Archive through November 16, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through November 16, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics: The Sexual Serial Killer: Archive through November 16, 2000

Author: Jon Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 06:33 pm
A study of the crimes of Andrei Chikatilo can give an insight into the world of the sexual serial killer. This true Jekyll & Hyde character was responsible for at least 53 savage murders over a 12 years period, from 1979 to 1991. Though he claimed to be responsible for 70, this was never satisfactorily substantiated. A man who was intellectually superior to his peers but only managed to hold down menial jobs. He viewed himself as a failure and was constantly aware of the ridicule that others would subject him to. He had a unnatural sexual interest in young boys and girls, but would also expand that to adult women. Most of his victims were subject to extensive frenzied stabbing around the sexual organs. He would encourage them to go with him to a small cottage in the woods. This by itself would appear suspicious to us, but apparently not the those whom he made contact with. He was thoroughly polite, calm and the epitomy of a gentleman. He knew how to lure children to his small spot in the woods, and he was also able to win the confidence of mature adult women who would see in him a placid likeable grandfather figure (he was in his mid 40's). The scenario always played out the same, he would lure them into a quiet spot, away from the eyes of the general public. Sometimes at his cottage and sometimes simply out in the woods. Throw them to the ground, beat them, tie up their hands, pull out his knife and start stabbing them while laying ontop of his victim. Many of his victims had their tongue bitten off, women had their nipples either bitten off or cut off. In some cases long sticks were found at the scene smeared in blood and pieces of wood found in the vagina or rectum of his victims. In several cases he opened up their abdomen and removed the uterus. One victim had her face sliced off and uterus removed, which he wrapped in her clothing. The frenzied stabbing would extend to 20 - 40 stabbings all over the neck, breast and sex organs. Only one victim was simply strangled and no knife used, he admitted that he needed to see blood to have an orgasm. He classed that murder as a failure, in future he would make sure to always carry a knife. Chikatilo would carry a bag with him everywhere, prepared for any opportunity that may present itself. In the bag was vaseline, rope, frying pan & a knife. Even though he was stopped and questioned many times he made excuses for carrying such articles, and the police would let him go. Even though small campfires had been found near the crime scene, they were not thought to be connected. He was also concerned about the eyes of the victim carrying the last scene they would see. Many victims had their eyes stabbed out. In one case he entirely cut off the victims head and removed it elswhere. Another victim he decapitated and also cut off her legs and buried or removed the parts and torso seperately. In his cottage were found 23 Knives of various types, and three suits, each with a knife in the pocket so he was always prepared regardless which suit he chose to wear. Knowing all there is about Chikatilo you could find parallels in the murders of some of the Ripper victims. Emma Smith, who had a blunt instrument thrust into her vagina, may have been the victim of Jack if he was a member of a street gang at the time. Smith recalled that she thought they were teenagers, but then we do not know how old Jack was. Tabram, the victim of multiple frenzied stab wounds similar to those inflicted by Chikatilo. Kelly with her flesh sliced off and organs removed. Torso, who dismembered his victims, was another facet of Chikatilo's make-up. During the investigation of Chikatilo he was asked if he had received any special medical training. Forensic analysis of the victims' bodies had determined that the killer was quite adept at pinpointing specific organs and quickly removing them. He replied that he did not have any specific training, but that medicine was a branch of knowledge that interested him, and that he had an approximate idea where everything was in the body. He said the uterus was easy to find because of its bright red colour. (Comrade Chikatilo by Krivich & Olgin, 1992) Regards, Jon
Author: Chandler Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 11:07 pm
Hello Jon, Was the frying pan used as a bludgeon? I remember a made for HBO movie "Comrade X" ,of a few years ago, in which they had Donald Sutherland playing a Soviet psychatrist. I'm curious if there was any mention in your book of any attempts at profiling Chikatilo before his capture? regaurds, Chandler Lusk Letter aside I could see organ retreval for cannibalism.
Author: Jon Monday, 30 October 2000 - 12:10 pm
Thankyou Chandler. I saw that movie too but could not recall the title. There was an attempt to profile Chikatilo, I was going to get into that next, glad you asked. Based on the few early murders he was profiled as either a doctor, lunatic or sexually insane. Sound familiar? The frying pan had only one use......and it was not as a weapon. Jon
Author: Chandler Monday, 30 October 2000 - 01:19 pm
Hello Jon, Where have I heard that before..... Did he actually confess to the cannabalism? If you'll pardon my ghoulish intrest. Last question, was either Krivich or Olgin Russian Police Officer involved in case? regaurds, chandler
Author: Keith Rogan Monday, 30 October 2000 - 01:48 pm
Chikatillo did confess to cannibalism. His long career was attributed to two things. One of course, was a badly handled police investigation. But oddly, he was picked up and investigated quite early in the case and cleared because his blood type did not match the semen found at the scenes. Each time he was subsequently questioned, he was "cleared" because of the earlier blood type gaffe. The Russians still claim that Chikatillo's blood and semen were of two different types - an impossibility I think (is there a doctor in the house?). I think they just hosed up some of the early lab work and never questioned it. I'm not sure that Chikatillo was particularly fixated on children, they just proved to be easy victims. He also preyed on young drug addicts, prostitutes, runaways, etc - people he met around rural train stations that he could con into going with him for a few rubles. The name of the movie and book was "Citizen X". Click here to buy the video from Amazon.Com.
