What's your profile for Jack?

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

You wrote to Abby:



With respect, it was only you who appeared to be giving any weight at all to a supposed association between Bundy's ex and her physical appearance and his subsequent serial killing career. Abby and I, among others, were putting the case for his ex merely being an early victim of his need to dominate females one way or another.

In fact, wasn't it you who went into some detail to describe your personal profile of the ripper as someone who targeted victims who resembled his domineering and abusive mother, because of a subconscious desire to take the power back?

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah, you're not wrong. I find I'm having trouble finding the words to explain what I mean, and I think my last attempt just went awry. I think that there are often direct correlations between victimology and the people or experiences in a killer's life. School shooters a la Columbine are a good example of that evolution in a very short period of time. You have bullied and tortured kids who seek revenge against their abusers, and who want to make everyone sorry for treating them that way. This being their motive, their opening moves make sense. They target the kids who were bullying them. They kill them, they feel powerful. But they don't go hunting everyone who actually hurt them, because the power shifts the victimology. Next they go after kids LIKE the kids who tortured them. Other popular kids, friends of the abusers, etc. The similarity is now enough. That shifts from getting their power back, being avengers, to being judges. That makes them feel more powerful, and distances themselves from every other kid in that school. That's when they start shooting anyone that moves.

Now serial killers and school shooters have different pathologies, but the evolution is still present. There are serial killers who fall into the first stage, of killing people who have directly hurt them. They tend to be spree killers, and we tend not to categorize them as serial killers, but technically they are. They are simply also something else. Quite a few serial killers fall in the second evolution, of killing people like people they want to kill. Sometimes it's very direct, like when a guy starts killing women who look a lot like his mean wife. Sometimes it's less direct, shooting wealthy people. In these cases, the victim selection is interesting, and may provide some insight into the killer's life, but it's not significant the way classic transference would be significant. The third evolution also tends to be a spree killer, but not always. And often it is accompanied by paranoia, or some kind of delusion.

Now, these only apply when sexual sadism isn't the issue. With Bundy, sexual sadism was the issue. He was going to do what he did to those women no matter what they looked like. I happen to think that because he was a power/dominance rapist that he would be especially attracted to someone who reminded him of the woman who broke up with him because he wasn't good enough for her. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that is significant. It's a bit of trivia that explains why he gravitated toward a type. Simple sexual attraction does not spark sexual sadism. They can think a girl is hot and have no desire to hurt her. There is an X factor, and I'm not sure we know what it is, but about half of sexual sadists are unable to choose who they would hurt based on photos. They have to see them in situ. Some of them can't even pick out their own victims from those photo arrays. So that's a mystery.

I don't think Jack the Ripper killed because he was a sexual sadist, I don't think he saw them as potential sex partners. That means his victims are significant for another reason, and that puts us back into the evolution. I think it's the substitution evolution. Given what I see in the murders, it's not sexual, it's about the organs of generation, he saws through the necks, he's meek enough to be non threatening and go unnoticed, I think it's a domineering mother. And there is a kind of abuse that would make sense for that kind of targeting. I think the resemblance is far more significant to Jack than it ever was to Bundy. But Bundy did have a type, so he crops up in these conversations. It is not analogous, but it's a handy example. That's what I mean about it not being significant to Bundy, but still being significant to these murders. Basically, Bundy is an example, but not a good one for this exercise. I personally would have gone with Ed Gein, but that's not how the conversation flowed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

Someone killed those women. That's a fact, for certain.

But that they were all killed by the same person [or persons] is a doubtful proposition.

I believe I can shed some new light on one of the murders, and to this end I have written an article to be published across the next two editions of Ripperologist.

As to the other murders, it really is too early to say.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

How can a "profile" be ascribed to someone who may not have existed?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Someone killed those women. Who do you think did it? Do you think they were all killed by different men? What's your take?

[Jonathan H]

To Digalittldeeperwatson

The young barrister, Montague John Druitt, whom Sir Melville Macnaghten, who rose to be Assistant commissioner of CID, went to his premature grave believing was Jack the Ripper.

