A Deductive Criminal Profile of Jack the Ripper
By Merlyn
Note* The author is not a medical doctor or a certified criminologist. He does though have one advantage over these professionals. The author worked on a daily basis with the worst murderers and criminals in the Canadian penal system for 25 years. The last 10 of them working in a psychiatric hospital with the same type of offenders. This gives him the advantage that very few doctors and criminologists have in that he had the opportunity to see these men at their best and their worst under all circumstances and situations.
This manuscript is not intended to be a definitive work on the subject and was produced mainly for the author's own pleasure.
Changed your mind about joining the adventure? Return to HOME here.
There are two types of Criminal Profiling being used today in the investigation of criminal acts and crimes, Inductive Criminal Profiling and Deductive Criminal Profiling.
Inductive profiling is the one most people are familiar with, this is the type of profiling usually used and attributed to the FBI and other major agencies.
It is a process that uses a set of behavioral indicators that form a characteristic pattern of actions used by the offender, that point to a particular condition by comparing the behavior to that of other offenders who have been studied before.
In other words, we have taken the data collected by experience and compared what we know as having occurred under similar circumstances in cases that we have previous knowledge of.
This process of profiling is seriously lacking in one major aspect; it does not take into account the offenders who have successfully avoided capture for their crimes. It is based on existing information that may or may not be flawed by personal interpretation of the evidence or invalid information supplied by the offenders studied.
It is a generalization of the events and the offender using, formal and informal studies, practical experience and public data resources.
Deductive profiling takes into account the entire investigative procedure. It uses all the disciplines available to the investigator, namely, the crime scene, the actions of the offender at the crime scene, the victim and the gathered evidence.
A person using deductive profiling must use everything that is available. Crime scene photos, autopsy reports and photos, officer reports, a complete and accurate victim evaluation and an understanding of the offender's movements and behavior while at the scene.
Using all the information available the profiler must then form or deduce the offender characteristics, demographics, emotions and motivations.
In a case where there are multiple victims, each victim must be approached as a single act and crime with out losing sight of the fact that they are a piece of an overall puzzle.
Only by forming a complete profile of the individual cases can one begin to ascertain whether they are in fact the result of one individual or are the result of several individuals with similar patterns. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could have two offenders acting in the same manner with in the same physical area and the same state of mind. This of course will confuse the individual crimes to no end but with diligence and accurate investigative skills, they will eventually be found to be separate entities.
Marry Anne Nichols
In the case of Mary Anne Nichols:
The murder took place in a moderately busy environment; a well used street in a notoriously squalid part of town. The crime was committed in the early morning hours of a Friday morning, ensuring that the amount of traffic on the road was at a low.
The victim was a woman in her forties and an alcoholic prostitute known to the police. Her reason for being in the area that night was to try and earn enough money for a bed to sleep in.
She was of short stature and average weight with dark eyes and hair. Her mode of dress was in the style of the day for her financial level (poor). She was a person who kept her self clean considering the health habits of the day.
By nature her profession is a dangerous one, and having been a prostitute for many years she would have known this and been considered "street-wise".
The nature of her profession also promotes close contact with subjects and considering that the sexual act would normally be conducted outside, darkness would have been a positive attribute in her eyes. Both of these facts are to the advantage of the offender.
It is important to note at this time that sexual activity between a prostitute and her client would normally be conducted in the open and in a standing position. There were very few prostitutes that could afford the expense of the lodgings required to offer her customers a bed. Climate conditions of the area and time period would not allow for reclining sex, out of doors, with out the woman being covered in dirt and probably soaked by the dampness of the ground. As most prostitutes would try to obtain more than one customer a night, it is in their best interests to remain in a fairly clean state to attract her next client.
Standing sex was very common for the time period and even gained its own nickname, " a knee knocker". Customers would either have to perform in the manner mentioned or settle for something else.
The offender was familiar with the streets of the area and felt comfortable enough to be wandering them in the semi-darkness of the London night. He has a good knowledge of the general area indicating previous residence or work located with in the area.
The offender was aware of the practices of the local prostitutes and used them to his advantage. The evidence for this is the fact that he chose a prostitute as his victim.
