What's your profile for Jack?

[Abby Normal]

It's not just having an abusive mother but about having an abusive mother and/or father or any excessive abuse by anyone or any stuation as a child.

These can be a contributing factor in the formation of a serial killer but never an excuse, because many more people have suffered abuse and not turned into killers.

But I think it is a common characteristic shared by most serial killers and violent people in general for that matter.

[Deathtosnails]

Abby Normal, I agree completely.

There can never be, nor will there ever be, a valid excuse for a serial killer.

They do what they do because they want to.

:Yoda voice: A serial killer made not by Mummy.

[Errata]

It's not just having an abusive mother but about having an abusive mother and/or father or any excessive abuse by anyone or any stuation as a child.

These can be a contributing factor in the formation of a serial killer but never an excuse, because many more people have suffered abuse and not turned into killers.

But I think it is a common characteristic shared by most serial killers and violent people in general for that matter.

Exactly. So basically there are a million different divergence points from the sadly not that remarkable phenomenon of child abuse. A lion's share of these victim's develop the ability to experience healthy anger. Something not encouraged by their childhood, but yet they learn. Some do not. And a majority of those who do not learn to express healthy anger learn to express it inappropriately. Displacement is pretty common. Pissed at your boss, yell at your wife type deal. Displacement to a degree seen in killers is super rare. And in the end, has nothing to do with their abuser. This guy may have been subconsciously killing his mother, but not because she hurt him. He did it because he blames her for his powerlessness. Which is a fallacy on a lot of different levels.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike.

Why no children?

Cheers.
LC

Im thinking Lynn that children ask questions, they would notice his absences and the murders at night, it would have been considerably easier for this killer if he did not have to "act" normal around the children, reassure them, or lie incessantly about his doings on any particular night.

The man I described likely is out most of the night and comes home regularly with bloodied clothing, his wife would just accept this as a part of his work. But he would probably have to make the children less frightened about his appearance and work.

I think he would have been able to be sneaky easier without kids.

Either that, or he would be the type that had no time or patience for children, and left the rearing completely up to his wife.

All the best Lynn

[Errata]

Im thinking Lynn that children ask questions, they would notice his absences and the murders at night, it would have been considerably easier for this killer if he did not have to "act" normal around the children, reassure them, or lie incessantly about his doings on any particular night.

The man I described likely is out most of the night and comes home regularly with bloodied clothing, his wife would just accept this as a part of his work. But he would probably have to make the children less frightened about his appearance and work.

I think he would have been able to be sneaky easier without kids.

Either that, or he would be the type that had no time or patience for children, and left the rearing completely up to his wife.

All the best Lynn

I think that he could function equally well with children of a certain age. 3-7 maybe? Earlier than three and they may not be sleeping through the night meaning his wife would be up at possibly inconvenient hours. After seven children begin to challenge their parents about the logic or reason behind rules. It's when lies stop working with any regularity, and parents have to start lying to children the way they lie to adults. Which is, having to keep track of the lies. So there is a window in child rearing where it's possible. Plus plenty of serial killers have had kids. They've managed to keep killing. Which is really far less complicated than holding a full time job and raising kids in a single parent household.

My argument would be that this guy wouldn't want kids. In the end, I don't think he would particularly like having the attention on someone else.

[caz]

All of this is true. But it doesn't work like that. I mean, a guy who is subconsciously murdering his abusive mother is still responsible for his own actions. Yes. She should not have abused him. But it's his coping mechanism, not hers. He's killing people. Not her.

Hi Errata,

Well yes, that's kind of what I meant - except that I would still question the notion that a male killer who only targets females is doing that because he is 'subconsciously' murdering an abusive mother (or an unfaithful wife or lover/a prostitute who has given him the clap and so forth). As I said, would the same male killer only have targeted male victims if it had been his father, uncle or priest who had abused him as a child?

We don't accept abuse as an excuse for a DUI, we don't accept it for knocking over a liquor store to pay for heroin, we don't accept it as an excuse for a parent never showing any affection for their child. We don't accept it for murder. If they want to blame their mommies they can, but nobody even remotely familiar with what abuse does to people buys it for even a minute. What kids do when they are still in that situation is one thing. What adults do when they are no longer in that situation is another.

I'm glad to hear it. That's exactly my own position, yet profilers routinely do buy it as an explanation if not an excuse when male on female serial killers try to blame 'their mommies'.

