So what if the Ripper was Jewish?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE]

Shechita is a form of ritual slaughter used to produce kosher meat.



Look up the parallels between these murders and verses from Leviticus.

For starters...

He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering.

He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first that which is for the sin offering and shall nip its head at the front of its neck, but he shall not sever it.…

In the killer's demented mind, he had to serve as both penitent and priest. Mary Kelly's slaughter was made to resemble some form of sacrificial ceremony.

Hi Harry D

]Shechita is a form of ritual slaughter used to produce kosher meat.



Look up the parallels between these murders and verses from Leviticus.

For starters...

He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering.

He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first that which is for the sin offering and shall nip its head at the front of its neck, but he shall not sever it.…

In the killer's demented mind, he had to serve as both penitent and priest. Mary Kelly's slaughter was made to resemble some form of sacrificial ceremony.

Very Interesting. I think errata might have mentioned before. and yes I see a (possible slight)ritualistic element.

Dahmer was a hoarder and a necrophiliac. As far as we know, the Ripper didn't engage in sexual intercourse with any of the victims pre or post mortem. If there was a psychosexual element to these crimes, it was fetishized in the mutilations and organ removal.

To me, Dahmer seems very much like the ripper. Ruse victims, post mortem mutilation, removing organs. Bold and crafty in getting away with it (while it lasted of course).

Now we don't have any overtly sexual connotation to the ripper crimes, and he dosnt technically qualify as a necropheliac, but I have an itching suspicion he was doing something nasty with his little trophies, like jacking off with them. pun intended.

now that all being said, we have in Dahmers own words, that a lot of what he did was out of lonliness and fear of rejection, and wanted to keep his "partners" near to him.

now we don't know for sure the rippers innermost motivation would be, but I see someone more fascinated with the female anatomy and got off on what his knife could do with it. in other words more or less your classic sexually motivated post mortem serial killer.

[Harry D]

I lean more towards familiarity in the butchers trade than Shechita.

Shechita is a form of ritual slaughter used to produce kosher meat.

IMHO removing organs was Jack taking his trophies.

Look up the parallels between these murders and verses from Leviticus.

For starters...

He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering.

He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first that which is for the sin offering and shall nip its head at the front of its neck, but he shall not sever it.…

In the killer's demented mind, he had to serve as both penitent and priest. Mary Kelly's slaughter was made to resemble some form of sacrificial ceremony.

The ripper removing organs reminds me Dahmer and the body parts that he preserved.

Dahmer was a hoarder and a necrophiliac. As far as we know, the Ripper didn't engage in sexual intercourse with any of the victims pre or post mortem. If there was a psychosexual element to these crimes, it was fetishized in the mutilations and organ removal.

[dantheman]

I find myself returning to the idea that some of the murders were committed by a Jewish suspect. Not for anything to do with Kosminski, but there is an overtly ritualistic element to these murders. They may have been performed by someone who was familiar with the Jewish practice of shechita, quickly and cleanly slicing the throat to facilitate exsanguination. This was then followed by the removal of internal organs to be used as trespass offerings. The murders did take place in a neighbourhood which was densely populated with Jewish immigrants. Perhaps the suspect had 'sinned' with a goy prostitute and the murders doubled as both retributive and redemptive.

I lean more towards familiarity in the butchers trade than Shechita. IMHO removing organs was Jack taking his trophies. The ripper removing organs reminds me Dahmer and the body parts that he preserved.

[Harry D]

I find myself returning to the idea that some of the murders were committed by a Jewish suspect. Not for anything to do with Kosminski, but there is an overtly ritualistic element to these murders. They may have been performed by someone who was familiar with the Jewish practice of shechita, quickly and cleanly slicing the throat to facilitate exsanguination. This was then followed by the removal of internal organs to be used as trespass offerings. The murders did take place in a neighbourhood which was densely populated with Jewish immigrants. Perhaps the suspect had 'sinned' with a goy prostitute and the murders doubled as both retributive and redemptive.

[Errata]

This is pretty much exactly how I see things too, Errata. And this is why I think Kosminski and Levy are not very viable contenders.

The best,
Fisherman

It's sort of like how you have to be crazy to join a cult, but it has to be the right kind of crazy or a cult will never appeal to you. I mean, I'm four different kinds of crazy, but none of my crazy finds a cult appealing.

[Fisherman]

I think Jack was a psychopath. I don't think a non psychopath would have the guts to blaze the serial killer trail like that. But that being said, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not we could find him in asylum. He could have been completely outwardly normal.

This is pretty much exactly how I see things too, Errata. And this is why I think Kosminski and Levy are not very viable contenders.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

True. But it is also true to say that a large proportion of the serial killers have been diagnosed as psychopaths. Weighing things together, the odds are that our killer was a representative of this very group.

