How to sort the Ripper

[Errata]

Hi errata
fascinating post.

I would put the ripper more in the body dumping category though. left bodies on display and took away body parts-so much interest in body (or parts of it) post mortem.

I think he "looks" like an abandoner because he didn't have a car.

Display is body hoarding, not dumping. So, body hoarders try to add to their relationship with the corpse in some way. They need or want it for something. Body dumpers are trying to erase any connection to the corpse, physical or emotional, and body abandoners essentially have a switch thrown, and they walk away without consideration for the body at all.

And it's hard, because the Ripper is a post mortem mutilator, which would mostly make him a hoarder, except that he walks off without apparently noticing that there is a dead human lying there. He doesn't try to hide it, or take it somewhere (even if just dragging it). Nor does he show any signs of remorse and arranges the body in a more respectful way. It like a timer goes off and he walks away. Generally if it look like the killer could come back at any time and resume what he was doing, that's body abandonment.
And all of the victims looked like he had just stepped away for a moment. There is no finished quality to any of his murders.

It's probably in the eye of the beholder to great extent, and I don't know which one he was. I chose body abandoner to start with and see what I found. Which isn't much because it's the rarer of the three for serial killers. If this proves useful in any way, I'll try and find similar body hoarders. But I really don't consider this a dump, because nothing about these crime scenes makes it look like the killer did anything to distance himself, either physically or emotionally.

I think Soto is an interesting find though. It's not what I thought I would get.

[Abby Normal]

Display is body hoarding, not dumping. So, body hoarders try to add to their relationship with the corpse in some way. They need or want it for something. Body dumpers are trying to erase any connection to the corpse, physical or emotional, and body abandoners essentially have a switch thrown, and they walk away without consideration for the body at all.

And it's hard, because the Ripper is a post mortem mutilator, which would mostly make him a hoarder, except that he walks off without apparently noticing that there is a dead human lying there. He doesn't try to hide it, or take it somewhere (even if just dragging it). Nor does he show any signs of remorse and arranges the body in a more respectful way. It like a timer goes off and he walks away. Generally if it look like the killer could come back at any time and resume what he was doing, that's body abandonment.
And all of the victims looked like he had just stepped away for a moment. There is no finished quality to any of his murders.

It's probably in the eye of the beholder to great extent, and I don't know which one he was. I chose body abandoner to start with and see what I found. Which isn't much because it's the rarer of the three for serial killers. If this proves useful in any way, I'll try and find similar body hoarders. But I really don't consider this a dump, because nothing about these crime scenes makes it look like the killer did anything to distance himself, either physically or emotionally.

I think Soto is an interesting find though. It's not what I thought I would get.

Hi errata
Thanks.

Body dumpers are trying to erase any connection to the corpse, physical or emotional,

You included bundy and ridgeway as body dumpers, but didn't they return to the corpses for sex and other reasons?

I find classifying serial killers by motivation/reason for killing as the most useful and accurate way to do it. Ive gleaned the below categories for serial killers from books, experts and my own analysis:

Type:
1.Personal gain serial killer-Kill for usually financial or personal gain-black widow types. Bela Kiss would be an example of this as would Mudgett (partially).

2.Delusional type serial killer-if there mental illness is the main reason they kill. ex.-Chase, Mullins, gein

3. Mission serial killer. this is very rare. they kill as part of a larger plan or group with specific objective ex.-The "Zebra" murders, Unabomber.

4. Rape killers-The main motivation is rape and the killing is secondary and just to evade capture by silencing the victim.

5. Thrill killers-Kill seemingly for the pure joy of committing murder. but anger, jealousy and revenge probably play a large role.ex.-Zodiac, son of sam, Monster of Florence. seem to target couples.

6. Lust killers-the majority of the serial killers fall into this group. Sex tied up in a twisted way with death somehow is the major factor. several subgroups here including post mortem mutilators. ex. the ripper, BTK, bundy, Dahmer.
(still working out sub groups)

I think there can be some mix/overlap here between the types, such as mudgett (and someon like Panzram)being a mix of personal gain and Lust killer. maybe chase as delusional and mission. But I think we could pretty much accurately put every serial killer under one of these categories as their main reason/type.