Author: Chandler Monday, 30 October 2000 - 02:07 pm
Thanks Keith, That was quick. Now more new books to read. This site's making my credit card company send me thank you notes. regaurds, chandler
Author: Jon Monday, 30 October 2000 - 06:08 pm
Apparently the confusion over Chikatilo's blood vs semen was solved by a western discovery in 1988. Which was to the effect that body fluids like semen, sweat, saliva etc are not tied to a person's blood group quite as rigidly as were thought back in 1984. Chikatilo's blood group was classified as 'A', so when the semen tests indicated 'AB' he was disregarded. Afterwards the police asked how could they possibly ask a prisoner for a semen sample. Especially a well respected Communist party member, that would simply not do. So the mystery went unsolved until 1988. Not only body fluids but hair also can give a truer classification than blood. It was determined that Chikatilo was actually 'AB' but that the 'B' antigen was very slight in his blood, consequently undetectable. The 'B' antigen was more pronounced in his hair, semen, saliva & sweat. Krivich & Ol'gin are Russian Journalists from Moscow who worked for 'Chemistry and Life', they also write popular scientific articles for journals. Regards, Jon Chandler: You can add "Hunting the Devil", by Richard Lourie. Another Chikatilo book.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 30 October 2000 - 06:57 pm
Hello Jon, your post on Chikatilo was very interesting. I remember seeing him on t/v at the time of his trial, was he executed for his crimes?, I never did hear what his fate was--execution --I hope!. I've just been watching a programme on t/v about some of the serial killers Robert Ressler was involved with. Amongst others he talked about was one Monty Rissel, who seemed as normal as the next man when Ressler questioned him while he was awaiting trial. Another was a different kettle of fish altogether, you very likely know about him-- Geoffrey Dahmer, evidently the United States worst serial killer of them all. He was a weird one, his reason for killing was that he was stood outside his body watching himself kill and not able to do anything about it, his house was full of bodyparts, and I think he was cannibalistic. Rick,
Author: Chandler Monday, 30 October 2000 - 09:33 pm
Jon, The Master Card Company wishes to express it's thanks receipts, chandler
Author: Jon Monday, 30 October 2000 - 09:41 pm
A "Sexually Motivated Serial Killer" is basically capable of anything, and can change location, method, style, weapons and even stop for indefinite periods of time. Labelling Jack as a sexual serial killer is to brand him the suspect in all the Whitechapel murders. Everything from Emma Smith to Francis Coles, which includes the 4 torso victims. For the simple reason that a true sexual serial killer (SSK) cares nothing for signature, motive nor method he can change at any time as did Chikatilo. During the actual act this killer is almost out of control, a wild animal, only being aware of his surroundings prior to and immediately following the attack. This is one reason they need to go to out of the way places or keep their crimes indoors. In the case of an impotent killer like Chikatilo and others, they need time with their victims. Jack had very little time, and as profilers suspect, one trait of a SSK is impotency. Unfortunately you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you go along with Jack as being a SSK then you cannot use the medical evidence to try identify him. His signature is only a reflection of the way he is feeling that particular day. The true SSK will change his MO & Signature as frequently as the weather. The only thing that will likely stay the same is what works for him. Like with Chikatilo, his method of luring the victms out into the wilderness was similar in many cases, it worked, so he repeated it frequently. Whatever aroused him sexually was repeated on each victim, but he was visious and almost out of control during the attack, so there were differences with each victim. Its just that he had so many victims that the differences were seen to be repeated. But in the case of Jack, with only 5, 4, or 3 victims, no real pattern is allowed to emerge in order to identify him as a SSK. Unless you assign all the Whitechapel murders to him, then it becomes more of a sexual sadistic picture. But no Ripperologist is prepared to do that. SSK's also appear to need some considerable time with their victims, this is simply not just murder but an act of pleasure for the killer. Jack had only a few minutes with his victims, not enough to derive any sexual pleasure, unless the stated times are in error. The SSK doesnt rush anything, in fact he is somewhat sadistic in that he can prolong the suffering of the victim in order to increase the sexual please for himself. Another prime reason why an SSK needs privacy. This is not in keeping with the backyard of Hanbury St. nor Bucks Row, nor Mitre Square. It does reflect itself in Millers Court. This location was ideal for the SSK, and here he showed his colours. But then there are those who suggest Jack may not have been Kelly's killer. But now we have an anomally, who actually is Jack? Is Jack the sadistic killer of Smith, Tabram & Kelly?. Then who killed Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes? Is Jack responsible for all 4 torso murders?, then who killed Stride, McKenzie & Coles? Who actually is Jack? If there were more than one killer on the loose in the East End in 1888/9, then which one was Jack? Or, as evidenced by the variety of methods acted out by Chikatilo, was Jack responsible for all those Whitechapel murders?. A true SSK could be. And there will be NO evidence to indicate otherwise. Regards, Jon
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 05:01 am
Great post Jon. I agree that the SSK is capable of anything and, because of this, and the relative rarity of men brutally killing strange women with no apparent motive, at one time I believed Jack could have been responsible for most, if not all, of the Whitechapel murders. I was soon dissuaded from that belief by the majority of informed posters here. Yes, Jack probably only had a few minutes with victims Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, showing no signs of sadism, killing them swiftly before the mutilations. But even with Kelly (if down to Jack of course), where he had time to indulge himself to the max, there seems little evidence that he wanted to prolong her suffering before she died. The swift slaughter of the three earlier canonicals is more like Sutcliffe's quick whack over the back of the head than Fred West's prolonged sexual torturing for instance. So, while you are defining a SSK as someone who 'doesnt rush anything', 'is somewhat sadistic' and 'needs privacy', couldn't our Jack-of-all-trades even defy these rigid definitions too? Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 12:34 pm
Caz, and Jon, I found both of your posts really interesting, and I hate to do this to you but, I couldn't help hearing echo's of what I said when I first came on these boards. I said, JtR wasn't a true blue s/k,--he didn't take enough time with the body to savour what he had done. He was humane, he killed with such violence because he wanted to be sure their deaths were instant,--he didn't want them to linger and suffer unnecessarily, even if he had no feeling for them. Sometimes, if not every time, he cut the throat twice to be sure. He would have reason to do these things,-- mad enough to kill with that reason in mind, not so mad that he didn't want to stop when the reason was no longer there. Theres no getting away from it, no matter how much you try,--Jack the Ripper was a frightener/killer, not a sadistic, torturing serial murderer. He was a display killer, he may not have been around to see the bodies discovered, but I bet he was quick off the mark getting the first paper to report it!, and watching people's faces to see their reaction. If as Keith says, each time Chikatilo was picked up for questioning, they had to let him go, then it was equally a possibility with Barnet!. For what it's worth Jon/Caz, I think there were four genuine Ripper killings, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, and Kelly from the start was not an intended victim. Tabram was perhaps the first, perhaps not, Stride, in my mind, was not a Ripper victim, and I'm not alone in thinking that, her throat wound was too clean, (a cut throat razor job?). She didn't die instantly, she wasn't positioned, there were too many people around, (sounds hot headed, sounds like Michael Kidney, POSSIBLY, a bully, and not very bright, but even that sort can get away with murder when there is someone else to carry the can. It was a letter that branded JtR as cannibalistic, but the letters could have been a hoax, and judging from the numbers received they very likely were. I'd say yes, there was more than one killer operating in the Eastend in summer and autumn 1888, there was the man who attacked Ada Wilson, the gang who attacked and killed Emma Smith, the man who attacked and killed Stride, and then you have the "Torso Killer, Jack the Ripper got mixed up with them, but it doesn't mean he was part of them, he just happened to be operating at the same time,-- it was his time, he couldn't change it. My regards to all, Rick
Author: Jon Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 12:57 pm
