How to sort the Ripper

[Abby Normal]

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.



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.



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.

Thanks errata
Great post.

How do you think the ripper compares with chase? I've seen enough similarities there to think of the possibility that the ripper may have had serious mental illness. Didn't chase do extensive post mortem mutilations and even remove internal organs? Didn't he even take out intestines like the ripper?

Have you seen any other post mortem mutilating serial killers who were insane that are similar . Perhaps vacher, woodcock, Mullins?

You have me really interested in the possibility the ripper might have been insane.

Of course none of those mentioned seemed to have any real coherent plan, nor did they target prostitutes and of course they got caught.

[Errata]

Thanks errata
Great post.

How do you think the ripper compares with chase? I've seen enough similarities there to think of the possibility that the ripper may have had serious mental illness. Didn't chase do extensive post mortem mutilations and even remove internal organs? Didn't he even take out intestines like the ripper?

Have you seen any other post mortem mutilating serial killers who were insane that are similar . Perhaps vacher, woodcock, Mullins?

You have me really interested in the possibility the ripper might have been insane.

Of course none of those mentioned seemed to have any real coherent plan, nor did they target prostitutes and of course they got caught.

You know how we all have some preconceived notion as to how the Ripper is, whether we mean to or not? One of mine is that I've always been fairly convinced that he is more good than lucky. It probably has to do with his general skill level or something, but what he does seems contrary to being a raving lunatic.

Chase, Mullins, Vache none of them acted in any way like what they were doing was wrong. And I don't mean they weren't feeling guilty or something, I mean they took no measures to keep from being seen, did nothing to disguise what they were doing for the most part, really did nothing to keep from getting caught. That they weren't caught sooner has more to do with luck than anything. Nothing they did kept them out of jail. They just weren't tuned into what they were doing at that level. Which makes a good argument for insanity.

Woodcock I think is very different. I think he's a psychopath, but I don't think he is insane. He took care not to get caught. He also to the best of my knowledge was never diagnosed as anything other than being a psychopath. Which I suppose is definitely a disability, but doesn't make one insane. It's a dodgy issue even in the psychiatric community, but generally most people favor the idea that such people can moderate their behavior, an many do. So theres that.

When I say I can see Jack being imperfectly sane, I mean like maybe he has one single delusion. Or an obsession. Something that if he explained it to a Victorian doctor, the doctor might think it odd, but wouldn't think him insane. Not unless he got going full froth, and the imperfectly sane part means he can keep from exposing himself for the most part. Good hiding skills. He can throttle it down, but it's possible that the more he does the hotter the coals burn in his head. The way someone with OCD (and I'm not saying he was OCD) can keep from picking at their skin for the duration of a dinner, or can keep from washing their hands for the span of a movie, but when they are free to resume it becomes a frenzy until they work it out. A guy who would be considered mentally ill now, but not back then. And not even to lay fault on the doctors back then, because it was a different world, men were excused for violence towards women, male pride was considered much more important than it is now, and men were freely encouraged to lay all kinds of blame on women.

But I still see him as more good that lucky. It's not a Chase wandering from crime to crime. It seems purposeful, it seems premeditated, he has the sense to run... even if his sanity was imperfect, he was still in control, still making choices.

I don't know why I think that, but I do.

[Pcdunn]

I was struck by your phrases "perfectly sane" and "imperfectly sane", Errata.
My first thought was, Well, is anyone really ever "perfectly" sane? Don't we all have little hang-ups, mild aberrations, downs, depressions, and other moods?

Then I thought about "imperfectly sane", and thought, What a wonderful turn of phrase! I can certainly relate to it.

[harry]

Whatever the circumstances are that affects a person's thinking regarding another person,there are,untill an attempt is made to kill,alternatives to killing.If these alternatives are disregarded,to me ,the simple answer is,the killer simply wants to kill. The Ripper had alternatives with each of his victims.he could have walked away for one.

[Rosella]

If they were compulsions driving him to kill that might not have been so easy, though. Of course, he may have drunk several pints of beer before he went in search of prey. Alcohol too can do strange things sometimes. For instance, Leptomengitis (a chronic inflammation of the sheets of tissue covering the brain induced by alcohol consumption) can cause a violent force to develop that might not otherwise have been there. Two of Australia's well known serial killers had this condition.