[Fisherman]

I think there can be some mix/overlap here between the types, such as mudgett (and someon like Panzram)being a mix of personal gain and Lust killer. maybe chase as delusional and mission. But I think we could pretty much accurately put every serial killer under one of these categories as their main reason/type.

And the (your) Ripper goes...- where?

[Errata]

Hi errata
Thanks.



You included bundy and ridgeway as body dumpers, but didn't they return to the corpses for sex and other reasons?

I find classifying serial killers by motivation/reason for killing as the most useful and accurate way to do it. Ive gleaned the below categories for serial killers from books, experts and my own analysis:

Type:
1.Personal gain serial killer-Kill for usually financial or personal gain-black widow types. Bela Kiss would be an example of this as would Mudgett (partially).

2.Delusional type serial killer-if there mental illness is the main reason they kill. ex.-Chase, Mullins, gein

3. Mission serial killer. this is very rare. they kill as part of a larger plan or group with specific objective ex.-The "Zebra" murders, Unabomber.

4. Rape killers-The main motivation is rape and the killing is secondary and just to evade capture by silencing the victim.

5. Thrill killers-Kill seemingly for the pure joy of committing murder. but anger, jealousy and revenge probably play a large role.ex.-Zodiac, son of sam, Monster of Florence. seem to target couples.

6. Lust killers-the majority of the serial killers fall into this group. Sex tied up in a twisted way with death somehow is the major factor. several subgroups here including post mortem mutilators. ex. the ripper, BTK, bundy, Dahmer.
(still working out sub groups)

I think there can be some mix/overlap here between the types, such as mudgett (and someon like Panzram)being a mix of personal gain and Lust killer. maybe chase as delusional and mission. But I think we could pretty much accurately put every serial killer under one of these categories as their main reason/type.

I agree. It's a perfectly logical way to sort serial killers. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well if you start comparing within the same type. Lust killers are very different from each other, for example. And their behaviors often don't overlap.

We have in the Ripper a killer whose behaviors and motivations we don't know. Having someone as close to him as possible to compare him to might shed some light.

It's like sorting whales. We can absolutely call them a sea creature, and that does very nicely. Unless I want to find sea creatures that breathe air. Then I either need a hideously involved search that may turn up nothing, or I need to switch over to searching for mammals in the sea. How I sort depends on what I'm trying to find.

In this case, I'm looking for psychology and behaviors. For example, i would love to know if the Ripper was a guy who walked or ran away from his murders. I'll never know that, but if I find that body disportment (as opposed to motivation) gets me more people with behaviors in common, and the guys in the Ripper's particular column walk away, I can intuit that the Ripper might walk away. For instance. I'm not actually looking for that. Just that kind of thing.

I also have a cat name Mudgett. She has the mustache and the dress clothes, and stares in a creepy fashion. And I got away with it because no one knows the name, where they would recognize Holmes.

[Abby Normal]

And the (your) Ripper goes...- where?

lust killer type

[Errata]

Hi errata

You included bundy and ridgeway as body dumpers, but didn't they return to the corpses for sex and other reasons?

I forgot this part.

Yes they did. Which is usually a body hoarder thing. But both Bundy and Ridgeway stashed the bodies in well out of the way places, putting quite a bit of distance between them and the bodies until the urge to relive it came over them. Also both occasionally had to choose between dumping a body or potentially hoarding it, when visiting the body would be impossible. And in those cases both chose a straight dump, rather than potentially changing things up with hoarding behavior. So they are body dumpers, even if the intent was not necessarily to divorce themselves from the corpse entirely, and instead was simply hiding it from prying eyes.

A lot of serial killers I am learning really are very black and white with this, with relatively few killers blurring the lines. I think no matter what categories anyone chooses to apply, some people will defy classification. Humans are messy creatures who don't tidy up very well. I don't think we can find all the answers with one kind of classification, regardless which kind it is. There is always going to be something aberrant about this killer I think. He strays from traditional lust killers in many ways, he strays from the usual body abandoner in many ways, he strays from the simple classification of "organized" in many ways. Which perhaps is a signal to us that he was operating only partly based on his own preference, usually a sign of madness. I don't know. But what I am learning is that Jack has a lot in common with the guys who decide to punish but not sexually. Revenge or vigilantes. And some things different.

