Was clothing a factor in selection of victims?

[Ausgirl]

Thank you, Archaic, for your response and welcome both.

I did suppose black clothing would not be at all uncommon, but hadn't thought about second-hand mourning garb (is it morbid that I'm enjoying these side-lessons in Victoriana, on a site dedicated to murder?). Which might explain the 'uncommon finery' of beads and faux fur trim worn by woman who have sex for three pence to afford a glass of gin and/or bed for the night, I suppose.

I don't for a moment discount the probability of the victims' wearing similar items being totally coincidental, of course helped along by the prevalence of that particular colour scheme. But, seeing as all of the (canonical) victims wore 2/3 or 3/3 of the black bonnet/long black coat/red scarf combo, there seems to me at least a slim chance that JTR did find that arrangement particularly appealing.

That several of them were wearing items from that list which at the time of their murder were newly acquired, borrowed or possibly gifted to them shortly prior (a bonnet, -perhaps- a silk handkerchief, a red rose - not on the list but red anyway) made me wonder if they'd have been selected without the item. Or whether Jack may have provided the item, where he found a woman who fit his ideal in all other ways.

It's really not an insta-pet-theory, I hope nobody thinks so. Just a place to get started, I guess, in thinking about the case - I tend to look for patterns in things by default, and this was the first to catch my eye. I'm enjoying the discussion at any rate, my thanks to those who've indulged my noobish ramblings so far.

Edit: That is a very good point, Bolo.

[Archaic]

Perception of Patterns

Hi Ausgirl.

It's certainly possible that the Whitechapel Murderer had some personal preference regarding the apparel of his victims, whether it was conscious or subconscious. The problem is that we'll probably never know. As someone else mentioned, we can't even rely on the various witness statements. Many of them conflict even in their major details, let alone their smaller details.

It's natural for human beings to look for patterns; our brains are wired to do so. It's often useful to spot patterns in the behavior of serial killers, because it can help us catch them.

But one point to consider is that killers are not always aware of the details that we observers identify as important aspects of their "pattern". For example, Ted Bundy is widely believed to have deliberately chosen victims with "long hair parted in the middle." You'll see this purported fact repeated everywhere.

Interestingly, when he was actually asked about it, Bundy was very surprised and said he had never even thought about the victim's hairstyle! Of course, he might have been subconsciously influenced to find such females more attractive or to feel rage towards them, perhaps because they subconsciously reminded him of his ex-girlfriend. But then again, at the time he was murdering young women the most popular hair style was long hair parted in the middle.

So is our perception about the apparent pattern in Bundy's choice of victim accurate and he was just never aware of this subconscious factor that drove him to choose certain victims, or are we in this case actually imposing our own desire as rational people to discover rational "patterns" within the irrational behavior of a serial killer?

Just something to consider.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ausgirl]

Excellent reply, Archaic. And thanks for that tidbit about Bundy not consciously knowing about his choice of victim. I was a reading one site the other day (sadly, I don't recall which, offhand, it was quite good) that said the primary factors in victim choice for the vast majority of serial killers are vulnerability and availability - a serial killer always wants to 'win' at killing and thus those two factors are inevitably to the fore.

I have only been really involved with 'investigating' one other unsolved crime, the terrible murders in Keddie, CA in 1981 - and honestly, in all the work I and many others have put in to presenting both solid research and wild suppositions in that case (both have their hits and misses, I'm not one to consider speculation worthless as a result) the hardest thing to keep in mind is that anyone capable of brutal, callous murder of that degree is by all accounts insane (on one level or another) and thus motive is more or less out the window - who knows what-all is going through their minds? It truly is difficult to keep from trying to impose the process of a rational mind onto irrational thought... Though I sometimes wonder about the 'rational' bit.

[curious]

I was more thinking of the clothing as being a 'trigger' for the victim gaining the Ripper's attention. If, for whatever reason, the idealised victim in his mind when he fantasised (it's not unreasonable to suppose he did fantasise, most serial killers do) about killing was a woman in a black coat and bonnet wearing a red scarf, then any available victim who fit that ideal, more or less, would draw his attention and become a focus as a potential target.

Since the women were in their mid-40s and he was 30ish, is this possibly another indication that the victims were mother figures to the killer?

curious

[Ausgirl]

Hello, curious,

The nature of the crimes themselves, I think, points to a very specific rage. That the women are defaced perhaps suggests a need to destroy their individual identity, and the bodily mutilations and removal of internal organs combined with the lack of rape speaks more to me of a rage against some fundamental feminine principle rather than mere "lust" or sexual perversion. I don't think it's untoward to suppose that the Ripper had mother issues, but it's also worth considering that he could have had an older wife or lover, who perhaps proved to be (or was perceived to be) an 'immoral' woman akin to the victims and thus triggered a mentally ill JTR to commence killing.

