Recognition

[Henry Flower]

But we know more about mental illnesses than the Victorian investigators did. We know more about the ingredients and combinations of factors that can lead a man to build up an internal reservoir of rage, and we know more about the social or emotional stressors that can burst through the dam holding it all in.

We are better placed to look for the right types of background and life story than they were.

More importantly, the latest condescending research edict you have laid down is clearly absolute rubbish that doesn't stand up to even cursory examination: ie, any "variable" that did not help the police catch the man in 1888 must be useless for finding him today. If it didn't help them find their man then why would it help us?

Frankly, balls! Your constant need to tell everyone else they are researching or reasoning erroneously is getting tiresome, especially coming from someone who never dares put forward any of his own research for peer review. Hearing you constantly asserting the superiority and purity of your approach is becoming extremely grating. Maybe you should shut me up by sharing some actual results, if you have any.

I mean, your research is SO logical and so analytical you've surely solved the case, right?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;384585]

My point was to answer your position of - 'is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario".'

We do not need data, we do not need sources and we do not need asylum records. It is plain to see that anyone who butchered someone in the fashion that they did to MJK was how can I put it in lay mans terms... 'not quite right upstairs.' That is all the 'evidence' you need.

But the mental illness scenario is a scenario where the mental illness is focused and where other variables are forgotten. The mad serial killer, the lunatic, is an ideal type. An ideal type accentuates one single component in the character of a person and the result is that we see only that component. In the mental illness scenario, the mental illness is the motive, the basis for every choice the serial killer made and the grand explanation to everything he did.

But the past may have left other sources to us, sources that do not speak of mental illness, that do not reveal every choice made by the killer as a choice made from mental illness, that do not explain the murders from the aspect of mental illness.

When the Mental Illness Scenario becomes paramount, it says exactly what you say:

We do not need sources, we do not need data - it is clear that HE WAS MAD.

But without the sources, without the data - how could we find Jack the Ripper?

Was everybody who was mad Jack the Ripper?

I would state with some certainty that most people would agree with me in stating whoever killed MJK in that fashion had 'mental' issues. The problem maybe is how you define those issues. You however made the sweeping statement there was no evidence for mental illness, in my opinion and others the manor of the murder of MJK would suggest there was.

OK, you think the mutilations seen in the photograph is evidence for mental issues. Good. That is no radical interpretation.

But I would like to ask you what the value of such an "explanation could be.

Because people in the 18th and 19th Century who cut off noses and ears and mutilated each other in war or for honour reasons, did they also have "mental issues"?

And the people who executed disembowelling as a part of the punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering, did they also have "mental issues"?

Or were they part of a system, of structures, traditions - of society?

What is your view on this?

Those 'skills' of hiding mental issues does not automatically mean he did not have any. It is quite possible to be fine one moment then 'crazy' the next...

Yes, if there was a skill of hiding something, there should have been something to hide, shouldn´t there?

And yes, a person who manage to live a "normal" life must seem "normal" most of the time.

Although according to some maybe he did not get away with murder as such, maybe it was just for instance covered up by the Police...

Well, the past is the past. It leaves us sources. All we can do is to go where the sources take us.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

If it was Lechmere, as I believe, then he was something more than a family father and a faithful worker. I take comfort in my knowledge that many serialists have worked under this exact guise. We are too far removed in time for the living relatives of Charles Lechmere to know what he was about. And even if we were not, it still applies that he could have presented two totally different characters in different situations. Gary Ridgway was the best man Mrs Ridgway had ever come across, Peter Kürten was a gentle, polite and respectful man in the eyes of his wife and Dennis Rader was a slightly annoying man with a great interest in law and order.

Completely agree there, Fisherman. You certainly can't discount someone because they appeared, on the surface, to have an ordinary life.

I will say, I believe you link The Whitechapel Murders and the Torso Killings (and actually, I'm slowly leaning towards this myself). Regardless of outwards appearance, the person responsible for these murders was a profoundly disturbed individual, in my opinion.

As I have no horse in the race in terms of a suspect, I generally envisage the killer to be more of a Jeffrey Dahmer type character. Slightly inoffensive and probably not someone that you would look at twice, probably with a few convictions for minor offences and at least convincing enough to talk himself out of trouble if need be.

By the same token, it's worth noting that Dahmer managed to kill and mutilate while living with his Grandmother - and those crimes were committed while she was in the premises.


Pierre - you asked elsewhere in the thread if a killer who had disembowelled and mutilated during as part of an 'honour' tradition learned elsewhere in the Empire (as it was then) would be mentally ill, or just following societal constructs. My answer would be that, if on being removed from the society that encouraged those practices he continued them then yes - he would be mentally ill.

For comparison, I would say it's like a soldier from the Iraq war killing people s/he perceives as a threat on return to the UK or US. Most people understand that what is acceptable in a conflict situation is no longer acceptable in a peace time situation. Those who don't are usually suffering from some sort of mental trauma and in that specific situation it's usually PTSD. If your suspect served in a conflict situation, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a possibility that he had PTSD.

Again, this is all just speculation. However, I am firmly of the opinion that the killer was suffering from mental illness and I think discounting this purely because he was never caught is folly. Discussing his possible mental state may never identify him, but it could help to tip the scales in the event of a viable suspect.

