change in modus operandi

[Natalie Severn]

Michael,
I think I will have to let Dave answer this one.I dont know the answer to it I am afraid.
Cheers
Nats

I can quite follow the thinking regarding compulsive behaviour suddenly not holding its old attraction too.

Hi Natalie,

The above made me consider to what extent addiction should be factored in with this type of killer, not all sociopaths can supress the desire for what feelings he or she derives from violent acts. The core murders that best fit with a killer having a nomme de plume including "Ripper"meant the killer handled warm bloody organs after excising them himself. I think there may be a visceral addiction indicated...the actual textures, and smells..the sight of blood spraying or flowing...

Unique tactile sensations as well as demon satisfying ones.

Its why I resist the notion that a man who slowly kills a "loved" one with poison...(sound familiar only with flipped genders?)...would be likely to have been someone that in early evolutions of his psychosis was extremely violent physically.

Can you unlearn a need or desire to hurt people physically?

Both you and David seem to think that they can for whatever reason change, but I submit that is based on perceptions of serial killer studies that reveal some killers do kill both physically and strategically. Guys that were caught and spoke of their feelings honestly... to be of the utmost assistance to the interviewer.

Serial killers have egos, maybe even feelings of guilt or remorse, but theres no reason to think that data coming only from the source convicted of the crimes is 100% honest or accurate.

Thats why I like to use the 10 foot pole rule with most profiling data.

My best regards Norma. xox

[Natalie Severn]

Ah----but a thing of beauty is a joy forever Dave!

I can quite follow the thinking regarding compulsive behaviour suddenly not holding its old attraction too.

[protohistorian]

Mike,
I am quite sure he kept his hand in with the knife- so to speak.As I have said before,I think it very likely that Severin was not a poisoner by preference and the wife killings that began in 1895 were killings of expediency.I suspect he was killing "various unknowns" and "unfortunates" that he met in his pubs or on Whitechapel"s , or Southwark"s Streets right up until 1902 and that the remains were carefully and secretly disposed of..

Dasve,
Regarding him having reached satiety with the murder of Mary Kelly.It is now an accepted phenomenon that an addict can suddenly tire of the addiction and it vanishes for good.So IF Severin killed and mutilated as a mostly compulsive act,he could have finished needing to have that strange journey with the murder of Mary Kelly.

It is not that the need disappears Nats, it is channeled into socially constructed behaviors, or rarely, moved into obsolescents by a change in world view. Either way however, yes, it is possible that the drive was redirected or ceased. P.S. Nat's I saw the post where you admit to oggleing egyptians. They ust want to be respected for their mind. Respectfully Dave

[Natalie Severn]

Thats a good point....should it be that she was in fact killed by the Ripper fellow. If not...and as I suggest Liz doesnt belong either, after those 3 consecutive almost identical murders he might have done another almost identical one the following summer. There may be proof that the man that was nicknamed Jack the Ripper continued to kill in almost the exact same way after Mary Kelly was killed by someone else.

Salut mon amis

Mike,
I am quite sure he kept his hand in with the knife- so to speak.As I have said before,I think it very likely that Severin was not a poisoner by preference and the wife killings that began in 1895 were killings of expediency.I suspect he was killing "various unknowns" and "unfortunates" that he met in his pubs or on Whitechapel"s , or Southwark"s Streets right up until 1902 and that the remains were carefully and secretly disposed of..

Dasve,
Regarding him having reached satiety with the murder of Mary Kelly.It is now an accepted phenomenon that an addict can suddenly tire of the addiction and it vanishes for good.So IF Severin killed and mutilated as a mostly compulsive act,he could have finished needing to have that strange journey with the murder of Mary Kelly.

[protohistorian]

Thats a good point....should it be that she was in fact killed by the Ripper fellow. If not...and as I suggest Liz doesnt belong either, after those 3 consecutive almost identical murders he might have done another almost identical one the following summer. There may be proof that the man that was nicknamed Jack the Ripper continued to kill in almost the exact same way after Mary Kelly was killed by someone else.

Salut mon amis

This brings up a behavior we see even today, namely the willingness of law enforcement to group crimes not intrinsically linked. Henry Lee Lucas is a good example. You can see on this board the willingness of people to link knifings. These crimes should be considered individually. Respectfully Dave

If that is so, then after Mary Kelly we need not wonder why the "rippings" stopped. Like drinking to much and having the headache the next day. It could be an experiencial negative reinforcement at work.

