Ripperology: Questioning the Dogma

[rjpalmer]

Case Study 1

I’d like to begin by reprinting several case studies and posing a few relevant questions.

Case Study 1.

Recently, (July 31) a 40-year old man named Vince Weiguang Li was traveling on a Greyhound bus in central Canada. For no apparent reason, Li suddenly got up from his seat and attacked a 22 year old man who was sitting nearby, though the young man appeared to be half-asleep, minding his own business, and merely listening to music through a pair of headphones. Li stabbed the victim some 40 or 50 times in the chest and torso with a hunting knife, and then decapitated him. Frantic passengers ran off the bus and blocked Li’s exit, only to watch in horror as he returned to his victim and began to dissect him. After a long stand-off, Li was arrested as he tried to escape out a back window. According to one passenger, Li showed no emotion during his rampage and ‘looked like a robot.’ At his arraignment, Li only addressed the court once. “Please kill me,” was his comment.


Now, according to comments recently made by Martin Fido and Dan Norder on another thread, sexual gratification is the motivation behind mutilation murders. Indeed, it is --if I understand these gentlemen correctly--a necessary element.

Mr. Li was male and his victim was also male. My hypothetical question is simple. Would Messrs Fido and Norder argue that Li was motivated by homosexual lust for his victim, or would they acknowledge that perhaps something else might have been going on that the standard dogma does not explain?

In other words, can we agree, from the outset, that it is theoretically possible for a mutilation murder to be committed without the perpetrator feeling ‘lust’ or ‘desire’ for his victim?

More to follow, when time permits.

R Palmer

[rjpalmer]

Having followed these boards for several years, and having read all the major books on the Whitechapel Murders, as well as many related titles having to do with homicide and/or Victorian culture, I’d like to offer an observation.

In my opinion, the study of what some like to call ‘Ripperology’ is hopelessly grounded by its adherence to outdated and superficial dogma. And that dogma is the erroneous and antiquated belief that crimes such as the Whitechapel murders can be adequately explained by the murderer’s need for ‘sexual gratification.’ In other words, the false dogma of ‘lustmord.’

Yes, let me assure you that I am painfully aware that this belief is widely held--not to mention aggressively promoted--by many if not most Ripperological pundits. Books have been written and careers made by those promoting this belief. It is also endlessly regurgitated by pop culture (particularly American television) which is one of the chief reasons, in my opinion, why it is often considered authoratative and unassailable.

Nonetheless, I'd like to argue that it is superficial and does not hold up to scrutiny. All I ask is to bear with me for a few posts while I “question the dogma.” My time is limited so this may have to be spread out over several weeks, but I thank you in advanced for your patience, and welcome all serious commentary.

R Palmer