Mutilations

[Tani]

I'm not sure if this belongs in this section but, here goes:

I know it might be quite a silly thought, but what if jack was (not taking into consideration, what the 'witnesses' saw) what if he was mutilated or deformed himself? And he didn't have much of a, uhm..Love life, because of it. He eventually gets angry, and realises that the lower clases (or so they were thought, the prostitutes) got more sex than he did (Even if they did it for money, they still got it) and he got angry about this, so he killed them and mutilated them, and took away some organs.
Maybe it would have made him feel better in a way?

Yeah, silly thought but...I'm new here aswell lol

[perrymason]

I'm not sure if this belongs in this section but, here goes:

I know it might be quite a silly thought, but what if jack was (not taking into consideration, what the 'witnesses' saw) what if he was mutilated or deformed himself? And he didn't have much of a, uhm..Love life, because of it. He eventually gets angry, and realises that the lower clases (or so they were thought, the prostitutes) got more sex than he did (Even if they did it for money, they still got it) and he got angry about this, so he killed them and mutilated them, and took away some organs.
Maybe it would have made him feel better in a way?

Yeah, silly thought but...I'm new here aswell lol

Welcome Tani,

Its not a silly suggestion, in fact its a part of Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack, a particular malady that Sickert suffered...although it would appear it didnt render him incapable, which I dont believe she mentions....cant recall.

Im not so certain anyone would ever envy the women in these cases, regardless of the volume of sex that someone incapable might wish for...this was just about as bad as prostitution gets I think....smelly, dirty, poor and desperately poor clients, disease, cold, rain, .....it doesnt get much lower than that.

I think if you look at the first few murders and set aside that last for a moment, you would be hard pressed to find many actions the killer takes with his knife that can be categorized as completely self indulgent. There are some, Kates face, some stabs and cuts into areas that were not related to his main area which was the abdomen, but for the most part his mutilations were goal oriented....cut her throat to kill her.. cut deeply to be effective,..cut the abdomen to get internal access, cut intestines and move them out of the way, and cut whatever he takes free.

The time he has available might have dictated that "down to business" attitude that he displays as late as The Double Event night, but it seems to me that also might represent a chosen style of working. Outdoors, for the sensations of fear and danger that he likes, and once they are killed he settles in to a routine if you will.

Theres really no anger shown on the first 4 women, nothing obviously as such anyway.

Welcome again, Cheers Tani.

[richardnunweek]

Hello and welcome Tani,
I have always tended to believe that our 'Jack' had some infliction, it may have been physical, such as a limp, or even alcohol abuse.
I am proberly a minority on casebook, by tending to believe that the man seen to molest Stride at the entrance to Dutfields yard, was JTR, and taking that on board,and Schwartz observing that the man appeared to be walking as intoxicated, could suggest my opinion may be correct.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Richard,

I don't think that someone intoxicated on a Saturday night in Whitechapel would have stood out from the crowd. I think it was probaly more the norm.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi CD,
I was not suggesting that a man walking down Berner street with appearance of drink was out of the norm, far from it, Schwartz just interpreted it as it appeared to be.
It could also be a case of Broadshoulders being unsteady on his feet, which may again not have been due to alcohol, just a physical ailment.
I tend to believe that the attacks were induced by anger which may have been the result of a deformity, or alcohol..
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Richard,

Yep. Ok. Gotcha.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Richard,

Sorry to put you on the spot here, but what evidence do you see for either anger or a physical affliction by the "Canonical" killer? In terms of his victims...I would think there is evidence that suggests perhaps the opposite, that the killer known as Jack the Ripper kept calm enough to allow the women to go with him, he was controlled enough and fit enough to subdue each one without appreciable noise before cutting their throats, which comes when they are on the ground, and in the case of Kate Eddowes...the only victim before Mary Kelly that has wounds that did not serve only to facilitate his organ theft or kill her in the first place, he does all he did in Mitre Square in what must be less than 6-7 minutes, including getting to the site and getting away before Watkins enters.

I think with anger, you would see wounds like Marys face, and with him being infirmed in some way, you would likely have seen some struggles. With victims 1, 2, and 4, theres madness of course, but no visible anger....and it would be hard to imagine a man with a physical defect being able to overwhelm the women so completely.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Theres really no anger shown on the first 4 women, nothing obviously as such anyway.