He could blame his mother until the day he became independent. But after that, he's calling his own shots.

Absolutely right. But again, might he not have turned into a killer of women regardless of whether his mommie, his daddy or his uncle - or perhaps nobody at all - had abused him sexually, physically or mentally as a child? I'm not sure how far we can assume cause and effect here.

So basically there are a million different divergence points from the sadly not that remarkable phenomenon of child abuse. A lion's share of these victim's develop the ability to experience healthy anger. Something not encouraged by their childhood, but yet they learn. Some do not. And a majority of those who do not learn to express healthy anger learn to express it inappropriately. Displacement is pretty common. Pissed at your boss, yell at your wife type deal. Displacement to a degree seen in killers is super rare. And in the end, has nothing to do with their abuser. This guy may have been subconsciously killing his mother, but not because she hurt him. He did it because he blames her for his powerlessness. Which is a fallacy on a lot of different levels.

Yes, but again, can we even say that his mother actually hurt him or made him feel powerless, or would he be dreaming up stuff like this because of his undoubted urge to hurt women, which he may not fully understand himself, but has no intention of controlling? In short, could he not be deluding himself with false memories, or trying to deceive others with deliberate lies? A rudimentary conscience that needs to justify behaviour which is simply unjustifiable?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

it basically boils down to the classic nature vs nurture discussion. I myself beleive its a combination of both but more nature than nurture-as in serial killers are born not made. And I think some who are born with the disposition to be killers would not otherwise become them if they had "normal" childhoods(they would be able to overcome or control their murderous urges)-the abusive childhood puts them over the edge.

Neither nature, nurture or a combo of both though in any way excuses the killers in my mind. Your intelligence, sense of right and wrong, power of self control should be able to over rule. If not you are weak-in extreme cases-yes-"evil".

[Errata]

[QUOTE]

Hi Errata,

Well yes, that's kind of what I meant - except that I would still question the notion that a male killer who only targets females is doing that because he is 'subconsciously' murdering an abusive mother (or an unfaithful wife or lover/a prostitute who has given him the clap and so forth). As I said, would the same male killer only have targeted male victims if it had been his father, uncle or priest who had abused him as a child?

I don't think that every male killer is subconsciously murdering his mother. Or even subconsciously murdering anyone. When a serial killer has a type, I think it bears examination, if for no other reason that victimology is important, and it lets you know what segment of the population he is targeting. Ted Bundy murdered women who looked like the girlfriend who dumped him because he wasn't good enough. Until of course he just spiraled out of control. The ex girlfriend didn't turn him into a killer. She just defined his type. If she had been blonde, he would have gone after blondes. If she didn't hurt him, his victims would have resembled the next woman who made him feel bad about himself. If it never happened, he probably would have killed women who looked like his mother, because he did not have a great relationship with her. And all because of the type of guy Ted Bundy was. He had to prove power and control. He had to be the smartest guy in the room, the most charming, he had to dominate unless he was playing an angle that would result in dominance. This was not a guy who was going to stick to killing prostitutes and runaways. This was a guy who felt powerful resentment, and it's no surprise that he found a type that focused his resentment.

I'm glad to hear it. That's exactly my own position, yet profilers routinely do buy it as an explanation if not an excuse when male on female serial killers try to blame 'their mommies'.

I think sometimes it is an explanation, most times not. There are some killers out there whose childhood was so abusive and they were so isolated that there really wasn't much of a chance that they weren't going to end up severely screwed. Ed Gein is a good example. He didn't blame his mother, but she was clearly the source of his problems, and him being "simple" really didn't help. Edmund Kemper is another interesting example. He was a sociopath, and his MRI's show that he has probably been that way since birth. His mother on the other hand was psychotic, severely abused him, and exposed him to a lot of concepts far too early. She was convinced he was going to rape his sister since the day he was born. And she told him that he would starting as a toddler. He was raised to believe that he would one day become a monster. So it's not entirely surprising that he did. Now he didn't target women like his mother. He targeted his own type. But he buried some skulls under his mother's window to spite her, and eventually killed her. Now he can't help being born a sociopath. And the vast majority of sociopaths don't kill. Were he raised in a normal loving home it is entirely likely he would not have become a killer. Is it his mother's fault? Yeah. But it's also his fault. It' the asylum's fault. Plenty of blame to go around.