He first gained the confidence of the victim with his calm exterior attitude and good attire. Making the victim feel at ease and relaxing her guard.
He maneuvered the victim into a position that shows that they had come to an agreement of what was wanted and he had been allowed into close proximity of the victim.
While leaning against the victim, presumably against a wall or fence for support, he grabbed her about the throat with both hands and proceeded to strangle her.
The offender showed he had previous knowledge and experience of the act, by his speed of attack and the amount of strength he used to stop any possible outburst from the victim. No sound or call for help was heard by any of the witnesses, even though they were with in easy earshot.
The victim was either unconscious or dead at the time he lowered her to the ground.
It is more likely that she was dead by strangulation at this time for the amount of blood loss from the other wounds was very little by the statement of the attending doctor. Blood loss from a victim is considerably less when incisions or cuts are made to the body even a short while after death.
Having lowered the victim to the ground with out alarm being sounded, the offender then proceeded to cut her throat in a slashing motion, cutting both major arteries on both sides of the neck and going to a depth that involved the vertebra. A second incision on the left side of the neck appears to be an after thought or caused by the placement of the knife when the body was lowered to the ground.
The autopsy report shows the incision of the larger wound to be of a circular motion, which seems to be an attempt to sever the head from the torso. In which case this would have been the second wound and not the first as the act of killing seems to be the first order of business for the offender.
It was only after the failed attempt to remove the head that the offender lifted the skirts of the victim and mutilated the torso. This is an act of anger and frustration at not being successful with his original plan.
There is no evidence of sexual activity of any kind. The offender's objective was to produce death in the victim and then remove her head, which signals a state of power and control. When faced with the inability to complete his task he reacts in anger by mutilating the body. This can not be considered "sadistic" in nature as the victim was dead at the time and the prime purpose of sadism is to inflict pain and suffering to elicit the desired response of obedience, submission, humiliation, fear or terror.
The offender would have walked from the crime scene in a calm natural way having satisfied his rage with his acts upon the body. There would have been very little blood on him, if any, for the above stated reasons.
Statements of the witnesses who were first to arrive on the scene show that the victims skirts were down and not left in the position that would have been necessary for the offender to have performed the mutilations. This shows a desire of the offender to hide his last deeds. He was either embarrassed by what he had done or took pity on the victim.
The body was left as it fell and not arranged for display.
The offender is well dressed and neat in appearance. His carriage and manner is one that does not raise suspicion on the part of the victim. The victim felt comfortable with the offender in her presence. The offender then did not exude any outward sign of his intent.
He had a good working knowledge of the immediate area of the crime and probably lived or worked in the area at one time.
The offender was an opportunist, though he chose his victim and location with care he acted on his first impulse that the time to kill had come. This is evident from the fact that the crime was committed in the open where the possibility of his being disturbed or seen, would have been the greatest.
The fact that he chose his victim and location shows a level of intelligence and planning but the acting on impulse shows also a compulsion on the offender's part to proceed with his plan as soon as he could. This also shows he has trouble controlling his emotions. He may be prone to fits of rage for seemingly trivial things and will dispense his authority on those of lesser position swiftly and harshly. He will not aggravate or confront his superiors, or those he considers superior, but will stifle the feelings adding them to his general feelings of inadequacy.
He harbors a long-standing resentment of a family member or friend who he considers to be of a superior position. This feeling of inadequacy may also indicate an impairment of some sort that makes him feel less than adequate. This impairment may be of a physical or mental nature, caused by an accident or the result of drug use but it is something that he feels he had no control over.
He has been violent in the past with those who are under him. He has, at least on one occasion, choked a victim into submission and unconsciousness. He is no stranger to the amount of force that is necessary to stop a victim from crying out and induce death or unconsciousness.
The offender is not sexually motivated in this attack, though he may have derived some pleasure from the killing and the mutilation it is not of a sexual nature. The pleasure derived from the murder and mutilation was not the motive for the killing it was a result of the action and probably unpredicted by the offender.
The offender felt a need to display, in a profound method, his ability to control and hold power over his victim, his victim being representative of his superiors or the object that he feels subservient to.