Nobody else agrees here. I'm alone.

To Caz

You've completely misread my post, self-servingly if I may say so.

I was describing Simon's theory, wrongly as it turned out on this aspect, as that of seeing the Ripper as a tabloid construct.

Whereas I agree with Macnaghten that the Ripper was a single individual, Druitt, who killed five women, but that leaves about four women who were not (the Ripper name is an invention of two reporters, as Mac found out in mid 1890).

[caz]

Not Friday's Child

Hi Errata,

You wrote to Abby:

I seriously think you are giving the association a lot more weight than it deserves. We aren't talking about some subconscious desire to kill his ex, nor are we talking about a rigorous selection process.

With respect, it was only you who appeared to be giving any weight at all to a supposed association between Bundy's ex and her physical appearance and his subsequent serial killing career. Abby and I, among others, were putting the case for his ex merely being an early victim of his need to dominate females one way or another.

In fact, wasn't it you who went into some detail to describe your personal profile of the ripper as someone who targeted victims who resembled his domineering and abusive mother, because of a subconscious desire to take the power back?

And yes, Long dark brown hair parted in the middle with an oval face could easily be his type. And that may have been why he dated the ex in the first place. But Bundy was a power/dominance rapist and murderer. It isn't about sexual attraction, it isn't about love, it isn't about reassurance. He was a sadist. He is targeting women to hurt them. His goal is to hurt them, humiliate them, control them.

Exactly. And my belief is that he had all this in him by the time he met his ex, explaining his behaviour when the relationship ended (and probably explaining why it ended).

I'm not saying the most terrible abuse doesn't happen to many, many children of both sexes, most of whom grow up relatively able to cope as adults, and not in the least bit violent themselves. But I actually wouldn't be at all surprised to find that convicted serial killers were all, without exception, very hard to parent from an early age, and were never going to be the loving and giving kind, either as toddlers, teenagers or grown-ups.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Jonathan,

I look forward to someday meeting you in the middle.

In the meantime let me just say that I do not believe JtR was a tabloid construct.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I too disagree with Jonathan's claim that "JtR" was 'certainly' a tabloid construct.

I sit in the middle between you, with no firm belief either way. But to me it's this claim by the police that strikes me as being 'self-serving' (to borrow from Jonathan), and along the same lines as Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' concerning the killer himself.

In short, anyone who today parrots the claim that it is a definitely ascertained fact that "JtR" was 'a tabloid construct' should jolly well be obliged to back that up with evidence, just as Anderson should have backed up his claim, at least in the files if he could not do so publicly.

Or we should be within our rights to boil them in oil after removing their toenails with pliers.

Apologies for the slight deviation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh...

And Jonathan H, which suspect do you refer to?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Nicely said Errata and Deathtosnails. Simon, may you be so kind as to lay out what it is you do believe? I am quite interested.

[Deathtosnails]

And on top of all that it gets the brain working and a bit of fun can be had.

Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation and outright biased guesswork

[Errata]

Hi All,

How can a "profile" be ascribed to someone who may not have existed?

Regards,

Simon

I think the actuality of Jack the Ripper is not necessary for profiling. Strict profiling is a matter of statistics and interpretations. If I were an actual profiler, I never would have given the profile I did, because my profile is not statistically likely. I could make up a series of murders right now and get a good profile on the killer. That he doesn't exist might ruin my arrest record, but it doesn't make the profile invalid. Merely unnecessary. But a profile can at least in theory also expose the lack of a serial killer just as easily as the presence of one.

It's not magic, it's not psychology, it's not science. It's statistics. And anyone who has ever studied government knows that statistics apply perfectly well to fictional constructs

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I look forward to someday meeting you in the middle.

In the meantime let me just say that I do not believe JtR was a tabloid construct.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Simon,

You and I have ended up at oppoiste ends of the spectrum, which means that some times we are in alignment, as extremes can end up meeting each other.