I've wondered if the killings stopped because he had finally found it in himself to kill his wife. Or mother, though somehow I find a wife more likely - I do think that if this was the case, he was already vastly disturbed and harbouring some very deep issues regarding women in general, so maybe both wife and mother were conceivably at the root of his rage.

These crimes display an immense amount of victim depersonalisation. The facial mutilation, as mentioned above, and the fact that the women were killed quickly and the worst of the mutilation carried out on their bodies says to me that they were not at all 'real people' to the Ripper. Maybe not even the subject of sexual fantasies so much as mannequins, in a way - non-beings on whom he could take out his frustration without feeling he ought to possess any guilt or remorse for it. Or shame... this was Victorian England, after all. A dead body, a woman rendered 'unreal', might have been easier to treat as a mere object, removing the need for him to experience socially ingrained shame regarding the obvious sexual elements displayed in the genital mutilations. If the crimes -were- sexually motivated, I think it's possible Jack was in deep denial of it.

The mannequin thought occurred to me as I considered my original post - while I am not clinging to the idea of costume being a factor for victim selection, the idea that appearance did influence his choice goes along with the removal of identity and the methodical violence inflicted on the bodies of the victims- they may have been seen by the Ripper as walking mannequins, in a way, which only needed to be made to lie still...

Sheer speculation, but I do like to turn things about in my mind.

[Archaic]

Hi Ausgirl.

I just wanted to say that I'm glad you joined Casebook! I'm really enjoying your posts. You raise interesting issues and your posts are well thought out and well written.

I too have pondered the various issues you raise, such as whether the killer was deliberately targeting women older than himself for personal reasons, and whether he saw his victims as "real people", or, as you put it, as lifeless "mannequins".

In my opinion the killer did not believe that his victims had any intrinsic worth as human beings, nor did they possess any fundamental right to live. The victims were merely 'objects' readily available for his purposes.

I think the killer was well past the point of being troubled by such niceties as conscience, guilt or remorse. Rather than view the women as individual human beings with lives and thoughts and feelings, I think he viewed them more as a walking collection of female body parts.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Robert]

Hi Ausgirl and welcome.

I tend to agree with you that the murders weren't sexually motivated.

As for the clothes acting as a trigger - I'm a bit dubious about that. Us lot really don't notice what you lot are wearing, you know.

[Archaic]

Us lot really don't notice what you lot are wearing, you know.

You don't???

Robert, I'm crushed.

...Archaic

[Robert]

No need to be, Bunny - if I close my eyes I don't even remember what I'm wearing.

[Archaic]

Hi Robert.

It's OK.

I'm consoling myself with the thought that at least Mr. Darcy still cares.

Yours most sincerely,
Miss B.

[Ausgirl]

Archaic, you may have any Mr. Darcy you like. But the Colin Firth one is mine.

Just sayin'.

Also, thanks much for the kind words.

To completely derail the thread for a moment: do you think Sickert was a good candidate for suspect (even though he was in France for some of the JTR murders)? I think so. In any case, I think he wished he was JTR. By what I've read he was a disturbed, female-hating manipulator of the kind Bundy would be proud of - but then, there's a lot of men like that who don't become serial killers. I'm sure many of us know a few to one degree or another, they aren't rare.

Robert, something Archaic said back there makes sense, re whether the killings were sex-motivated or not: maybe he wasn't thinking too hard about it. The murders exhibit sexual rage and a desire for control, like rapists have. The goal in rape isn't just sex - sex is the weapon used a means to control and possess, or to punish. Only, this guy was also batshit crazy and maybe wasn't able or willing to allow himself to use sex as a weapon - so he used a big knife instead...

I'm now less inclined to think costume was a factor. But not completely so. If that checked scarf was red and white, I might just tip the other way again. Was it? I can't find any conclusive mention of it being so.

[Phil H]

To completely derail the thread for a moment: do you think Sickert was a good candidate for suspect (even though he was in France for some of the JTR murders)? I think so. In any case, I think he wished he was JTR.

I read quite a bit about Sickert long before Patricia Cornwell wrote her tome. I even went to an exhibition of his paintings at the Royal Academy better to understand his paintings.

