Paranoid schizophrenic?

[John G]

Hi Errata,

Do you see similarities between Robert Napper and JtR? Thus, as a child Napper was aggressive with his siblings and repeatedly told lies. He also spied on his sister in the shower and whilst she was undressing. His mother, fearing that he was mentally ill, sent him for a psychiatric assessment at the age of 11. He was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.

Then, at the age of 12 he was raped in daylight whilst walking in the woods near his home-two of his friends were also sexually assaulted. He became dramatically withdrawn as a consequence, and his teacher stated that this experience transformed him from a unremarkable boy into a "robot".

Interestingly, it's generally believed that he was the Green Chain Rapist, who attacked women on leafy pathways- Green Chain Walk is a 40 mile network of open spaces in London, spanning fields, parks and woodlands - and his first murder was on Wimbledon Common, i.e. similar environments to we're he had also been raped.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Do you see similarities between Robert Napper and JtR? Thus, as a child Napper was aggressive with his siblings and repeatedly told lies. He also spied on his sister in the shower and whilst she was undressing. His mother, fearing that he was mentally ill, sent him for a psychiatric assessment at the age of 11. He was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.

Then, at the age of 12 he was raped in daylight whilst walking in the woods near his home-two of his friends were also sexually assaulted. He became dramatically withdrawn as a consequence, and his teacher stated that this experience transformed him from a unremarkable boy into a "robot".

Interestingly, it's generally believed that he was the Green Chain Rapist, who attacked women on leafy pathways- Green Chain Walk is a 40 mile network of open spaces in London, spanning fields, parks and woodlands - and his first murder was on Wimbledon Common, i.e. similar environments to we're he had also been raped.

With Napper, the first change was after getting out of foster care. Now the trauma of abandonment could be enough easily, but we also know there is a spectacular amount of abuse in the system. Statistically speaking, the younger the damage the worse it is. So if he was in a household where he received head trauma, if it wasn't treated when it happened then that's a major problem. The second major change was after his rape. And that absolutely is enough to shut a person down. No question. But head injury is also pretty common during rapes, because the victims are controlled pretty violently. Most rape victims report hitting their heads at some point during the attack. So with everything that happened, a closed head injury can easily sneak by. And it's no one's fault. But every healing head injury needs to monitored to ensure a minimum amount of side effects. And in a lot of ways this is what we don't see with soldiers, because barring terrible circumstances they do get treated before scarring starts, and of course we have treatments now, and we didn't back then. We don't have to fear our returning veterans, or really anyone else who was treated relatively immediately. It's what was never treated that causes the most problems. And Napper may have never been hit in the head in his life. But he was sort of ripe for opportunities with abuse and neglect, so I think it's worth mentioning.

I don't see similarities between the two, but mostly because it's really hard to compare the emotional states of serial killers. I mean, yes they are all unique and individual snowflakes or whatever, but it pretty much boils down to just a few things. They are risk takers, or they aren't. They are planners, or they aren't. They want to kill people, or they don't. They have a goal, or they don't. Napper was a risk taker, he was a planner, he wanted to kill people, and he had no goal or end game. I think Jack was a risk taker. I think he was a planner, I think he wanted to kill people but for an entirely different reason, and I think he had a goal or end game.

Napper was a sadist. Jack really wasn't. And sadism is one of the few things that really informs everything about a killer. If you know a killer is a sadist, you don't have to ask why he killed, how he chose his victims, or a number of other things. You know a sadist isn't hanging on to the bodies. You know a sadist isn't mission oriented, even if he says he is. You know he's not sorry, no matter what he says. Ask any sadistic killer and the answers would be the same. Sadism is a specific thing, and everything is informed by it with little variation. But being "mission oriented" is different.

Mission oriented can be rational or delusional. Killing prostitutes because they are committing crime and the cops aren't cleaning up the streets fast enough- not SUPER rational, but certainly not delusional. Killing prostitutes because the great god LAUooo needs a blood sacrifice to stop all war and corruption- weeellll. Who am I to judge anyone's religion, but that is not on the surface of things really anything other than batshit crazy. I think Jack is a rational goal oriented killer. I don't think he's listening to the call of the fairy queen, I don't his warrior unicorn god is forcing him.

