Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

Fisherman,

How many known serial killers receive extensive police and media interest in the wake of an early crime, and yet go on to claim more victims? The answer is zero. That would make Crossmere an "unlikely candidate" according to your argument that Jack the Ripper was "unlikely" to have engaged in any sort of behaviour that would run the risk of making him a "rarity" among serial killers. You can either stick with that argument, with all the negative implications it has for your selection of Crossmere as your ripper suspect of preference, or you can accept that you don't really know very much about this stuff.

Most experts in sadosexual serial murder will tell you that early triggers for crimes such the ones the ripper committed will typically involve such lesser offences as stalking, "peeping tommery" and flashing, but that doesn't mean that these lesser offences get abandoned forever the moment an offender embarks upon a more advanced crime, such as murder and mutilation. A flasher can advance to mutilation murder and return thence to flashing when the opportunity presents itself, if he wants.

Hi John,

The fact that I was able to provide these examples off the top of me head (and the list was by no means exhaustive) evinces a telling clue with regard to the obvious non-rarity of serial killers targetting different ages and genders. The problem with excluding any behaviour that might be construed as belonging to a "rarity" amongst serial killers is that you end up, paradoxically, with a being so incredibly rare that he doesn't exist. A significant minority of serial killers engage in post-mortem mutilation - does that mean it didn't happen in the ripper's case; because most serial killers don't do that? Show me a serial killer whose behaviour is consistent with the majority of other serial killers in every respect, and I'd be truly fascinated.

Andrei Chikatilo was a "sexually motivated serial killer" whose victims included boys and women, and no, he is not "exceptionally rare" in that regard - unless you're in possession of statistics I've somehow missed.

Hi Ben,

I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. As Mike points out, JtR was very consistent in respect of his MO and signature, I.e targeting prostitutes, demonstrating escalating violence, focussing on mutilations, murdering his victims by slitting their throat. The idea that such a clearly disturbed individual would re-emerge several years later as a flasher, indecency assaulting. I.e not mutilating or killing, young boys is in my view somewhat preposterous. And where are the precedents for such a dramatic change in MO/signaure?

Yes, I know anything's possible, and in that regard even a Jill the Ripper, in the guise of a crazy midwife, has been suggested. But that doesn't necessarily make the proposition remotely likely. In fact, frankly I think it a hundred times more likely that MJK was murdered by Astrachan Man than Aussie George.

This is pretty much the same argument used by GR Sims in respect of the unsuitanility of George Chapman's candidacy for Jack. And you know what? He was absolutely right.

[The Good Michael]

The problem I see with JtR murdering anyone other than harlots is his pattern is harlots.

That isn't necessarily true. The pattern you see is prostitutes. The pattern the killer may have seen was "easy female victims" with prostitutes being the simplest victim to attain, but that doesn't necessitate any special predatory notion towards prostitutes. Many have argues against one victim or another even being on the game the night they were murdered, not that I agree with that. The idea of this pattern you suggest (and others of course) simplifies things in a way that aint necessarily so.

Mike

[John G]

That isn't necessarily true. The pattern you see is prostitutes. The pattern the killer may have seen was "easy female victims" with prostitutes being the simplest victim to attain, but that doesn't necessitate any special predatory notion towards prostitutes. Many have argues against one victim or another even being on the game the night they were murdered, not that I agree with that. The idea of this pattern you suggest (and others of course) simplifies things in a way that aint necessarily so.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Yes, I would tend to agree. JtR essentially assaulted women in public places, with the exception of Kelly, assuming she was a Ripper victim, and I'm sure opportunism was an important factor. I therefore have no difficulty with his attacking non-prostitutes. After all, Sutcliffe attacked a 14 year old schoolgirl down a quiet country lane. However, even with this victim his MO was consistent: she was assaulted with a hammer in a surprise attack from behind.

[Fisherman]

In fact, frankly I think it a hundred times more likely that MJK was murdered by Astrachan Man than Aussie George.

And so you should. Albeit the misgivings with a number of posters who suggest that we should treat Astrakhan Man as somebody who has never existed, we actually need to treat him as a real figure as long as the opposite cannot nearly be proven.

As such, he is therefore a man who evinced an interest in prostituted women, who was in direct contact with Mary Kelly, and a man who can be shown to have been at the murder site at a remove in time that is either very close or reasonably close in time to the murder to be of interest for the investigators.

