What's your profile for Jack?

[K-453]

Wondering whom Jack wanted to punish vicariously might miss the point. Because it is also possible that what he was mainly after was cutting female bodies open and fumbling around with their innards. In that case, he killed only to break resistance.

[caz]

So why an abusive mother? Well, I think there was a sexual component to the abuse, and mixing mom's and sex never ends well. And while I am not surprised by the the sex of his victims, I am surprised by his care in selection. Because he never accidentally got a maid going to work, he wasn't interested in young women, he appeared to favor older prostitutes. Zaftig, older prostitutes. Women of a certain age. That's atypical, but when it does happen, there's usually a reason. An older woman isn't easier to kill. So it's not about that. He's picking them for a reason, and I think he's younger than them. So why kill older prostitutes? Transference is an easy answer.

Hi Errata,

I see where you are coming from, but surely if his 'care in selection' was merely down to what sort of woman was most available, most desperate and most vulnerable, walking the streets in the early hours trying to earn her doss money, there is no surprise when looking at the very small sample of victims that can reasonably be attributed to him, and precious little care either.

Nichols was likely drunk and certainly without funds; Chapman weak, terminally ill and similarly penniless; Eddowes likely still under the influence and in need of money; and Kelly had probably been drinking too and owed all that back rent. The younger, fitter, more sober and less desperate the woman, the less of a pushover she would have been, and if the ripper killed Stride (possibly because she was resisting his 'charms') he may have bitten off more than he could chew on that occasion.

I think the ratio of older to younger victims is just about what we would expect from an opportunistic killer (of any age) who had to take his chance with what was on offer on those streets very late at night: mainly the stragglers, past their prime and borderline alcoholic, who lived a hand to mouth existence and had to earn their doss money outdoors each night before they could afford to sleep indoors, with the odd younger specimen thrown in who was more likely to have some sort of a room of her own, as did Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Or, maybe head injuries don't cause violence, they damage natural ability to inhibit, and a lot more men than women have violent tendencies that need natural inhibition to be intact.

Ah, now that I can definitely believe.

Thanks Rivkah.

Love,

Caz
X

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

thanks

I am also struggling with large posts. I've read some of it previously. I'll check it out again. I might suggest it could've been one man who's mother died shortly before Tabram was murdered.

[woocus]

JTR - profile

Hullo Woocus! Upon what precisely do you base this upon? Not being snarky. Interested in your approach.

On the basis that they got away with it completely and the forensic Dr who wrote JTR - the final solution - (which I think she got wrong) her intensive opinion that the murderer/s was CLOSELY associated with her victim (Martha Tabram) and having spent years puzzling over this - please see my post Marthas sons in the victims section for starters.
If this seems abrubt i'm struggling to post longer answers so am trying this short version. Apologies.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Wow

Hi Dig

not me.
Imo he loved MJK very much.
Well, just like Kemper loved (to play darts with) his mom.

That may have tickled me. Disturbing thing is I had a friend I used to pick on occasionaly, who reminds me of Kemper very much. He was a little bigger even. Large, smart, and rage at one's mother and everything else. Guess I'm lucky and good to not be a dartboard.

[DVV]

Hi Dig

not me.
Imo he loved MJK very much.
Well, just like Kemper loved (to play darts with) his mom.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And who's to say "Jack" didn't love his victims?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Woocus! Upon what precisely do you base this upon? Not being snarky. Interested in your approach.

[woocus]

Profile JTR

To Deathtosnails

I believe Jack was the kind of killer who lived out his fantasies as he was in the process of killing.

My sixpence worth.
Jack is two closely related persons thro family or communal association, of long standing. There is an alpha and a beta male. The alpha male carries a strong hatred of his mothers' lifestyle. This is of long standing and stems from the contradiction of the mothers' ongoing misbehaviour and what he knows as normal living.
The JTR pair make their living precariously within the Whitechapel environment, are younger rather than older.
Martha Tabram is their first victim, being a close replica of their mother, who they have approached in the early hours of the morning for money, possibly for drink. It is their intention to mug her.
She has no money, having blown the soldiers money on drink between 12 and 3am. She is grabbed from behind in a chokehold by one assailant, and confronted with a knife by the other. Her small size and poor condition causes her to choke, or she faints. She is laid on her back, and then stabbed initially to prevent the assailant/s from being identified.
The alpha male however, in the heat of the moment, moves to a red rage haze, this mad spell introduces the multiple stabbings, the areas stabbed sending a clear message to his mother.
They disappear quietly into the night, wait the next few days out to see the police response, are ignored in the investigations, and become relaxed over the next weeks.
Soon, knowing they can get away with it, they begin to consider the possibility of another attack, the excitement of the high and the logic of thinking they are doing good rather than bad driving them.
Anyone who has experienced the blood rush of doing something extremely dangerous and then getting away with it will understand the beginnings of this mindset.
At least the next three murders have the same characteristics.