What I think Napper and Jack really share is their source material. Their origin story if you will. I think both were subjected to horrendous abuse, both likely had hypercritical emotionally distant mothers who whether or not on purpose set them both up for immense suffering. I think both suffered from mixed marriages during development. A specific praise followed by a specific insult. It is the singe most damaging thing our parents can do to us. More so that flat out abuse and neglect it turns out. I think both ended up with insanely complex relationships with their mothers, where they both courted their mothers and reviled them. I think that relationship, and all the things that go with it are the reason both of these men started killing. I know it sounds Freudian. But it isn't. People with terrible pasts try to make themselves whole by trying to right it somehow. And some people can right it, most can't but can work through it in a positive or healthy way. A very few can't and try to get revenge in a way. Napper wasn't seeking revenge in a way we recognize really, but he was projecting and trying to seize control. I think Jack did the same thing. But the sadism thing makes them miles apart in comparison. It always does.

[harry]

Errata,
I brought the subject up because many years ago I suffered from the condition.At least,altered state of consciousness was the diagnosis.The symtoms were that I was doing things I should not have been doing,Illegal things,some of them.I was conscious of doing them,could remember afterwards what I had done,but they were things I had not intended doing.There was no warning of a change in consciousness,no feeling of a change,or of a change back to normality.No indication that what I was doing was wrong,until the change back to normality.It was only being stopped by the police,being told by the police of an illegal activity,and having that activity corroborated by others,that I sought medical advice,and found out the presumed cause.
Any idea what that was,and the remedy? The question was put to a group of students at a teaching hospital.They came up with the correct answer.

[John G]

My understanding is that altered states of consciousness can be caused by a wide variety of disorders, i.e. head trauma, fever, sleep deprivation (which can be a cause of post operative psychosis), hypoxia and even hypoglycaemia. In fact, somewhat bizarrely, In English Law if you commit a crime whilst suffering from hypoglycaemia, caused by having too much insulin, or insufficient food to counter the effects of the insulin, then you have no defence has the condition is deemed to have been self-induced: see R v Quick. Conversely, if you commit a crime whilst suffering from hyperglycaemia, caused by not having enough insulin, you can raise the defence of non-insane automatism as the condition is not deemed to have been self-induced: see R v Hennesey.

I think, therefore, that a diagnosis could only be made by a qualified professional, following a variety of tests, and knowledge of the individual's case history. As for JtR, I think he was far too organized and self-aware to have been affected in such a way.

[John G]

I should note that another condition that can cause a dissociative state is PTSD, a condition sometimes misdiagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia: see Berger et al., 2012. http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/4/509.full.pdf. I believe Arthur Shawcross, who also mutilated some of his victims, attempted to raise this as an insanity defence, and one psychiatrist diagnosed him with the condition. However, this argument was rejected by the court, after being strongly challenged by the prosecution: their psychiatrist diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder.

[Abby Normal]

With Napper, the first change was after getting out of foster care. Now the trauma of abandonment could be enough easily, but we also know there is a spectacular amount of abuse in the system. Statistically speaking, the younger the damage the worse it is. So if he was in a household where he received head trauma, if it wasn't treated when it happened then that's a major problem. The second major change was after his rape. And that absolutely is enough to shut a person down. No question. But head injury is also pretty common during rapes, because the victims are controlled pretty violently. Most rape victims report hitting their heads at some point during the attack. So with everything that happened, a closed head injury can easily sneak by. And it's no one's fault. But every healing head injury needs to monitored to ensure a minimum amount of side effects. And in a lot of ways this is what we don't see with soldiers, because barring terrible circumstances they do get treated before scarring starts, and of course we have treatments now, and we didn't back then. We don't have to fear our returning veterans, or really anyone else who was treated relatively immediately. It's what was never treated that causes the most problems. And Napper may have never been hit in the head in his life. But he was sort of ripe for opportunities with abuse and neglect, so I think it's worth mentioning.

I don't see similarities between the two, but mostly because it's really hard to compare the emotional states of serial killers. I mean, yes they are all unique and individual snowflakes or whatever, but it pretty much boils down to just a few things. They are risk takers, or they aren't. They are planners, or they aren't. They want to kill people, or they don't. They have a goal, or they don't. Napper was a risk taker, he was a planner, he wanted to kill people, and he had no goal or end game. I think Jack was a risk taker. I think he was a planner, I think he wanted to kill people but for an entirely different reason, and I think he had a goal or end game.