To be fair I'm also learning that there are apparently more sexual cannibal necrophiliacs in the world than non raping serial mutilators. Who knew, right? Despite the Ripper seeming somewhat more reasonable than Dahmer, there are apparently more Dahmers in the world. Unless they all live in Ohio which I haven't got to yet. Go big or go home, I guess.

[harry]

Errata,
A good site is MURDER UK.
Bushby? is a person who was arresred before he killed again.

Might be a good idea if you took the first? of the Ripper murders and made comparisons with single killers who might have turned into multiple ones.
Regards.

[Errata]

Errata,
A good site is MURDER UK.
Bushby? is a person who was arresred before he killed again.

Might be a good idea if you took the first? of the Ripper murders and made comparisons with single killers who might have turned into multiple ones.
Regards.

One thing I have noticed about the one off mutilators is that almost all either apparently make no effort to not get caught, or they turn themselves in to police at some point. I have no idea why this is, but it's really astonishing how often that happens. From leaving a literal blood trail to the guy who walked into a police station with a breast in a ziploc bag. Like whatever is wrong with them is somehow unsustainable. And it's not even a guilt thing. A lot of these guys aren't sorry in the classic sense. They appear to turn themselves in because they are either tired or it simply is what one does when one breaks the law. A sustained serial effort to mutilate people is apparently an enormous amount of work in some way, that most people aren't cut out to do. Which apparently makes the Ripper somewhat remarkable in the ranks of mutilators.

Thanks for the site. When I get through a few more of the more murder inclined US States I'll move to the UK. National temperament is a very real phenomenon, and it may be that I can't find a lot of US counterparts because the Ripper always had to be British to work. And perhaps Bundy could only have worked in the US. It seems unlikely, but there's not a lot I can rule out at this point.

[John G]

lust killer type

Hi Abby,

Could he possibly have been a mission killer, i.e. on the basis that he thought he was receiving messages from God to kill prostitutes? That's what Peter Sutcliffe claimed, although I'm not sure I believe him!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Could he possibly have been a mission killer, i.e. on the basis that he thought he was receiving messages from God to kill prostitutes? That's what Peter Sutcliffe claimed, although I'm not sure I believe him!

absolutely. however, I think if it was its mixed with the Lust killer type.There seemed to be some sort of sexual component to his crimes.

he targeted sexual areas of the body and took away internal organs-more than likely to relive/prolong the experience and IMHO I think he probably used with masturbation.

[Errata]

absolutely. however, I think if it was its mixed with the Lust killer type.There seemed to be some sort of sexual component to his crimes.

he targeted sexual areas of the body and took away internal organs-more than likely to relive/prolong the experience and IMHO I think he probably used with masturbation.

Or eating. Which can be sexual, but usually isn't.

When a man's penis is taken by a serial killer, it's almost never sexual. It's an expression of extreme rage and the need to punish in the worst way they can think of. Even with homosexual killers. So it would be interesting if the factor of the sex of the victim is enough to completely change the meaning of the act of targeting organs of generation, or if it's an extension. And it's merely easier on male victim than female victims.

I would think that if the motivation was sexual, that other (easier) parts of the body would be targeted. Typically the external genitals are targeted, and almost always the breasts. Sometimes even the mouth. That didn't happen here. I don't know why not. He had the time on some of his murders, but he did not take the opportunity.

[Errata]

Hi Abby,

Could he possibly have been a mission killer, i.e. on the basis that he thought he was receiving messages from God to kill prostitutes? That's what Peter Sutcliffe claimed, although I'm not sure I believe him!

A mission oriented killer does no have to be quite so directed as that, though many are. It can also be a kind of revenge. It has come up that there have been killers who are acting out against the type of person who hurt them at some point. Prostitute mothers, problematic children, brunettes who spurned them... The kind of mutilation that comes from rage and revenge can be brutal and even apparently sexual in nature. But the psychology seems to be something a little more along the lines of "I'm taking from you what you wouldn't give to me, or what you exposed me to" and not actually sexual. There are of course sexual sadists who are motivated by revenge as well. Bundy may have been one. But they rape their victims. Either pre or post mortem.

[Fisherman]

I would think that if the motivation was sexual, that other (easier) parts of the body would be targeted. Typically the external genitals are targeted, and almost always the breasts. Sometimes even the mouth. That didn't happen here. I don't know why not. He had the time on some of his murders, but he did not take the opportunity.

