Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More than just murder?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Therefore the goal was the body, not control or power.
    Hi Monty!

    I agree that it was the body he was after, but I'm not so sure about the power and control. I think killing them quickly actually gave him swift and absolute power and control over the bodies, even if it was for just a number of minutes. And he quite possibly sought that because he somehow wasn't able to have that in everyday-life.

    The best,
    Frank
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • #17
      I just don't buy it, sorry!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mike74 View Post
        I just don't buy it, sorry!
        Nobody's asking you to "buy" anything, Mike. The last time I looked, common-sense was free.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #19
          For me all the outlandish theories just come from people not being able to accept that a nobody from the east end could become the world's most notorious killer, there must be a story big enough to match the legend.

          I think there was more than just murder - they were some of the most horrific murders ever documented and JTR was one of the most sadistic killers who lived, that's one of the reasons why it stands out, and surely that's enough.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Mike74 (lots of Mikes on here!),

            Apart from the practical considerations in getting intestines out of the way (and the shoulder is the most practical place for them to go, if you're at the foot of the body, and don't stick around to clear up), I'm dubious of ritual theories simply because there seems to be a certain lack of ceremony attendant to the crimes. The victimology doesn't seem to tally, the locations don't fit, and things seem much too chaotic. And it wasn't as if the purpose of murder appears to be ritual disembowelling...seems that the killer was far more interested in other organs.

            I think that, in your original question, you suggested that the killings were about more than 'just' murder. And I'd say that these offences, as perpetrated by one individual driven by nothing other than issues of power and control and the lack thereof, are in themselves far more than 'just' murder. It's enough.
            best,

            claire

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm no authority on exactly where the Masonic theory comes from, but it is of course usually linked to the theory of Dr. William Gull as the Ripper, the murders committed using a horsedrawn coach driven by coachman John Netley, etc., the plot of the fictional graphic novel and Johnny Depp movie "From Hell." And that theory comes mostly if not entirely from Joseph Gorman, aka Joseph Sickert who claimed to be the illegitamite son of artist Walter Sickert. And even he eventually admitted- after his story had stirred up enough excitement- that it was nothing but "a whopping fib."
              Last edited by kensei; 09-01-2008, 01:46 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Yes he did, but then he helped melvyn fairclough right The ripper and the royals!

                Comment


                • #23
                  ...which was also disowned as nonsense by its author!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Okay, back to the revelation of no revelation: The Masons are a fraternal order. There is nothing secret about them. There is nothing evil about them, or at least not any more than any club. They keep up a pretense of mystery because it's fun to pretend, much like kids do when they form clubs and have secret handshakes. The Masons are really just a men's club that is a way for many to have connections to further their careers. Get one drunk, as I have in Scotland, and they'll bore you to tears with their stories of ... nothing. It's a harmless old boys club. ... Okay the Baphomet statue is real, but that's all...

                    Cheers,

                    Mike
                    huh?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Why would Joseph Gorman have made it up? after all there really was a annie crook and a alice crook. Any kind of cover up would never be made public anyway so another reason it may never be solved.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Mike74,

                        Why was it made up? I don't know...hmm...why do people make up anything? Money, a moment of fame, one's name in a book? It could be anything. Plus, it's ever so easy to make up things that can't be disproved.

                        Cheers,

                        Mike
                        huh?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mike74 View Post
                          Why would Joseph Gorman have made it up? after all there really was a annie crook and a alice crook. Any kind of cover up would never be made public anyway so another reason it may never be solved.
                          It's much more sensible to make up stories about people who actually existed.

                          Masons wishing to kill prostitutes and take part in a 'cover up' would hardly perform rituals on the bodies that would easily be traced to them.

                          The killer was a sadistic madman who wished to depersonalise his victims, lay them open, expose them and shock those who found them. There was absolutely no more to it than murder, horrible murder.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mike74 View Post
                            Why do you think it's bunk kat?
                            Hi Mike.
                            As you can see there are a lot of people on here who would agree that the masonic ritual was not a plausible explanation for the crimes.
                            I really would suggest you do some more research and maybe you will see for yourself why people find it so hard to believe.
                            I really hope that this won't put you off finding out more.
                            In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              he was working in the dark and rushing, adrenalin pumping, chucking the big bits out the way to find something small to take i reckon.

                              as for the masonic 'ritual' its highly doubtful this was ever carried out - just an alogorical part of the rituals really. like good mike says, theres nothing sinister about the masons, its just a club for men who believe in god, not an international terrorist organisation.

                              besides, if the ritual was to punish masons who broke the rules, how do these women fit in with that?
                              if mickey's a mouse, and pluto's a dog, whats goofy?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hello all,

                                The answer to the thread question is an obvious one, if you look only at the women who were mutilated post-mortem...the murder was not the climax but a logical point of commencement. It served bloodletting purposes, and supressing the screaming or squirming needs handily. I think if he had found a woman that he could fully control alive, or figured a way to handle the issues, he would have cut before killing. The cutting was part of his desire.

                                The next obvious answer comes in the form of known data concerning the crimes......you can guess what he was after all you want, but really....what he takes, is what he wanted. Its all we have to go on. Anyone who can do that to Kate in 5 or 6 minutes tops...including tearing and cutting her apron,...can take a second or two to pick what he wants from the bloody holes he makes in them.

                                He removes intestines and places them aside.....he removes skin flaps, and sets them aside.....then he takes from the abdominal region. He even took the kidney through the abdominal cavity. He cuts genitalia, and takes some flesh with gentitalia attached from Annie. He takes uteri...partial or complete and unscarred....from the abdominal region. He is obsessed with cutting women from the crotch to the breastbone, but not so obsessed with breasts themselves, since he apparently leaves both excised breasts in Room 13. And the killer in room 13 didnt share the desire to obtain and take abdominal organs...despite having already excised them.

                                This was a man with sexual psychosis, violent erotic fantasies, one who makes repeated attempts to obtain specific organs, or one that doesnt know why, he just does it. And what he wants is specific.....it involves female anatomy, between the chest and knees. The throat cut in many ways is as utilitarian a gesture as the placing of the intestines over the shoulders,...its just a step towards the real goal. Thats why he cuts so deep.....so there is no fussing around, he could be fancy and puncture an artery like a vampire,...but he wants them dead and quiet before what he came for starts. IMHO of course.

                                Cheers all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X