Annie Chapman
The scene of the crime in this case is a badly lit backyard easily accessed by way of a gate from the main road. Since none of the witnesses residing in the house at the time of the murder heard anything it is safe to assume that the victim was familiar with the yard and had probably used it before in plying her trade.
The victim was a middle-aged prostitute of long standing not known to the police. She was of short stature and heavy set with dark hair and dark eyes.
Though known to take a drink, she was not in the habit of being intoxicated and when she was behaved in such a way as not to attract the attention of the police force.
The victim was out this evening trying to earn the money for a bed to sleep in. She would by virtue of her experience in the trade be aware of the dangers of her profession and willing to chance them to earn a living.
The victim felt comfortable enough with the offender to lead him through the gateway into the dimly lit back yard. This would require turning her back on him at some point, which shows a feeling of trust in the offender.
Having reached the desired position in the dark corner of the yard the offender moved swiftly, forcing the victim back against the fence and placing both hands around her neck and strangling her.
The victim was either stronger than the offender imagined or he was slow to apply the amount of pressure needed for a witness claims to have heard the word "murder" spoken from the other side of the fence from where he stood.
Fearing that he would be disturbed or caught in the act the offender hurriedly laid the victim on the ground and proceeded to cut her throat. The victim was not dead at the time of the knife wound as shown by the blood spattered on the fence and the wall at a height of two feet from the ground. This shows there was still force behind the blood and the heart was still beating. In this case the victim died as a result of the knife wound and not the strangulation.
The wound at the neck shows an attempt of the offender to separate the head from the torso this is an indicator of the offender showing power and control over the victim. Not being able to accomplish the his task, the offender then raised the skirts of the victim and slashed at the abdomen showing he was in a state of rage or anger and cutting it deeply.
The cutting of the abdomen did not satisfy the anger and the offender continued to cut and remove the intestines and throw them from the body. He did not anticipate that they would remain attached to the body and when they fell just over the right shoulder of the victim he reached in and grabbed more and through them to the other side. He at this point is displaying his total control and dominance of the victim. He may have also realized at this time the shock factor of his actions. This may have been an attempt to show who ever came upon the body that he was superior and that he was to be feared.
He then reached into the body cavity and grasped the first thing he came upon which happened to be the liver. This he cut out and placed upon his person some where, probably in a pocket. This had not been part of his original plan but seems to be an after thought, indicating that the offender has a future use for the object or he deems it a trophy.
The offender's fury seemed to abate at this point and he took the time to search the victim and remove certain articles from her and place them in a ritualistic manner at her feet.
The offender was originally in a state of anger from his lack of ability to complete his desired task (the severing of the head). He was also in a hurry, fearing that her cry of "murder" had been heard by some one, when no alarm was forth coming he relaxed and took his time. This indicates that the offender has experience in this area and was comfortable with the situation.
The offender would have taken the time to attend to his appearance before leaving, even to the point of washing his hands at the tap that was only yards away. There would have been a fairly large amount of blood considering that the victim was not dead at the time of the first cut and the abdomen was penetrated. There undoubtedly was blood on the offenders clothing.
The offender departed the scene in a calm and relaxed manner, as no one was seen running from the area.
The offender has knowledge of the area of the scene of the crime and is comfortable walking the streets of it in an early hour of the morning.
The offender chose his victim and location carefully indicating a level of intelligence and planning.
The offender was able to gain the confidence of the victim indicating that his manner and style of dress were consistent with customers the victim usually dealt with.
The offender attacked the victim suddenly but is surprised by the resistance he encounters; he does not apply the force necessary to stop the victim from crying out. Therefore he is forced to use the knife earlier than he would have liked to ensure that no more cries for help would be issued. This indicates that the offender is adaptable and persistent in his objective, which is the death of the victim, the mutilation being of secondary importance.
The mutilations began as an act of rage or anger caused by the offender's inability to complete his prepared plan. He is still determined to show that he is in control and that he has the power to do what ever he likes to the victim.
The offender is not sexually motivated in this crime, though pleasure may have been received from the actual killing and mutilation it was not the original purpose.