Wouldnt it be difficult to argue that a SSK purposfully rushed the encounters and deprived himself of the reason for the assault to happen in the first place? That he chose not to be sadistic for some reason? That he committed his crime out in full view of anyone who happened to pass by?. If those points are argued in support of Jack being an SSK then where is the reason for him being a SSK? Committing a crime in which you have no time nor privacy to enjoy your 'work' is hardly logical. Chikatilo stripped his victims naked, part of his thrill was laying on top of them mimicing intercourse. Moving back and forth at the same time as stabbing them in the upper chest. Naked skin was a turn on for him as well as spilling blood. Jack made no attempt at even seeing skin, he slashed through their clothes and opened up their abdomen. Sex, or sexual motivation appears low on his agenda. Only with Tabram & Kelly do we see anything that approaches sexual deviation. I expected someone jumping on the mention of Smith as a Ripper victim. I bring her up as an outside consideration because from what I remember she was a little vague in describing her assailants. If anyone has a more complete version of her description I would appreciate reading it. But for now I recall her refering to "three young men, the youngest of which was about 18" (JtR, A-Z). So if the youngest was as old as 18 then the other two could well have been in their early 20's and several suspects already mentioned (Kosminski, Sanders, Klosowski) were around 23 yrs old at the time. Its a pity she did not see them clearly enough or tell us which one it was who forced the object inside her. If it was one of the older men (18 or older, are men not boys) then he may be the one who broke away by himself and attacked Tabram later. Did Jack originally belong to a gang?. Regards, Jon
Author: Chandler Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 05:21 pm
Jon, For what it's worth; I've toyed with the notion that Jack may have been part of the gang that attacked Smith and then discovered he had a taste for it. I hold no strong belief either way as to that being the case. I was struck by the relative youth ,25, of Richard Ramirez. I believe that law enforcement considers a victim count of 3 murders, with similar MO's, not committed at the same time, to be classed as a serial crime(as opposed to a mass or spree criminal). I do wonder if you might not be over-emphasizing time as a factor. The ssk's goal seems to be gratification through the excercise of power and control over the victim. I will only mention in passing the use of a knife as a phallic substitute and what mental or physical pleasure be might be gained by any particular mentally ill individual in the act of stabbing or cutting. If time is to be considered as a factor could not these power and control goals be fulfilled in five minutes, especially if the killer wishes to avoid capture, so as to be able excercise that power and gratification once more? While the attacks to the throats can be thought of as in some way merciful "a quick way to go". I will also point out that strangulation and throat cutting are brutal acts which could give the sadist enjoyment in their very commision. Kraft-Ebing wrote of Vicent Verzeni:"As soon as he grabbed the victim by the neck, sexual sensations were experienced. It was entirely the same to him, with reference to these sensations, whether the women were old, young, ugly, or beautiful. Usually, simply choking them had satisfied him, and he had allowed his victims to live; in the two sexual murder cases, the satisfaction was delayed, and he continued to choke them til they died. The gratification experienced in this garroting was greater than in masturbation." I'll close on this note: I do believe your purpose is to ask readers to ever question any set preconvictions they hold towards Jack. I think it is laudable. regaurds, chandler
Author: Frank Lewis Cundiff Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 12:06 pm
Is it possible that JTR could have taken them off somewhere else, got his gratification, and put them out so that they could be found? Just a thought.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 03:55 pm
G'day, Maybe Jack wanted his victims to be dead instantly not because he was 'humane', but because he wanted to lessen the chances of his being caught with their screams! LEANNE!
Author: Jon Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 12:57 pm
Didnt Kraft-Ebing lump all the Whitechapel murders together, counting from the fictional Fairy Fay in '87 to Elizabeth Coles in '89. Any suggestion as to the mind of Jack based on that approach is bound to be faulty. But then, back in those days they didnt know any better. You cannot profile the man until you can agree on which victims were his, and his alone. Thankyou Chandler, yes I suggest we question everything from time to time. Some things are taken as 'fact' just because they have never been subject to scrutiny. In many case all it takes is a 'somebody' to put his opinion in writing and others will believe it is fact, just because 'so-and-so' said so. I also believe that we must accept witness testimony as stated, unless it conflicts with other witness statements (like Cadoche & Mrs Long), or known facts. Because if we arbitrarily disregards them in favour of modern 'learned?' opinion, or second guessing the people who were actually there, we run the risk of being so wide of the mark as to end up with relatively useless conclusions. And we've had enough of them over the years. Regards, Jon Caveats being, for example, Dr Phillips thought the wounds indicated experience. That is his professional opinion and we must respect it. Though when he speaks of her body in rigor he gives a 'best-guess' as to time of death. But we know today there are good scientific reasons why he may have been misled in that conclusion.
Author: Keith Rogan Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 04:19 pm
Here's a theory - nothing new, just a sort of general hypothesis that I think explains how sexual serial killers get "created" and you can decide for yourself if our Jack could fit this description. First of all, S/K's (before they actually "act") don't generally fantasize about how they will commit the crime - they don't create a detailed plan and carry it out. Rather, they murder someone in circumstances that are based on chance, and then because the act gratifies them they commit other murders that are usually (often loosely) based on the original killing. Was it Tabram that had the multiple stab wounds by the street gang? Whichever, that attack (or one like it) might have been the genesis of "Jack". We have a very bizarre situation here in Alaska right now. A 19 or 20 year old kid was picked up for the murder of a native woman. It's interesting because this kid, for some reason, has described EVERYTHING to investigators (and to acquaintances who turned him in) and much of this has made it into the newspapers. He has no remorse or guilt has relayed all his feelings to anyone that will listen. Here's what happened. A few months ago, a group of young men and women were driving around late at night in Anchorage and found a native woman passed out in the street from alcohol. They didn't want to "get involved" by taking her to a hospital or calling the police, so they carried her to a grassy area on the side of the road near an old shed - so she wouldn't get run over - and left her there. I won't go into the all the social ramifications of Alaska Natives and alcohol. But, it's a widely studied phenomena and a huge social problem here. After moving the woman, they went home. Except for one guy who then came back and dragged the woman to the shed, raped and killed her. Bizarre enough, except he then began going back several times a day to have sex and for some reason, mutilate the corpse and take "trophies" - panties, body parts, that he took home and held while masturbating. This went on for about a week, and while it was happening he kept suggesting to his friends that they should all cruise around at night and look for drunken native women (to have sex with) and making other bizarre statements. He talked of killing women while having sex with them, etc. Finally, he led one of his friends to the shed and actually showed him the corpse and suggested he should just "help himself". This guy left immediately and told his other friends - they all questioned him about it and he freely relayed wht he had done and how much "fun" it was. Within a day or so, several people went to the police and that was about it. But, whats interesting is to look at this guy and theorize what would have happened if he was more of a loner, or just kept his mouth shut. There likely would have been other murders and because of the "randomness" of finding victims, he might have went on a long while before being caught. I think that something similar to this is what created "Jack". I think also, because these type killings are based on random windows of opportunity, that SOME killings that don't fit Jack's "M.O." are quite likely his after all. I wouldn't be so quick to discount killings just because they don't have a specific "signature". Since (apparently), Jack didn't have sex on the spot, but WAS a "trophy" taker who (I'm speculating here) got his jollies later with his trophy in hand - it didn't take much to satisfy him. In a location where he wasn't secure, he might simply slash a throat and run off with a scarf. On another occasion, if he had a body in a secure location (like under a railway bridge - the torso killer), he might return again and again to hack away and re-live the experience. This is all speculation of course, but I wouldn't put Jack in too narrow a box. With sexual Serial Killers, it's OPPORTUNITY that dictates the signature. If you look at people like Dahmer and Chikatilo you'll find the details of each killing often vary widely. Opportunity, security of location, types of "tools" he happens to have with him at the moment and a dozen other variables may contribute to the "signature" of a particular murder.
