Modern day prostitute killers & JtR

[ChrisGeorge]

ChrisGeorge, I'd love any possible answers to those questions too! Could the Ripper, in the midst of the canonical killings, have decided to try something different to maintain sexual satisfaction, and thus tried dissection? I note that the Pinchin Street torso was found in September 1888, between Annie Chapman and the double event...

Hi Steven

I think the only link between the torso cases and the Ripper murders is that they were taking place at the same time. As with Klosowski's poison murders, it's a different type of murder altogether... the poisonings done surreptitiously and not in a public fashion. The killer poisoned his common-law wives and tried to pretend that they were just ill -- they were cold and callous murders done for gain or to move on to another mate. In the torso killings, the women were killed elsewhere and the body parts dumped at different locations. Those killings too seem to an extent cold and calculating without the haste and passion that the Ripper murders might imply.

In the canonical Whitechapel murders, the killer appears to have killed the women where they were found and it might seem that the bodies were displayed in public places for shock value, as well as the thrill it might have given him to mutilate the women's bodies. There is no attempt either to hide the bodies and no attempt at disarticulation of the bodies either. Jack could have severed a head or a limb if he had wanted to, but he never did.

No, somehow there's a different feel to the Ripper murders than there is to the torso series.

All the best

Chris

[Abby Normal]

Steven Rex,
My theory is that JtR had either been 1. swindled out of money by one or more prositutes, or 2. had married one with disastrous results, or 3. contracted syphillis from frequenting prostitutes - or a combination of 1 to 3. The five prostitute killers in my profile had experienced at least one or two (and possibly all three) of the above outcomes.
On another thread, someone has proposed that the culture and society of 1888 might have been a factor to discount modern retrospective analyses but I disagree.
I don't think the fact that it was 1888 changes JtRs motive for killing prositutes - see 1 to 3 above - mind you, I can't prove it!

Best,
Siobhán

Hi again
I think all are possible, even probable,but i think these are more "Conscious" reasons attributed to why serial killers kill. But I think the true reasons are deeper and more complex. I think it is a combination of Nature and Nurture factors that make one a serial killer. As in, one must be born with the physiology that would predispose them and then also have the bad environment during psychological development (abuse during early childhood etc.) to be the ingrediants that create a serial killer. Then the next level of "why they do it" is that this combination nature and nurture make the thought of killing and act of killing pleasurable to the serial killer or gives some kind of release-they like it basically. So I think that ther are levels to the question why do serial killers do it:

1. nature and nurture factors
2. Psychological reason of enjoyment derived
3. immediate "apparant"circumstances (could also act as the trigger)

[Steven_Rex]

3. The killer could have taken the sexual organs of the deceased as trophies, or as a sexual device he could use, therefore giving him the ultimate control over the women to where he didn't have to worry about contracting diseases, etc.

Very interesting, Jdombrowski89, and very possibly right on the money! I wonder, though, if you think this possibility might have ramifications for the Ripper's domestic situation. With presumably a much sparser level of furniture and storage space (especially if he lived in Whitechapel) than we're used to today, do you think the killer must have lived alone if he was to take home bloody 'trophies' and successfully hide them? I imagine a wife and/or children might have spotted them in a relatively small dwelling, or at least Jack, if married, might have worried this could happen. Similar problem if he lived in a doss-house or shared lodgings.

ChrisGeorge, I'd love any possible answers to those questions too! Could the Ripper, in the midst of the canonical killings, have decided to try something different to maintain sexual satisfaction, and thus tried dissection? I note that the Pinchin Street torso was found in September 1888, between Annie Chapman and the double event...

[Abby Normal]

Very good possibilities.
Other serial killers are known to have masturbated after mutilation. Police may not have had the savvy to identify sexual evidence forensics at the time (especially as you suggest that it might have been mixed with blood) or were too prudish to include this type of evidence in their reports given the Victorian prudery of the day.
But would JtR have had time to masturbate at the earlier scenes in particular. He seemed to be able to disappear in a flash. I am not discounting it as an option. For example, Jane Kelly's murder would have given him this opportunity as they were indoors.
For me, your third option is the most viable. If he took the body parts back to his dwelling then he would have had all the time in the world to do what ever he wanted.
Best,
Siobhán

Hi Siobhan
How do you pronounce your name?

