Is Eddowes demise the key?

[Semper_Eadem]

The brain doesn't work that way unless the problem is physiological. First of all, people never really "snap". The delusions, hallucinations, sociopathy, whatever was there for a while. And there are behavioral changes during that time. Irritability, hyper vigilance, changes in habit, etc. It's when something happens of significance to the killer that triggers killing. But even if they devolve into a totally uncontrolled killer, they aren't going more mad. Even if a person is severely deluded and having hallucinations, he will never do something to another person on purpose that he cannot handle. Whoever killed Kelly was morally and psychologically fine with what he was doing. At best he would be horrified to find out that he did that to someone who was not who he thought it was, for example if he was deluded into believing that she was his wife or something. But not by what he did. And even if he was horrified to find out that he did that to a stranger instead of his intended target, it would be quickly rationalized. These people kill and mutilate because they want to. They rationalize a reason, and the reason may even be the stressor that prompted them to kill in the first place. But clearly there are ways to deal with a cheating wife or an abusive mother that don't involve harming people. They want to do what they are doing. It gives them pleasure, it gives them the illusion of power and control. That's all they care about. The rest is window dressing. Kelly's killer didn't "snap". What he did didn't drive him mad. If he got worse, it was completely unrelated to his crimes.

Hi Errata,

I was just conjecturing in the cause of death thread for David Cohen in suspects, if the killer had problems keeping up appearances due to any mental illness/psychosis he might of had. Perhaps the term "his mind snapped" is simplifying it too much. I like to be cut and dry and simplify things a bit too much perhaps. Perhaps his mind indeed was physiological.

I don't know if the killer displayed any sociopath tendencies with the ripper murders but if he did start as a child then chances are that he was probably a sociopath, although that is a strong word, the killer was real good at fobbing people off if they got to noisy. I was thinking more along the lines of Psychopath. Gordon Stewart Northcott was a sociopath but I don't know how well Jack The Ripper fits that mold but then again I don't know that much about Jack. I got into studying the Ripper case because of my interest in Victorian London and Jack's Victims plus I saw the Michael Cain movie back in 1988. I always thought JTR was just a lucky pyschopath.

Although, I was toying with the idea that Walter Sickert was JTR for about 5 minuets after reading Patricia Cornwalls books but that theory was mostly because of the watermarks on the paper of some of the ripper letters was supposedly simular to Sickerts. I never really thought about Sickerts Paintings although if he was a sociopath then it would be possible.....nope not going to get into this debate. However, I still do wonder if Sickert might of wrote some of the Ripper letters for kicks.

I think the killer got worse in his killing. A typical psychopath latter of progression. I think he started with the neighbors cat as a child/preteen and worked his way up the line. I think we have a Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy although I do not know if Bundy was mentally ill but I think Dahmer was after I saw a movie about him "Dahmer" and heard Martin Fido bring him up on Rippercast.

I think the Killer might of gotten worse because victims were getting harder to find plus the stress of hiding his mental illness or the fact that he was a psychopath. Although that doesn't explain Frances Coles unless her killer was a very lucky copycat.