Author: Chandler Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 04:53 pm
Jon, I cite Kraft-Ebing only as to what "pleasure" a killer might derive from strangulation, or an attack on the victims throats. Given the time frame, as I understand it, and the quality of historic reasearch at that time, in relation to the Ripper crimes, Kraft-Ebing may very well have been basing his theories on "skewed" data. But I will give respect to his pioneering attempts to gain an insight into the minds of mentally ill criminals. I do have reservations about the level of scholastic histroic research that Ressler, Douglas and sundry have brought to their profile of the Ripper. I do think though, this "Art" or possible beginings of a science,profiling, is in it's infancy, and does allow us to gain an insight into the aberrant thought processes of criminals who commit crimes, which would appear to defy, the traditional motives that law enforcement looks for when confronting a crime. Profiling may well be the latest "Masonic Theory" to be brought to bear in the Ripper crimes but it does seem a credible tool available to us today, that was not there as little as 25 years ago. I won't try to second guess those investigators who where "on the ground" in Whitechapel, but do think if nothing else we might have at least, through the surviving documents and the lesson's learned from the acts of serial killers, in the intervening century, have some general insight into what the fiend might have been. respectfully, chandler
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 03 November 2000 - 03:53 pm
I'm a little puzzled by such detailed specifics being required for the 'correct' use of the term 'sexual serial killer'. As I understand it, the FBI Psychological Behaviour Unit uses the term 'serial' when there are at least three separate and distinct murders, with a 'cooling-off' period in between. They then concede that it can be difficult to discriminate between a serial killer with very short cooling off periods, and a spree killer who takes some time to move from one victim to the next. There are 'commercial serial killers' - (I believe Robert Ressler uses the term) - George Joseph Smith and John George Haigh being obvious examples. Yet there are those who argue that Smith's exclusive focus on women to (a) exploit and (b) kill argues a gender-determined sadistic personality. And likewise Harold Shipman's apparently exclusive killing of women suggests that his 'God complex' was at least partially sexually motivated. What does one say of Erskine, the Stockwell Strangler, who always robbed, usually raped and sodomized, often killed? A man with very mixed motives, and so little control over his actions that he had to be stopped from masturbating in court. The Boston Strangler, on the other hand, be he De Salvo or not, was unquestionably both sexually motivated AND a signature killer (the knotted bows in his ligtures, and careful arrangements of these and the bodies). What is the source for this limitation of the tern sexual serial killer to an uncontrolled frenzied victim of at least momentary mania? And does it make sense to use it incautiously as though it suggests that we can see some asexual motive behind the Ripper's attacks? Like Rosa Dartle, I only ask for information. Martin Fido
Author: Jon Friday, 03 November 2000 - 07:59 pm
Martin On the assumption that the point of your poste is the question about 5 lines from the bottom, then maybe I can explain to some extent. If you perceive a limit in meaning to the term SSK, then this is likely my fault, mea culpa. The discussion of Jack being a sexual serial killer started on another thread where it was stated somewhat categorically that Jack most certainly was a SSK. And support for this assertion came from text written by psychologists such as Kraft-Ebing, to name but one. I questioned this assertion based on what I understood as being a vague sample, specifically the fact that all the Whitechapel murders had been included in this hypothesis (from the fictional Fairy Fay to Coles). And because we do not know with any degree of certainty as to which victims belonged to Jack then we can hardly profile his mental state. Therefore, if such as Tabram, the subject of possible sexual frienzy, was not a Ripper victim, as some would declare then where is the evidence for Jack being a SSK?. The same goes for Kelly, though I cannot imagine anyone other than Jack being responsible for her disection. As you may know there are some serious researchers who claim that Kelly may not have been killed by Jack at all. The cases to exclude such victims as Smith, Stride, McKenzie & Coles are well enough known. Therefore, where does that leave us? What case do we have for Jack being a SSK? If we only compare the three victims that many agree are surely the work of one man, having much the same characteristics. That of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes then where in these three murders is there indesputable evidence that Jack was a Sexual Serial Killer?. Then I started this thread focusing on Chikatilo, who is to my mind a great choice as he appears to be a fine example of a SSK. And many of his victims had various wounds that were similar to the wounds that Jack left. However, if we allow this example then we have no grounds for seperating any of Jacks victims, as what became apparent in the story of Chikatilo was this, that he can change his style. He can be a 'Tabram' killer one day, then a Kelly killer another, then a Torso killer the next. In other words, if you choose to view Jack as a sexual serial killer then you may be obliged to accept all the Whitechapel victims, from Smith to Coles as potentially the work of one man. There being no specific signature, no clear motive and no limit to the lengths that he will go. But, one of the many traits that may be attached to a SSK is that, like Chikatilo, he (they) take them to secluded places (in the woods or inside a house) and they take time with their victims to enjoy their 'pleasure', not kill & disect in minutes, as Jack did. I think the whole question of Jack being a true sexual serial killer is yet to be established and as I said previously, you can only label him as a SSK if you can be certain which victims were his, and which were not. But, we are here to debate, so please throw in your twopence worth. Regards, Jon
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 06:34 am
Hi Jon, Many thanks for the explanation. A few thoughts... Isn't Krafft-Ebbing rather a dated figure to use in this discussion? Given the very large range of rapists and sadistic murderers interviewd by Robert Ressler, John Douglas, Roy Hazelwood, Paul Britton, Ray Wyre and Mike Berry wouldn't we do better to look at more recent categorisations and observations on the nature of the beast? Back in the days when Robert Brittain was the one psychological expert cited as having studied the 'sadistic killer' I was concerned to note that reading between his lines he didn't seem to have interviewed a very large number, and a good many of them hadn't advanced to actual killing. This has now changed, and the latest best thinking (Douglas and Olshaker's 'The Anatomy of Motive', Paul Britton passim) is increasingly looking to the need for control to establish ego-security as the real driving motive behind killings which look at first glance to be motivated purely by the need for sexual gratification. The control is needed when ego-insecurity caused bya dysfunctional family in childhood comes in conflict with a sense of superiority and even quasi-divine removal above morality an law which is brought down to earth by inadequate talent to achieve high status. This runs along some of the lines of Colin Wilson's most interesting theorizing, and usefully ties in with some of what Elliott Leyton proposed, without getting hung up on the rather subjective (and in the Ripper case nonsensical) social class assumptions he built in. Brian Masters is not, of course, a professional psychologist, criminologist or crime historian, and he may seem to have damned himelf by swallowing Rose West's charm uncritically. But he is, I think, to be praised highly for suggesting