I basically agree. I think JtR was sexually excited while committing the murders and mutilations but probably did not have the time for more at the crime scene. I think he probably did not "consumate" the sexual act until he got safely away to his bolt hole. One of the things that has always made me wonder about the removal and taking away of internal organs is that they are not going to last forever like other trophies (jewelry, etc.)-they will rot away pretty quickly if not preserved- so why do it? If one beleives the authenticity of the from hell letter it was for cannabalism, which is possible, but in my mind I think the reason was for "overt" sexual gratifiation-he had "sex" including ejaculation(for lack of a better way to put it)with the organs he took away.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris George,
People seem to be divided between the two possibilities. Could it be that he was a lust killer with revenge triggering the series of murders? Would that be possible! The escalation in the level of violence did seem to indicate that he was growing to the task with each victim during the short timeline.

Siobhán

Hello again Siobhán

If I may say so, that is also an old view of the case. The popular view, and indeed seemingly one police view as well, seems to have been that the killer's insanity progressed with each murder and that he then killed himself. But does that accord with what we know today about serial killers?

As I often say, we are dealing with a relatively few murders if we talk about just the canonical cases, so it's hard to make hard and fast conclusions based on such limited data. Was the violence, or rather the level of mutilation, escalating, or did he just think he had a bit more time with Kelly and Eddowes?

Could he then have gone on to do other murders without such level of mutilations (e.g., Rose Millet, Alice McKenzie, and Frances Cole) or were those murders done by would-be copycats? Could the Ripper have been responsible for the torso murders as well, as R. Michael Gordon contends... and also of course with some poison murders too if Gordon is right that Severin Klosowski (George Chapman) was responsible for all these crimes... which most students of the case think is unlikely.

All the best

Chris

[ChrisGeorge]

Here's a Google with different stories on the case of the prostitute bodies being found on Long Island. It does appear as if it is a serial killer at work, a latterday Jack the Ripper, as it were. There has been at least one report where the killer has been referred to as the Long Island Ripper.

Chris

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

I want to echo Justins comments,


In narrowing your range to only prostitute murders you are restricting yourself in a way to a very close minded profile. Expand your view, look beyond the horizon. In my opinion killers like Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper may have much more in common than people think.

Keep yourself open to such possibilities.

Corey,

p.s Robert Mann is a crappy suspect

Thanks Corey. Everyone seems to agree about Mann as a crappy suspect!

Re prostitute killers: I believe JtR targeted them deliberately. He had the option of choosing vagrants, beggars, homeless and the countless other women who teemed around the Whitechapel district by day and night.
He specifically targeted one group.
That's why I think looking at other prostitute killers is important. I can understand why you and others think my original field was too narrow. But I wanted to know what motivates prostitute killers in particular and get a profile of each one in general. If I had included Bundy and others, no doubt I would have been criticised for that too. It's not possible to please all of the people all of the time...

Best,
Siobhán

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Siobhán,

Even though there is no evidence of sexual activity, does not mean it didn't occur. And even though we have no evidence that it didn't occur, we also do not have many documents and post-mortem reports besides what was reported in the paper, as well as that from Dr. Thomas Bond when he performed on Mary Kelly. I think that HAD sexual activity been conducted upon one of the corpses, that it probably would've been kept out of the media's attention.
Now what could have happened at the crime scenes? Here are a few factors we can consider:

1. The killer, while performing post-mortem mutilations, had a sexual release.
2. The killer, while performing the mutilations, masturbated at the scene of the crime.
3. The killer could have taken the sexual organs of the deceased as trophies, or as a sexual device he could use, therefore giving him the ultimate control over the women to where he didn't have to worry about contracting diseases, etc.

But by looking at the options above, I would say that option 2 is the least likely in the Ripper murders. There was no said evidence of any seminal fluid found around the scenes, etc. But I am also curious how well semen could be spotted if it was intermixed with blood....the only way this could happen, in my opinion, is if the Ripper ejaculated on the body as a form of release.

Regards,
Justin

Very good possibilities.
Other serial killers are known to have masturbated after mutilation. Police may not have had the savvy to identify sexual evidence forensics at the time (especially as you suggest that it might have been mixed with blood) or were too prudish to include this type of evidence in their reports given the Victorian prudery of the day.
But would JtR have had time to masturbate at the earlier scenes in particular. He seemed to be able to disappear in a flash. I am not discounting it as an option. For example, Jane Kelly's murder would have given him this opportunity as they were indoors.
For me, your third option is the most viable. If he took the body parts back to his dwelling then he would have had all the time in the world to do what ever he wanted.
Best,
Siobhán

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hi Siobhan
I saw the documentary on Mann with Mei trow and was not impressed. Mann is no more a viable candidate for JtR than the hundreds of other peripheral charactors that surround the case.

