What's your profile for Jack?

[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.

[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".

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Bridewell]

White male.
Aged 25 - 30 in 1888.
Local man.
Employed.
Low profile.
Superficial charm.
Not physically ugly.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

While you may be right, I thoroughly dislike hearing about such killers holding their mothers even partially responsible for the way they turned out and being believed by the profilers. What about homosexual killers who only targeted male victims? Do they also get to blame their mothers if they had miserable childhoods? What about all the women who had dominant or abusive mothers, who almost never take to serial murder, let alone go round slaughtering strange women for looking or acting like their mother did? Is it because women are better at dealing with such emotional scars, or are we looking at all this from the wrong angle? What about all the fathers who are abusive to their daughters as well as their sons? What kind of serial killers do they produce, and are the victims likely to be the same gender as the abuser?

As I have said many times in the past, I would hold our old friend testosterone responsible for the male serial killer and the gender of his victims, before looking at his dear old mum for any reliable answers.

The killer Levi Bellfield told his girlfriend that "blondes are slags and should all die". That was his lame excuse for taking a hammer to his victims' skulls. He didn't have sex with them; he wasn't interested. He just wanted to smash their heads in. He didn't kill men or boys. I would rather nobody suggested his mother was blonde and was horrid to him as a small boy.

Love,

Caz
X

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. Look at all of the other coping mechanisms people use. Drinking, drugs, hypersexuality, emotional unavailability. Many people deal by helping those in a situation they themselves were in, pursuing more legislation against child abuse, demanding tougher punishments, etc. Does a guy who opens up a shelter for abused kids blame his mother for what he's doing? Of course not. It's what he chooses to do with his experience. 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.

For example. I will state up front that I was never abused. But I had a fraught relationship with my dad. Still do. I developed a habit of lying to him about just about everything to avoid criticism. A habit that persisted until about three years ago when my fiance pointed out to me that I was an adult and could do whatever the hell I wanted and he could "suck it". And at first this argument didn't move me, because I was trying to avoid conflict, and even as an adult that would still exist. And I argued that it was his fault I did that. And my fiance said no, it was his fault until the day you moved out on your own. Now it's your fault. And it was.

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

[Deathtosnails]

I don't think it's a matter of blaming a mother for creating a serial killer, but under the right circumstances with an absent or passive male role model and a dominant and abusive female role model combined with what ever wrong is going on inside a potential serial killer's mind can create the right conditions for a male to hate certain women and take his anger out on them in a way that fuels his fantasy.

Was Jack a product of these conditions? Or was there another woman in his life that fueled his hatred?

[lynn cates]

Mmmmm!

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"as we are talking about a male killer (or killers, hi Lynn)"

Thank you very much. (A lovely person.)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Sorry to but in, Caz you have a point.

What about all the women who had dominant or abusive mothers, who almost never take to serial murder, let alone go round slaughtering strange women for looking or acting like their mother did?

Shirley Ardell Mason, or as she is better known through the novel of her life story as Sybil from the novel Sybil is a good example of a woman who had a horrible mother, yet Miss Mason never grew up to kill anyone unless one of her split personalities got up to something. Yet she did have sixteen separate selves, but they were not killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Ardell_Mason

Hi Semper,

A similar case is that of the artist Kim Noble (not the male comedian of the same name):

http://kimnoble.com/

She claims to have suffered sexual abuse as a child, though not at her parents' hands.

Maybe females tend to turn their pain in on themselves, or manage to block it out completely, while some males choose to turn it outwards and inflict suffering on others?

I use the word 'choose' deliberately here, as we are talking about a male killer (or killers, hi Lynn ) who got away with murdering and/or mutilating each female victim because nobody was ever seen in the act. I don't think that was merely a lucky accident each time, on the part of a madman who didn't know or care about any potential witnesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Semper_Eadem]

Sorry to but in, Caz you have a point.

What about all the women who had dominant or abusive mothers, who almost never take to serial murder, let alone go round slaughtering strange women for looking or acting like their mother did?

Shirley Ardell Mason, or as she is better known through the novel of her life story as Sybil from the novel Sybil is a good example of a woman who had a horrible mother, yet Miss Mason never grew up to kill anyone unless one of her split personalities got up to something. Yet she did have sixteen separate selves, but they were not killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Ardell_Mason

[lynn cates]

No little darlings.

Hello Mike.

Why no children?

Cheers.
LC