that the term 'addictive killer' replace the merely arithmetical 'serial' title. It certainly seems to describe very well the subjective experiences described by Sutcliffe and Nilsen when they made their original and, I would think, truthful confessions (i.e. before they decided on the diminished responsibility pleas). It also fits some of what Christie said about himself and that his defence presented as hysteria. And it must, one assumes, describe Harold Shipman, in whom the 'control' motive seems so decisive that I am constantly amazed that the experts should have come up with it just in time to explain what would otherwise have seemed a totally incomprehensible series of murders. In the matter of specifics relating to the Ripper, I'm still not clear why you say that he can only be seen as having a sexually related drive if ALL the murders are taken into account. While I agree that Chikatilo is an excellent example of ONE type of sexual addictive murderer (coincidentally sharing with the Ripper the exploitation of prostitutes as easy victims), I would have to say again I don't think he's the ONLY kind. I repeat, the Boston Strangler's killings always entailed both rape and the very deliberate and unfrenzied placing of the bodies and arrangement of the ligatures - and he's not unique. As for the sexual component in Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - (and you're in good company in reducing down to them, as I watched Stewart Evans saying on American TV this week that they're the only three he would positively endorse) - all three were physically attacked with a knife in the genital area, two of them having their wombs extracted. Surely it is a commonplace of sexual-killer psychology that the crime need not include any overt penile act? Ejaculation may take place while the stabbing or strangulation is going on and the killer is fully clothed; it may at times not happen at all, the acts of violence (especially if directed at sexual parts) being satisfying in themselves; it may take place as a separate act of masturbation after the killing and while it is being recalled in another place as gratifying fantasy. I would label all such events 'sexual killing', and if they were repeated at intervals, 'sexual serial killing'. All the best, Martin
Author: Jon Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 09:45 am
Martin Excellent poste, and I totally agree with you, Kraft-Ebing is too dated for this discussion. What I had in mind for this thread (The Sexual Serial Killer), was for people to bring up all the various killers who are classed in this mould and to debate the relevent connections to the Ripper case, if and where they are found. My trouble with the label Sexual Serial Killer is that it's application is too broad. You can almost class any crime of man against woman as having sexual overtones. Even man against man can be classed in the same mould. I mean, who is to say that a killer simply approaching a couple in a car who are kissing and romancing at night, then pulling a gun and blowing their brains out, does not get some satisfaction from this?, and therefore being interpreted as sexual satisfaction. Can any interpretation of an action such as this be classed as 'sexually motivated'?. Well, if the killer gets a thrill out of it, then possibly it can be. In the end you dilute all the murder cases into several classes of 'sexual motivation', and therefore the term sexual serial killer becomes meaningless. In the cases of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes we see none of the typical frienzied stabbing around the sexual organs, nor around the breasts. The wounds are consistant with a killer opening the body up with a deep slice to the groin, then ripping upwards to open up the abdomen in the most expeditious way possibly, given lack of time & lack of adequate light (except Chapman). Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the killers purpose was to get at that organ, whether he was right or wrong I cannot say, but this was his interpretation of the wounds and I think we should respect his experience. I have trouble accepting the label SSK, with respect to Jack in the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. I think the medical evidence is not at all indicative of only a SSK, but can be interpreted differently, therefore not conclusive. Therefore.....(once again), I maintain that the term Sexual Serial Killer does not, with any degree of certainty, apply to Jack. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 10:44 am
Hi, Martin and Jon: I would like to congratulate both of you gentlemen on your excellent and illuminating dialogue. Such discourse is what these boards should be about. Best regards to you both Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 10:59 am
Hi Jon: While I admire your arguments, Jon, I would suggest that you are proceeding from a faulty premise, i.e., your hypothesis appears to be that Jack was an organ collector and that he was not motivated by sexual needs. Your preconceived theory is what you expect to find, and what you indeed do find when you say, "The wounds are consistent with a killer opening the body up with a deep slice to the groin, then ripping upwards to open up the abdomen in the most expeditious way possibly" and that "Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the killers purpose was to get at that organ. . ." In your last post you ask, "who is to say that a killer simply approaching a couple in a car who are kissing and romancing at night, then pulling a gun and blowing their brains out, does not get some satisfaction from this?" Exactly so: David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam killer, and the Zodiac killer both enjoyed killing and terrorizing women. I would argue from the existing evidence in the Whitechapel murders that Jack similarly got his kicks from killing and terrorizing women. Sorry, Jon, I have to side with Martin here! Jack was a classic sexual serial killer. Chris George
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 03:33 pm
Hi Chris, and thankyou for the kind words Hi Jon and Chris - Chris, you took the names out of my mouth. Like you, I would have felt that the broad range 'sexual serial killer' includes Son of Sam, Zodiac and the Florence Monster. And I think we have the psychologists in the field agreeing with us on this point. And further to Jon's point about the injuries to PN, AC and KE, Polly Nichols was not merely ripped: there were additional cuts in the genital area. Annie Chapman and Katherine Eddowes both underwent severe mutilation in the lower abdomen - one must carefuilly avoid the temptation to say 'before' they were attacked elsewhere, as we just don't know the order of injuries. Jon is right to say their breasts were not attacked. Which, however, leads to where we may both agree with Jon: some refinement within the broad category is needed. 'Couples killers' are obviously different from rape killers, who again subdivide between those who kill to eliminate a witness against them, those who may get sexual satisfaction from killing, and those who need an insensible or dead sexual partner. Organ collecting is a common feature of several killers who are usually described as sexual serial killers - Ed Kemper and Jeffrey Dahmer are classic instances, and Fred West made his odd abstractions of kneecaps, ribs and parts of breastbones, feet, hands, wrists and ankles. Should trophy collectors all be seen as somehow relating to Ed Gein? If Gein killed twice, presumably when occasion offered and it seemed easier than digging up fresh corpses, would a Kemper or a Dahmer have been satisfied with taking a spade to the cemetery? I doubt it, myself. I think that collecting their own fresh trophies mattered more to them than turning their homes into charnel houses, though Dahmer's projected 'shrine' seems to link to Gein more strongly than Kemper's keeping heads and other organs temporarily as sex toys (or in his mother's case, a dart board). Cadaver transvestism, as far as I know, was unique to Gein. I think the question we have to put to Jon - (not yet fully answered by psychology, I believe) - is what does he feel was the