As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, you adhere to the theory that there was no 'Jack the Ripper' just a series of unconnected murders (or perhaps involving an element of copycatting) and that the concept of a single fiend is a tabloid construct (his name certainly is) later used by police for their own sell-serving reasons -- hence no need to bother with a single, agreed-upon 'suspect'.

And I am at the other end of the spctrum arguing that it was solved in 1891, albeit posthumously, by a single police chief -- at least to his satisfaction -- and thus there is no mystery. That this solutiuon, very broadly, was shared with the public from 1898. That's as close as we can get, and the solution may have been wrong but it was at least thoroughly checked out.

I suppose we agree, therefore, that a 'profile' is totally redundant but for opposite reasons: because either he did not exist or because he was positively identified.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

How can a "profile" be ascribed to someone who may not have existed?

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

Well said. Plus the "looks like his girlfriend" idea is so subjective. You would first have to agree that they all(or most) looked like his girlfriend. personally i dont think they looked like his girlfriend. And as Greg pointed out-that hairstyle, long straight parted down the middle was such a common hairstyle. I have five older sisters and if you look at a family picture from the 70's guess what? All of them-long straight parted down the middle.

Not sure who the person who first proposed that theory-but IMHO the "looks like his girlfriend" theory is such self serving psycho babble at its worst. i think misguided speculation like that actually misleads more than it enlightens and it has been repeated ad nauseum over the years.

I seriously think you are giving the association a lot more weight than it deserves. We aren't talking about some subconscious desire to kill his ex, nor are we talking about a rigorous selection process. Any time we get hurt, we form an association. It's why certain songs make us sad, etc. If you're in a bar, and a song that reminds you of getting hurt comes on, you don't flee the bar. You just think about the hurt for a few seconds. It doesn't make you do anything, it simply prompts recall. We're talking about the same thing with Bundy. It doesn't fuel his actions, it merely influences his choice of victim when given a choice.

And yes, Long dark brown hair parted in the middle with an oval face could easily be his type. And that may have been why he dated the ex in the first place. But Bundy was a power/dominance rapist and murderer. It isn't about sexual attraction, it isn't about love, it isn't about reassurance. He was a sadist. He is targeting women to hurt them. His goal is to hurt them, humiliate them, control them. That's what he's getting out of it. So he isn't choosing women he wants to date. He's choosing women he wants to hurt. That there is an association between those women and his ex girlfriend is interesting, but not significant. Once he lost control, say, everything after his escape, he lost any preference. Which is a good sign that it was a preference and not a need. If the looks were important he would have kept that aspect.

And the only possible use of this information is to establish that he has a preferred type, which is only useful in warning potential victim pools. And even that is of a limited use. An association like this has the potential to identify a suspect if the killer is locked on to a specific type. In the case of Bundy, it's merely trivia. A classic example of a killer with a preference, but not a classic example of a killer locked into a type. And killers can be locked into a type for any number of reasons. But it certainly isn't part of being a serial killer, Dahmer proved that.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Errata,

I'm not sure you can even go that far. Chicken and egg. He chose his girlfriend because he was attracted to women with her looks. His preference for those looks were established when he saw her. And if he was already fantasising about dominance and humiliation, it was pretty inevitable that when they broke up his resentment would manifest itself in that way. I don't think you can conclude that it was her looks which caused an association in his mind between a relationship gone bad and women with similar looks. If he had always been drawn towards her type, she was just one - possibly not even the first - of the long line of women who suffered because of who he was.

Love,

Caz
X

Well said. Plus the "looks like his girlfriend" idea is so subjective. You would first have to agree that they all(or most) looked like his girlfriend. personally i dont think they looked like his girlfriend. And as Greg pointed out-that hairstyle, long straight parted down the middle was such a common hairstyle. I have five older sisters and if you look at a family picture from the 70's guess what? All of them-long straight parted down the middle.

Not sure who the person who first proposed that theory-but IMHO the "looks like his girlfriend" theory is such self serving psycho babble at its worst. i think misguided speculation like that actually misleads more than it enlightens and it has been repeated ad nauseum over the years.