Napper was a sadist. Jack really wasn't. And sadism is one of the few things that really informs everything about a killer. If you know a killer is a sadist, you don't have to ask why he killed, how he chose his victims, or a number of other things. You know a sadist isn't hanging on to the bodies. You know a sadist isn't mission oriented, even if he says he is. You know he's not sorry, no matter what he says. Ask any sadistic killer and the answers would be the same. Sadism is a specific thing, and everything is informed by it with little variation. But being "mission oriented" is different.

Mission oriented can be rational or delusional. Killing prostitutes because they are committing crime and the cops aren't cleaning up the streets fast enough- not SUPER rational, but certainly not delusional. Killing prostitutes because the great god LAUooo needs a blood sacrifice to stop all war and corruption- weeellll. Who am I to judge anyone's religion, but that is not on the surface of things really anything other than batshit crazy. I think Jack is a rational goal oriented killer. I don't think he's listening to the call of the fairy queen, I don't his warrior unicorn god is forcing him.

What I think Napper and Jack really share is their source material. Their origin story if you will. I think both were subjected to horrendous abuse, both likely had hypercritical emotionally distant mothers who whether or not on purpose set them both up for immense suffering. I think both suffered from mixed marriages during development. A specific praise followed by a specific insult. It is the singe most damaging thing our parents can do to us. More so that flat out abuse and neglect it turns out. I think both ended up with insanely complex relationships with their mothers, where they both courted their mothers and reviled them. I think that relationship, and all the things that go with it are the reason both of these men started killing. I know it sounds Freudian. But it isn't. People with terrible pasts try to make themselves whole by trying to right it somehow. And some people can right it, most can't but can work through it in a positive or healthy way. A very few can't and try to get revenge in a way. Napper wasn't seeking revenge in a way we recognize really, but he was projecting and trying to seize control. I think Jack did the same thing. But the sadism thing makes them miles apart in comparison. It always does.

Hi Errata

I think Jack is a rational goal oriented killer.

Bingo.


Harry
Do you really think a disorganized killer and/or a paranoid schizophrenic could have gotten away with a murder series of 6-7 women and avoided being caught in the act, sometimes in the nick of time?

Pull off the double event?

"Surgically" remove organs?

To have appeared normal enough that at the height of the ripper scare to convince women to take him to a secluded spot?

Never unintensionally leave a clue?

I don't think so. There is a level of perceptiveness, sophistication, cunning and yes planning that goes way past a disorganized killer.

And he was crazy-Crazy like a fox.

[Harry D]

Hello, Abby. We meet again.

Do you really think a disorganized killer and/or a paranoid schizophrenic could have gotten away with a murder series of 6-7 women and avoided being caught in the act, sometimes in the nick of time?

Let's put specific victim numbers aside. Do I believe a schizophrenic is capable of committing a string of murders in a pre-forensic world and getting away with it? I don't see why not. Back then, he had to have either been caught in the act or confessed to it.

Like I said, luck was on the side of the Ripper and not the authorities.

"Surgically" remove organs?

The killer's level of skill is debatable. Anyway, why can't someone who's mentally ill have the required knowledge to eviscerate a body. You seem to be falling into a trap of caricaturing an insane suspect as some kind of drooling idiot with no control over his faculties.

To have appeared normal enough that at the height of the ripper scare to convince women to take him to a secluded spot?

Where does this idea of the Ripper luring women to their deaths come from? More likely that the prostitutes seized the initiative and took the punters to secluded areas, it was their business to do this. Just because someone is schizophrenic doesn't mean they're a raving lunatic frothing at the mouth. He could've appeared calm and introverted on the outside. These were desperate women selling their bodies on the street even while a violent killer was on the loose. As long as he didn't look like a complete nutter and proved he could pay, they weren't too picky.

Never unintensionally leave a clue?

What clues would you expect to see left by a disorganized killer?

[John G]

Good observation, John. Now if Napper had been running away, desperately looking over his shoulder, I think he would've attracted a damn sight more attention. But the fact he calmly, almost brazenly, walked away from the crime scene allowed him to avoid detection from other people in the park who were in their own little worlds. Of course he was a lucky bugger, as well. On another day he would've been spotted.

Same goes for the Ripper. There are alleged sightings of the murderer before the attacks but nothing afterwards. Like Napper, he could've been strolling home with his bloodstained jacket and no one paid any attention because under the cover of darkness he just looked like any other random Joe passing through Whitechapel. Not to mention the Ripper was operating in the early hours of the morning and not in the middle of the day, and if he was taking a shortcut home that would've also limited the amount of people he encountered. It sounds ridiculous that someone could get away with that, but you've proven that it can happen, and I'm sure Napper's case is far from the only example.