I think he was, but a lot of serial killers are not actually diagnosed as psychopathic. They are declared that by the media or even law enforcement, but very few have had legitimate post trial therapists diagnose them. they typically aren't interested, which can be a sign of psychopathy, but not necessarily.

Many have been diagnosed schizophrenic pre trial, and in only three cases that I know of was it true. And we know that because these people not only responded to medication, but through imaging we know that their brain is actually collapsing, which is the hallmark of schizophrenia.

Kemper is a psychopath. He was diagnosed as a teenager, but you can't actually diagnose a teenager as a psychopath because the brain is still developing. No one has a fully functioning frontal lobe until their 20s. But he has also agreed to a host of testing, and he is genuinely a psychopath. Something he is very interested in. He and Joel Rifkin (I think. It's been a while.) have actually been very helpful, and have contributed a ton to our understand of psychopathy. Also the warrior gene, which Kemper also has. But the hallmark of Kemper as a serial killer study is that while he regrets what he did, and wishes he had not done it, he feels no shame. He's a psychopath. He cannot empathize. Of course he doesn't experience shame. He has said that he wishes he did feel shame, which is interesting. Kemper is a monster. Born and bred. But by seeing his psychopathy and how he experiences it, we know that his psychopathy did not make him violent. Which is why we know that there are a ton of non violent sociopaths out there. Doing quite well. Evidently as CEOs.

Most serial killers exhibit shame. They aren't psychopaths. They may be something, but they can empathize. Dahmer exhibited shame, Bundy did, and these are two guys who people think HAVE to be psychopaths. But they weren't. They were so focused on their own needs that everything else fell away. Which is pretty typical in serial killers. It's like a sort of violent selfishness. Compulsive wish fulfillment to the nth degree. But not psychopaths. Selfish, cruel, heartless, yes. Not mentally ill.

I think Jack was a psychopath. I don't think a non psychopath would have the guts to blaze the serial killer trail like that. But that being said, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not we could find him in asylum. He could have been completely outwardly normal. I would need to know the triggering event in order to determine the level of psychopathy or any other disorder that may come in to play. And we don't know it.

[Errata]

Apologies if that is how my posts have come across, that was not my intention. I am trying to explain the idea that a few people have of a grunting, drooling basket case 24/7 is incorrect.

He had episodes of mania, spells of insanity, hearing voices, feeling the need to do violence if not restrained, wanders the streets etc. However he also would have been lucid when these moments were over able to perform normal tasks (this would eventually become less over the years.)

Although on that note, wouldn't it be interesting tot think he did commit them while he was lucid and not manic?!

Tracy

To me this seems more likely, and in general I could get behind that theory.

My problem with Levy then is that I cannot help but think that his behavior in the years after getting out of the asylum would be closely scrutinized by just about everyone. In my own personal experience every time I have a bad episode of whatever, I'm watched like a hawk for months which is both really irritating and unnecessary since I have never been dangerous or self harming. And I had bad episodes about four times a year. Given that I believe his removal to an asylum was over a lame suicide attempt, I think that means that he would not be trusted for a very long time indeed. Never mind the theft conviction which everyone knows about. If someone steals or tried to kill themselves, you watch them. All the time. You question their every move. His wife had to have been exhausted. I would imagine someone knew where he was at all times, and if they didn't that was a huge deal. If he disappeared to go kill prostitutes, someone would have noticed. By the time he might have earned trust back he was probably already symptomatic with neurosyphilis.

Take someone who had no theft conviction and no record of being in asylum with the same symptoms and story, then killing while not manic I can understand. The fact that he was manic would only come into play to explain why the Ripper disappeared. I could buy that. I don't know that I could declare him the Ripper, but it makes a good story (which sounds dismissive but really is important). But with Levy's record, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't watched until the day he died. Remember, he stole from his own community. That alone gets him watched til he drops dead.

[Fisherman]

Errata:

...one of the ways that police often capture killers is predicting their next move, which is impossible with someone who is psychotic. Without knowing the motive, they cannot be predicted. So some psychotic killers do rack up a body count, but they are not accomplishing it by remaining quiet and unseen. They manage it by being unpredictable.

Yes. And more often than not, they will not care a iot about leaving evidence on the crime scenes.

A psychotic may well stroll out of an alley covered in blood, or start yelling, or any number of other unsubtle things. It's not a good fit.

Exactly so!

... in the end, I don't think we can rule out the idea that the Ripper was not mentally ill, was not even psychotic. He may have just been a slightly compulsive dick. Which also happens. Bundy had a lot of problems, but he wasn't mentally ill.