Absolutely right. But again, might he not have turned into a killer of women regardless of whether his mommie, his daddy or his uncle - or perhaps nobody at all - had abused him sexually, physically or mentally as a child? I'm not sure how far we can assume cause and effect here.

Of course. Jeff Dahmer didn't have a perfect childhood, but he was never abused. His parents loved him. They supported him. They did their best. He still turned out to be a serial killer, and while not a killer of women, a killer of those he was sexually attracted to. While childhood abuse is often present in serial killers, it is not necessary. Dennis Rader was also a product of a relatively normal home. And the truth is, only 1 in 8 (I think) abused kids grow up to become abusers of any kind. And that includes losing their temper one time, getting very scared and seeking help immediately, which is the majority of incidents of violence for children of abuse. Certainly Edmund Kemper's sister grew up in the same household of crazy, even if she wasn't the main target of their mother. She never killed anyone. Charlie Manson had 8 kids. Albert Fish had kids, BTK has kids, Gary Ridgeway had kids. None of them grew up to be killers.

Yes, but again, can we even say that his mother actually hurt him or made him feel powerless, or would he be dreaming up stuff like this because of his undoubted urge to hurt women, which he may not fully understand himself, but has no intention of controlling? In short, could he not be deluding himself with false memories, or trying to deceive others with deliberate lies? A rudimentary conscience that needs to justify behaviour which is simply unjustifiable?

Well, that's difficult to say, because perception dictates reality. Narcissists are genuinely hurt when no one pays attention to them, but that doesn't mean they were ignored. It might mean that not enough people looked at them when they entered a room. Which is a perfectly normal occurrence, but to a Narcissist it's a deliberate slight. Now false memories are actually pretty rare. Faulty perception is far more common, but even faulty perception can be abuse. For example a child doesn't know they are being ignored because Dad has a lot on his mind. They just know they are being ignored, and the natural conclusion to a child is that their Dad doesn't like them. It isn't true, but a father has the responsibility to not give his child that impression. Could they lie about the abuse? Absolutely. Many have. They tend to get caught, because prosecutors research these things.

Now in this case, it predates general acceptance of Freud. So no one in England blithely accepted the idea of of an Oedipus complex, or it's foundation ideas. So no one was going to accept a mommy made me do it defense. We are also about 40 years before abuse by mothers starts to enter the common arena. So Jack is not a guy who will benefit by casting the blame on his mother. I think, and I admit I'm guessing on this, that in this case, it did happen. And I think we are talking about a mother with a violent temper, who repented of the abuse by making him feel as though she desperately needs him. And I think she sexualized him. Not that she had sex with him, but that she isolated him from other women, acted towards him as though he were a lover, was physically inappropriate. Flirted with him, kissed him on the mouth, slept in the same bed with him, caressed him. This is the kind of abuse that creates intense shame, a complete loss of power, an inability to deal with other women, a total distrust of the entire sex, and a deeply rooted hatred. It's also the kind of abuse that guarantees that the abused cannot get away from the abuser, nor can they direct their anger towards the abuser. It's the most insidious kind. Incidentally, it is a kind of abuse that is the most common in women with Borderline Personality Disorder. My father was a victim of this type of abuse. And it cost him his marriage at the age of 68, ten years after his mother's death. If my dad had ever become a killer, he would have targeted women like his mother. Which I know because he told me that if he had been Jack the Ripper, he would have killed the way Jack killed. Which was an unnerving conversation, but I figure if he hasn't done it by the age of 71, then we are probably in the clear.

I think his abuse dictated his choice of victim, and it dictated the needs that had to be satisfied by the murders. I don't think it made him a killer. I think his own inability to successfully cope with that relationship and his inability to appropriately process the emotions that went with it made him a killer.

[caz]

Hi Abby,

I tend to agree with your last post.

I think my problem was essentially with the argument that the ripper may have selected only female victims because he had once been abused or dominated by a female. There are at least as many male abusers out there, and yet I don’t recall hearing a similar argument for male-on-male serial killers having had a male abuser in their past, explaining their gender choice.

When a specific gender is targeted, it is typically presumed these days - rightly or wrongly - to be an indicator of the killer’s sexuality (eg homosexual men will tend to select male victims), and we now know that our sexual inclinations are with us at birth, and therefore a matter of nature, not nurture.

If this is an accurate indicator that the ripper was born heterosexual (whether or not we believe the murders were sexually motivated), then he would presumably have selected female victims regardless of what or who may have buggered up his formative years and triggered, or nurtured his urge to kill.