Hi Harry,

Yes, thanks. Although I think it more likely that JtR was suffering from an anti social personality disorder I don't think schizophrenia can be ruled out. Thus, it has been argued that schizophrenics are too disordered in their thought processes to be serial killers, however, there were clearly both organized and disorganized elements to Napper's MO, i.e. on one hand he left forensic evidence, but on the other hand he was known to keep detailed records of the sites of actual and potential attacks on women. And it's worth pointing out that he may have committed numerous sexual offences over a number of years-it is thought at least 70- as the Green Chain Rapist. And, of course, unlike JtR, Napper was operating in an age of DNA testing and CCTV, etc, which surely proves that even today motiveless crimes are difficult to solve, whatever the perpetrator may be suffering from. And as you point out, being lucky and the ability to behave calmly after the attacks, thereby avoiding attracting attention from the public, are clearly important factors.

John Wayne Gacy, another modern serial killer, was diagnosed by several doctors as suffering from borderline schizophrenia. He murdered 33 victims over 6 years, and could also be regarded as reasonably organized: he buried most of his victims and successfully lured several of them to his house and car. In fact, in the community where he lived he was regarded as both charming and easy to get along with.

I believe David Berkowitz, who claimed his dog gave him commands to kill, was also diagnosed with schizophrenia.

[Errata]

Errata,
I brought the subject up because many years ago I suffered from the condition.At least,altered state of consciousness was the diagnosis.The symtoms were that I was doing things I should not have been doing,Illegal things,some of them.I was conscious of doing them,could remember afterwards what I had done,but they were things I had not intended doing.There was no warning of a change in consciousness,no feeling of a change,or of a change back to normality.No indication that what I was doing was wrong,until the change back to normality.It was only being stopped by the police,being told by the police of an illegal activity,and having that activity corroborated by others,that I sought medical advice,and found out the presumed cause.
Any idea what that was,and the remedy? The question was put to a group of students at a teaching hospital.They came up with the correct answer.

Diagnosing people you know, however tenuously, creates a very weird dynamic (even if you get it right) I would rather avoid. And I couldn't do it anyway. Not enough information. As John pointed out, it could literally be anything from a fever to a three foot pole sticking out of your head. I very much hope you did not have a three foot pole sticking out of your head.

One of the most recognizable and common kinds of this kind of global check out is the alcoholic blackout. On the other hand, people who drink that much generally come to expect the blackouts, so they aren't surprised when a cop knock on the door. On the the other hand, someone with a previously undiagnosed seizure disorder (or god forbid, tumor) is very shocked and appalled. Even after they technically know what happened. It's a hard thing to deal with. And incredibly scary if you sort of come out of it say, three states away from your house.

Stealing by the way, pretty common. The most common is a DUI, for obvious reasons, but stealing is next. And there can be a lot of reasons for that, none of which are antisocial. A lot of is is simply having a section of the brain shut down. If you're executive function is off, you can recognize hunger and the need to find food, but handling money and the morals of buying vs stealing are inaccessible. So walking into a store, grabbing something and leaving happens. Public nudity is another weird one that happens. Shame and social convention are gone in some people with seizures. They just don't get dressed to get the paper. It's harmless but alarming to neighbors. You occasionally hear stories about someone in a dissociative state (say, a priest) going out to score coke, but most of those stories have been disproved.

There is a difference between committing a crime, and doing something fundamentally immoral. So the question is what can turn a person into a serial killer. And that's tough. Because that's more than becoming a lawbreaker. That is presumable changing a person's fundamental nature. And there are people running around who would be serial killers but don't want to risk punishment. So those people could kill if they just got drunk. But what has to happen to a person to do a Jekyll and Hyde in a dissociative state?

I kinda have no idea. I mean sure, you can always make a serial killer. Gein's mother proved that. Managing all of that while a person is in a dissoctiave state seems... ambitious. I think it would have to be a staggering coincidence of problems. But the things that make a serial killer are scattered all over the brain. And no one problem hits all of them. And very few dissociative states, or even fugue states leave the ability to plan intact. Total amnesia resulting in someone creating another life, maybe in theory, but these catastrophic events don't change a person's sexual map. It doesn't create a sadist where one was not before. There are personality markers and tastes that always remain intact. So we aren't talking sweet little old man by day, ruthless bloody murderer by night. It's possible you get buttoned up tight guy no one knows really well/ bloodthirsty serial killer, but we kinda get that anyway a lot without a personality change. Just really good hiding.

