Assumption buster #1 M.O.

[Bridewell]

You say he was mentally ill. I'm mentally ill. And he is nothing like me.

Hi Errata,

This one extract proves your point for me. You are mentally ill and yet entirely rational in what you post on these boards. Ergo mental illness and irrationality are two entirely different concepts, surely? The Whitechapel Murderer ( by which I mean the mutilator of at least some of the victims) acted, in the eyes of civilised society, entirely irrationally. That does not, of itself, mean that he was mentally ill IMHO. He may have been so, but the murder and mutilation of women are not the proof of it. Such killers have been found fit to plead, have stood trial, been convicted and, in some cases, executed. I agree with you. There is no evidence which proves that the killer of these women was mentally ill. His actions were vile, That much we know. However, there are people who are truly evil, They exist and are, in some cases anyway, entirely sane.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Im not at all trained in maladies of the mind, but I think its sufficient to say that anyone who could commit acts as seen in some of the Canonical murders had to have something wrong with his mental functioning.

But people who commit murder solely to satisfy their internal demons are mentally ill, the specific nature of their illness isnt really the issue.

Best regards

But it is the issue. You are saying they are suffering from a disease category that at some point in time or another, 22% of the population will suffer from. 21.99% of which will never harm another human being. If you don't want to call every other person with a mental illness a potential threat to the safety of all mankind, getting specific would be greatly appreciated. Mental illness is a specific dysfunction with specific characteristics and specific symptoms, none of which have anything to do with gutting another human being. It isn't an illness, anymore than pedophilia is an illness. It is an impulse you either chose to act on, or you don't. Every human being on the planet has had the impulse to tear someone limb from limb. It's part of rage. We all feel it. It's healthy. We choose not to act on that impulse. Killers choose to act on it. There's nothing wrong with them. There is no MRI, no PET scan, no DNA analysis, no medical test on the planet that will show them to be any different from you. No medical standard exists that defines them as abnormal. No doctor or scientist on the planet will be able to point out to you anything and say "they are this way because of this". So by definition, their problem is not medical. By definition, it is not psychological, and by definition it is no illness. You say they have to be sick to do this. Your judgement. There is no universal law that says we have to give a crap about our fellow man, or hold them in any esteem. No biological imperative to be concerned with the survival of other humans.

You say he was mentally ill. I'm mentally ill. And he is nothing like me. Nor like anyone I've ever met. And yes, I know sociopaths. being a sociopath doesn't make someone a killer. What killers lack is the desire to curb their own appetites in order to conform to a social norm. The same thing junkies, rapists, hermits, religious zealots, and a whole bunch of other people have. You call it a disease, where poor little Jack had no choice but to kill. Because that's the other side of the coin you know. You can't have one without the other. You say bloodlust is an illness. It's not. The Romans were quite fond of it, as were the Celts. And the Revolutionary French, the Mayans, Aztecs, Native Americans, Georgian English, some spectacular examples in European Royalty for two thousand years.... killing for sport, religion and pleasure. What Jack did was nothing spectacular compared to what happened to William Wallace. And the Northern American tradition of tarring and feathering sounds kind of funny, but is actually incredibly brutal and lethal. It's a part of us. No matter how distasteful it may seem. It's not an illness, if anything, it's our natural state.

[Cogidubnus]

I can't remember when I saw a better post than this on this forum.

I can...it was today on another thread...same author though...both cracking posts.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Ive refrained from using the word insane when discussing what kind of mental state the killer of Polly and Annie was in because I dont know what specific malady he had,...only that he had some mental illness.

People who kill strangers and cut them up are most certainly mentally ill.

Cheers

Schizophrenia seems to be the current assumption, some even build theories based on it being that.
I don't think you need to be mentally ill to torture and mutilate people. Plenty of that went on during the war, and still does go on today, as you know. Perfectly sane people will commit horrendous acts on their fellow man. So, why should the reason we do it make a difference?

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Not true at all. We used to characterize Homosexuality as a mental illness because it's practitioners performed acts that society deemed unacceptable. And even today there is still a great amount of misunderstanding of when other socially unacceptable acts become mental illness, if ever. Serial killers are clearly acting in a socially unacceptable way, but there are very very few whose behavior actually conforms to a mental disorder. Above all, the defining characteristics of any mental disorder is that it impairs function, and cause distress to the sufferer. Serial killers only qualify in the sense that engaging in illegal behavior that can result in imprisonment or execution is an impairment of function. And that is an acknowledged fuzzy area, since the presumption of a desire for continued freedom and survival is a social construct, not a psychological one.

