Blame it on Mom

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, Chris - and a thought-provoking article it was.

However, the kidney and womb apart, any theory of the Ripper murders that involves symbolism (whether psychological or mythological) really must address the entirety of the organs that were removed, rather than a select few. I'm not aware of any symbolic system that would account for the removal of the spleen, the liver, the tip of the nose, the lower portion of the lung or pieces of the belly wall.

Ditto with the psychology - it's fine to speculate that the removal of wombs was fuelled by an intense hatred of women (or "mother"), but that only really works in isolation. Looking at the bigger picture, the fact that other organs were missing or removed, and that the victims' genitalia and breasts escaped largely unscathed, wouldn't appear to fit the perceived (wished-for?) pattern at all.

[protohistorian]

Indeed, Chris - and a thought-provoking article it was.

However, the kidney and womb apart, any theory of the Ripper murders that involves symbolism (whether psychological or mythological) really must address the entirety of the organs that were removed, rather than a select few. I'm not aware of any symbolic system that would account for the removal of the spleen, the liver, the tip of the nose, the lower portion of the lung or pieces of the belly wall.

Ditto with the psychology - it's fine to speculate that the removal of wombs was fuelled by an intense hatred of women (or "mother"), but that only really works in isolation. Looking at the bigger picture, the fact that other organs were missing or removed, and that the victims' genitalia and breasts escaped largely unscathed, wouldn't appear to fit the perceived (wished-for?) pattern at all.

They can be explained medically. Visceral organs are covered in a serous membrane, rather like the peritoneum. An inexperienced and curious person would make a de facto association.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Sam

You make an excellent point about considering the totality of the organs and portions of the body removed.

Chris

[Lipsky]

The thing about Jack the Ripper is that, to me, there's only two clear motives for his killings: sexual satisfaction or misogyny.

Given that he didn't jack off at the crime scenes, there's not much physical proof of these being lust killings other than the women (i.e. prostitutes) and the bodily areas that he homed in on.

Assuming Jack didn't have a sexual preference for overweight and drunken older women, wouldn't he have targeted prostitutes that were more his type if these were sexual murders? To me, the women he eviscerated (apart from MJK) were all the right 'type' to be mother figures in his warped point of view. That on top of the organs he removed (reproductive) makes me inclined to seriously consider that he had a hatred for his mum.

I don't like to put too much thought into it as I think it's a lame and clichéd reason for him to do what he did and it diminishes my view of the killer , but looking at what we know of these murders that's the only obvious motive I can see for him doing so.

If indeed, two motives are clearly NOT compatible with our man (he never named himself in his sole communique, so no 'real' tradename for him): sexual satisfaction or misogyny.

He never drew gratification from the murders, neither pre-mortem (sadist) nor post-mortem (necrophilia/cannibalism/sadist).

He was not a sadist, though his "employer" was. They had some sort of "master/slave" thing that went beyond the typical "contractual executioner" scenario.
This is not a Lust murderer, but an executioner with a deranged mind and a criminal past that his employer was aware of -- or got to be.
Our man sought out to serve, and be loyal. One of the named suspects had demonstrated such a pressed need in letters of him. He needed to belong to a purpose.
Probably in accord with some military compliance/discipline. this same named suspect has had such experience recorded.

Further: Our man was neither sadist nor your typical "vanilla". Probably a masochist who didnt enjoy penetration but verbal humiliation.
For his sexual release he would seek out older women, who would indulge in "dominant/humiliating" roleplay and no questions-asked.
This would recreate the humiliation suffered by his mother/grandmother (fits 100% with the same named suspect).
The mother can be dominant in his mind, not necessarily because she dominated his life by presence, but also by absence. Not because it was her fault, but because he aknolwedged it as such in his mental process.
Very possible he learnt of a revelation in his adolocence when sexual fantasies are formed, and it created a lifelong impact. Like Ted Bundy, but with a "flipside" outcome.

Fits 100% with the same named suspect. That suspect tried to indulge in convoluted communiques with his (needless to say, older) mother in law under extremely awkward circumstances.

