Did Jack gross himself out..?

[Ausgirl]

It sounds logical Rivkah, but then we have the same problem we face about other known serial killers. When they find a formula that works well for them, they "grow fat and careless" resulting in their being caught.

Or they learn and evolve, and just get sharper and better at it, and never are caught at all. EAR/ONS, Zodiac.. And maybe JtR? Though I am less sure of him, being that he was a lot less prolific and much briefer in 'tenure' as it were. Less to observe.

I was reading something about Berkowitz the other day and thought - if he'd died in 1976, he may have never been identified. It took him a lot of years to grow careless enough to be fingered as a viable suspect (though he was earlier id'd as a possible witness)... So - being the question to follow - I wonder how long it took JtR. Was the 'autumn of terror' just that - an experienced killer grown fat and careless?


edit: it's actually bothering me a bit that I can't find stats for how many mutilators have communicated this way vs how many haven't and irks me more that life's too short these days to sleeves-up and do the stats myself any time soon. Ah well, if it's not out there, maybe a backburner project.

[Mayerling]

You do have a point about those serial killers who (Zodiac, maybe the Axman of New Orleans, the Cleveland Torso killer) were never captured. But except maybe for Zodiac (who may still be around somewhere) these figures had to be dead within sixty to seventy years of their sprees, and unless something clearly links them with a second series of killings years after the first - and in the same area or some area - we have to suspect they calmed down and resumed more-or-less normal lives. Of the older pair of killers I mentioned above here, only the Cleveland Torso killer may have begun again. I recall a recent theory that that killer may have moved to California and killed Elizabeth Short in 1947.

But the ones who practice serial killing in secret places (Holmes, Deeming, Cream, Chapman) have to make sure they maintain posession of the secret place - or risk discovery. Gacy actually was closest to this when he lived above his private graveyard, but even he was eventually watched and uncovered. Holmes did have his "World's Fair" "hotel" of 1893-94, but he was also a con-man who defrauded his contractors. Eventually he had to try to burn the building as he fled, and it was not a strong or thorough enough fire. Plenty was discovered. Ironically though he was caught for a seperate murder of a business partner/patsy, which included a train trip to Canada where he killed three of the children of the patsy as well. He was tried for killing his partner in Philadelphia in 1894, and was finally hanged in 1896.

Jeff

[Errata]

So it occurs to me that I can think of one way the horror of Mary Kelly's murder could break the compulsion. It's not something I personally believe in, but I'll throw it out there for consideration.

Going too far almost never interrupts an obsession. But a compulsion is different. A compulsion is doing something because the consequences of not doing it are intolerable. It isn't about want, it's about need. Most of the time this is backed up with a delusion. For example, it turns out that humans can process most germs and bacteria they run across with little to no effect. People are constantly amazed at what we consume that doesn't make us sick. Not that it can't, it just usually doesn't. So germaphobes and hand washers are for the most part delusional about what will actually happen if they don't wash their hands, or if they touch a doorknob. The fear is irrational, but it's very real. So usually a delusion comes in to justify the fear. Like "I'm going to get smallpox if I touch doorknobs". No you aren't, but the delusion backs the compulsion.

I personally don't think Jack was at all delusional, and I don't see anything that would make me think he was under some compulsion. But if he was, Kelly's murder could have broken it. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen that when people do something terrible because of a delusion, it breaks the delusion. And the delusion is almost always religious in these cases. God says to punish whores, for example. And a person could read the bible and say that god in fact wants to punish whores, and he even wants them executed. And god saying "take the uterus" might be a little out of character, but I can see how that could be spun into something reasonable in a person's mind. But there is no way god tells someone to do what was done to Mary Kelly. The devil might, but not god. And that kind of realization can break a delusion. Make no mistake, it will be quickly replaced, but it can eliminate the delusion that was causing the murders in the first place. Which would break the compulsion. The person would still be as mad as a hatter, but they wouldn't be killing and mutilating prostitutes anymore. They might be killing taxmen, it depends on the individual issues. But it can break a pattern enough to lose the pattern.

Even in the throes of advanced schizophrenia, people's delusions are reflective of their needs or fears. it can quickly evolve into something unrecognizable, but the core need is still addressed. These things make a weird kind of sense. What matters is what the delusion evokes. Someone deluded into thinking they were a prophet, or angel, or messenger of god feels important. They feel blessed, protected, it explains feelings of disconnection. But to truly know that god trusts you and accepts you and even loves you. That he NEEDS you... thats huge. And powerful. And can make even murder seem acceptable. But a murder that challenges the notion that what you are doing is justified, holy, important, godly... delusions are hardy things, but they can be broken, and thats how they get broken. People think they are Superman often enough... but the delusion almost never makes it past the first injured "civilian", and has never survived a death (Yes there is a paper on just this. Appallingly titled something like "Madness in Metropolis"). It busts the delusion wide open.

