If the man referred to as Jack only really killed 2 or perhaps 3 women Stan, would we still want to put some label like "cunning", or 'idiot savant" on him?
To my eye if JtR only killed 2 women,.... equally as possible and I believe more plausible than he definitely killed only 5...., then he needed to be nothing but somewhat familiar with anatomy and unaffected by the resulting gore caused by his actions. He could have been so ordinary and so lucky on the nights he did kill. And by late Fall his acts would be among many acts that he was being accused of, which had a cumulative effect of suggesting a profile that was unlike himself. Someone "cunning"....or an idiot savant, who had a very low IQ but a natural "knack" for the tasks.
If "Jack" only killed say Polly and Annie......then really how clever was he? Clever enough to change venues whens the first didnt allow him enough time, and clever enough to extricate abdominal organs in the early dawn. But no phantom menace or the like.
Maybe just a few small, specific, acts.
That need not require animal field studies beforehand.
I initially laughed at SJReid's concept of an "idiot savant" serial killer.
Sort of like "The Rainman" with a knife?
But later comments about such a candidate's "cunning" rather than professional qualifications in cadaver quartering, made me think again.
Yes, the Ripper certainly must have had cunning and luck!
These two factors would have added to his/her drive and determination to complete yet another "job".
Perhaps I was a little unkind to Gareth. After all, it was Fisherman who first suggested most farmers are/were potential Rippers.Sorry Gareth.
It was also Fisherman who pointed out Europeans have a different attitude to how they treat domestic animals like pets: cats, dogs and hamsters.
And how they treat working animals like pigs, goats, sheep and sometimes horses.
I also agree with Ashkenaz about the early development of these urges coming through as the McDonald troika.
The psychological torture of fellow school chums is interesting though.
Druitt, for one, was very popular at Winchester. Head boy or something.Was he like "School Bully" in Michael Palin's " Ripping Yarns " series?
A steriotypical bully to younger boys?
And could this - along with cruelty to animals - have been his way of securing "power" over more impressionable classmates?
Yes, Lynn, we are like-thinkers. Druitt certainly could have absorbed some sort of medical knowledge. He was regarded as bright and promising at school.
Did he keep in contact with his Uncle Robert Druitt, a luminary in London's medical circles to help him if he wanted to do study medicine?
Diana deserves a prize for starting this thread. In my opinion. JOHN RUFFELS.
"After all, it was Fisherman who first suggested most farmers are/were potential Rippers."
Actually no; I merely stated that if contact with the many aspects of animal farming were to lead to Rippership, then there would be an awful lot of Rippers around .... so itīs the other way around, to be honest!
Mmm – I tried the old irony approach, but it seems I failed to some extent. Seriously, though, if animal production had instead produced Rippers by the hundreds and thousands, I suspect we would have heard of it...!
Hello. I suppose the "butchering" would have different effects on different people. But if one has a pre-existing and underlying personality defect . . .
I think Hardy brings out the other extreme in his "Jude the Obscure" when Jude butchers the pig and is sickened by it. On the other hand, the personality type I suggest could be thrilled by the experience and need only some bizarre catalyst--like violent pornography (did Victorian England have such?) to touch him off.
This is an interesting thread. Given that there are other examples of animal cruelty in murder cases it would not surprise me at all if the person(s) involved in the ripper murders also "experimented" in this way.
Here's some possible profiles that might use this angle:
1. A slaughterer/butcher/similar (or person with such experience in past). Obviously has a few screws loose, possibly had a troubled childhood. Hatred of Women. Trade gives them the skill with the knife, also the desensitization to the gore involved. Early "experiments" with tradecraft may have desensitized them to acts of extreme cruelty.
2. A given person (with any vocation) that early on in life started to molest/kill/torture animals (any that they would have access to). Possible god complex. Possible rudimentary knowledge of anatomy provided somewhere in lifetime from a variety of possible sources. At some point in life person starts taking risks with larger subjects, at some point making the jump from animal to human. Likely has sexually molested animals and/or children. May be connected to rape/molestation cases.
I have no profiling experience, this is just conjecture and involves in part information I've read regarding other cases. I am personally not inclined to believe that the perp(s) have any extensive medical knowledge, however that is not to say that they were not a student at one time (possibly fitting into category 2 above).
Could Druitt been caught in the act of perhasp torturing or killing an animal like a cat or a puppy and that was why he was dismissed? Or could it have been maybe that he was engaged in some other behaviour which Valentine discovered by accident, and was disgusted by and again dismissed him?