There is no mental illness that can create a serial killer. There are several that can remove the barriers to killing, but nothing creates the desire or the will. From a purely subjective view, there is nothing at all wrong with serial killers, unless they themselves perceive it to be wrong. Our culture say that killing is wrong. That torture is wrong. That rape is wrong. But even our culture makes exceptions when it sees fit. Our governments execute. Our intelligence agencies torture, and do some of our medical professionals. Our society only recognizes rape in certain classes of women by certain classes of men. Society's rules change. Serial killers are clearly not normal. As in, they are not the norm. As a society, we judge that their reasons for killing are unacceptable, and that their methods are unacceptable. That they do these things means that something is "wrong" with them. But that's fallacy. The vast majority of serial killers are put together like the rest of us, their brains function the way ours do, their backgrounds are not so different from ours. There is no difference between us medically, physiologically, or psychologically.

Psychology affects behavior, but it does not dictate behavior. The difference is not a mental illness. It is not a biochemical abnormality, it is not a failure of structural integrity in the brain, it is not a Pavlovian reaction. It's a choice serial killers make. They do it because they want to. That they want to does not mean they are insane. It means they are socially abnormal. They choose to engage in behavior that society deems wrong. No different than serial rapists, no different from gang bangers, no different from cannibals. I fully acknowledge that serial killers engage in behavior I find unacceptable, disgusting, and completely incomprehensible. But for the most part, there's nothing "wrong" with them. They simply make choices that the majority of us would not make, and could not make. I couldn't kill for pleasure anymore than I could crave human flesh. Or anymore than I could desire to be beaten as part of sex, or be attracted to someone in a animal costume. There are some things I don't get that I can shrug off, and some I can not. And that differs for everybody. Some people violently object to homosexuality. It's not for me, but what do I care if other people do it? In fact theres a lot of things I don't care about that a lot of people care very much about. Religion, gender identity, television programming, race, propriety... all culturally based. We even value human lives differently according to culture. Some culture value sons to the extent that they kill daughters. Some leave infants with birth defects out to die of exposure. Some value clumps of cells, others don't until it draws it's first breath. It's actually not a huge leap to think that if I can shoot a deer for sport (which I wouldn't. I find that immoral) than a man can gut a woman he values no more than a beast for sport. It doesn't equate in our minds, because we value people more than animals, but if someone doesn't (and many don't) the only thing stopping them from killing people for sport is that they don't choose to risk the punishment others would impose. Punishment socially defined, for crimes socially defined.

If anything is "wrong" with serial killers, it's social, not behavioral, not mental, not physiological.

Hi Errata,

I can't remember when I saw a better post than this on this forum.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi errata,

For one, we dont know that any of the Canonical murders were committed by a serial killer, in fact, there is enough evidence available to presume that we have a multiple killer and potentially one or more others. When people start basing their arguments on what we know of serial killers I get antsy.....we need to know that we have one before that analysis can have any value at all.

As to mental illness, this is to address Bridewells comments as well, I cannot see any other way to categorize someone who kills other human beings and essentially guts them afterward. Even if the culprit knew Right from Wrong, which I seriously doubt in the first 2 cases.....to act out violent urges or fantasies that they have demonstrates a lack of self control. That in and of itself is a mental illness. To commit murder at all shows a definite disregard for human life...hence, Sociopathic, a mental illness.

The killer of Canonicals 1 and 2 used techniques and skills likely acquired in their occupation, to commit those same actions upon living human beings shows us that he was not able to control himself and/or understand the vile nature of the acts he was committing.

Im not at all trained in maladies of the mind, but I think its sufficient to say that anyone who could commit acts as seen in some of the Canonical murders had to have something wrong with his mental functioning.

If it wasnt abnormal we would have huge volumes of murders around the world day after day. We dont. In Toronto for example we had 45 homicides last year, from within a population of approximately of 2.74 million. Most were attributable to easily recognizable motivations and were tied directly into criminal pursuits. Many were committed by evil, cold people. Maybe some were dysfunctional, and unable to perceive the results of their actions.

But people who commit murder solely to satisfy their internal demons are mentally ill, the specific nature of their illness isnt really the issue.

Best regards

[Errata]

Jon,

Ive refrained from using the word insane when discussing what kind of mental state the killer of Polly and Annie was in because I dont know what specific malady he had,...only that he had some mental illness.

People who kill strangers and cut them up are most certainly mentally ill.

Cheers

Not true at all. We used to characterize Homosexuality as a mental illness because it's practitioners performed acts that society deemed unacceptable. And even today there is still a great amount of misunderstanding of when other socially unacceptable acts become mental illness, if ever. Serial killers are clearly acting in a socially unacceptable way, but there are very very few whose behavior actually conforms to a mental disorder. Above all, the defining characteristics of any mental disorder is that it impairs function, and cause distress to the sufferer. Serial killers only qualify in the sense that engaging in illegal behavior that can result in imprisonment or execution is an impairment of function. And that is an acknowledged fuzzy area, since the presumption of a desire for continued freedom and survival is a social construct, not a psychological one.

