A perpetrators perspective

[Ms Diddles]

Odd -- I'll say no more than that -- to find someone turning up whose attempts to draw posters into ever-more detailed discussion of misogynistic transgressions would have been like *catnip* to a million pseudo-feminist liberals drunk on Rubenhold and looking for a 'woman-hating' Ripperology forum to attack...

M.

Yeah, Mark! Catnip to that demographic, and manure to any female posters with experience of voyeurism / stalking from the other side of the pane of glass.

[Losmandris]

Odd -- I'll say no more than that -- to find someone turning up whose attempts to draw posters into ever-more detailed discussion of misogynistic transgressions would have been like *catnip* to a million pseudo-feminist liberals drunk on Rubenhold and looking for a 'woman-hating' Ripperology forum to attack...

M.

I totally agree. They would have had a field day. There lies a route no one should want to go down. Absolutely no reason for it.

[Mark J D]

Well that was quite an uncomfortable read. Good call JM. I think the chap has a few unresolved issues there. I hope he has the sense to reach out and get some mental health support.

Odd -- I'll say no more than that -- to find someone turning up whose attempts to draw posters into ever-more detailed discussion of misogynistic transgressions would have been like *catnip* to a million pseudo-feminist liberals drunk on Rubenhold and looking for a 'woman-hating' Ripperology forum to attack...

M.

[Losmandris]

MWatson is no longer a member.

Thanks for playing.

JM

Well that was quite an uncomfortable read. Good call JM. I think the chap has a few unresolved issues there. I hope he has the sense to reach out and get some mental health support.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes pre-planned, and choose victms\locations he calculated to be doable, but there has to be more details than those.

I would say planned, locations in general scouted and egress possibilities noted, but on those nights he had only the luck of the draw and a choice to make, when to try and cash in. I dont think there has to be more, but then Im just talking about C1 and C2. Lots of speculatives to make up the rest of the 5. I think the Unsolved File contains multiple killers to be sure...the C5 are less than half of those Unsolved cases, so I tend to pair like with like until maybe something concrete can someday turn supposition into highly probable.

[Kattrup]

Is he correct, or is he simply projecting lust onto a violent crime, and our unknown perpetrator really felt nothing more than blind rage and hatred? Did he really find this horrendous murder 'gratifying,' or did he become even more unhinged and instead of going back to a "normal" life, had a mental breakdown and either threw himself in the Thames or was locked up in an asylum?

'Sexualizing' violence can be very wide of the mark, at least in my opinion.

I do not think there is anything to indicate that the murders were "classic" K-Ebing Lustmorde or that the killer felt sexual arousal from the crimes. Although there are cuts etc. to the genitals, the killer might have felt more rage and anger - for instance, the correspondant claiming to the "down on whores" and who won't stop ripping them does not to me sound very lust-motivated, rather he seeks to excise the unclean from society or similar - perhaps by damaging/cutting their genitals. So the murderer's motivation may have been linked to his conception of the victims' sexuality, but that does not mean he himself was after sexual gratification.

As for what happened to him, there's currently no way of knowing - I believe something happened to him, like prison or he went abroad, but that's pure speculation based mainly on the idea that a murderer that was so active in a very short span of time would not simply stop. Having ripped four women, I do not think his obsession with opening up his victims would simply dissipate. But of course it's possible that it did, after MJK what was left for him to do? Taking that perspective, rather than "gratifying" I imagine it would have been disappointing that MJK's murder had no further effect on society - he'd gone to an extreme and there was no unusual reaction - perhaps he ended up thinking it was no use ripping whores anymore.

As said, I do however favour the idea that he left London for some reason - also because it's possible that Mackenzie was a later Ripper-victim. But then one just postpones the answer: if he was away until the MacKenzie-murder ,what happened to him afterwards?

[rjpalmer]

Not sure what you find unsettling about the nature of the discussion, such as it was, perhaps the idea that offenders are not automatons with predetermined instincts beyond time and space and therefore can actually change and reform? At least, I’m sure accepting that cornerstone of western penal thinking could be unsettling to some.

Hi Kattrup,

I think that you might be reading a little too much into my word 'unsettling.' People can reform and I'm certainly not defending the Western and (especially the American) system of throwing everyone in prison forever. Whether people are primarily driven by nature or nurture is a complex issue that can be debated, but is beyond the scope of this conversation. There is scientific evidence that suggests it is a combination of the two, but social workers naturally focus on the 'nurture' aspect since, as a society, we can do something about it.

The comment that he made that I found 'unsettling' was actually on another thread. I should have made this plain.

"Some men might understand and relate to how lingerie or used underwear can trigger sexual arousal. Sights, smells and tastes that allow a continuation and prolonging of the sexual experience. After that, where to? Nowhere - as Mary Kelly was THE fantasy cum reality. He could continue as before, a “normal” person but with the gratifying experiences that had finally made him the man he’d always suspected he was."


Yes, I found this comment a little over-the-top, especially due to his lead-up--that mere idea that he would describe a brutal murder of a woman as a 'gratifying experience'-- but, more to the point, perhaps, I am by no means convinced that he is even psychologically accurate. It's a little too simplistic and 'Krafft-Ebing' for my liking.