[Fisherman]

MsWeatherwax: Completely agree there, Fisherman. You certainly can't discount someone because they appeared, on the surface, to have an ordinary life.

I will say, I believe you link The Whitechapel Murders and the Torso Killings (and actually, I'm slowly leaning towards this myself). Regardless of outwards appearance, the person responsible for these murders was a profoundly disturbed individual, in my opinion.

As I have no horse in the race in terms of a suspect, I generally envisage the killer to be more of a Jeffrey Dahmer type character. Slightly inoffensive and probably not someone that you would look at twice, probably with a few convictions for minor offences and at least convincing enough to talk himself out of trouble if need be.

By the same token, it's worth noting that Dahmer managed to kill and mutilate while living with his Grandmother - and those crimes were committed while she was in the premises.

Actually, a few years back I proposed Dahmer as a possible comparison of the Ripper! I remember that somebody (Tom Wescott?) protested vehemently. There are some elements concerning Dahmer that fits the bill, but overall, I am less inclined today to think that he fits the bill. The reason is how the Torso killer has been thrown into the mix and changed the game.

I find it hard to argue against your suggestion that a combined Ripper/Torso killer would have been a profoundly disturbed individual; it goes without saying to my mind.
To which extent that would have been discernible to the man in the street is another matter.

[MsWeatherwax]

Well, to be fair there will only ever be elements that fit the bill - no such thing as a perfect match. I just think it's likely he was Mr Inoffensive until you had him alone. JD was so incredibly bland when you listened to him speak, even after the fact it was hard to believe he was responsible for the crimes he committed. I just feel like none of those women were given cause for fear until it was too late, and that's the kind of character who fits the bill.

Unless they knew him, of course. Then all bets are off.

[Bridewell]

But the problem is that there is no evidence for a "mental illness scenario". That scenario is a theoretical construction based either on hypotheses about some persons having been placed in asylums and therefore hypothesized as having been Jack the Ripper

Many people, myself included, would suggest that the Swanson Marginalia are evidence for a "mental illness scenario". Opinions vary as to what, if any weight should be given to the SM, but its existence is undeniable and the content purports to include, as a statement of fact, that a suspect (Kosminski) was placed in an asylum.

[Bridewell]

For the sake of objectivity Geddy, I'll say it's possible that whoever murdered MJK was attempting to obscure her identity and that's the reason for the apparent overkill.

Playing devil's advocate here, but if the body was that of Kelly, and the intention to obscure her identity, wouldn't the sensible course of action include moving the body out of Kelly's room? Or have I misunderstood you? Are you subscribing to the idea that the body was someone other than Kelly? If so, why would someone want to pretend that the body was Kelly's - and what are you suggesting happened to MJK herself?

[Bridewell]

Your constant need to tell everyone else they are researching or reasoning erroneously is getting tiresome, especially coming from someone who never dares put forward any of his own research for peer review. Hearing you constantly asserting the superiority and purity of your approach is becoming extremely grating.

And so say all of us.

[Bridewell]

Well, to be fair there will only ever be elements that fit the bill - no such thing as a perfect match. I just think it's likely he was Mr Inoffensive until you had him alone. JD was so incredibly bland when you listened to him speak, even after the fact it was hard to believe he was responsible for the crimes he committed. I just feel like none of those women were given cause for fear until it was too late, and that's the kind of character who fits the bill.

I'm with you on this. Even at the height of the so-called Autumn of Terror there were middle-aged, savvy, streetwise women who lowered their guard to a man who took them to a quiet spot, slashed their throats and mutilated them. Something caused these women to be relaxed in this man's company.

Unless they knew him, of course. Then all bets are off.

Someone who was known to all of them?

[Craig H]

Hi Bridewell,

I agree ... you would think the unfortunates would have been wary of their clients after the previous murders.

This - in addition to the victims lived close to each other - could suggest the killer knew them.

This would also explain William Marshall's sighting of a man who was affection with Stride an hour before she died. This person's description is similar to the man PC Smith saw with Stride just before she died. Maybe Jack talked with her earlier then came back an hour later.

The other suggestion I had previously read elsewhere was that the Killer gave the victims a gift as a way to gain their confidence - the bonnet, the cigarette case, the red handkerchief.

Craig

[Rosella]

Look at other prostitutes who have been killed in more modern times, though. Women went with Peter Sutcliffe in his car to dark and deserted spots even though it had become very clear that a violent serial killer was on the loose. Yes, some took precautions, which turned out to be inadequate in several cases. In the case of the Suffolk rapist/serial killer who killed prostitutes, the women also went with a stranger in his car. They were compelled in some cases by the need for money to feed a drug habit.

Jack's victims were also compelled to get money, to eat, get alcohol, and a bed for the night. I don't think all or any of them necessarily knew Jack, except perhaps by sight. However, if he was a local, that may have reassured them, strangely enough, and I believe he was probably quite jokey with them, very 'normal', and fairly inoffensive looking, not the sort of man you would get any bad feelings about going to a dark place with, until he got you alone!

[Bridewell]

Apologies. I should have said yesterday that I've set up another thread :-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=384661#post384661

"Why Did They Lower Their Guard?" in the Motive, Method & Madness Section
as I think I was taking this one off-topic. Apologies to the OP