The most recent truly viable candidate would be Charles Legrand IMHO put forth by Tom Wescott (who is on these boards) and has an article about him in Casebook Examiner.

Where can I read your article on Dr T?

Hi Abby,
I will check out Charles Legrand. Is he in the Casebook list? I don't think so but I'm always interested in new supsects if they're viable! Will read article in Examiner as someone sent me a pdf copy a while back. Thanks.

My article on Tumblety is a bit dated now as more info has come to light - mainly by sleuths on this site. It's here: Was Jack the Ripper Irish? http://www.pdf-archive.com/2010/12/2...os-article.pdf
Thanks for your interest.

About Mann as a suspect. Yes, the general consensus is that he's a non-starter. Fair play to Mei Trow for unearthing him in any event. Will get back re Mann if the book ever arrives!
Best,
Siobhán

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

William Bury

Hi again
William Bury, one of my favorite candidates for JtR did your number 2 in a major way. Of course it was after the C5 though but technically it also makes him a prostitute killer.

Hi Abby Normal,
Yes, Bury is one of my own top five candidates for the JtR murders. He killed his wife shortly after 1888. He was living and working as a brothel keeper in Whitechapel at the time JtR was on the prowl.
I've done a brief biog below for those who don't yet appreciate him as a suspect!

WILLIAM HENRY BURY (1859-1889) strangled his wife and then viciously slashed her abdomen with a knife in 1889. Though the murder took place in Scotland, his previous address had been in Whitechapel London.
Bury had been orphaned at an early age – his mother was committed to a lunatic asylum after his birth - he was poorly educated at a “charitable school” and he had worked in menial jobs since his
early teens. He had been sacked from several jobs on suspicion of theft. He had also come to the attention of Scottish police, again for theft, but never convicted. When he moved to Whitechapel in 1887, he got a job in a brothel, where he met his future wife who worked as a prostitute.
In early 1889 – shortly after the murders stopped - they moved back to Scotland where neighbours described Bury as a “violent and abusive” drunk. When questioned by London police, he denied any involvement in the Whitechapel murders, and for some reason, they did not pursue him as a
suspect. He was hanged in Dundee for his wife's murder in 1889.

I include him as a top five suspect as he fits the profile I put in Ripper wiki. I subtracted the well-educated, those who worked in the professions, those who were clearly not in Whitechapel in 1888 and those whose known modus operandi was completely different to that of JtR - leaving Bury as one of the possibles/ probables.
Best,

Best,
Siobhán

[Abby Normal]

Steven Rex,
My theory is that JtR had either been 1. swindled out of money by one or more prositutes, or 2. had married one with disastrous results, or 3. contracted syphillis from frequenting prostitutes - or a combination of 1 to 3. The five prostitute killers in my profile had experienced at least one or two (and possibly all three) of the above outcomes.
On another thread, someone has proposed that the culture and society of 1888 might have been a factor to discount modern retrospective analyses but I disagree.
I don't think the fact that it was 1888 changes JtRs motive for killing prositutes - see 1 to 3 above - mind you, I can't prove it!

Best,
Siobhán

Hi again
William Bury, one of my favorite candidates for JtR did your number 2 in a major way. Of course it was after the C5 though but technically it also makes him a prostitute killer.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Justin,
I read your post with interest.
Thanks for taking the time to put your point of view across.
I do have a question! Do you think that JtR was impotent given that there was no sign of sexual activity at any of the crime scenes? This would perhaps put a different slant on JtR's motive for murder. Also, are there other more recent serial killers who did not leave any trace of sexual activity at their crime scenes (because of importence)? They might be worth looking into - at least from my point of view.
I have ordered the book Quest for a Killer: Jack the Ripper by Mei Trow about the most recent suspect Mann (2009) even though I noticed from another thread on this site that most people including yourself believe he's not a credible suspect. Even so, I'm curious to know more about him. There is only a brief biog on Mann in Ripper wiki. It needs to be added to! He might even deserve his own section in the list of suspects - given that Lewis Carroll and others (who should not be included) have their own place on the list.
Best,
Siobhán

Hi Siobhan
I saw the documentary on Mann with Mei trow and was not impressed. Mann is no more a viable candidate for JtR than the hundreds of other peripheral charactors that surround the case.

The most recent truly viable candidate would be Charles Legrand IMHO put forth by Tom Wescott (who is on these boards) and has an article about him in Casebook Examiner.

Where can I read your article on Dr T?