There is no mental illness that can create a serial killer. There are several that can remove the barriers to killing, but nothing creates the desire or the will. From a purely subjective view, there is nothing at all wrong with serial killers, unless they themselves perceive it to be wrong. Our culture say that killing is wrong. That torture is wrong. That rape is wrong. But even our culture makes exceptions when it sees fit. Our governments execute. Our intelligence agencies torture, and do some of our medical professionals. Our society only recognizes rape in certain classes of women by certain classes of men. Society's rules change. Serial killers are clearly not normal. As in, they are not the norm. As a society, we judge that their reasons for killing are unacceptable, and that their methods are unacceptable. That they do these things means that something is "wrong" with them. But that's fallacy. The vast majority of serial killers are put together like the rest of us, their brains function the way ours do, their backgrounds are not so different from ours. There is no difference between us medically, physiologically, or psychologically.

Psychology affects behavior, but it does not dictate behavior. The difference is not a mental illness. It is not a biochemical abnormality, it is not a failure of structural integrity in the brain, it is not a Pavlovian reaction. It's a choice serial killers make. They do it because they want to. That they want to does not mean they are insane. It means they are socially abnormal. They choose to engage in behavior that society deems wrong. No different than serial rapists, no different from gang bangers, no different from cannibals. I fully acknowledge that serial killers engage in behavior I find unacceptable, disgusting, and completely incomprehensible. But for the most part, there's nothing "wrong" with them. They simply make choices that the majority of us would not make, and could not make. I couldn't kill for pleasure anymore than I could crave human flesh. Or anymore than I could desire to be beaten as part of sex, or be attracted to someone in a animal costume. There are some things I don't get that I can shrug off, and some I can not. And that differs for everybody. Some people violently object to homosexuality. It's not for me, but what do I care if other people do it? In fact theres a lot of things I don't care about that a lot of people care very much about. Religion, gender identity, television programming, race, propriety... all culturally based. We even value human lives differently according to culture. Some culture value sons to the extent that they kill daughters. Some leave infants with birth defects out to die of exposure. Some value clumps of cells, others don't until it draws it's first breath. It's actually not a huge leap to think that if I can shoot a deer for sport (which I wouldn't. I find that immoral) than a man can gut a woman he values no more than a beast for sport. It doesn't equate in our minds, because we value people more than animals, but if someone doesn't (and many don't) the only thing stopping them from killing people for sport is that they don't choose to risk the punishment others would impose. Punishment socially defined, for crimes socially defined.

If anything is "wrong" with serial killers, it's social, not behavioral, not mental, not physiological.

[Bridewell]

Jon,

People who kill strangers and cut them up are most certainly mentally ill.

Cheers

Hi Michael,

Is it not possible to be just plain evil without, necessarily, being mentally ill?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn.

Crazy?, Lunatic?, Insane?

"The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

...

Jon,

Ive refrained from using the word insane when discussing what kind of mental state the killer of Polly and Annie was in because I dont know what specific malady he had,...only that he had some mental illness.

People who kill strangers and cut them up are most certainly mentally ill.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

Tea, as the Maharajah took it.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I daresay. I prefer mine pure--not adulterated with extraneous elements. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. But to which of the murders does this refer? Surely not just to Polly and Annie?

Cheers.
LC

Not one Lynn, but all four, not exactly your cup of tea

All the best, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

referent

Hello Jon. Thanks. But to which of the murders does this refer? Surely not just to Polly and Annie?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Mike.

"He was likely marginally intelligent, unsophisticated and impulsive."

Did you forget bat guano crazy? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Crazy?, Lunatic?, Insane?

"The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

...

[lynn cates]

insane

Hello Mike.

"He was likely marginally intelligent, unsophisticated and impulsive."

Did you forget bat guano crazy? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

What was the status and condition of the first 2 victims?

They were approximately the same age, they looked similar, they both were out alone working past midnight on the streets actively soliciting, and they both had impairments that made them even more vulnerable at that time. Polly was wobbling and had drunk away her bed a few times already, and Annie was ill. Neither was in any condition to put up any kind of physical struggle and their employment those evenings caused them to take strange men into dark corners alone.

I think that speaks to the choice of victim, by that killer. Opportunity. He was likely marginally intelligent, unsophisticated and impulsive. Polly and Annie were just the ticket.

Kate had just returned from the country, and was in good health and tanned and had slept off her early evening binge, Liz Stride was sober, decently dressed and concerned about the smell of her breath,.. and Mary Kelly was said to be "stout", and strong. She was also indoors, undressed and in bed when she is attacked.

If other people killed any of the 3 Canonicals above, and I believe there is some substantial evidence that suggests that may be the case in at least 2 of those 3 cases, then those killers motives were likely different. The Method, which revealed the Madness in these cases, could have been imitated.

Best regards