Kelly, Errata. He targetted genitals, breasts and mouth there. The more interesting thing, however, is the rest he did.

[Abby Normal]

A mission oriented killer does no have to be quite so directed as that, though many are. It can also be a kind of revenge. It has come up that there have been killers who are acting out against the type of person who hurt them at some point. Prostitute mothers, problematic children, brunettes who spurned them... The kind of mutilation that comes from rage and revenge can be brutal and even apparently sexual in nature. But the psychology seems to be something a little more along the lines of "I'm taking from you what you wouldn't give to me, or what you exposed me to" and not actually sexual. There are of course sexual sadists who are motivated by revenge as well. Bundy may have been one. But they rape their victims. Either pre or post mortem.

Hi errata
Ive often heard this type of explanation for why bundy was a serial killer-that he was getting back at the girlfriend that dumped him. I don't buy it. He got her back anyway and then dumped her. Her dumping him might have been the TRIGGER, but not the overall cause.

I don't think he was a sexual sadist either-not in the pure sense like the hillside stranglers and the original night stalker who got off on torturing, terrorizing, raping and inflicting pain on their living victims. Bundy brutally attacked and killed his victims and most of the sex and abuse came post mortem or when they were unconscious. But I do think there was some anger involved, maybe from the adopted stuff. but he wasn't abused as a child.

It was more nature than nurture with Bundy. He was born pure evil- a natural born serial killer. Sex and violence and death were tied up together
in him and from an early age-there are examples from his childhood-like when he hid the knives under his sisters pillow and when asked if he wanted to kiss his teacher he liked, he said he would but that he would have to kill her then. He was a lust killer from the start.

and I guess I disagree with your definition of Mission oriented killer. To me they kill as part of a larger plan with specific reason for getting back at a certain group of people-like the government or company or race. Its always non sexual in nature.

Now for example, like in my response to JohnG-if the ripper thought to himself that he was on a specific mission to rid the streets of prostitutes then yes I could say he was somewhat mission oriented but still mixed with his primary motivation which was sexual in nature-a lust killer type.

Ive also been thinking a lot about your categories about dumpers, abandoners and hoarders. To me there is too much ambiguity here-to much also depending on personal circumstances of the killer (like-do they have a car ) and circumstances of the kill. Also, dumpers and hoarders sound too alike-they seem to both have an interest in the body post mortem to some extent.

I think perhaps a better way to categorize would be post mortem and non post mortem. Dumpers and hoarders would be post mortem, abandoners non post mortem.

[Errata]

Hi errata
Ive often heard this type of explanation for why bundy was a serial killer-that he was getting back at the girlfriend that dumped him. I don't buy it. He got her back anyway and then dumped her. Her dumping him might have been the TRIGGER, but not the overall cause.

I don't think he was a sexual sadist either-not in the pure sense like the hillside stranglers and the original night stalker who got off on torturing, terrorizing, raping and inflicting pain on their living victims. Bundy brutally attacked and killed his victims and most of the sex and abuse came post mortem or when they were unconscious. But I do think there was some anger involved, maybe from the adopted stuff. but he wasn't abused as a child.

It was more nature than nurture with Bundy. He was born pure evil- a natural born serial killer. Sex and violence and death were tied up together
in him and from an early age-there are examples from his childhood-like when he hid the knives under his sisters pillow and when asked if he wanted to kiss his teacher he liked, he said he would but that he would have to kill her then. He was a lust killer from the start.

I absolutely agree with you. I threw it in there because it's a good example of what I was talking about, even if it wasn't necessarily true. I think at most this incident in his life affected his targeting, but not his general inclinations. I disagree slightly with the more nature than nurture, simply because nature I think can make you a sociopath, in that certain functions are shut off. I don't think nature can twist someone to violent necrophilia. Anger, rage, maybe. But Bundy and guys like him tend to go way past rage. I can't point to anything in his life that made him a sexual psychopath, it could stem from just a general feeling he had and then reinforcing horrifying solitary habits. He talked a lot, but he didn't really get into the important stuff, and frankly it would astonish me if he was self possessed enough to even know what turned him. But I think that wht a serial killer does alone in the privacy of his bedroom as a child can be as affecting as an abusive parent, and the alone stuff is usually what interviewers don't get.

and I guess I disagree with your definition of Mission oriented killer. To me they kill as part of a larger plan with specific reason for getting back at a certain group of people-like the government or company or race. Its always non sexual in nature.