And if we are honest, there is no good reason for these women to have been killed. So he either did it for personal gain, or he was delusional, and delusions makes figuring out what was wrong just so much harder.

[Errata]

Hi Harry,

Yes, thanks. Although I think it more likely that JtR was suffering from an anti social personality disorder I don't think schizophrenia can be ruled out. Thus, it has been argued that schizophrenics are too disordered in their thought processes to be serial killers, however, there were clearly both organized and disorganized elements to Napper's MO, i.e. on one hand he left forensic evidence, but on the other hand he was known to keep detailed records of the sites of actual and potential attacks on women. And it's worth pointing out that he may have committed numerous sexual offences over a number of years-it is thought at least 70- as the Green Chain Rapist. And, of course, unlike JtR, Napper was operating in an age of DNA testing and CCTV, etc, which surely proves that even today motiveless crimes are difficult to solve, whatever the perpetrator may be suffering from. And as you point out, being lucky and the ability to behave calmly after the attacks, thereby avoiding attracting attention from the public, are clearly important factors.

John Wayne Gacy, another modern serial killer, was diagnosed by several doctors as suffering from borderline schizophrenia. He murdered 33 victims over 6 years, and could also be regarded as reasonably organized: he buried most of his victims and successfully lured several of them to his house and car. In fact, in the community where he lived he was regarded as both charming and easy to get along with.

I believe David Berkowitz, who claimed his dog gave him commands to kill, was also diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Neither Gacy nor Berkowitz were ever been treated for schizophrenia after the conclusion of their trials. Gacy was medicated until the day he died. One antidepressant to deal with the loneliness of prison (and what idiot medicates that I don't know) and the hormones for his chemical castration.

Berkowitz kept up the pretense through his initial appeals and then dropped it, laughing at the people who believed he talked to a dog. One other appeal or parole thing came up about 8 years ago maybe? He started it again, but then dropped it again when denied.

Neither of these men ever met any of the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia, not even the criteria of their day. The doctors who made these diagnoses barring one have gone on to recant these diagnoses.

Serial killers routinely are diagnose with a schizoid disorder before trial. Exactly 6 worldwide were treated for it after their trial. And of those six, 2 are known to have had their diagnosis revised.

Every serial killer is crazy. Very few are actually *crazy*. They are different, we don't understand them, we are easily manipulated by them, and even more than that, it is very hard for us to understand their descriptions of why they do what they do. There's an interesting article out there somewhere where Michael C. Hall from Dexter said they they had a hell of a time trying to find a way to describe Dexter's "dark passenger" as an urge and not a person. We have that same problem when listening to serial killers. Their language is very depersonalized, and it was only is the last three years or so of Bundy's life that he was willing to say "I" when describing his murders. He never said "I strangled her" he said "And then, say, a man would strangle her" or "And then she was beaten". And this guy was a terrible sadist, but there were things even he was ashamed of and spoke of in the third person. Which is the primary reason he was also said to be schizophrenic.

I mean, I have the DSM III entry on schizophrenia, anyone who wants it can see what a global disorder it is, that even genuine delusions aren't enough to secure that diagnosis in a genuine way.

[harry]

Errata,
Not a three foot pole,not a fever.A tumor was heading in the right direction,as that is what it was first thought it might be.A Venal Malformation was the answer.Persons are born with the affliction.
Incidentally,one of the worst serial killers here in South Australia was found after his death,to be suffering from a Tumor in the brain.Luckily,but it should have happened earlier,he was killed in a motor accident.He exhibited no signs of anything wrong,and could have gone on killing.Also out of the norm,he had an accomplice.

[John G]

There is an interesting meta-study that considered the factors that cause individuals to become serial killers. The tentative conclusion was that, in at least some cases, evidence suggests a complex interplay between neurodevelopment problems such as Autistic Spectrum Disorders, i.e. Aspergers syndrome, or head trauma, and psychosocial factors: Alley et al., 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...59178914000305.

Thus, the study determined that more than 10% of serial killers have ASD and a similar proportion have a had injury, and that these figures are likely to be an underestimate; they are also far higher ratios than for the general population. Moreover, the great majority of those with ASD or head injury also experienced psychosocial risk factors, such as parental divorce, physical and sexual abuse, and major surgery during childhood.