[Abby Normal]

You know how we all have some preconceived notion as to how the Ripper is, whether we mean to or not? One of mine is that I've always been fairly convinced that he is more good than lucky. It probably has to do with his general skill level or something, but what he does seems contrary to being a raving lunatic.

Chase, Mullins, Vache none of them acted in any way like what they were doing was wrong. And I don't mean they weren't feeling guilty or something, I mean they took no measures to keep from being seen, did nothing to disguise what they were doing for the most part, really did nothing to keep from getting caught. That they weren't caught sooner has more to do with luck than anything. Nothing they did kept them out of jail. They just weren't tuned into what they were doing at that level. Which makes a good argument for insanity.

Woodcock I think is very different. I think he's a psychopath, but I don't think he is insane. He took care not to get caught. He also to the best of my knowledge was never diagnosed as anything other than being a psychopath. Which I suppose is definitely a disability, but doesn't make one insane. It's a dodgy issue even in the psychiatric community, but generally most people favor the idea that such people can moderate their behavior, an many do. So theres that.

When I say I can see Jack being imperfectly sane, I mean like maybe he has one single delusion. Or an obsession. Something that if he explained it to a Victorian doctor, the doctor might think it odd, but wouldn't think him insane. Not unless he got going full froth, and the imperfectly sane part means he can keep from exposing himself for the most part. Good hiding skills. He can throttle it down, but it's possible that the more he does the hotter the coals burn in his head. The way someone with OCD (and I'm not saying he was OCD) can keep from picking at their skin for the duration of a dinner, or can keep from washing their hands for the span of a movie, but when they are free to resume it becomes a frenzy until they work it out. A guy who would be considered mentally ill now, but not back then. And not even to lay fault on the doctors back then, because it was a different world, men were excused for violence towards women, male pride was considered much more important than it is now, and men were freely encouraged to lay all kinds of blame on women.

But I still see him as more good that lucky. It's not a Chase wandering from crime to crime. It seems purposeful, it seems premeditated, he has the sense to run... even if his sanity was imperfect, he was still in control, still making choices.

I don't know why I think that, but I do.

Thanks errata
I've always thought the ripper was more good than lucky.
But the thought of some form of serious mental illness has also has been on me lately. Mainly because of the rarity of what he did. Removing and taking away internal organs. No signs of sexual intercourse/rape. Truly bizarre.

But then you got the opposite to that-the cunning. Rusing his victims, making sure they were in a secluded location. Bolting at the first sign of trouble.
Never getting caught.


I think he was mainly a lust killer, but unlike, a lot unlike, any other I've ever seen. Closest I've found is Suff, maybe chikiltilo.

[John G]

I think a major difficulty is that some serial killers seem to be motivated by multiple factors. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, eventually claimed that God had commanded him to kill prostitutes. However, that is not what he said in his extensive police interview.

Thus, when asked why he killed a particular victim, he replied,

"I got depressed and was having this trouble with violent headaches and was associating all my troubles and blamed the prostitutes for my problems."

And, at another point in the interview, he said:

"If ever I get into like a morbid depressive state by being over worried by one thing and another, this is when it would lead to a state of hallucination but the only outlets for everything was to brood and blame everything on prostitutes."

Moreover, the mission killer theory doesn't explain why his last 5 victims were all non-prostitutes, or why one of his earlier victims, who survived, was a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane in a remote rural location.

In fact, in respect of one of these latter victims, he stated:"I realised she wasn't a prostitute but at the time I wasn't bothered I just wanted to kill women."

He also briefly changed his MO, killing his victims with a ligiture, rather than a hammer and screwdriver. When asked to explain this he replied:

"Because the press and the media had attached a stigma to me, I had been known for some time as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didnt ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer."

He added,

This was when I decided I couldn't kill people like this. I couldn't bear to go through with it again as there was something deep inside preventing me."

There was also indications of a sexual element to the murders. Thus, he was asked, " Why did you pull her clothes up and expose her body?"
He replied, "So that when they were found they will look as cheap as they are."

Moreover, he wore a special woollen garment beneath his trousers-similar to tights-instead of underpants, exposing her s private parts, and which the police believed was for purposes of sexual gratification

He ended the first interview by stating,

"All this started on 1974. I was done out of £10 by a prostitute in Manningham. She went to get change at a garage next to the Belle Vue pub and didn't come back. This poisoned my mind against prostitutes."

