Why did the victims leave the victims where they were?

[RipperNoob]

Something I've noticed--at least about a great deal of modern serial killers--is most of them don't leave their victims right where they killed them, for public eyes to see. Most serial killers seem to tend to hide their victims--Either by destroying their bodies, burying them or leaving them someplace generally out of the public eye (in a woods, by a highway, etc--somewhere not near the killers' central location). They leave them in a private place, so that sometimes they may return there and "re-enact" the crime in their minds and, to put it bluntly, get off on it and the original fantasy which drove the murder.

It's pretty much taken for granted that most if not all serial killers are driven by what seem to be uncontrollable fantasies--and that most of them need to re-enact this fantasy in some way, or have some reminder of their acts. Many revisit the locations of the crimes or where the bodies are dumped if they can; Others take "trophies" from the bodies, like a personal effect of the victim's, to remind them of their "prize." For some imprisoned serial killers, the memory of the acts they committed--since in prison they are bereft of any chance to act out the fantasy again or keep any tangible reminder of it-- alone fuels them.

But the Ripper didn't do this. He killed the victims and left them just where they were, and only in two cases (correct me if I'm wrong here) were there any organs removed. The rest were mutilations. Now some may say, "Well, he didn't have a lot of time--he got distracted/unnerved by a noise and left the women there"--Which is possible but for the case of Mary Kelly. Once he was in her lodging, she was unfortunately his to do as he pleased with, as long as he liked. He could've absconded with her and killed her someplace else and dumped her remains in the Thames.

But he leaves all of these women mutilated in pretty public places, possibly not too far from his own location--It makes me wonder at his psychology.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But he leaves all of these women mutilated in pretty public places, possibly not too far from his own location--It makes me wonder at his psychology.

Logistics?

Could have been tricky carrying a body with the odd intestine hanging out over your shoulder and down the street.

I suppose he could have said: "just found her there, taking her to A&E for a look over" - if challenged.

[GregBaron]

No Toff here...

The best answer RipperNoob is probably that he had no choice. He probably had no horse-and-buggy and no private residence. If he could have whisked them away to a private dungeon he probably would have. But he was most likely a poor local where the streets were his killing field. That is why MJK's nasty little room probably seemed like the jackpot...

With that said, I think he likely also "got off" on the danger and the shock value of how he left the victims..........


Greg

[Phil H]

I don't think "Jack" cared. He killed and did what he had to and scarpered (perhaps at times in haste).

I'm not even sure whether there was a "display" element to the way the corpses were left - it may just be that that is how they fell after he had killed and mutilated them.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

The best answer RipperNoob is probably that he had no choice. He probably had no horse-and-buggy and no private residence. If he could have whisked them away to a private dungeon he probably would have. But he was most likely a poor local where the streets were his killing field. That is why MJK's nasty little room probably seemed like the jackpot...

With that said, I think he likely also "got off" on the danger and the shock value of how he left the victims..........

Greg

And once again..I totally agree with you, Greg !

[TomTomKent]

And once again..I totally agree with you, Greg !

As do I. Remember the situation we are talking about here: The vast majority of people in the district can't afford a house, or even a rented apartment. Houses are crammed beyond capacity and the chances are you share your room (singular) with others. Doss houses are a recurring theme with the victims, and probably with Jack too. People make money by letting you sleep against a length of string pulled tight, crushing you in with a crowd of others.

The chances of Jack having a room somewhere is small enough. The chance of it being private enough to work are minimal.

[Errata]

I'm not sure that the way a serial killer deals with a corpse is primarily a practical concern. There are body collectors, body dumpers, and body abandoners and it all has to do with the killers relationship with the victim. Someone like Dahmer is a body collector because of the romantic nature of his motives. Bundy is a body dumper because of self serving nature of his motive. Jack the Ripper may well have been a body abandoner because he had no relationship with the victim... something akin to a mugger who kills his victim and takes his wallet. The person is of no concern, the money is, and once it's taken the body has about as much significance as any other sort of litter.

[Rubyretro]

. Jack the Ripper may well have been a body abandoner because he had no relationship with the victim...

Even if Jack wasn't a 'natural' body dumper, he still wouldn't have had much choice but to be one.


I also agreed with this statement made by Greg :

With that said, I think he likely also "got off" on the danger and the shock value of how he left the victims..........[/

QUOTE]

[GregBaron]

Rare agreement...

Well, as they say Rubyretro and TomTomKent, great minds think alike...

I think Phil and Errata also have valid points.

The desire for mutilation probably left the victims in similar positions, no staging necessary, work as long as you can and then skedaddle...

The victims were a means to an end.........who really didn't matter.....once the goal was achieved or at least partially achieved, the carcasses were of little value....


Greg

[Suzi]

He left them where they lay because he'd done whatever he came to do and then left the scene asap- for obvious reasons!...Simples!

[Suzi]

Now....whether he came back for a looksee (if he felt the need to) as part of a crowd or as part of a police force is another thought/thread altogether!

[Rubyretro]

Now....whether he came back for a looksee (if he felt the need to) as part of a crowd or as part of a police force is another thought/thread altogether!

why don't you start that thread, Suzi ? -it's a very interesting question.

[curious4]

Bodies

Hello,
I definitely think that the shock/horror factor was upmost in his mind when leaving his victims where they were. Perhaps also to show his contempt for them as well. Think that there was a good chance that he came back and mixed with the crowd afterwards.
Regards,
C4

[Errata]

Hello,
I definitely think that the shock/horror factor was upmost in his mind when leaving his victims where they were. Perhaps also to show his contempt for them as well. Think that there was a good chance that he came back and mixed with the crowd afterwards.
Regards,
C4

See, in my mind if it were primarily a shock thing, he would have killed them in or dragged them to more trafficked areas. Annie Chapman was killed in someone's back yard, and the opportunity for public viewing was pretty limited. Of course killing people in a high traffic area is insanely risky, but serial killers who care about making that statement find the risk to be worth the reward. They tend not to half ass it.

on a separate but allied note, in my mind the really freaky serial killers are not the ones who put on a show (except for the Dali killer, but that creeps me out on an architectural level). To me the freakiest ones are the ones who clearly have a very personal bent to their killings, and are completely unconcerned with outside opinion. Like Dahmer, or Gein. I'm not sure why, but somehow a serial killer who at least acknowledges the outrage of the community is less scary.

[TomTomKent]

Always remember Jack would not have to leave victims where they would not be found, only where they would not be found while he was with them.