The offender has feelings of inadequacies that are long standing and deep routed. This may be a resentment of a close family member or friend whom he considers to be superior. This may also indicate an impairment, either physical or mental, that he feels he has no control over.
The offender has a profound need to show that he is in control and has the power.
Elizabeth Stride
The crime scene in this case was just inside the gateway entrance to a back yard and stable area, immediately off a busy street and the rear of a Social Club that was occupied at the time.
The time was approximately just after the closing time of the Social Club and the streets were still fairly busy. There were a number of people still in the club dancing and singing.
The victim was a middle-aged prostitute well known to the police. She had been charged numerous times in the recent months with drunk and disorderly. She had been plying her trade for a number of years and had once registered with the police as a prostitute in Sweden. The victim would have been well aware of the dangerous nature of her job.
The victim was tall for a woman of the time period, being about 5' 9". She was slim of build, with dark hair and dark eyes.
The victim was seen by various witnesses just prior to the murder and appeared to be quite comfortable with the suspect.
The offender is mild mannered, soft spoken and well dressed as described by the witnesses and this seems to fit with the ease with which he gained the victims confidence.
The offender and the victim entered the yard after reaching an agreement as to what was desired. The gate to the yard is sometimes left open and the yard being very dark and ill lit would have presented a very inviting place for the victim and offender to work in.
They did not proceed very far into the yard when the offender suddenly attacked the victim. The marks on the victim's throat show that an attempt to strangle the victim was made. The victim was forced to the ground and the throat slashed before the victim lost consciousness. The evidence of this is the position of the body being on its left side and the fact that there was blood found on her right arm. The cause of death would have been the wound in the throat.
Her right arm was raised to protect her self but was obviously too late to do any good, resulting in blood flowing onto the right arm and hand. This would be considered a "defensive " movement and a signal that she was still alive at the time of the slashing.
There was no blood found under the body.
The ground on which the body lay was muddy and the left side of the victim was well soiled with it. The offender would have had mud on his knees or trousers from his position over the body and may have gotten blood on his clothing as well.
The body of the victim was found shortly after death as the blood was still flowing freely from the throat when first seen.
The offender has a good knowledge of the streets of the area and is comfortable walking them alone at night.
The offender chose his victim carefully and did not seem to mind the fact that there were people close by. This indicates that the offender enjoyed the thrill factor of the possibility of being caught.
He is not afraid of being seen by witnesses but makes attempts to hide his face the best he can. The offender is well aware that a description of his physical make up and his clothing will not lead to his arrest. This indicates that the offender has experience in eluding the police.
The offender is also not afraid to act just out of visual range of witnesses, which indicates that he is excited by the possibility of being caught.
The offender acted swiftly and deliberately indicating that he was acting with a plan or a routine. The choking of the victim was a method of the offender getting the victim into a position to cut the throat, it was not meant to render her unconscious or cause death. This indicates a well thought out plan or routine and experience in the act. This was an issue of power and control for the offender.
The offender left the crime scene with out being seen by any witnesses. His clothing would have been soiled with mud and possibly blood. As the victim's body was found very quickly, the offender may have been disturbed during his deed by the witness. It is possible, that in the dark back yard the offender was still standing there when the witness left to get help. He then took this advantage to leave quietly.
Catherine Eddowes
The scene of the crime in this case is a dark, ill lit, square surrounded by houses and shops. There was little or no movement on the streets in the early hours of the morning.
The victim's body lay on the pavement in full view of all businesses and residences. Her throat had been cut and the torso mutilated. The face of the victim was extensively cut showing rage or anger on the part of the offender.
The crime took place about one half hour after the murder of Elizabeth Stride and approximately one half mile from the location.
The location of the crime is less than 400 yards from a police station.
The victim was a prostitute well known to the police. She had been released from their custody only minutes before the murder, having been held on a charge of drunk and disorderly.
The victim was short and slight of build; she had dark hair and dark eyes.
The victim had been a prostitute for a number of years and was well aware of the dangers of her profession.