I am clear that Walter Sickert had an obession with the Ripper case (people like Osbert Sitwell commented on that) even with murder in general. But I don't think he was the killer for a moment (his alibi notwithstanding).

It is possible that Cornwell has shown, through the particular brand of paper used, that Sickert wrote some of the letters to the police (I think that would be in character). Sickert appears to have had an impish, whimsical humour that expressed itself - for instance - in the titles of his paintings. But I am satisfied that this was an ironic (almost satirical) comment on the artistic conventions of his day which used similar titles for narrative pictures.

Back in the 70s, Joseph Gorman (Hobo?) Sickert claimed to have been Walter's illegitimate son or grandson (I don't recall which) and so he may have been. But I discount all the stuff about royal connections - there have been too many denials, too much evident fraud to sustain the story.

Linking this post with the thread title, Sickert, as I recall, had a red bandana or handerkhief that he liked to wear or have near as he worked. Whatever the reason for that - no doubt some connection deep in his psyche - I dismiss the idea that it related to the Ripper case.

Finally, it appears that a lot of half-remembered stories (the Lodger, the insane medical student etc) coalesced around Sickert. Was that because he liked to regail others with these anecdotes over dinner and this forged a link?

Sickert is a fascinating man, and I like some of his art (especially the music hall stuff) but I would not see him for a moment as a murderer, least of all a serial killer.

Phil

[Robert]

Hi Ausgirl

I think we can overdo the "frenzied" side of the murders. Kelly's parts were arranged almost neatly - the killer making use of the bed and a bedside table. He certainly wasn't tossing them over his shoulder. If I might be whimsical for a moment : if I were taking apart a watch or a clock, then (since I know nothing about the workings of either) I would be careful to keep all the bits close by me, in order to have an outside chance of putting it back together again. Kelly's murder reminds me of that to a certain extent.

Again, look at Eddowes, with one piece of detached intestine laid right by the body and the rest placed over her shoulder.

[Ausgirl]

Phil - I went off and read a great deal more about Sickert-the-man as well as Sickert-the-artist (I really do like his art). I think, really, the man was eccentric as an Escher table and that's about all the conclusion I can properly make at this point. I had to wonder if the Camden Town murder (which was, after all, awfully coincidental) was his work, a mimic of his obsession, but so far that's just my dark little mind turning its cogs and gears, nothing approaching a suspicion.

Sickert did like to buck a trend, this much is obvious (and stuff I learned in art school, where painters were not really -people- sadly, the way classes in literature tend to divorce poets from all but the dry bones of life, as though art is the evening paper and the artist the printing press... but I digress...).

I can see the red scarf - the one spot of bold colour - appear in several of his paintings, almost as a gout of blood, along with the spatters of scarlet which also appear in many of his works. If Sickert was not even vaguely homicidal then he was simply an utter genius at creating an ominous mood in his body (I shan't make a pun) of work. I do note that those who defend him loudest tend to completely overlook the possibility that he may have owned a darker side, whereas Cornwell flat out refuses to consider any good in him at all. If I have any firm suspicion, it is of these terribly polar points of view.

Gosh I can rabbit on. Anyway, thank you for your comment. I too think he is quite fascinating.

Robert -- Yes. Though I -do- see frenzy in the facial mutilations. I think that is where his anger is expressed most, in the wiping out of identity in the two cases where he did so. The rest, as you say, appears to be a deal more carefully approached, as much it could be for a clearly insane person who loved the risk of murdering in public places - which I also think was a factor, even in Kelly whose home was hardly secluded. And look at what he did to Mary Kelly; I have no doubt she is a Ripper victim, the only known one where he allowed himself substantial time to indulge his obsession. I say 'allowed' because I don't think it was by random opportunity, somehow, that he chose to change his MO from street to room. But that's probably another thread's discussion.

To draw the topic of this one back in, the methodical way he performed his mutilations - even in the most ridiculously high-risk situations - speaks moreso to detachment than uncontrolled rage (this cold detachment from rage being still a manifestation of rage, though). And to obsession - and an obsessive mind rarely fixates itself on a single point of obsession, there's usually a few minor ones floating about. So an obsession with a particular 'look' (I went for costume over age alone, for the sake of Kelly and Stride, both of whom I cannot feasibly discount as Ripper victims at this point), conscious or not, would be quite possible.

[Ausgirl]

It may - or, okay, may not - be relevant that the two items almost all of the victims wore at the time of death - a black bonnet and long black coat - were the same items burned in Mary Kelly's fireplace.

Coincidence, maybe. But it might hint toward fixation on those garments, as well.