Is he correct, or is he simply projecting lust onto a violent crime, and our unknown perpetrator really felt nothing more than blind rage and hatred? Did he really find this horrendous murder 'gratifying,' or did he become even more unhinged and instead of going back to a "normal" life, had a mental breakdown and either threw himself in the Thames or was locked up in an asylum?

'Sexualizing' violence can be very wide of the mark, at least in my opinion.

[Kattrup]

Beyond the unsettling nature of this discussion, the question I would ask is whether we should even give a damn about a 'perpetrator's perspective?'

Yes, it's very fashionable right now, especially in Hollywood and on Netflix, to have Ted Bundy working alongside the detectives, offering his great psychological insights, but how do we know that 'Ted' isn't just projecting his own warped desires onto the unknown perpetrator? Indeed, isn't it very likely that he would be?

Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer to look elsewhere other than death row if I'm looking for psychological insight.

Not sure what you find unsettling about the nature of the discussion, such as it was, perhaps the idea that offenders are not automatons with predetermined instincts beyond time and space and therefore can actually change and reform? At least, I’m sure accepting that cornerstone of western penal thinking could be unsettling to some.

Be that as it may, I agree that one perpetrator’s thoughts about another’s crimes are unlikely to be of use. The idea that they could be is tied in with the popular belief in the pseudoscience of profiling.

[rjpalmer]

MWatson is no longer a member.

Thanks for playing.

JM

Beyond the unsettling nature of this discussion, the question I would ask is whether we should even give a damn about a 'perpetrator's perspective?'

Yes, it's very fashionable right now, especially in Hollywood and on Netflix, to have Ted Bundy working alongside the detectives, offering his great psychological insights, but how do we know that 'Ted' isn't just projecting his own warped desires onto the unknown perpetrator? Indeed, isn't it very likely that he would be?

Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer to look elsewhere other than death row if I'm looking for psychological insight.

[Varqm]

This kind of behaviour if indulged almost certainly leads to further more invasive ideas.

Im not sure anyone who has allowed him/herself to indulge these impulses doesnt need some ongoing guidance, but maybe to the reason you posted this..

I think the man who committted at least some of the murders within the so-called Canonical Group went out planning to do what he did. He wasnt swept up in a moment, unprepared. Maybe rehearsed it before, imagined it, then the urge to indulge it overwhelmed his self control. He brought the knife, maybe wore gloves, maybe brought something to carry parts away. The only variable is who he would pick. And I think that was a factor of opportunity, rather than persistent pursuit of "an objective". Killing and cutting were the objectives, the body he needed wasnt coveted. Arguably and with apologies for being blunt, the first 2 Canonicals were not great lookers. Beauty, or ones perception of it, I think is what Stalkers are about. In this case, Victims are what this guy was looking for. The right one and the right spot.

Missed his mark on #1 though.

Yes pre-planned, and choose victms\locations he calculated to be doable, but there has to be more details than those.

[Varqm]

MWatson is no longer a member.

Thanks for playing.

JM

In his first posts he was skimming the surface, further questions might have revealed more.Would have learned more,and if he was pulling the leg. But info can do without.

[Michael W Richards]

This kind of behaviour if indulged almost certainly leads to further more invasive ideas.

Im not sure anyone who has allowed him/herself to indulge these impulses doesnt need some ongoing guidance, but maybe to the reason you posted this..

I think the man who committted at least some of the murders within the so-called Canonical Group went out planning to do what he did. He wasnt swept up in a moment, unprepared. Maybe rehearsed it before, imagined it, then the urge to indulge it overwhelmed his self control. He brought the knife, maybe wore gloves, maybe brought something to carry parts away. The only variable is who he would pick. And I think that was a factor of opportunity, rather than persistent pursuit of "an objective". Killing and cutting were the objectives, the body he needed wasnt coveted. Arguably and with apologies for being blunt, the first 2 Canonicals were not great lookers. Beauty, or ones perception of it, I think is what Stalkers are about. In this case, Victims are what this guy was looking for. The right one and the right spot.

Missed his mark on #1 though.

[jmenges]

MWatson is no longer a member.

Thanks for playing.

JM

[Varqm]

It's good you snapped out of it. Let me ask you some general questions MWatson.

So what do you think was the trigger\thoughts that made you do the things you did?
So you are walking down the street, was there any specific woman you were after, somebody you saw before, or any would do, or you just decide based on who you saw at that time?
What were the things you look for, how do you decide when it is safe to do your things?
If caught doing your thing did you plan on running, talk your way out of it, fight?

[John Wheat]

Ally, clearly you don’t think I have anything to offer so maybe just ignore me or don’t bother with this thread.

It’s usual to read about people thinking the killer got around in dark clothing, carried a bag, wore a certain type of hat, wore “noiseless” footwear, used sewers to get around etc. etc. etc.

Law and Order indeed.

Hi MWatson
Although I've not posted on this thread until now. I have a slightly different view to Ally. I am finding the thread useful. It is clear to me that you are remorseful over your stalking and voyerism. And won't be doing it again. Thanks for your openness.

Cheers John