The victim had been picked up earlier in the evening for being publicly intoxicated and causing a disturbance. She was transported to the police station and held on this charge. It was common practice of the police at the time to release prisoners who were picked up on these charges when they had sobered up and the bars and pubs were closed.
The victim had indicated to the officers at the police station that she was heading directly to her residence as she was expected there.
Since the murder took place so soon after the release of the victim this appears to be a crime of opportunity on the part of the offender, for there is no indication that he had waited for her release. This shows no planning on the part of the offender to specifically target this victim. The offender acted on impulse.
Virtually no time had passed since she left the police station and the time of the murder so it is safe to assume that there had been no idle chatter on the part of the victim and the offender.
The evidence shows no signs of strangulation but there is an abrasion on the chin of the victim. This suggests that the offender forced the victim's head back in an effort to expose the throat for cutting.
The evidence is lacking in detail and does not speak of the amount of blood found at the scene. It is the feeling of both doctors who examined the body during the autopsy that the victim died as a result of a wound to the neck.
Though very little blood was found on the clothing of the victim it would be safe to say that there had been a great loss of blood and that the offender may have gotten blood on his clothing. This is indicated by the removal of a portion of the victim's apron by the offender to wipe his hands in after the crime. The piece of apron was found several blocks away from the scene.
The mutilations on the torso and face were done after the death of the victim.
All the evidence points to this crime being one of anger and rage.
The victim was attacked suddenly and for no apparent reason except that she happened to be there. The offender acted on impulse and opportunity showing that there is a great lack of control on his part to control his emotions, the offender was so anger or enraged that he felt little fear of being seen or caught.
The mutilation of the torso was swift and accurate; portions of the internal organs were missing.
The mutilation of the face was deliberate and extensive. All normally recognizable parts of the face were sliced, indicating anger that is out of control. This is a deliberate attempt to remove the identity of the victim, indicating that the offender desired to show control and power. The face of the victim meant nothing to him; the identity of the victim did not matter. This was not an attempt to hide his association with the victim as the body was left where it fell; no attempt was made to hide the body.
The offender has a good working knowledge of the area and is not afraid to walk around alone in the early morning hours.
The offender has complete disregard for the police as the proximity of the murder to the police station indicates that he does not fear them interrupting him or catching him.
There is no evidence of planning in this crime. It appears to be one of opportunity. The offender literally had the victim walk right into his arms.
The offender would have been mild mannered and well dressed as the victim did not shy away from him upon meeting him on the street. The offender would have shown no outward threat to the victim. His gait and manner would have appeared normal to the victim.
The offender in this case shows extreme anger, rage or frustration. The entire act of murder and mutilation is one that was of impulse and opportunity. The offender acted on his emotions.
Marry Jane Kelly
The scene of the crime in this case was a small room in an alleyway just off a busy street.
Number 13 Miller's Court was the back parlor of 26 Dorset Street.
Partitioned off from the rest of the building, it was entered from a door at the end of an arched passageway. It was the first door on the right in Miller's Court and anyone entering or leaving the court would have to pass it.
The room was approximately 12 feet square. Opposite the door was a fireplace.
On the left of the door and at right angles to it were two windows, one of which was close enough to the door as to be able to reach through it and unbolt the door.
To the right of the door was a bedside table so close that the door would hit it when opened. Next to the table was a bed with the head against the door wall, its side against the right wall.
The room contained two small tables and a chair, a cheap print entitled "The Fisherman's widow" hung over the fireplace.
Opposite the fireplace was a small cupboard, which contained cheap crockery, empty ginger beer bottles and a little stale bread.
The key to the door was missing. The window closest it was broken and stuffed with rags and you could reach the spring lock of the door through the window. A man's pilot coat hung over the window in place of a curtain. The window, according to a witness, was broken several weeks before the murder by the victim when she was drunk.
Also found in the room by the police were remnants of clothes in the grate of the fireplace. They had been burned in a fire so hot that it melted the spout off a nearby kettle.
A witness believes the clothes are hers as she had left a hat, jacket, two men's shirts, a boy's shirt and a child's petticoat in the victim's room. The pilot coat hanging over the window was also hers.