Ripper's real underlying motive? The acquisition of trophy organs? Cannibalism? - (where we know of this happening it is usually associated with sexual murder: as witness Chikatilo and Dahmer). I think what Jon has in mind is a subdivision called something like 'sexual manic frenzy', and of course he can justly point to the relative care with which Katherine Eddowes' face was marked to argue that this was not the Ripper's bag. Although Sutcliffe killed by battering rather than throttling and throat-cutting, and he didn't take trophies, I think he is highly comparable with Jack as a murderer who killed first and then inflicted posthumous mutilation. Noting that both picked prostitutes as their easy target victims, one has to say that women as women, if not women as self-defining sexual objects were what they wanted to hit. And warped as it may be, and unlike your or my sex lives, I think this should lead us to conclude that the murders were at the very least related to Jack's disordered sexuality. By contrast, the fact that Smith's 'Brides in the Bath' were all killed for their insurance policies, puts him in a quite different category: the avaricious or commercial killer. I think women were his victims wholly and solely because he had found that his coarse charm and good looks made them easy targets for his confidence tricks, and he simply graduated up to murder. His terror at facing his own death is starkly different from Peter Kuerten's gloating at the thought of hearing or feeling his own blood dripping when he was decapitated. The cases I find far more difficult to categorise are ones like Peter Manuel, where you find a couple of killings associated with definite rape, and others which seem to be just the brutal elimination of possible witnesses to his housebreaking. I really don't know how I would classify him. I think Abberline's casual assumption that Chapman's 'convenience' killing of unwanted wives made him a plausible Ripper suspect is not merely evidence that the Victorians knew a lot less than we do about serial killers, but also that they were so shocked by recurrent murder that they couldn't easily bring themselves to look analytically at the details. I would see Neill Cream as a really fascinating case. He's picking prostitutes as targets; he's using them for the proper purpose to an inordinate extent; he has no concern with staying around to see them die. The 'control' motive seems the only possibe explanation in his case. I must say that I find the assumption that control matters more than sex in serial killing is very attractive. And it would be good to see it factored in to ongoing Ripper discussions. Fascinating topic, Jon. thanks for bringing it up, or leading it on from someone else's start in the archives. Martin
Author: Jon Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 04:13 pm
Thankyou Chris. I think you just labelled every serial killer as an SSK. I have tried to stay away from the 'burking' theory, by Baxter, because of all the baggage it seems to bring with it. I mention Dr Phillips in this respect because he at least saw the deliberate act of mutilation being a means towards an end. In this case to get at that organ. In honest truth, I have no belief nor theory as to why the killer wanted to remove the organ. I do not care whether it was for ritual purpose, sexual purposes back home, or for study, or merely as a trophy. The point I have been pursuing is that the medical evidence does not specifically suggest a sexual serial killer, to the exclusion of all others. This idea of Jack being a sexual serial killer is made up of two primary componants. 1) That collectively all the Whitechapel murders, when analyzed, appear to be of a sexual nature. (but did Jack kill them all?) 2) That any act of aggression by a man against a woman can loosely be labelled as sexually motivated. You seem to understand that the mere act of aggression of one person against another, which results in some satisfaction for the aggressor, can be loosely labeled as sexually motivated. And if this is repeated more than three times (FBI std's) then we have a sexual serial killer on the loose. And thats about all that can be prescribed against Jack the Ripper. My premise is this: The wounds to the three victims we are discussing are suggestive of someone purposefully going for that organ. I believe Dr Phillips was correct in his assessment. I have no premise as to the purpose for the extraction, the purpose is for some other discussion. Incidently, thankyou for your expression above, I also feel that exchanges of this sort are constructive and to be encouraged. compared to some discussions I could mention. Also, a new book out (by Douglas & Olshaker?), "The Crimes that intrigue us" or something similar, has about 60+ pages on Jack the Ripper. Sorry, I cannot recall the exact words of the title, but I thumbed through it, and it looks an interesting book. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 04:20 pm
Hi Martin and Jon: Stephen Michaud when he spoke at our Park Ridge conference emphasized the "control" aspect of the sexual serial killer, and he played several chilling tape recordings featuring killers, one of them Ted Bundy, which graphically showed the control either in their voices or the actions they were discussing. What made Bundy even more disturbing was that he talked about himself in the third person. Michaud's goal was to put "our guy" in context of sexual serial killers, and I believe Jack fitted quite nicely. I would think that George Chapman was rather more akin to Smith the "Brides in the Bath" killer, in that he was killing for gain, or to move on to his next woman, than killing for gratification. Possibly it was the cold callousness of Chapman that made Abberline think that he could have been the Ripper but the crimes are quite different. If the weapon used was different -- a penknife and possibly a bayonet in comparison to a long knife with a stout back (amputating knife) it may only have been because Jack had not obtained his later preferred weapon. The SSK's Son of Sam killer David Berkowitz and the Zodiac Killer could have been as much intent on killing couples making out in cars as lone females. I presume they were both small, frustrated men who were jealous of the love that couples shared, and used their guns as substitutes for their penis to gain sexual satisfaction. These do make them somewhat different from the lone woman killers such as Jack and Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper killer. Note also that Jack and the Yorkshire Ripper did not use firearms. In regard to the Ripper crimes themselves, one of the things I like to emphasize is that it was a relatively short series of murders, perhaps five, perhaps four.... three? you take your choice... however, because it was short it is hard to make hard and fast conclusions about what the Ripper might have done. Thus, the Tabram murder with the stab wounds in the abdominal/genital area while seemingly "different" is not really that different. In regard to Eddowes's facial mutilations, I would think these directly presage the extensive facial emasculation of Mary Jane Kelly, so I would not be as quick as Messrs. Chisholm and Evans to discount Kelly as a Ripper victim. And while the kidneys and uterus were not taken away from the scene in contrast to the Eddowes killing, they were REMOVED from the corpse just as with Eddowes, so I think this betokens a likeness of signature. Who knows in any case what state of mind the killer may have been after sating himself in the charnel house that was 13 Miller Court? The leaving of the kidneys, uterus, and breasts, etc., may have been as much because of the killer's by then, I would think, disturbed psychological state than in a conscious decision to leave them. He may also have been so soaked with blood that the taking away of trophies was the least of his concerns. Best regards to you both Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 04:26 pm
Hi again Jon and Martin: The bit about the change of weapon should have gone after the mention of Tabram not the part about Chapman. Sorry for the confusion. I'll blame it on the antibiotics I am on for the cold I am battling :-) Chris