It therefore appears that Sutcliffe was motivated by: Divine mission; revenge;sexual gratification; and frustration. Although the lead psychiatrist said that if there was a sexual motive, then he would have been lying about the divine mission.

It's all very confusing!

[Abby Normal]

I think a major difficulty is that some serial killers seem to be motivated by multiple factors. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, eventually claimed that God had commanded him to kill prostitutes. However, that is not what he said in his extensive police interview.

Thus, when asked why he killed a particular victim, he replied,

"I got depressed and was having this trouble with violent headaches and was associating all my troubles and blamed the prostitutes for my problems."

And, at another point in the interview, he said:

"If ever I get into like a morbid depressive state by being over worried by one thing and another, this is when it would lead to a state of hallucination but the only outlets for everything was to brood and blame everything on prostitutes."

Moreover, the mission killer theory doesn't explain why his last 5 victims were all non-prostitutes, or why one of his earlier victims, who survived, was a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane in a remote rural location.

In fact, in respect of one of these latter victims, he stated:"I realised she wasn't a prostitute but at the time I wasn't bothered I just wanted to kill women."

He also briefly changed his MO, killing his victims with a ligiture, rather than a hammer and screwdriver. When asked to explain this he replied:

"Because the press and the media had attached a stigma to me, I had been known for some time as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didnt ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer."

He added,

This was when I decided I couldn't kill people like this. I couldn't bear to go through with it again as there was something deep inside preventing me."

There was also indications of a sexual element to the murders. Thus, he was asked, " Why did you pull her clothes up and expose her body?"
He replied, "So that when they were found they will look as cheap as they are."

Moreover, he wore a special woollen garment beneath his trousers-similar to tights-instead of underpants, exposing her s private parts, and which the police believed was for purposes of sexual gratification

He ended the first interview by stating,

"All this started on 1974. I was done out of £10 by a prostitute in Manningham. She went to get change at a garage next to the Belle Vue pub and didn't come back. This poisoned my mind against prostitutes."

It therefore appears that Sutcliffe was motivated by: Divine mission; revenge;sexual gratification; and frustration. Although the lead psychiatrist said that if there was a sexual motive, then he would have been lying about the divine mission.

It's all very confusing!

Thanks JohnG
To me it seems Sutcliff was a lust killer.

a lot of serial killers, especially one who kill prostitutes, use the superficial explanation that whores are evil, who would miss them, I blame them etc. But deep down, which I think a lot of them just don't want to admit, is that they derived some sort of pleasure from what they did.

If anything, I think the trigger for him was getting ripped of by the prostitute. Again not the cause.

According to my classifications he would not be:

Delusional type-because he planned to much and was to aware of not being caught. Took too many steps to avid detection.and frankly I don't think he was insane. psychopath, sociopath-absolutely. And I don't believe his God told me to do it excuse.


Mission type-because there is an obvious sexual component to his crimes and like you said, he didn't kill only prostitutes.

Hes a lust type serial killer like most of them IMHO.

[Harry D]

Chase, Mullins, Vache none of them acted in any way like what they were doing was wrong. And I don't mean they weren't feeling guilty or something, I mean they took no measures to keep from being seen, did nothing to disguise what they were doing for the most part, really did nothing to keep from getting caught.

Not so with Chase. Why then did he scarper when a neighbour knocked on the door? He still had a built-in survival instinct to flee when he thought he was going to get caught.

[Errata]

I think a major difficulty is that some serial killers seem to be motivated by multiple factors. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, eventually claimed that God had commanded him to kill prostitutes. However, that is not what he said in his extensive police interview.

Sorry for the cut.

I agree with you. One of the reasons I thought that sorting through disposition of the corpse would be simpler, because how can someone be both a body dumper and a body hoarder?

Because humans are messy, which is the part I forgot. It's harder to divine intent with this method, even if there are probably fewer multiple dispositions. So it harder to figure out which one a killer is, but he is still most likely to be only one kind of something than the motivation category method.