Whereas Flash George evinced an interest for small boys and cannot be proven to ever have been in the East End or London, and has no known ties to the Whitechapel murders at all, as far as we know.

It is a complete mismatch.

[Fisherman]

Hello Mike,

Yes, I would tend to agree. JtR essentially assaulted women in public places, with the exception of Kelly, assuming she was a Ripper victim, and I'm sure opportunism was an important factor. I therefore have no difficulty with his attacking non-prostitutes. After all, Sutcliffe attacked a 14 year old schoolgirl down a quiet country lane. However, even with this victim his MO was consistent: she was assaulted with a hammer in a surprise attack from behind.

Of course it can be argued the Ripper may have been primarily interested in women and not in prostitutes per se.
The key point about Sutcliffe, though, is that we have no record of him moving on after his killings to flashing in front of small boys...

[John G]

Of course it can be argued the Ripper may have been primarily interested in women and not in prostitutes per se.
The key point about Sutcliffe, though, is that we have no record of him moving on after his killings to flashing in front of small boys...

Hi Fish,

Good point. As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent". The difficulty, therefore, is that there is nothing that is remotely consistent about a neck and abdominal mutilator who re-emerges several years later, fully transformed into a flasher who indecently assaults young boys. And this is even more apparent when you consider the sexual motive of the respective crimes; put simply, a serial killer who is attracted to adult women is not likely to subsequently become attracted to young boys.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish,

Good point. As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent". The difficulty, therefore, is that there is nothing that is remotely consistent about a neck and abdominal mutilator who re-emerges several years later, fully transformed into a flasher who indecently assaults young boys. And this is even more apparent when you consider the sexual motive of the respective crimes; put simply, a serial killer who is attracted to adult women is not likely to subsequently become attracted to young boys.

This is true. Its the usual rule and rightly so.

However, There are exceptions and the ripper was an exception to begin with.

one of the biggest myths in criminology JohnG, is that serial killers don't change their MO or victimology-they do.

in this case, the common denominator is not women, but defenseless victims.

And there was no overt sexual connotation to the women murdered-it may have been curiosity/ what can my knife do?

Also, think of the BG man and his encounter with Sarah Lewis and the other women. see a similarity?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. As Mike points out, JtR was very consistent in respect of his MO and signature, I.e targeting prostitutes, demonstrating escalating violence, focussing on mutilations, murdering his victims by slitting their throat. The idea that such a clearly disturbed individual would re-emerge several years later as a flasher, indecency assaulting. I.e not mutilating or killing, young boys is in my view somewhat preposterous. And where are the precedents for such a dramatic change in MO/signaure?

Yes, I know anything's possible, and in that regard even a Jill the Ripper, in the guise of a crazy midwife, has been suggested. But that doesn't necessarily make the proposition remotely likely. In fact, frankly I think it a hundred times more likely that MJK was murdered by Astrachan Man than Aussie George.

This is pretty much the same argument used by GR Sims in respect of the unsuitanility of George Chapman's candidacy for Jack. And you know what? He was absolutely right.

well then Aussie George has fooled you too! ; )

[Fisherman]

This is true. Its the usual rule and rightly so.

However, There are exceptions and the ripper was an exception to begin with.

one of the biggest myths in criminology JohnG, is that serial killers don't change their MO or victimology-they do.

in this case, the common denominator is not women, but defenseless victims.

And there was no overt sexual connotation to the women murdered-it may have been curiosity/ what can my knife do?

Also, think of the BG man and his encounter with Sarah Lewis and the other women. see a similarity?

Semper ordens, Abby - always ready. And one needs to be ready for surprises when looking into the twisted minds of serial killers.

But this time, the gap is too hard to bridge for me to accept a connection. Thatīs not to say that it is an impossible one - I canīt tell if it is.

But what examples are there of a serialist who initially extremely violently targetted people who belonged to the same grouping (prostituted women) only to then switch to another age group from the opposite gender - and refraining totally from inflicting physical damage in doing so?

I know of no such case myself, Iīm afraid.

There is therefore absolutely nothing at all to suggest a shared identity between JtR and Flash George. An open mind, allowing for a very dramatic change in target persons does nothing to alter that, as Iīm sure you will agree.