Author: Jon Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 08:31 pm
Great exchange, Martin & Chris. As Rick brought up the control aspect I would like to mention that this was of high consideration in the Chikatilo murders. This was a man who had a feminine build and was made fun of through his teenage years, suffering years of ridicule and being called 'girly' among other things. He served in the military but was ostracized by his fellow team members, who caught him masterbating out in public places. He had an impotency problem that only his wife was able to show understanding about. Although there had been another woman in his life who helped him overcome this handicap, he mostly was embarrassed about his sexual problem. He told interrogators that he had strong sexual urges that he could not control, especially when around young boys & girls. The urge could have been satisfied if the victims had played along, but he felt so inadequate due to not getting an erection that his anger was played out on his victim. He had to be in control and his violent actions were partly to stop the victim screaming and partly to increase the sexual climax towards orgams, this would happen without errection, so he said. He talked much about having to control his victim, to be incharge and to be the dominant one. Interestingly, he claimed his wife was the boss at home, she understood his impotency problem, but with consideration and a little help from her he would get through it. Afterall, he did have children in his marriage. But he was filled with so much pent up anger that it manifested itself in an urge to dominate, and as children looked up to him in his work at a school, he could get close. Too close, as it happens, and would actually molest the children. He was fired from this job for doing actually that. There's much more to this character, his claim that his elder brother was eaten by the towns people during one of Stalin's starvation campaigns. And that canibalism was practiced in his town during the war, due to food shortages. The bodies & body parts that were scattered around due to the incesant bombing all may have played a part in Chikatilo's 'insanity'. Though, the medical institute, at his trial, declared Chikatilo to be of sound mind. The police had made it clear that he had cleaned up all the murder sites so there was a noticable lack of evidence. The police state this to be a sign of his apparent guilt, therefore he was aware of what he was doing. What Chikatilo said after his arrest is very illuminating, possibly an insite into the mind of one type of SSK. But this must be tempered by the fact that the police recognized that he was smart enough to be setting the groundwork for an insanity plea. To escape the death penalty. Chikatilo is an interesting subject. Thanks for the exchanges gentlemen, this is messageboard dialogue at its best. Best Regards, Jon
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 11:20 am
Hi, all, Jon, I wonder who you would categorise as belonging in the sub-group with Chikatilo? (This is NOT a snide suggestion that he was unique; just an interest in our working toward a terminology that may help us refine the context in which we discuss the Ripper). I'd attach the word 'addictive', certainly. I'd note the attempted cannibalism - (didn't he say that he bit into the wombs, but couldn't get his teeth through them, so chucked them away?) As a 'returner' to previous murder sites he was, as I understand it, more motivated by the wish to use again somewhere he'd succeeded before (sort of new 'comfort zones') than by the wish to gloat and fantasize over his memories. Chris, my enthusiasm for the new Douglas/Olshaker book is unbounded, since these two who had never met me when they surveyed the material and reached their conclusions, give the most wonderful endorsement to my work, and lift the David Cohen theory right out of the 'barely comprehensible and generally unpersuasive' category in which I deliberately placed it in the early editions of the A-Z. But for our puposes here, their previous book 'The Anatomy of Motive' is, I thnk, their most useful. Dear both, as explained on another board, I'm signing off for a couple of weeks, as I only broke off some very demanding work to play the boards while a pulled lumbar muscle was too intrusively painful to let me push on with a piece of writing for a deadline. All the best, Martin
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 11:53 am
Hi Martin: Thank you very much for your recent very substantive contributions, if regrettably short-lived! We hope to see you back here soon. I hope your pulled lumbar muscle is improving. Having had a history of back problems myself I know what you have been going through. Best wishes Chris George
Author: LeatherApron Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 12:59 pm
All, Finally back after a lot of personal business (not that anyone missed me) and happy to see Martin Fido honored us with his presence. It is appreciated. I'd like to comment on a matter that was touched on. I've known at least 6 psychologists, psychiatrists, and wannabes personally (not as an in-patient, thank you) and if I was to psychoanalyze these individuals I'd say that it's not easy for some of them to admit they don't know something. So what the hell's old L.A. talking about anyway? (btw, as I've stated before, for those of you who dislike anonymity, my real name is easily found on this web site with only a minor bit of detective work). Here's my point... we should all keep in mind that a psychologist's ideas about why or how a SK did what they did when there is no motive provided by the killer is merely a theory just like the "JtR was.." theories all us Jackologists have come to know and love (or hate as the case may be). In a lot of cases, they have come up with these theories based on statistical data alone but disregard the entire "normal" population pool. Saying that a person who comes from a dysfunctional family, has no father figure, tortured animals as a child, etc. is a valid reason for them to become a SK is total nonsense. For every one person who becomes a SK, there are a hundred others who lived through the same circumstances and have come out as normal well-adjusted human beings. There are a lot of real cases I can site as examples but here's one; a friend of mine who grew up on a farm told me of a game he and his friends used to play where they'd bury a cat in the ground leaving only its head sticking out and then they'd run it over with a lawnmower. Gruesome, yes, but I doubt very seriously he (or his friends) have become SKs. His wife would probably notice. It's even gotten to the point that some psychologists have stated that because a SK was treated differently from their siblings as a child that's a good explanation as to why they have gone about slaying innocent victims. When we all know that millions of us have gone through the same thing. It matters little whether or not there truly was unequal treatment or whether it was simply their own misconceptions. To get back to my original point... the mind is so complex and not understood that even today psychologists have no proof that there are environments (or even genes) that will definitely produce a SK. They only have theories. The ones who admit to this fact have the proper humble view of the entire subject. Cause and effect. A certain event (a snake appears) might cause a certain effect (fear and running away), but a certain event does not always result in the same response in the distant future. An example that depicts how genetic make-up is not important; a group of siblings have just been involved in a car accident, a few months later, only 1 develops an irrational (or maybe rational, wink) fear of being inside a car. Why didn't all the siblings feel the same way? The effected individual's environment had been the same as the others and her genes are not radically different from her siblings, yet the event has had a different effect. The answer is we simply don't know. In closing, I don't have any problems with basing a "JtR was..." theory on psychologists' opinions as long as we agree there's no proof that events A, B, and C produced response D. My 2 cents. Jon, Haven't had time to take notes on the Travel Channel show we talked about. Should have it done this weekend. Regards, Jack
