, which fits with her injuries, and which he apparently used to wipe his hands. And there is the fact that he didn't use the water fountain by the yard where he murdered Chapman, which fits with the fact that Chapman's injuries, unlike the later victims, were not of the sort which would cover her assailant in blood from top to toe.
As for an estimation of his psychopathology, I would go out on a limb and say he might have been either a schizophrenic (either of the paranoid or the undifferentiated type) or a sociopath with a necro-sadist paraphilia.
Ruby, many greetings to Avignon and to its bridge, “où l'on danse"! (I guess only the French or Francophiliacs will get the reference here... And I guess my own paraphilia is...Francophilia! )

[Rubyretro]

I totally agree with Mariab and Chava !

I think that he was highly organised and clear thinking. I would think that he had a high IQ and he planned ahead. I think that he knew exactly where the prostitutes he picked up would take him (surely, even if the victim picked the locations, a prostitute soliciting in a certain place would take her client to habitual spots), and he knew the patterns of the residents of Hanbury road and the times of the Policemans beat through Mitre Square -and probably even that Morris wouldn't interfere. I think that he had escape routes planned, and even knew where the nearest water was to wash his hands.
For MjK, I think that he knew that Joe had moved out, and wouldn't come back.

As for an ideal victim type, I think that the women were chosen because of the location that they were soliciting in, and not because of their physical appearance -the poor women were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

MjK may have been something more 'personal' (I think that he probably knew her) -but she had a private room, and was alone, and that is why he chose her.

[mariab]

He was definitely an organized offender, and this goes further beyond finding a way to hide his knife until he needed it (which is not difficult in itself, particularly considering the thick layers of Victorian clothing). He most clearly at some point in his life gained experience in how to kill with a knife quickly and efficiently. Either he learned through animals and later “graduated“ to humans, with, possibly, Annie Millwood, Emma Smith, and Martha Tabram as his learning curve, or he may have gathered experience in the army. Whitechapel certainly didn't lack in soldiers walking around and mixing with the “unfortunates“, as Martha Tabram's murder circumstances exhibit.

[Chava]

Interesting. I see the Ripper as highly-organized. He cuts his victim out, kills in ideal situations. Gets clean--and I mean clean--away. When he murders those women he does so in open landscape but not within sight. Nicholls is killed hard by a row of houses but beside the gates of a stable. Effectively she's in a blind corner and it would have been very difficult indeed to see that murder. Chapman is killed in a back-yard. But in the recess behind the back door and right underneath the windows. No one looking out would have seen what was going on, I think, because it was happening right underneath. Stride is killed in a blind yard. But he didn't factor in a late arrival to the social club. Eddowes is killed in Mitre Square. But in a dark corner of the square hard by a warehouse wall in a semi-industrial situation. MJK--if she is a Ripper victim and I'm more-or-less on the fence with that, is killed in private circumstances. She's the only one. I'm not seeing a disorganized, impulsive killer here. He clearly comes equipped to cart away his little souvenirs. He clearly finds a way to hide his knife until he needs it.

[mariab]

Yes, I understand. I don't have a problem considering Barnett as a suspect for all the Ripper murders, not just the canonical 5, but also Tabram and, before her, perhaps Annie Millwood. As for Hutchinson, for Kelly, possibly. For the rest? Who knows? There are a couple of Hutchinson-as-suspect books out there, Bob Hinton's From hell and another one, which I don't remember currently.

[The Good Michael]

Maria,

I was referring as an aside to MJ Kelly and the idea that Barnett, Hutchinson, Flemming, or some other lover or would-be lover would have killed her as being of some sort of romantic reasoning, and not as part of the C5 which I ascribe to (mostly).

Mike