The victim was a young woman in her mid twenties, slim, with blond hair and blue eyes. She was considered quite pretty by all that knew her. She had begun prostituting herself to earn drinking money and could be considered to have a drinking problem. She would have been aware of the dangers of the profession.
The selling of her body for drink had caused a break-up between the victim and her boyfriend only weeks before.
The victim had stood outside her residence on the night of the murder attempting to ply her trade. She was seen in the company of a well-dressed man. No one saw her enter the apartment with the offender.
The offender did not fear being recognized he made no attempt to disguise himself.
The offender also was very relaxed in the situation showing he had previous experience.
The offender obviously presented as a "normal" customer, he showed no signs of being a threat to the victim. This indicates that he was mild in his manner and appearance.
Autopsy reports show there was some attempt to strangle the victim but that this was not carried to the point of unconsciousness or death, as there are "defensive wound" markings on the victim's hands. The physical evidence also shows that there was an attempt to muffle the victims cries as the corner of the bed sheet had at one time been placed over the victim's head and there were cut marks in the cloth.
There was a struggle of a limited fashion, indicating that the offender over powered the victim to inflict the killing blow, which is to be assumed the slashing cut to the throat. This was done while the victim was still alive as seen by the amount of blood on the bed.
It is hard to determine the actual blow that caused death in this case because of the extensive injuries to the body. The mutilations to the face and torso have eliminated much of the evidence of injuries to the torso. There is though a definite attempt of the offender to sever the head from the body and to remove the identity of the victim. This indicates a desire to show ultimate power and control.
The mutilations to the torso would have been as a result of the offender being frustrated at not accomplishing his original task and taking his anger out on the victim's body.
The offender was not worried or concerned about being disturbed or caught, he had the privacy of the closed room and took his time about the mutilations.
The removal of the body's organs and their ritualistic placement around and under the body shows that the offender had total disregard for the victim and was trying to add a shock value to the scene. This was a form of displaying of the victim, a sign that said, "look at what I can do".
The heart of the victim was removed by the offender, and taken with him as a form of trophy.
The burnt clothing in the fireplace may have been a method of providing light for the offender to work by or a means of heat for the offender. The offender may have removed his clothing before the mutilations to avoid soiling them. This is not a sexual act or a display of sexual activity as there is no evidence of a sexual nature. This was a crime of anger and rage and control.
The removal of the skin and flesh of the thighs posses no purpose except to shock those who would view the body. The offender was well aware of the reaction that this would cause and most of the mutilations were for this effect. This is again an attempt to show control, power and superiority.
With no fear of being interrupted or caught, the offender took his time to create the most horrific scene he could imagine, this indicates a desire of the offender to shock the public and taunt the police. His initial motivation for the intensity of the mutilations is to create a feeling of fear and there-by control.
The offender walked away from the scene in a calm relaxed manner drawing no attention to himself, indicating no fear of detection. This may also show his present feeling of superiority; he feels that he is in total control of the situation and that he can not be caught.
Overview of all Five Murders
There are many things that link these five murders together.
The first four victims all had dark hair and dark eyes, indicating a preference of a certain "look" of the victim. The victims were of all different sizes and shapes and body structure does not seem to be a deciding factor for the offender.
The major common factor amongst all the victims is the fact that they were all prostitutes. For an offender looking for a victim that has no association to him, this was an obvious attraction. The nature of their profession puts them on the street at times of the night that most persons would not be out. It also allows the offender to enter into close contact with the victim with out alarm being raised.
The fact that most of the victims were alcoholics or fond of drink is an indicator of what led them to the life choice of being a prostitute and not an attraction for the offender. The offender is never seen taking a drink and there is no indication or evidence that he drank while performing his deeds.
All the murders were crimes of opportunity. The offender is looking for a victim and a location with some privacy. The offender planned to kill some one when he entered the area, this is evidenced by the fact that he carried a knife with him and attacked the victims when the opportunity arose.
All the murders took place in a well-defined area of the city. Considering the size of the city and that other areas provided the same attributes, as those found in Whitechapel, this was a conscious choice on the part of the offender.