[Jdombrowski89]

Siobhán,

Even though there is no evidence of sexual activity, does not mean it didn't occur. And even though we have no evidence that it didn't occur, we also do not have many documents and post-mortem reports besides what was reported in the paper, as well as that from Dr. Thomas Bond when he performed on Mary Kelly. I think that HAD sexual activity been conducted upon one of the corpses, that it probably would've been kept out of the media's attention.
Now what could have happened at the crime scenes? Here are a few factors we can consider:

1. The killer, while performing post-mortem mutilations, had a sexual release.
2. The killer, while performing the mutilations, masturbated at the scene of the crime.
3. The killer could have taken the sexual organs of the deceased as trophies, or as a sexual device he could use, therefore giving him the ultimate control over the women to where he didn't have to worry about contracting diseases, etc.

But by looking at the options above, I would say that option 2 is the least likely in the Ripper murders. There was no said evidence of any seminal fluid found around the scenes, etc. But I am also curious how well semen could be spotted if it was intermixed with blood....the only way this could happen, in my opinion, is if the Ripper ejaculated on the body as a form of release.
Option 1 is probably more likely. David Berkowitz said that on several occasions that watching women, and when he shot his victims, were enough to gratify him a sexual relief. In an interview I had with Berkowitz last year, he mentioned that when he stabbed one of the girls who was injured on Christmas Eve, before he started murdering people with his .44 Charter Arms Bulldog, that the stabbing made him ejaculate, giving him power, but however went on to say that for him it was not an easy way to gain control, so he ditched it in return for using a revolver. Dennis Rader left his "evidence" at the scene of his crimes, predominantly at the scene of Nancy Fox.
Option 3 is also a very interesting occurance. In almost every crime (Minus Stride0 the area of attack is the woman's abdominal area. Although in everytime the vagina was not missing we have organs such as the uterus missing (Chapman), With Eddowes we have the kidney missing, etc, and so on. The Ripper crimes were NOT a way of murdering for sexual activity...this man was not intent on having physical sexual intercourse with the women. In contrary to individuals like Bundy and Ridgeway, this man did not go further to have sex with the bodies. BUT, what these murders did do, was give him the control he needed, and as far as I'm concerned, the sexual gratification he craved.
Does this mean he was impotent? By no means it doesn't, but it does make you question as to why The Ripper felt the need to target the female body parts, and take whatever it was he did. I do believe that he took the organs as not only trophies, but as mantles for sexual pleasure (As sick as it sounds, I've heard worse) I also believe that he probably, most likely inappropiately touched the women in somehow. Again I'm not stating he DID, just the fact that he possibly could have. If this killer was merely impotent, and killing and slaughtering women for that "satisfaction" I would atleast expect to see some form of an instrument, or something along those lines, shoved into her vaginal area, or something that would have obstructed it itself.

One "road" that I think should be further experienced and research is the sexual connection to serial killers. While investigating a child pornography case here, I had the rather unfortunate pleasure of listening to a pedophile explain his motivation. I actually wrote down his exact words in my notebook, and I'll leave them as some last thoughts to this message:

"Having sex with underage children was normal for me. When I was molested by my step-mother at the age oif 5, I hated it. I found it repulsive and disgusting, but once I was able to perform on those who I knew, when they resisted...it gave me an enormous sense of power. I knew something was different inside of me when touching a 12 year old girl gave me more gratification than watching porn. For me, just touching them was a sexual power that no older woman could give me. It gave me the intensity and control over this human being, that nobody else could. For the time being, she was mine and mine alone, and nothing could change that...and you know what? In the end it felt amazing"

Rather sick words from an individual who is currently serving 30 years to life for his sick ways. Hope this post has been of some help. Whether JTR was truly impotent, we will never know but I think that the attack on the female organs points to a hatred for women, possible impotence, disgust for the female body, or the want to possess sexual organs for pleasure because he is incapable of keeping a proper relationship.

Regards,
Justin

[corey123]

I want to echo Justins comments,

Although I haven't had as much experience as he with this matter, he is right, don't narrow your view to only prostitute murders. Take Ted Bundy for example, he didn't murder prostitutes but he may indeed share many characteristics found in Jack the Ripper.

The same can be said of many killers, whether they murder prostitutes or not means almost nothing aside from perhaps a fetish. There are many killers who mutilate yet do not target prostitutes.

In narrowing your range to only prostitute murders you are restricting yourself in a way to a very close minded profile. Expand your view, look beyond the horizon. In my opinion killers like Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper may have much more in common than people think.

Keep yourself open to such possibilities.

Corey,

p.s Robert Mann is a crappy suspect

[corey123]

Siobahn,

I would warn you not to waste your time on Mann, he isn't the ripper.