True. But it is also true to say that a large proportion of the serial killers have been diagnosed as psychopaths. Weighing things together, the odds are that our killer was a representative of this very group.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

The interesting thing is that there is material a plenty to statistically prove this right; serial killers come from the range of psychologically unsound people that suffer - if suffer is the word - from psychopathy, narcissism etcetera. There are hundreds of them, diagnosed as psychopaths.

They do not, however, derive from the lines of people who suffer psychotic episodes other than to an extremely small degree. One of the reasons for this is that psychotic killers, once they appear on the stage, are normally caught in combination with their first kill. They donīt hide what they have done, they donīt mind staying with the victim, they donīt try and escape. If they DO escape, it is not because they were clever enough to get out in the right manner and time, it is because there was nobody around to notice that they left in the wrong manner and time.

Generalized? Yes, to an extent, but this is a matter that we can and should generalize about. Otherwise, we may end up following Andersons lead.

The best,
Fisherman

There is a truism, though certainly not a rule, that psychopathy and an Axis 1 diagnosis are mutually exclusive. Which in terms of neurology and structure may make perfect sense. People born with non functioning emotional centers of the brain are probably completely untroubled by any malfunction that works on the damaged areas. We know now that psychopathy often has a structural component. That a doctor can look at an MRI or a PET scan and see sociopathy. Of course there is still a large population with no physical signs, but even they tend not to display Axis 1 diagnoses, with the exception of schizophrenia which is structural and degenerative.

Now those with an autism spectrum disorder often display something very like sociopathy, but it isn't. An inability to bond is not the same as an inability to empathize. And while those with autism have many of the same traits as serial killers, to the best of my knowledge they never are serial killers. There was some question about Otis Toole being on the autism spectrum, but I don't think he was. He was never formally diagnosed either. But the serial killer mind is best compared to an autistic mind, or the mind of an addict. Fixation, repetition, obsession, behavioral compulsion, absorption, etc. As serial killer needs to kill the way an alcoholic needs a drink, and he cannot be swayed from that pursuit the way you cannot divert someone with autism from a mechanical task.

Psychotic killers can actually operate for some time, because psychotic killers tend to have little to no obvious pattern in either victim selection or MO. A psychotic killer might shoot a man, then strangle a child, etc. so trying to even establish that there is a serial killer can be difficult. And one of the ways that police often capture killers is predicting their next move, which is impossible with someone who is psychotic. Without knowing the motive, they cannot be predicted. So some psychotic killers do rack up a body count, but they are not accomplishing it by remaining quiet and unseen. They manage it by being unpredictable. However, psychotic killers tend not to operate well in cities. Psychotics on the run or in a large area can kill more than a psychotic in an inner city. There are very few places that someone who is not hiding can get away with murder. A psychotic may well stroll out of an alley covered in blood, or start yelling, or any number of other unsubtle things. It's not a good fit.

I think there are quite a few mental illnesses or disorders that could create these kinds of murders. I don't think delusion played a part in it, though there is a delusional component to a lot of disorders. Or something very like delusion. It is delusional for someone with OCD to think that if they don't wash their hands 72 times they will die. But people with OCD know that's not true. They feel that it is true. They feel dread, panic, physical pain even over something they know is not true. Because it feels true despite knowing it's not true, they wash their hands 72 times. It's terrible. I don't recommend it at all. I don't think the killer had OCD, I'm merely using it to illustrate the difference between delusion and compulsion.

But in the end, I don't think we can rule out the idea that the Ripper was not mentally ill, was not even psychotic. He may have just been a slightly compulsive dick. Which also happens. Bundy had a lot of problems, but he wasn't mentally ill. He chose to cope with his perfectly normal feelings by killing women. More than anything, he was just a dick. He wasn't delusional, he wasn't hallucination, he had no structural disorder, he was capable of empathy and bonding. He just chose to kill and rape women and have sex with their corpses. Which is not normal. But abnormal does mean there is a disorder. It means he was a dick. Just sayin.

[Fisherman]

I'm not saying he was harmless, or that he couldn't kill someone. I'm saying he is a poor candidate for a serial killer.

He was however a great candidate for the guy that Anderson described. Levy and Kosminski are both textbook examples of what the police thought the killer had to be like.

The interesting thing is that there is material a plenty to statistically prove this right; serial killers come from the range of psychologically unsound people that suffer - if suffer is the word - from psychopathy, narcissism etcetera. There are hundreds of them, diagnosed as psychopaths.

They do not, however, derive from the lines of people who suffer psychotic episodes other than to an extremely small degree. One of the reasons for this is that psychotic killers, once they appear on the stage, are normally caught in combination with their first kill. They donīt hide what they have done, they donīt mind staying with the victim, they donīt try and escape. If they DO escape, it is not because they were clever enough to get out in the right manner and time, it is because there was nobody around to notice that they left in the wrong manner and time.