...so ripping their bowels open, throwing their entrails out and/or hacking out their abdominal organs was a sign of "nonchalance", Mike? In the case of Eddowes, where he did all the above and slashed her face, was he merely "slightly miffed"?

Not that I'm suggesting that misogynistic anger was the key to the Ripper's pathology - we'll never know - but if it were, I see no reason to single out Mary Jane Kelly as being different to the others in that respect. She was ripped, disembowelled and mutilated just as "angrily" as the rest.

[Trevor Marriott]

My view is that he did not cut their throats while they were on the ground but from behind whilst they were still standing

[Sam Flynn]

...I agree with you, Trevor. It would be rather difficult to get the necessary leverage to inflict those sorts of throat-wounds in a crouching position, with the victim flat on the floor and the pavement hampering the sweep of the killer's knife-hand.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
An explanation is warrented for my suggestion regarding the possible physical, or mental state of the Ripper.
If one takes Tabram as victim number one, we have her body found on the first floor landing of George yard , there can be several reasons why she was found at that spot.
She could have ventured in tired and exhausted, and fell asleep on the landing, where her killer came across her.
She could have at her insistance, or her killers. have gone there for sex.
She could have fled into the building to escape the intentions of someone that she was weary of.
If one takes the Nichols murder, and all the various accounts on board, we could have the same scenerio ie, fled the scene.
That being the case, then the very fact that these two women were initially able to escape the clutches of this madman, may suggest that he may have some ailment if only drunk,
Which of course led me to Berner street, and the intoxication element.
What about Eddowes ? I hear you speak.
Simply we have no evidence apart from Lawande, and the possible assailiant was then stationary,
And as for Mjk, isnt GHs statement a figment of imagination?
Regards Richard.

[FrankO]

It would be rather difficult to get the necessary leverage to inflict those sorts of throat-wounds in a crouching position, with the victim flat on the floor and the pavement hampering the sweep of the killer's knife-hand.

Hi Gareth,

I don't see any problem with the Ripper having cut the throats while they were lying flat on the floor. He could steady their heads by placing his free hand over their mouths and pushing the heads down, and then cut with his other hand, putting his weight behind it. It seems to me that cutting the throat like this would much better facilitate notching the vertebrae than cutting from behind.

All the best,
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi Richard,

I appreciate the response, but I think the "could have" arguments are part of the problem with this area of study. Probabilities are far more powerful than possibilities here, because they are based on what is known.

The actions taken by the killer using a knife in the deaths of Mary Ann, Annie, and Kate, are multilated abdomens so he could remove items... slitting the throat to kill and let out blood, to sever and remove obstructions and organs, and he uses the knife to cut and tear an apron section.

Mary Kellys killer used the knife initially...a singular instance in the Canonical Group, and he slashed her face with a knife so she looked horrible. He peeled flesh from bone on her limbs with a knife, partially. He used the knife to remove a breast, which he places under her head. None of the above was to bleed out her body fluids, open her abdomen, remove obstacles, or extract organs. And there are other signs as well.

There are many ways that anger is visible in the murder of Mary Kelly, undeniably in the facial wounds, and almost a clinical dispassion evident in the others....save the nose and cheeks of Kate. An act that some might interpret as a warning to others about being nosey. So perhaps again, an action using a knife with a clear intent.

And I agree with Frank, and the medical opinions, that they were lying down when the throats were cut...except with Liz Stride, who "may have been cut while falling", ...according to Dr Blackwell.

Best regards all.

[Nicola]

I used to think that was an issue as well.

A knife thrusts,it penetrates. The knife takes the place of the faulty equipment nature gave him. Maybe his spirit was willing,his flesh weak,and his manly bits in the itty bitty category. Perhaps a lady of the night drunkenly insulted him and he went mad from it. I also used to believe that maybe he hated Mommy Dearest and was killing her over and over again.

But that was when I first learned about the case and was playing around with different theories. I now think that I was being rather fanciful.

Now I believe at the root of his atrocities,is a deep and vicious hatred/fear of women that had nothing to do with his manly parts or lack thereof.