[Errata]

I was thinking today of an imagined fantasy base built upon over the years verses an almost random chance killing. Semi inspired by similar drives.

The difference between the two being the final 'trigger' urge to act on a fantasy and the other being a chance killing leading to a feeling of what ever 'they' (serial killers) enjoy.

Did 'Jack' have an active fantasy life and had desires to act upon them or was it a chance killing that led to a feeling of power and culminated in a frenzy of violence that even he repulsed from? Resulting in his own death...or did he continue, safe in the knowledge that he won't be caught?

The "chance killing" trigger is pretty rare, but certainly not impossible. I'm thinking of serial killers whose first murder was essentially unplanned, and I think it might be safe to say that it comes in two types. Okay, four types, but only two that might apply to this case.

The first applies only to "Angels of Mercy". The second is killing in the commission of another crime, say accidentally during a rape, or on purpose after a rape for the purpose of avoiding jail. There no evidence of any crimes other than murder being committed, so that doesn't apply either. The first that may apply is the Aileen Wuornos model, where her first murder was in self defense, and that triggered a spree. And it's a good model for Jack barring the self defense aspect, but his first murder could have been an accident, or at least not premeditated. The last model is that of Jeffrey Dahmer. Whose first kill was emotionally driven, not intentional, and did not trigger a spree. In fact he didn't kill again for nine years. But he killed his first victim for trying to leave him, and he killed the rest so that they wouldn't leave him. Despite the gap in time, the first murder is inextricably linked to the subsequent murders. And it may even be that he remembered his first murder as the only way he ever managed to keep someone.

If we are looking at either of the two last cases, then the first victim is again the significant one. With Wuornos the first victim gave her power she didn't have before. With Dahmer it defined his motive. But if we are looking at a Dahmer type, the first victim was likely killed well before the others, and probably not the same way. And it was probably someone closer to home. Find that victim, and you find the motive.

[John Wheat]

To Deathtosnails

I believe Jack was the kind of killer who lived out his fantasies as he was in the process of killing.

[Deathtosnails]

I was thinking today of an imagined fantasy base built upon over the years verses an almost random chance killing. Semi inspired by similar drives.

The difference between the two being the final 'trigger' urge to act on a fantasy and the other being a chance killing leading to a feeling of what ever 'they' (serial killers) enjoy.

Did 'Jack' have an active fantasy life and had desires to act upon them or was it a chance killing that led to a feeling of power and culminated in a frenzy of violence that even he repulsed from? Resulting in his own death...or did he continue, safe in the knowledge that he won't be caught?

[Wickerman]

It's not like Ed wasn't absolutely correct in pointing out a serious flaw in their interview procedures. That he did it theatrically... I imagine that's one of those things you laugh about later.

I was at gas station a couple years ago, went in to pay, got gas, got in my car, started it, started to pull out and freaked the eff out because there was a 50 year old homeless man in the passenger seat that I didn't even notice. I was so used to driving my fiance around that despite seeing the homeless guy, I didn't see him. And then he starts shouting at me about what a colossal idiot I was leaving the car unlocked and unattended, and how he could have been a serial killer or a rapist, and how in god's name did I not see him when I got in the car... for like 5 minutes he yells at me about basic safety, then gets out of the car. Then gets back in the car and yells at me for not locking the door the second he got out of the car, then got out and I locked the door. And he glared at me as I drove away, and I was shaking so hard I couldn't control my gas pedal. He scared me to death, but now I laugh about it. And I always lock my car.

His way of teaching you a lesson. Some people never learn, you apparently have
He may have saved your life!

(did he have wings?)

[Errata]

Yes, Ed could teach Stephen King a thing about the violent imagination; he threatened to pull Ressler's head off and leave it sitting on the table to greet the guard. I believe Kemper was strong enough and mad enough to do it.

He was strong enough, but if he was mad enough he would have actually done it. Instead of saying he COULD do it, and then leaning back in his chair grinning. I'm just saying, a valuable lesson was learned about not being trapped in a room with a violent psychopath you just spent the last few hours irritating. And not the hard way. So in a way, he was very lucky it was Kemper and not, say, Gacy.