I don't think Jack was delusional. I think he was absolutely sane in every measurable respect. And if he was compulsive, he was the least compulsive compulsive I've ever run across. But if he was delusional, if he was compulsive, and the murder of Mary Kelly ran counter to his delusion, it could break it.

[Ausgirl]

I'm enjoying these posts, lots to think about. Thanks for them.

Compulsion.. This really has me thinking, Errata. Jack's MO could simply have been that - a behaviour that offered him the most expedience in achieving his goal (whatever that was, beside the physical act of murder). But to me, there's some elements (primarily the mutilations) which strongly suggest a behavioral 'script', a compulsion to do things a certain way and this might be why, in all but the case of Liz Stride, there are several clear factors in common with each crime. Even the method of throat cutting is very alike from crime to crime - but that could be purely a practical behaviour he learned to be the most effective in a swift, silent kill. Compulsion might also account for the risks taken (even given how crowded and busy the place was, he could have been a tad sneakier than murdering women next door to a party, and so on, surely..) - if his victims triggered that compulsion to kill or mutilate a certain way, perhaps risk was outweighed by it.

Jury's out on 'delusional' but leaning that way. Really, I think one would pretty much have to be, to willingly play about in other people's intestines and carry off bits of offal. There's not a lot of rational reasons for doing that. Not the way JtR did it, anyway.

Dahmer was certainly delusional, but managed to hold an outward semblance of sanity, to the point of being able to sweet-talk his way clear of police while holding a victim -- twice! And pay his rent, hold a job, etc. Berkowitz was delusional as it gets and carried on killing for years while outwardly being fairly functional, before he was eventually caught.

I think JtR was much like that - well and truly delusional, but outwardly functioning for the most part.

Problem there is, I begin to unravel my own hypothesis re JtR grossing himself out and begin to think maybe he played out a particular delusion to its end. Ie, if he was looking for something inside his victims - perhaps, in Mary Kelly, having time to look more thoroughly, he found it.

But then, the illness isn't anything he could control so it would have manifested in some other way. Look, I'm arguing with myself now.

Still, I don't think it a coincidence that the one murder which diverged in MO quite widely from the others, and offered JtR the chance to spend a large amount of time with a victim was his last (in that series, at least). If you do recall the correct name of that paper, Errata, let me know - I would sure like to read it.

Jeff, the East Area Rapist is another who might still be out there.. he's a favourite study of mine, being that he's among the few who have 'vanished' after a bout of crimes but was tracked to a second series. Different MO and all, clearly capable of adapting and changing his ways to evade capture.. (though he did keep parts of his script, this being the compulsive part of his crimes). He's a great example of how a killer can seem to be focussed on one location and then appear to stop, but really has not. (I also believe he was the Visalia Ransacker, so that'd make two known moves in which he's changed MO significantly).

Which does nothing to support the idea of JtR having grossed himself out, haha. But interesting, anyway.

I almost went off on a tangent about the differences between 'situational' killers (who stick to a 'den', so to speak, as you've described above) and those who are more mobile.. but perhaps that's another thread entirely, I'd be happy to move that discussion over to one, if you'd care to continue it.

Just as another aside - I have to wonder if Dahmer ever had moments of clarity in which he just stopped and looked about himself with absolutely rational eyes, at all the severed heads and body bits and the stink and horror of it all. I should think he did, now and then. Clearly, it didn't stop him. But how horrible, if that was the case.

[Ausgirl]

I personally don't think Jack was at all delusional, and I don't see anything that would make me think he was under some compulsion.

I would argue that every serial killer who is not motivated by purely mundane wants (greed, for example) is suffering from a compulsion.

Or they wouldn't keep doing it?

[Barnaby]

Could this be considered quite unintentional "flooding" therapy for Jack? That is, if I am a smoker, I force myself to rapidly smoke a pack of cigarettes to experience the unpleasantness of nicotine poisoning. I probably wouldn't have the same positive association with cigarettes after that.

Of course, what evidence is there to suggest that any of this would gross Jack out? Consider how others like Bundy and Dahmer talked about horrific acts of necrophilia with dismembered body parts like they were walks in the park. I really doubt Jack lost any sleep over this.

[Nick Spring]

It seems to me it he was satiated after the murder of Kelly.

Maybe one step too far but he acted out his fantasy undisturbed.

Objectively there is a build up and escalation of grossness in the murders but I don't see he was grossed out just satisfied.

The path ends with Kelly, the fifth victim and last in my humble opinion.

Now blast me blast me but I didn't mention the C word.

Best

Nick