Now for example, like in my response to JohnG-if the ripper thought to himself that he was on a specific mission to rid the streets of prostitutes then yes I could say he was somewhat mission oriented but still mixed with his primary motivation which was sexual in nature-a lust killer type.

I think sometimes it's more organized than others. A man who thinks god is telling him to kill old people (which is apparently a thing since I've found it in three states), that creates a clear mission. Must do this because god said so. And then there are people who target ransom members of different races in order to start a race war, or join the fight in a race war. There is a very military tone to those kinds of thoughts, so they also tend to be pretty clear mission statements. Manson was a double layered mission oriented killer, because the stated purpose was to start Helter Skelter, but the hidden purpose was to regain control of the group when he felt he lost it to Tex Watson. Mission oriented for those who committed the murders, political for Manson.

But then there's guys like Soto who is viciously murdering and mutilated young boys who are clear stand ins for his stepson. It's rage, intense rage, and his goal is to punish the boys he can touch because he can't touch the one he sees as ruining his life. Stalking and killing boys who looked like his son is mission oriented. If he wasn't stalking them, it might be different. But he was. It is not a military style mission, but his method is the same. His mission was selfish. It wasn't for a greater cause, it was very much a personal cause. He did it to feel better. It didn't work that well, but he was very much like an addict scrambling for a fix. And if you've ever seen an addict scrambling for a fix you know that they are definitely on a mission. It's not as simple as other kinds of missions, but it is one to him. So barring a better classification, I'm going to bow to his point of view on this.

Ive also been thinking a lot about your categories about dumpers, abandoners and hoarders. To me there is too much ambiguity here-to much also depending on personal circumstances of the killer (like-do they have a car ) and circumstances of the kill. Also, dumpers and hoarders sound too alike-they seem to both have an interest in the body post mortem to some extent.

I think perhaps a better way to categorize would be post mortem and non post mortem. Dumpers and hoarders would be post mortem, abandoners non post mortem.

Oh my gosh there are so many ways to sort this. But firstly, this isn't my theory. It is some criminologists theory whose book I can't find or I would attribute them correctly. The titles of the categories are somewhat misleading. Body dumpers don't necessarily dump the body. Body hoarders don't necessarily keep corpses under their floorboards. It's the relationship to the body. And you're right, both dumpers and hoarders have a relationship to the body. One is positive, one is negative. A hoarder has a positive relationship with the corpse. They want it for something, even if it's just to punish someone else. Kemper buried a head under his mother's window. He took the head for his own purposes, but burying it so it stared up at his mother... that was punishment behavior. Necrophiles, cannibals, harvesters, all have a positive relationship to the corpse. Dumpers have a negative relationship with it. They want it far away, or destroyed, or unrecognizable. It is evidence to a cop, it is evidence to the killer of what he has done, it is evidence of a loss of control. It may be an object of shame, it may represent failure. It may just represent trouble. But dumpers treat the body as though it is a negative thing. Toss it out, hide it in an alley, bury it in trash, torch it. Abandoners see a corpse as a piece of meat. It's nothing to them, it is not a formerly alive human, it is not evidence of anything, it doesn't represent anything. Even trouble. And it's rare. And usually the province of the insane and spree killers.

The reason it's interesting to me, even if it isn't the easiest thing is how much of a killer's mindset and routine have to do with the body. Bundy's entire method was wrapped around what he would do with the body. Luring women to his car where he had the control and the ability to dump the body. Parking close to his attack areas.His own private graveyard in the mountains. And obviously Dahmer's method was very corpse oriented. I mean he had barrels of acid in his apartment. And rapists are almost always dumpers. Why? Is it practical concerns? Is it psychological? And why is abandoning a corpse so rare? Why is it almost exclusively the domain of those who don't even see their victims as human? So I got to thinking about how many behaviors have to do with the body of the victim. And how many behaviors are common to killers within the same category. And going through this, even though I haven't come up with much, I've seen enough to start to question my idea that Jack was perfectly sane. I think at best he might have been imperfectly sane.

Shifting sorting methods isn't going to solve anything. I just think it might let us look at this guy from a different angle, based on what other guys like him do.