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 10 November 2000 - 08:45 am
Dear Leather Apron, I hven't the slightest objection to people protecting their privacy by using anonymity or pseudonyms, or saving themselves from endless questions and arguments by requesting the Webmaster (as I do) to withhold their e-mail addresses. It only becomes objectionable when people hide behind anonymity to make personal attacks on character (as distinct from very robust opposition to opinion, like some of Jon's perfectly acceptable postings dismissing Robert Anderson as a reliable source or perceiving the Cohen/Kosmiski theory as twaddle). The offence becomes much greater when silent 'postmen' are involved, abetting the abuse of honest disputants by letting their computers and subscriptions to servers be used while never letting on that they are supporting such posts in any way or shape: quite possibly hypocritically pretending to friendship or respect for people they are actually helping to defame. So don't feel any concern about your absolutely justified preference for not being picked out by your dentist, bank manager, chimney sweep and employees as a Ripper board contributor. With all good wishes, Martin Fido
Author: Julian Rosenthal Monday, 13 November 2000 - 08:10 pm
G'day Leather Apron, Martin. In regard to the disposition of an SK, in the book I'm STILL writing about male violence I mention the a study was done on inmates from several prisons around the world. The prisoners interviewed were all murderers who used extreme violence to kill their victims and many of whom had no legitimate reason for venting such rage. I was able to gather this information from notes taken at an international conference on psycosurgery in Copenhagen (I think) in the late 1980s. It transpired that after undergoing a complete medical examination over 90% of these prisoners had an extra X or Y chromosone (Can't remember which, it was a while ago that I wwrote this bit) and after an operation to nullify the effects of this chromosone the prisoners (all of them) no longer exhibited any signs of violent behaviour. However, just to back up your thoughts on the matter there are also thousands of other people out there in the community who have the same condition but never in their lifetimes display any signs of violence. Exactly where this leads us, I don't know, I just thought I'd through some more information your way. As for the anonymous stuff Martin has hit the nail right on the head. Two years or so ago there were a couple of 'Anons' gracing these boards and making life a misery for most of the genuine posters. Particulary the hardest hit were the first timers who Anon seemed to take delight in attacking. Several never returned which was indeed a shame. However, several of the regulars banded together and rallied to the support of anyone they saw being abused. Dim witted Anon took a while to catch on that he wasn't appreciated and eventually left. Exactly where he/she is now no-one knows or cares but Anon knows if they come back again, they'll recieve the same treatment they got last time. Jules
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 13 November 2000 - 10:01 pm
To All, Jack the Ripper's murders were really unique if you think hard about it,-- and how can I say that to you folks?. He was very pointed in committing the murders and leaving the victims in incredibly public places--he was a showoff, a frightener, and I think that was his main reason for killing-- to frighten. He was that successful he can still do that today,-- better than Bundy,Gacy or the Yorkshire Ripper. He displayed his victims like Jack the Stripper did in the 1960s, but in a more terrifying way, and I bet he got quite a kick out of the reaction of people to the murders. I don't think control or power came into the reason for the mutilations,--the so brief a time he had to do that say's that to me, -- he was making his work look as terrifying as possible. Serial killers, today at least, usually leave their victims in their homes, a hotel room, hidden on waste ground, or in a ditch in the countryside, not on the pavement in a capital city. They display their victims, yes, but usually in private or hidden places. Mary Kelly was the only one he killed in a private place, and I don't believe that was planned for. If it had been part of the series, he would have left the door wide open when he left!. If he had been a true sexual or sadistic serial killer, don't you think he would have committed more Kelly type killings?. He couldnt have held back. Rick
Author: Jon Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 02:14 pm
Rick How do you mean "If it (Kelly) had been part of the series"? Can you elaborate on that?. As far as the being "more Ripper type killings", then yes possibly so, but finding a woman who lived alone may have been difficult. Even Kelly didnt live entirely alone, it was just that she was caught between two live-in partners. Jack was lucky not to be interupted, considering these neighbourly people would hardly bother to knock when entering a home. Jack wasnt looking for single women just an available victim, the fact that Kelly took him back to her place was a plus for him, I suppose. Regards, Jon
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 07:38 pm
Hello Jon, Okay, I'll try and explain myself. I think you were guessing that I was talking about Barnet when I said ,"if Kelly's murder had been part of the series",--I was,J. If Barnet, (as Jack the Ripper) HAD killed the previous ones to scare Kelly off the streets and back to him, then he certainly hadn't planned to kill her. He only decided to kill her when they met on the evening of Nov the 8th and she possibly told him what her true feelings towards him were, and always had been. Then he decided to kill her and make sure it wasn't going to be mistaken for anything other than a Ripper killing, but I think passion drove him too far. In view of the fact that he was her common law husband, and they had just parted, (and it was known,) it would be taken for granted that bitterness and jealousy was the reason for the murder. But if the Ripper was someone other than Barnet, it was someone who was killing possibly/probably, because they liked it. He would certainly have had a different reason than Barnet would have had. Each murder had increased in mutilation, this would have been his grande finale,--- or would it?. Now he had reached his peak he'd certainly want to do another Kelly type murder, and another, and another.I don't think women living alone in rooms were that rare Jon, you have Prater, Cox, Harvey, Venturney, but like I've said before, maybe Jack the Ripper was not a true serial killer. My Regards Jon, Rick
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 06:29 am
Julian R - Arthur Shawcross is an excellent example of the 'extra-Y chromosome' serial killer. The research to which you refer suffers like that suggesting that gender and race are related to the way the mind works (along sufficiently large and overlapping continua that no sensible individual predictions or observations can ever be made). These studies are subject to politically correct suppression: in the case of the 'violence gene', because just such lurid tabloid exaggeration provokes the understandable fear that all extra-Y chromosome males might become treated as criminals. Martin Fido
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 05:59 am
Jon, A couple of points re your above post.First,it isn't a fact that Kelly took JTR back to her room. It is not known how he arrived there,or how he gained entry. It is not difficult to find a woman living alone if she is known to live alone.That Barnett had left and no one had taken his place,may have been known to quite a few acquaintances. Thirdly,I would say it would have been bad manners to enter a dwelling unannounced,even in those days.I am old enough to know people of that era,and to knock and announce oneself was considered the correct thing to do.