JtR's Ideal Victim Type

[YankeeSergeant]

Victim type

Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were of a type physically. IN fact the resemblence is noticible if not strikiing. Stride and Kelly are the outliers. Stride was slender and Kelly was younger but does that mean anything. I tend to believe as a couple of others here have stated that he was cunning and opportunistic. I think if we ever find out who Jack was we'll all exclaim, "That guy? Really?!"

[Defective Detective]

I'm of the opinion that pigeonholing serial killers into concise niches, as is largely the past-time of modern profiling, is a wasted effort. Many serial killers had multiple motives for doing what they did.

Take Richard Trenton Chase, the "Vampire of Sacramento". He was interviewed in prison after capture by Robert Ressler, and told Ressler that he was driven to kill by the belief that alien Nazis were turning his blood to powder and that he needed to ingest blood to keep it liquefied - a classic 'mission-driven' delusion. But he also admitted that he couldn't ejaculate until his victims were disemboweled, which would peg him squarely as a lust killer were it not for his delusions. No one typology fully encompasses his crimes. While some have suggested that Chase exaggerated his delusions for effect, the wards of the psychiatric hospital he was interred in before his crimes attested to his taste for the blood of live animals. And there's certainly no way at all anyone would look at his killings without knowing his responsibility for them and say, "Oh, this guy must feel the need to drink blood to sustain himself from an alien threat."

So it could also be with the Ripper. It's entirely possible that he was driven by base carnal desire, but justified it to himself via either hallucinatory delusions or sheer misogyny. Any attempt to deduce his mental state based on victimology alone is fraught with the possibility of failure. We're not even sure that prostitutes were his ideal victim: he could have wanted to 'rip... whores' in particular for some personal reason relating to their career of choice, or he could have targeted them just because they were convenient. It's all a big question mark.

[caz]

Jack reminds me of coyotes that live in close proximity to humans. They know how to go about their business of picking off pets (cats and small dogs) without being caught. Opportunistic, for sure. Cunning enough to perform the act, avoid being witnessed and to escape quickly. I believe that Jack’s ideal victim was a near perfect convergence of opportunity and the availability of weak, drunk (or hung over) degraded women unable to mount much of a defense.

Hi Edward,

I agree with this - very much so in fact. But I doubt that a bold and opportunistic "coyote", however street smart and cunning, gets it right every time, holding himself back until he has the ideal cat or dog cornered in an ideal location. There must be the odd occasion when he acts on impulse and picks the wrong pet in the wrong place, biting off more than he can chew and escaping before he can be cornered.

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward]

Jack was cunning

Hello All –
I prefer the term “cunning”. I believe that Jack was cunning. Not necessarily book smart. No high IQ required. Street smart and bold enough to successfully carry out the deeds and escape. A case for “luck” can be made because Jack seems to have had a number of close calls and still got away. I also believe that the state of police work in 1888 (forensics, etc.) aided and abetted his success. A culprit had to be practically “caught red-handed” in order to be apprehended. The quick, accurate assessment of the odds of being successful without getting caught fits right in with the term cunning.

Jack reminds me of coyotes that live in close proximity to humans. They know how to go about their business of picking off pets (cats and small dogs) without being caught. Opportunistic, for sure. Cunning enough to perform the act, avoid being witnessed and to escape quickly. I believe that Jack’s ideal victim was a near perfect convergence of opportunity and the availability of weak, drunk (or hung over) degraded women unable to mount much of a defense.

I don’t believe that he pre-selected each victim because most of the victims prostituted themselves “on occasion” out of need. Most of them were not sporadically (intermittently?) trolling for “johns”. He was definitely driven, but by what is anybody's guess.

Edward

[Fisherman]

Brians?

I´ll skip the fight, though, Ben!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hutchinson had the brains to fool all of Scotland Yard from shoddy little lodgings regarding the Kelly case, and he evaded all pursuers in a fashion that would have put Moriarity to shame in all teh other killings.

Time to do a little more reading on the subject of serial crime - or crime in general, to be honest - if you think that what has been suggested regading Hutchinson takes an inordinate amount of "brians".

Off-topic fight, anyone?

[Fisherman]

Right! But I´ll opt for the one-word version - in Sweden, publishers pay per title, not per word ...

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Do you want the one-word answer, or the whole essay?

Just put it in a book. I'll believe you then.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Surely books don't lie?"

Do you want the one-word answer, or the whole essay?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

You may be in for a major disappointment here, Mike - I actually don´t think he is our guy.

What? But there are books on him. Surely books don't lie?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"You kidding me? Hutchinson had the brains to fool all of Scotland Yard from shoddy little lodgings regarding the Kelly case, and he evaded all pursuers in a fashion that would have put Moriarity to shame in all teh other killings. How could George botch anything?"

You may be in for a major disappointment here, Mike - I actually don´t think he is our guy.
But I do think he botched one thing, big time. More on that in days to come ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Raoul's Obsession]

I agree that Jack wasn't a super genius.

I think he had higher than average intelligence and was able to weigh up his odds effectively.

He positioned his kills close to exits for quick escape/to hear people intruding (exluding kelly).

He killed his victims in a efficient, quick, cold and quiet manner.

Pretty much an organised serial killer imo.

I agree with a lot of this. I certainly think he did indeed way up his odds effectively. Not in the sense of extraordinary planning, but simply in the sense of picking a time, a day, a victim class and a place. This is certainly planning of a kind.

However, as for positioning his kills close to exits for quick escape, I'm not sure that I agree. Buck's Row as has been pointed out showed no sign of concealment though being a street it had two entrances and two exits. However, both Hanbury street and Berner street murders (as well as Kelly in Millers Court) were effectively dead ends. If anyone (other than Diemshutz) walked in Jack would have nowhere to go. By the look of things George yard wasn't much better. It's really only Mitre Square that had the plethora of entrances and exits. I think the spots were picked largely for privacy with Jack learning as he went.

efficient, quick, cold and quiet - I'll agree with that.

Raoul

[Garza]

I think I read somewhere that lust murderers seem to want to kill the victim over and over again, inflicting many serious injuries. For example there may be a score of stab wounds to the torso. This is not what we see in the murder of Nichols, Eddows or Stride.

lust murderers are a diverse group of serial killers.

I personally think that JtR was a lust murderer with environmental limitations. The biggest clue to JtR being a lust murderer is the focus of the sexual organs and the position of the victims legs.

Jack may have loved to take his victim in the middle of nowhere and torture her to death, like most modern organised lust murderers tend to do. But in crowded Whitechapel, with no transportation and possibly no private residence, it would have been impossible.

[Ashkenaz]

You are taking it as fact that JtR was a 'Lust Murderer', but this may not be so at all.

I think I read somewhere that lust murderers seem to want to kill the victim over and over again, inflicting many serious injuries. For example there may be a score of stab wounds to the torso. This is not what we see in the murder of Nichols, Eddows or Stride.

[corey123]

Hello Fisherman,

Botched, yes, corrected, yes.