Generalized? Yes, to an extent, but this is a matter that we can and should generalize about. Otherwise, we may end up following Andersons lead.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

.

What two year freedom?



Have you read the info on him at all?

He wouldn't have been a 'raving lunatic' in 1886 or even 1888, he had neuro-syphilis which was slowly killing him, attacking his brain and eventually after 5 years of slow deterioration, killing him die from paralysis of the insane.
He didn't wake up in 1886 and start drooling at the mouth, unable to talk or function, it took 4 years for him to go from a functioning adult to being admitted to an asylum for good. Even then he was lucid at times.

A passage from his medical records states-

Dec 4 1890 -

Always bright and lively - no despondency since last note.

So while he does get 'episodes' Dr Sequira states on his intake record he feels unless restrained he will do violence to someone he does seem to be able to have lucid moments.

So for all the questions of how could a madman escape notice, this is how, he was slowly losing the fight with a disease of the brain, but could still control his thoughts and actions at times.

two-ish years. Maybe three. I didn't look up my dates. But if in 1886 he was institutionalized for a year, he gets out in 87, and goes back in by 90.

And I expect Levy was a raving lunatic from time to time because manics are raving lunatics from time to time. These are generally the people who talk really fast and say things that make you back away slowly. To the point that those diagnosed are taught in the hospital to watch for people backing away from them so they will know they are in fact manic. You can't always tell from the inside.

I have read the information you have generously made available. And while fascinating it still doesn't sound to me like the Ripper. Don't get me wrong, he had problems. I just don't think they were the right problems. And there are really only two kinds of serial killers. Those on the sliding scale of psychopathy, and those on the higher end of the sliding scale of madness. He wasn't mad enough, he wasn't the right kind of mad, and he was not a psychopath. So I don't see him being a serial killer. He might have an appropriate level of narcissism, but even that has to be paired with psychopathy or delusions. Theres no mention of fixed ideations, which is the glue that holds a serial killer together. Without the obsessive component a person does not become a serial killer. I'm not saying he was harmless, or that he couldn't kill someone. I'm saying he is a poor candidate for a serial killer.

He was however a great candidate for the guy that Anderson described. Levy and Kosminski are both textbook examples of what the police thought the killer had to be like. Kosminski even has the benefit of a history of fixation (thought way too crazy to get this job done). But if we accept that masturbation does not create serial killers, we have to consider that the rest of their reasoning may have equally as flawed. I think the guy we are looking for was a psychopath. And they generally tend to blend in, but if one was institutionalized, it would be clear in his records. Not only do they not play well with others, they generally are control freaks to an extent that cannot go unnoticed by doctors and orderlies. Essentially we are looking for the guy in the asylum that steals and never apologizes. And probably makes fun of the doctors.

[Fisherman]

Which is why your favourite suspect is a normal, innocuous carman by day and a vicious serial killer by night.

No, that has nothing to do with it, actually. Nor do I think he was schizophrenic. But I do think he acknowledged that killing was facilitated by the darkness, the empty streets and him being alone, away from his family.

But rest assured, there is a measure of romance connected with the Lechmre family too. However, Charles was the kind of grey man with a reason to walk the streets that is represented by so many serial killers.

Fisherman

PS. Serial killers are ALL vicious when they kill. That does not mean they are good when they donīt. Some of them are family men with kids and a job nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

tji:

He had episodes of mania, spells of insanity, hearing voices, feeling the need to do violence if not restrained, wanders the streets etc. However he also would have been lucid when these moments were over able to perform normal tasks (this would eventually become less over the years.)

Although on that note, wouldn't it be interesting tot think he did commit them while he was lucid and not manic?!

As for me, that would be the most sensible explanation, Tracy - a manic or psychotic killer does not work. Not at all.
Of all the mistakes that were made throughout the Ripper hunt, I think the conception that he would be a lunatic of sorts is one of - if not THE - worst.

Each to their own.......I mean Lechmere?!

Haha! Iīm perfectly fine with Lechmere!

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

"People" - in this case me - will recognize that the diseases that had you put away in asylums in 1888, are not diseases that will easily translate into ripperism.

I donīt think that it would "shatter the mystique and romance" otherwise - it tallies quite well with what high ranking people in the police said, and as such, the accusation had a little of both Dickens and Poe to it, so thereīs mystique and romance enough in it anyway.

Half orangutang, half devious madman - it wonīt get much more mystical than that. Or mythical.

The best,
Fisherman

Which is why your favourite suspect is a normal, innocuous carman by day and a vicious serial killer by night.