Sometimes you just gotta pick one. You won't be entirely right, but you won't be entirely wrong either. I don't know that there is a fool proof way of categorizing serial killers. I think it's like novels. You can call a book a comedy, but it's not all comedy. It might also be a love story or a tragedy. Act boldly and hope that you're right, I say. Just pick one. Let the cards fall where they may. It's not exactly scientific, but you can always change your mind if you decide that you chose poorly.

[Errata]

Not so with Chase. Why then did he scarper when a neighbour knocked on the door? He still had a built-in survival instinct to flee when he thought he was going to get caught.

Point.

But he did nothing to obscure the evidence he left behind either, which is a pretty basic step.

Chase had actually learned that his habits were not acceptable in the institution. He knew that his needs were forbidden. Which wouldn't affect how keenly he felt the need, but he did learn that he didn't want to be seen doing it. He go punished for it previously. In a way he learned it was not okay the way a dog learns that pooping in the house is not okay. He didn't learn why it was unacceptable, or he just didn't absorb that reasoning. He learned that he got spanked for doing it. So I wouldn't say he "knew" what he was doing was wrong or why it was so wrong, but he did know he would be punished for it. Which is usually not a match for a full blown delusion. If his delusions were altered even microscopically, he would have been attacking people on the street. He got very lucky in his magical thinking.

[Errata]

If we look at Erno Soto, one of the things that is clear about him is that he is what my dad calls a "swallower". Get mad? Get sad? Choke it down. Swallow it. And that's what Soto did until he couldn't cope anymore and he started exploding. Now in his case, he realized he wasn't okay and checked himself in for treatment. And he was released. In and out for years. And apparently he learned how to control the explosions since he wasn't getting arrested. But he was choking that down as well. And everything he choked down had no outlet until he developed his single delusion. That his wife's bastard son he was raising as his own was to blame. And that belief created a calm.

Lest this sound fantastical, let me point out that millions of people have a single delusion of varying degrees of dysfunction. Some people believe that black people aren't as smart as white people despite the contrary evidence. That's a delusion technically, and it's rude as hell, but in and of itself it isn't that dysfunctional. Add to that blaming black people for not getting certain opportunities in life, it gets more dangerous. Blaming them for a ruined life is highly dangerous.

Soto's calm was that he finally found a target for all his rage and despair. He found who was to blame. Which is a highly dangerous situation. The problem was he couldn't touch him. He couldn't hurt his wife's son. The boy he had raised as his own, no matter how angry he was, no matter how much he believed that he could fix things if he just got rid of that kid. He couldn't let it go, he couldn't hurt his real target (which is theme in serial killers) so he started stalking children who looked like his son. Then he started killing them and venting his rage, wreaking his revenge. He found substitutes. All from a single delusion.

Now many people have theorized that the Ripper was targeting prostitutes who were substitutions for his real target. I've floated that theory. Soto proves that not only does that happen, but it doesn't take an entirely broken sanity to exist. It can come from a single delusion. And a single delusion can be hidden far more easily than a compromised system. Not schizophrenic, not at all. A single delusion. One all encompassing belief that informs a persons actions and choices, especially under stress. It's possible. So a theory that seems somewhat novel-ish that gets dismissed as Hollywood psychology can and does happen. According to Soto, the Ripper could have been the same way. And if he was, a buttoned up type may not be out of the question.

[Errata]

I was struck by your phrases "perfectly sane" and "imperfectly sane", Errata.
My first thought was, Well, is anyone really ever "perfectly" sane? Don't we all have little hang-ups, mild aberrations, downs, depressions, and other moods?

Then I thought about "imperfectly sane", and thought, What a wonderful turn of phrase! I can certainly relate to it.

I refer to myself that way all the time. I never rant, I never rave, but I do have bouts of dickensian oddity.

[Abby Normal]

I would put chase firmly in my delusional type serial killer category as he was obviously batshit crazy and it was insanity that was the main reason for his killing. perhaps, just perhaps, secondary lust type as he had sex with a couple of the victims corpes.

He was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, was institutionalized, had a long history of bizzare behavior and mental illness. his MO was all over the place, disorganized and had no real plan or ruses.

his mental illness made him think there was something wrong with him, which he needed to drink blood and eat raw flesh to help make him better, which led to the murders.

poster boy for my delusional type serial killer category.

[Abby Normal]

I would also add Herbert Mullins to the classic delusional type, for all the above same reasons as Chase, with no secondary type because there was no sexual component to any of his crimes.