In short, the mere fact that the Whitechapel victims were female can tell us little, if anything, about what motivated their killer(s) in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I once read an interesting article in a print journal, which I haven't been able to locate again, by a psychiatrist, formerly in clinical practice, later in research into what makes people violent, who had gathered a huge amount of raw data on both people abused as children who had not become abusive, and also people in prison for violent crimes, both those who had been abused as children, and those who had not. His initial analysis showed that people abused as children committed violent crimes at a statistically higher rate than those who had not, but were still not the majority of people who had been abused as children.

His criteria for abuse were stringent, and included, IIRC, at least two ER visits, or one overnight hospital stay, or a third-party report to child services, and this was dealing with adults who had been children between something like 1940-1970.

Anyway, he started looking for commonalities between the non-abused, and abused violent inmates, and discovered that nearly all of them had a documented closed-head injury with loss of consciousness. Many of the abuse victims got their head injuries as the result of parental abuse, while the others had fallen out of trees, been in car accidents-- it varied greatly. There were very few head injuries among the non-violent adults abused as children.

So, it would seem that being abused puts you at risk for becoming violent, but only in that it increases your risk for sustaining a head injury.

It's possible that car seat and bike helmet laws could decrease the number of future serial killers.

[GregBaron]

Mommie dearest...

and we now know that our sexual inclinations are with us at birth

I didn't know we knew this! Wow!

it basically boils down to the classic nature vs nurture discussion. I myself believe its a combination of both but more nature than nurture-as in serial killers are born not made. And I think some who are born with the disposition to be killers would not otherwise become them if they had "normal" childhoods(they would be able to overcome or control their murderous urges)-the abusive childhood puts them over the edge.

I think too much is made of Bundy re-killing his girlfriend. They say something about girls with hair parted down the middle. Hello people, all girls in the 70's parted their hair down the middle, it's called a style...I was there...I think he simply looked for good looking college girls...it's a matter of taste and college campuses were places where he was very comfortable...

The nature/nurture argument is a bit silly too because you can't have one or the other, they're codependent......part of the same puzzle......we're all a unique combination of this symbiosis...I also think the Freudian mommy thing is overdone...There's no evidence Bundy was physically abused, he may have been neglected. I think some people get their wires crossed concerning normal sexual attraction. Some link it with violence for some unknown reason. What's terrifying is that the psychopath will act on it...

We do know that psychopaths have retarded emotional development. It's like they're stuck in the narcissistic child state and their amygdala and frontal cortex indicate abnormalities when exposed to certain situations. They're basically sharks with little emotional life at all. Whether this is strictly a genetic thing or develops through life is unknown. I certainly believe in a genetic component but more evidence is needed...

The human mind/brain is the most complex thing that we know of and our understanding of it, I'm afraid, is in its infancy...


Greg

[lynn cates]

absent

Hello Michael. Thanks.

What if he were temporarily absent from home?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

It's also possible that Bundy had a type, and that his victims, as well as the girlfriend who dumped him had long brown hair, because Bundy liked long brown hair.

You can't discount the "style" factor, though, because long, straight hair with no bangs, parted in the middle was pretty common. People were into "natural" looks, so permed and dyed hair was at an all time low, and so was any kind of cut that needed upkeep, even bangs.

Also, if you actually look at photos of his victims, some of them have perfectly straight hair, but others have wavy hair. Some have hair so dark brown it borders on black, and others have very light brown hair, and were probably blonde as children. Also while some had center parts, others parted it slightly to one side.

So yeah, they all looked similar, but not anymore than other people often date people who are a type. It's creepy because he killed them, but they didn't look spookily alike. If he'd kept them prisoner, and dyed their hair, and made them dress in his old girlfriend's clothes, that'd be something else entirely.

[Errata]

I didn't know we knew this! Wow!


I think too much is made of Bundy re-killing his girlfriend. They say something about girls with hair parted down the middle. Hello people, all girls in the 70's parted their hair down the middle, it's called a style...I was there...I think he simply looked for good looking college girls...it's a matter of taste and college campuses were places where he was very comfortable...

The nature/nurture argument is a bit silly too because you can't have one or the other, they're codependent......part of the same puzzle......we're all a unique combination of this symbiosis...I also think the Freudian mommy thing is overdone...There's no evidence Bundy was physically abused, he may have been neglected. I think some people get their wires crossed concerning normal sexual attraction. Some link it with violence for some unknown reason. What's terrifying is that the psychopath will act on it...