[caz]

Hi Fish,

Good point. As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent". The difficulty, therefore, is that there is nothing that is remotely consistent about a neck and abdominal mutilator who re-emerges several years later, fully transformed into a flasher who indecently assaults young boys. And this is even more apparent when you consider the sexual motive of the respective crimes; put simply, a serial killer who is attracted to adult women is not likely to subsequently become attracted to young boys.

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

excellent post Caz. what I was trying to say also, just not as eloquent.

[Fisherman]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

I donīt think either Shipman or Savile covers the example I ask for, Caz: a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

You say that the possibility of such an offender is remote and I totally agree - I canīt even determine HOW remote, since trying to find such an example leaves me totally empty-handed so far.

I mean, exactly what is there, but for the coinciding name, to go on? Nothing at all. Or am I wrong on this?

[John G]

This is true. Its the usual rule and rightly so.

However, There are exceptions and the ripper was an exception to begin with.

one of the biggest myths in criminology JohnG, is that serial killers don't change their MO or victimology-they do.

in this case, the common denominator is not women, but defenseless victims.

And there was no overt sexual connotation to the women murdered-it may have been curiosity/ what can my knife do?

Also, think of the BG man and his encounter with Sarah Lewis and the other women. see a similarity?

Hello Abby,

A timely recap on the differences between MO and signature methinks. To cite Keppel, "MO refers to the offender's characteristics during the commission of the crime that are necessary to complete the crime...signature characteristics, or a killer's calling card, are those actions that are unique to the offender and go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim. While MO can change over time, and reflect the nature of the crime, signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of the offender." (Keppel, 2005).

However, a killer's signature can sometimes evolve, or become more elaborate, whilst remaining thematically and behavioural consistent: see Schlesinger, 2010).

A good example is Nathaniel Code. In respect of victimology, his victims ranged from an 8 year old to a 74 year old. And he murdered both women and men. Nonetheless, he had a very distinctive and consistent calling card, or signature. Thus, overkill was a signature element: he killed his victims by slashing their throats with a sawing motion, leaving deep wounds. And all victims received additional injuries. This satisfied his need for domination, control and manipulation. He also used ligatures, which involved an unusual configaration; he also bound his victims with telephone cable or electrical appliance cord,which he found at the scene of the crime. This was clearly a signature element as he could simply have bought rope with him, or used his duct tape.

So what we're JtR's signature characteristics? Well, Keppel highlights a number of characteristics, including overkill (obviously), picquerism, a need to completely incapacitate his victims, posing and Leavitt ng his victims in open display, in order to degrade them and for shock value.

So, what does this have to do with a flasher, who indecent assaults against boys? Answer: absolutely nothing. Different signatures, different perpetrators.

I also agree with Caz that he he was probably sexually attracted to adult women. As Keppel points out, "whilst some serial killers achieve sexual satisfaction through primary mechanisms (e.g..sexual assault), others resort to secondary mechanisms related to violence...he used a knife to penetrate the victim and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victim, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

And, of course, if his signature demonstrates that his sexual orientation was heterosexual, he is very unlikely to be interested in young boys.

[John G]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz.

I agree, we can't completely rule out remote possibilities, such as JtR actually being Jill the Ripper, a crazy midwife. However, I'm not sure how many examples there are of serial killers, who are sexually attracted to adult women, transforming themselves into flashers, who indecently assault young boys.

Harold Shipman was, of course, a very different type of killer to JtR. There was clearly no sexual element to his crimes, and he was clearly an extreme egotist, who possibly regarded his victims as little more than insects. He also seemed to regard everything as a kind of game. As Detective Chief Inspector Wilians put it:" "I've listened to the interviews, and he certainly wanted to control and dominate the interview and the officers, at times belittling them. He was treating this as some sort of game, a competition, pitting his, what he considered to be his, superior intellect to those of the officers who were interviewing him."

And, as the South Manchester Coroner, who knew and worked with Shipman. Opined: "The only valid explanation for it is that he simply enjoyed viewing the process of dying and enjoyed the feeling of control over life and death, literally over life and death."

[John G]

I donīt think either Shipman or Savile covers the example I ask for, Caz: a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

You say that the possibility of such an offender is remote and I totally agree - I canīt even determine HOW remote, since trying to find such an example leaves me totally empty-handed so far.

I mean, exactly what is there, but for the coinciding name, to go on? Nothing at all. Or am I wrong on this?

No Fisherman, you are absolutely correct. Apart from extreme possibilities Aussie George is a hopeless candidate.