Assumption buster #1 M.O.

[Michael W Richards]

Welcome to the first of my assumption busters where I hope to stimulate discussion and debate around commonly held assumptions about JTR.

Let's have a look at MO:

It's commonly assumed that the ripper first engaged in conversation with his victims, presumably as a prospective client, before overpowering and killing them.

It is suggested that there is nothing in the available evidence to refute the possibility that the ripper actually waited in the shadows until his victim was alone and then carried out a blitz attack.

Discuss..............................

Hello Harry,

Since there was no reason for Annie Chapman to be in that backyard near 5am other than to service a client, and since Kate Eddowes was seen with someone within 10 minutes of being found dead, and since Mary Kelly was attacked in her own bed while undressed, it would seem fairly safe to assume that these three women were not "blitzed" from a man in the shadows. Add to that the fact that Liz Stride is very likely not even a Ripper victim, you have 1 possible blitz attack within the 5 victims of the Canonical Group.

I think that its safe to assume that Polly and Annie were "working" when they met their killer, its then very likely that the killer met them while they pursued opportunities.

Before one can assume we have a Ripper, with patterns and an MO, we need to have proof that we are looking at someone who killed more than 2 people. At this point in time, thats really all that we can say with any certainty.

So....if there was some kind of "Ripper", he was most probably responsible for just the 2 murders that happened before the nickname ever appeared on a letter.

Your line of questioning with this and on another thread seems to indicate you believe you are looking at a string of murders by onje madman. I humbly suggest you look deeper,... the case for a "Jack the Ripper" is not nearly as sound as people have been led to believe.

Best regards

[Errata]

I too have never seen "Jack" as a "lurker".

I don't think there is any need to do so, or any evidence to suggest he was.


Phil H

Jack may have been like the formidable T-rex. It was assumed he was a predator, but his shape makes hunting awkward at best. Then they thought he was scavenger, but prey animal fossils show evidence of attacks by T-rex, where the prey escaped. T-rex was both. If he came across a carcass, he would eat it. If something ran past, he hunted it.

So like T-rex, Jack had tiny arms. And may have hunted or scavenged as the need dictated.

But personally, I agree with you. I think if he was blitzing women alone, there's no way he wouldn't have gotten a stray housemaid at the hours he hunted. I think the only way he could guarantee he got a prostitute was by soliciting them.

[Phil H]

I largely agree, Errata - except that I don't think it even mattered to him that his victims were unfortunates.

I think it was their weakness that made them fit his purpose. Nichols and Chapman were simply too drunk or ill to resist him. They were street-walkers, effectively (if not absolutely) homeless. rather like moving garbage on the streets. A chambermaid had a home, roots.

Further, a fit chambermaid or someone like Mrs Long/Darrell might have put up too much of a fight.

Smith, Tabram, Eddowes (in some ways but not others) and Mckenzie for me fit the same bill of inebriation, tiredness, weakness that might say "victim" to our man.

It is one reason why I sideline Stride and Kelly as NOT the work of "Jack". Stride clearly resisted. Both were much more unlikely to just surrender to his knife, befuddled and lost like the others. Kelly had a home.

Phil H

[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

[lynn cates]

insane

Hello Mike.

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

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

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]

referent

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

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]

Tea, as the Maharajah took it.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.