We do know that psychopaths have retarded emotional development. It's like they're stuck in the narcissistic child state and their amygdala and frontal cortex indicate abnormalities when exposed to certain situations. They're basically sharks with little emotional life at all. Whether this is strictly a genetic thing or develops through life is unknown. I certainly believe in a genetic component but more evidence is needed...

The human mind/brain is the most complex thing that we know of and our understanding of it, I'm afraid, is in its infancy...


Greg

Bundy's victims did not just share similar characteristics. They really looked like they could be sisters. Long brown hair parted in the middle, oval faces, prominent chins and cheekbones. And we know Bundy had serious issues with that girlfriend, because he went and got successful, came back, convinced her to date him again, all so he could break up with her in a particularly rude fashion. That's a lot of work. That's pathologic.

He was physically abused by his father, but I think the real trauma came from finding out that his sister was actually his mother and that it was highly likely that his father was also his grandfather. Which is definitely a harsh blow. While Freud certainly popularized the idea of mommy issues, he didn't get it right. So it is overdone, but in truth, it's also simply shorthand for the masses. It's something 60 minutes can give to their audience so they understand that there was some serious psychological issues concerning his identity and sense of self. But it is such a simplistic explanation that it is in fact wrong. But people who study this kind of thing certainly understand the vast complexities involved, even if they don't understand the complexities themselves.

There is a simple question that no one can answer, and that is what makes a man turn into a serial killer? Nobody knows. And anyone who says they do is lying. There are traits mostly common to serial killers, but they aren't absolute. They weren't all abused, they aren't all psychopaths, they don't all have TBI, thy don't all start fires or torture animals. There are multiple exceptions to every rule. Some serial killers get caught, and no one is surprised that this guy turned out to be a killer. Some are caught, and no one can understand it, or believe it. Some have the warrior gene, some have dims spots in their frontal cortex.We don't know what flipped their switch so that they needed to kill, or even if there is a switch to be flipped. I don't have any idea what made Bundy a killer. But I can point to parts of his life and say with a fair amount of certainty that these events informed his killing. Who he chose, how he killed, how he disposed of the bodies and why that way. A lot of that is psych 101. But here's the big question. Clearly there is a point in time in which someone is not a serial killer. And then they are. Usually because of some stressor. So when did killing people become an option? At birth? As a child? As an adult? After a specific event? Is it even fair to say that there was a time in which this person was not a serial killer? Is a switch flipped? A series of switches? Is it more like a falling Jenga tower? Is it the natural state of man? Nobody knows. We don't know why they did what they did. But we can know why they did it the way that they did.

[GregBaron]

Baby steps to madness...

Bundy's victims did not just share similar characteristics. They really looked like they could be sisters. Long brown hair parted in the middle, oval faces, prominent chins and cheekbones. And we know Bundy had serious issues with that girlfriend, because he went and got successful, came back, convinced her to date him again, all so he could break up with her in a particularly rude fashion. That's a lot of work. That's pathologic.

I'm not sure why we always get on to Bundy and for that I apologize. Since we are profiling I guess it's at least indirectly related to the thread topic..

Anyway Errata, I still don't really buy the look-alike proposition. Perhaps he had a type for those he stalked but many of his crimes were ones of opportunity.

When the girl left the sorority house at midnight in the semi-darkness do you think he thought....."hmmm...let me see, is her hair parted down the middle, oh goodie, yes it is, tick that box, now let me see does she have nice white teeth and big hooters...hmmm, yes and yes again....Ok, wonderful I'm in...I'll approach this one....."

Of course not. It was simply, creature approaching, it's young and female i.e.; victim. Many of his were this way. Again, he trolled where there would be pretty young girls....he didn't go looking down the alleys in Chinatown...

Also, he was reading detective magazines, peeping in windows and wanking off long before he met the college girlfriend. I don't really believe in the trigger or going off the edge thing, at least usually, it's typically an evolution. Bundy, by his own admission, had been fantasizing and stalking for years.

We also don't know when he started, some think it was when he was 14 and the 8 year old girl down the street disappeared......He was a paraphilic who conflated sex and violence and evolved until he was ready to act on it........once he did he was addicted and enjoyed it......


Greg