A good example is Jeffrey Dahmer, who is highly likely to have had ASD, but who was also subjected to psyhcosocial stressors during childhood: he experienced a highly dysfunctional family environment.

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Abby. We meet again.



Let's put specific victim numbers aside. Do I believe a schizophrenic is capable of committing a string of murders in a pre-forensic world and getting away with it? I don't see why not. Back then, he had to have either been caught in the act or confessed to it.

Like I said, luck was on the side of the Ripper and not the authorities.



The killer's level of skill is debatable. Anyway, why can't someone who's mentally ill have the required knowledge to eviscerate a body. You seem to be falling into a trap of caricaturing an insane suspect as some kind of drooling idiot with no control over his faculties.



Where does this idea of the Ripper luring women to their deaths come from? More likely that the prostitutes seized the initiative and took the punters to secluded areas, it was their business to do this. Just because someone is schizophrenic doesn't mean they're a raving lunatic frothing at the mouth. He could've appeared calm and introverted on the outside. These were desperate women selling their bodies on the street even while a violent killer was on the loose. As long as he didn't look like a complete nutter and proved he could pay, they weren't too picky.



What clues would you expect to see left by a disorganized killer?

hi Harry

Let's put specific victim numbers aside. Do I believe a schizophrenic is capable of committing a string of murders in a pre-forensic world and getting away with it? I don't see why not. Back then, he had to have either been caught in the act or confessed to it.

Sure its possible, I just don't think all things considered its probable.

Like I said, luck was on the side of the Ripper and not the authorities.

Theres also a saying-you make your own luck.

The killer's level of skill is debatable. Anyway, why can't someone who's mentally ill have the required knowledge to eviscerate a body. You seem to be falling into a trap of caricaturing an insane suspect as some kind of drooling idiot with no control over his faculties.

No. I agree. Insane or not, there is no way a drooling idiot with no control could have been the ripper.

Where does this idea of the Ripper luring women to their deaths come from? More likely that the prostitutes seized the initiative and took the punters to secluded areas, it was their business to do this. Just because someone is schizophrenic doesn't mean they're a raving lunatic frothing at the mouth. He could've appeared calm and introverted on the outside. These were desperate women selling their bodies on the street even while a violent killer was on the loose. As long as he didn't look like a complete nutter and proved he could pay, they weren't too picky.

Can you imagine a Richard chase, henry Mullins, ed gein, hell even a berkowitz being able to pull these type of murders off? Can you imagine streetwise prostitutes at the height of the ripper scare, (when a drooling idiot, a "maniac", whom many suspected was the type,) going off with someone who seemed even remotely odd to a secluded spot? Do you think a disorganized killer and/or severely mentally ill person could pull the ruse factor off? I cant. no way.

Think more of the Bundy, Dahmer, ridgeway, kemper, William suff type killer and I think we are probably nearer the truth.

What clues would you expect to see left by a disorganized killer?

Oh, I don't know-maybe the murder weapon or a personal belonging.

Add all this to the fact that the killer seemed to be in regular employment, none of the witnesess describe an odd looking/acting or disheveled suspect and, as Errata said, there is a definite goal in mind-a methodology and plan to obtain that goal, and I highly doubt we are looking at someone who is severly mentally impaired or disorganized.

[Harry D]

Hello, Abby.

All I can do is point you to the previous posts in this topic that cover Robert Napper - a paranoid schizophrenic who, after murdering a woman in a public park, calmly walked away from the murder scene and got away with it. This was a murderer with a calculating mind, not just some knife-wielding lunatic. He had been spying on one of his victims when she was having sex with her partner in the living room. After killing her, Napper dragged her body into the living room and put in her sexual pose, and left with a piece of her body as a trophy. As John G pointed out, Napper also had entire maps where he plotted the locations of potential victims, so there was clearly some method to his madness.

If there's one key distinction between Napper and the Ripper, it's that Napper is a more sexually-motivated killer. He was a serial rapist, a voyeur, and left semen at the scene of the crimes. We don't have any evidence that the Ripper had sex with his victims pre or post-mortem. Napper was targeting young, attractive women, the Ripper was mainly targeting middle-aged frumps (with some possible exceptions: Mary Kelly, Frances Coles). Did the Ripper have a particular vendetta against prostitutes, or were they just the easiest female victims he could find?