All the victims sustained cuts to the throat and in the case of four of them an attempt was made to remove the head from the body. Also in four of the five cases the bodies were mutilated after death.
The Resulting Profile of Jack The Ripper
With reviewing all the evidence available and including the crime scenes and victims we can now draw a fairly accurate picture of the man known as Jack the Ripper.
The offender would have been a man around the age of forty to fifty years of age. He was employed in an office as either the owner or manager of a business that required his personal attention at times, giving him the ability to come and go from his work with out being questioned or suspected. This would lead one to suspect that his work was of a buying and selling nature.
At this time in history, the industrial revolution was at a peak and the business world was very active. It would be a high stress job, involving the taking of risks with the company's money and the offender's own finances as well.
The offender learned to hide his emotions in the pursuit of his work. A "poker face" would have been a must during times of bartering for goods. Alone in his office or at home with his family he would not be free to vent the built up frustrations of the business day, for he had a reputation to protect. This posed a situation where his pent up emotions would occasionally erupt and he would become violent with those close to him.
The offender has an urgent and pressing need to be in total control of every situation. He would be domineering and controlling to the point of oppression. He would treat his wife and children like possessions and trade goods, showing them off when needed for image and pushing them to the background when not.
The offender has a long-standing resentment of a close family member or friend. He feels inferior to this person and has a constant desire to raise his image in their eyes. He feels inadequate when he compares himself to this person, and takes every opportunity to prove himself better. This may come as having a bigger house, a faster horse or more money in the bank.
The offender prefers to dress down, by this I mean that he would wear somber colors in clothing and clothing of good style and material but he would get as much mileage out of them as he could. This indicates that he was not always well to do, he worked his way up to this position in life. The offender has done manual labor in his time and is still capable of carrying his weight when he has to. His hands are strong and large.
The offender had a good working knowledge of the streets and alleyways of Whitechapel. This may have been where he worked or lived in his earlier years as a laborer. He was comfortable walking these streets at any time of the day or night and knew the basic areas frequented by prostitutes.
There was a traumatic event in the offenders life which "triggered" the beginning of his murderous spree. He may have sustained a tremendous loss in the business world or he may have found out his wife had been unfaithful. Whatever the event was, it pushed him to the point where he could no longer control his need to prove himself in control and in power and he settled on a plan to kill as his method of striking out.
The offender not only planned on killing but removing the head of his victim as a sign of his superiority.
The plan to murder was well thought out and he may have even tried a few practice runs to test his nerve. When it came time to perform, he did so with out hesitation. He received a great feeling of satisfaction and self-confidence from it.
The offender realized after the first murder that he had enjoyed the act. It set him to thinking about planning another one. He also enjoyed the attention the murder received and learned very quickly that the populace was shocked by the information that the murderer had attempted to remove the head. This knowledge that he had instilled fear in a large number of people was a deciding factor in his making the mutilations part of his killing.
When interrupted before he had a chance to mutilate the third victim he became enraged and immediately sought out another victim. This one he took his added frustration and anger out on and mutilated the body far worse than he originally planned.
The reaction in the press would have been like an aphrodisiac to him.
It is highly likely that the offender sent taunting letters to the police and press. He had to brag of his exploits and show his superiority.
His fifth and last murder was his masterpiece. He finally stumbled into a situation where he could do what ever he wanted and take his time doing it.
He set the whole room up as a display for shock value. He wanted to instill the greatest amount of fear possible in the population thereby showing his power and superiority.
There are only three reasons that the offender stopped his killing:
He was arrested by the police on a different charge and sent to jail.
He left the country.
He died.
The first reason is not the answer in this case as the offender, once caught and knowing that he was going to jail would have bent over backwards trying to convince the police that he was Jack. He wanted the world to know who he was and fear him; there is no reason for him to hide his identity once caught.
The second reason is very plausible but has a problem in that wherever he went the murders would have started again. He would not stop his killing while it provided him with pleasure.
The last reason is the most likely of all. Jack the Ripper would not have stopped his murderous spree until he was either caught or dead. And since he was not caught he must have died.
Are YOU ready to face the challenge?
Then let the investigating begin!
Click on torch to ENTER