Thats a good point....should it be that she was in fact killed by the Ripper fellow. If not...and as I suggest Liz doesnt belong either, after those 3 consecutive almost identical murders he might have done another almost identical one the following summer. There may be proof that the man that was nicknamed Jack the Ripper continued to kill in almost the exact same way after Mary Kelly was killed by someone else.

Salut mon amis

[protohistorian]

If that is so, then after Mary Kelly we need not wonder why the "rippings" stopped. Like drinking to much and having the headache the next day. It could be an experiencial negative reinforcement at work.

We have no one of stating what the rippers goal was. To many, it is mutilation, to others, it's punishment for a fallen lifestyle. If his goal was to see terror on the victims face, poisoning is a viable sequitur. Respectfully Dave

Hi David,,

You have no argument from me on that logic, however the man called Jack the Ripper wasted little time on seeing pained expressions. They were effectively dead and unconscious seconds after the throat was cut. Whatever the expression was might be a frozen pose...but not one of a woman enduring her pain. Its very probable that the 3 victims whose focus was postmortem mutilation of the female abdomen were unconscious when first cut, so he had little or no time to even see their faces in reaction as life left them.

It seems to me that this particular killer sought his gratification in the acts that followed death.

Cheers David.

[protohistorian]

We have no one of stating what the rippers goal was. To many, it is mutilation, to others, it's punishment for a fallen lifestyle. If his goal was to see terror on the victims face, poisoning is a viable sequitur. Respectfully Dave

[protohistorian]

silly mammal. It is a matter of preference of a dysfunctional value system, it is unknowable.

Hi David,I don't throw up on it and allow my gastric juices dissolve it for hours on end, though. I want to eat it NOW!

(An allegory)

Precisely my thoughts Sam...although maybe with different analogies.....yuck.

Do serial killers, or do serial killer studies more accurately reveal that multiple killers have both instant gratification and delayed gratification impulses?

Maybe a necrophiliac...if he kills her then returns later.

I dont see the Ripper murders as sexual releases myself.

Interesting area though.

Cheery bye mate.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi David,

As to a change in modality, it is the killers prerogative to launch whatever attack he chooses. Just like you dont use a chainsaw to cut your steak, it is a preference call.

I don't throw up on it and allow my gastric juices dissolve it for hours on end, though. I want to eat it NOW!

(An allegory)

[protohistorian]

Thanks for the thoughts David.

Im not reformed ..but Im pleased that your explanation was informative based on the preconceptions I have offered.

The Ratcliffe(Radcliffe?) murders in early 1800 seem to me the kinds of acts that are performed by men of similar disposition to "Jack"...that being that they either got enjoyment from or were unaffected by, large blood loss from their victims. I think thats a special killer....killing itself doesnt take courage or brains,... taking a complete uterus from a woman whose throat you just cut implies both to some extent I think. You have to be able to stomach the acts you perform and the mess you make if you intend on doing it more than once.

Does that suggest that blood itself plays some part in the Ripper mystery? Maybe. Would bloodless murder seem out of character to a man who has wallowed in blood perhaps 5 times already? I think yes.

I suggested perhaps a catalyst between the events might change that character......but to my knowledge there is no catalyst, or such change in demeanor and personality present in Severin's case.

Hes as likely as Druitt or Ostrog....and I pointed out my opinions on those 2 already.

All the best David.

Blood may not have even been a concern for the killer, it could easily been a neutral value to him. As to a change in modality, it is the killers prerogative to launch whatever attack he chooses. Just like you dont use a chainsaw to cut your steak, it is a preference call. If poison was the mode he viewed as being the best suited, you had best believe that would be what he used. Respectfully Dave

Thanks for the thoughts David.

Im not reformed ..but Im pleased that your explanation was informative based on the preconceptions I have offered.

The Ratcliffe(Radcliffe?) murders in early 1800 seem to me the kinds of acts that are performed by men of similar disposition to "Jack"...that being that they either got enjoyment from or were unaffected by, large blood loss from their victims. I think thats a special killer....killing itself doesnt take courage or brains,... taking a complete uterus from a woman whose throat you just cut implies both to some extent I think. You have to be able to stomach the acts you perform and the mess you make if you intend on doing it more than once.

Does that suggest that blood itself plays some part in the Ripper mystery? Maybe. Would bloodless murder seem out of character to a man who has wallowed in blood perhaps 5 times already? I think yes.

I suggested perhaps a catalyst between the events might change that character......but to my knowledge there is no catalyst, or such change in demeanor and personality present in Severin's case.

Hes as likely as Druitt or Ostrog....and I pointed out my opinions on those 2 already.

All the best David.