Let's look at some of the general characteristics of a disorganized killer (by no means are these set in stone):

• White male, any age range; but females are common as well
• Below average intelligence (Edmund Kemper, however, had an IQ of 145)
• The habit of leaving the body at the scene, not bothering to cover up the crime
• May be difficult to catch due to constant relocation
• May have a domineering family member (most notably a parent)
• Uses "blitz" attacks to subdue, as opposed to seduction or sympathy
• Has very few close relationships and is often referred to as the "quiet type"

Now I can't speak to the Ripper's level of intelligence, none of us can. However, we know that the Ripper was performing 'blitz' attacks on victims, strangling them swiftly and effectively before they could make a sound. He makes no effort to hide the bodies, in fact he seems to arrange them into sexually-degrading poses, and he wouldn't have needed to seduce the victims as they were destitute prostitutes desperate for money. They would've been soliciting just about any man they could find.

The 'Double Event' also suggests a disorganized killer. For argument's sake, let's assume Stride was an interruption. Wouldn't a more organized mind count himself lucky and lay low until he can plan his next strike? Instead, the killer heads towards Mitre Square, bumps into another potential victim, and on an impulse ends up murdering her, even though he's already had one close call that night. He just couldn't help himself.

[Errata]

Errata,
Not a three foot pole,not a fever.A tumor was heading in the right direction,as that is what it was first thought it might be.A Venal Malformation was the answer.Persons are born with the affliction.
Incidentally,one of the worst serial killers here in South Australia was found after his death,to be suffering from a Tumor in the brain.Luckily,but it should have happened earlier,he was killed in a motor accident.He exhibited no signs of anything wrong,and could have gone on killing.Also out of the norm,he had an accomplice.

There is another venal malformation and I can't remember what it's called but it is a knot of three veins in the temporal lobe. It causes people to think (or maybe they are, who knows) they are either talking to the dead, or talking to God. It is not a delusion, the brain lights up the exact same way it lights up if you are hearing an actual voice. And it's rare, but it's discovery in the early seventies really was the advent of studying the blood flow and minor structural defects in the brain as they pertain to behavior. It doesn't surprise me that a snarl in the pipes, however small they may be, caused some pretty significant changes in your behavior. But you will be relieved to know (if you didn't already) thats not mental illness, it's not crazy, it is the same as having seizures. Seizures are a snarl in the power grid. Venous and arterial malformations are snarls in the plumbing.

There is also a kind of tumor called an astrocytoma. And if that astrocytoma sits in the right place, which is sort of dead center in the brain, the sufferer feels the presence of the god of their choosing. Nudge it back a hair, and it makes them a prophet of that god. There have been some modern cases of this and their behavior almost exactly lines up with the early years of Joan of Arc, so they think she might have had one. It's insanely difficult to treat because people who have this very rare conformation don't want to lose it. Even if it kills them. I've heard it described as being like asking them to cut out their love for their children. And they aren't insane. They aren't impaired. So getting their consent taken away is tough. They'll die from these tumors with a smile. Which is their right really.

There are a very few serial killers who have had brain tumors. I gotta say I'm not familiar with Australian serial killers really, but Charles Whitman (the Texas Clock Tower Shooter) had an astrocytoma sitting on a venous malformation at the juncture of the temporal and occipital lobe in the white matter. Which is a lot of brain function to sort through. But the center of the tumor was necrotic, so likely it was swelling. The report came out saying a lot of things really. Basically the shrinks said maybe the tumor could have affected his behavior, the neurologists saying probably not. And some people think maybe it pressed against the amygdala, aggravating the fight or flight response...

The area of the brain it was in could have been in significant behavioral territory, it just so happens it wasn't. Junctions of lobes tend to be sparse in function. It wasn't affecting his personality, his mood, his balance, his physical well being. And even if it pressed on the amygdala, that would create paranoia, but it also creates about 50 other symptoms he didn't have, including explosive immediate rage. He had explosive calculated planned out rage. A lot of people, including myself for the little it's worth, think he had a brain tumor AND he was a spree killer but the two were not connected. And one could blame it on the venous malformation, but it also wasn't in a significant area.

On the other hand, he was abusing Valium and Dexedrine. He had underlying issues, and we know that because he actually went to a shrink which for a Texas kid is a huge deal. But I'm betting the drug cycle is what made him a killer.