But the murders were business -- he could employ his own personality to create the "character" but motive was also to serve the purpose for which he was hired.
He chose dates according to pattern in compliance with his obsessive/complusive deranged mind.
He suffered from convoluted manifestation of speech and writing demonstrating inability for direct point-making and self-assertment.
(again, it fits with the only named suspect who could be our man, from his letters)
Convoluted obsessive patterns included not only thought and expression (written/oral) but also date/time/geographical patterns/ motifs as well as the lunar phase pattern (Dr Winslow's profile in 1910 and newspaper report of the time prior to MJK).

The Lusk letter also introduces such schemes of expression within their "pseudo-illiterate" persona and the continuous flow of syntax-free "stream of consciousness".

He was also of the opinion that it was not his fault, that he was free of blame. Lack of empathy/sociopath (this named suspect was able to con his death sentence to insanity confinement after the Home Secretary refused clemency). Could explain the devising of luring victims to pre-designated locations of murder, scouted beforehand.
This named suspect made such statements (EDIT: that he was free of blame, that it was not his fault etc) repeatedly in letters unrelated with the 1888 murders, and also made an assertment introduced inexplicably in a much later recanting of his "whereabouts".

His personal motive steems from the source of his psychopathy/sociopathy: the relationship (lack-of?) with his mother.

[mpriestnall]

...
He was not a sadist, though his "employer" was. They had some sort of "master/slave" thing that went beyond the typical "contractual executioner" scenario.

This is not a Lust murderer, but an executioner with a deranged mind and a criminal past that his employer was aware of -- or got to be.
Our man sought out to serve, and be loyal.
...

These points resonated a little with my idea (or one idea) of JTR (though I don't consider he was insane).

I think he was acting on own behalf, but also on the behalf of one or two other persons close to him, whose motives for the murders were aligned. So in a sense, he was acting as the "Avenging Angel" (or excutioner as you put it) for this small group.

He / they were defending the status quo or taking revenge against the victims for damage to the status quo / reputation.

He needed allies to help him execute the murders (eg watchouts) and/or people influential enough within "the establishment" to help cover up for him.

++

The question "blame on Mom", though a good one, does seem a little narrow. Who knows what adverse
influence "Pa" had?

Martyn

[Lipsky]

These points resonated a little with my idea (or one idea) of JTR (though I don't consider he was insane).

I think he was acting on own behalf, but also on the behalf of one or two other persons close to him, whose motives for the murders were aligned. So in a sense, he was acting as the "Avenging Angel" (or excutioner as you put it) for this small group.

He / they were defending the status quo or taking revenge against the victims for damage to the status quo / reputation.

He needed allies to help him execute the murders (eg watchouts) and/or people influential enough within "the establishment" to help cover up for him.

++

The question "blame on Mom", though a good one, does seem a little narrow. Who knows what adverse
influence "Pa" had?

Thank you Martyn!

Concerning the issue of "avenger"/executioner, I am glad you share this angle - not many do, or to put it more correctly, not many did so far.
I think the issue of "random killer" should be cleared once and for all, if "retrospect progress" is to be done in our case.
The sex scandal/blackmail scheme fits with your notion of "establishment" --- a bunch of "lowly" east-enders trying to pull a stunt on some socialite (or a group of) engaged in hardcore pornographic acts, possibly non-consensual.

Concerning the watchouts, or possible allies, since our man, as I take it, was able to lure his victims as a local of whitechapel, he was possibly acquainted with some of the "street muscles/boys" of that blackmailing group. Probably one of them was a double agent, or at least a "liaison" of sorts. My suspicions fall predominantly on George Hutchinson, for various reasons.

On-topic, the father figure as the Douglas profile has it, in such cases, is absent or passive. A trauma concerning the mother-son relationship, and a revelation at early adoloscence, triggers the murder instict. Such was the case with ted Bundy, such is the case, I gather, for our man.

Named suspect, and convicted/escaped murderer-on-the-loose during the Whitechape executions, James Kelly fits the pattern perfectly.

[mpriestnall]

Thank you Martyn!

Concerning the issue of "avenger"/executioner, I am glad you share this angle - not many do, or to put it more correctly, not many did so far.
I think the issue of "random killer" should be cleared once and for all, if "retrospect progress" is to be done in our case.
The sex scandal/blackmail scheme fits with your notion of "establishment" --- a bunch of "lowly" east-enders trying to pull a stunt on some socialite (or a group of) engaged in hardcore pornographic acts, possibly non-consensual.

Hi Lipski

Yes the "The sex scandal/blackmail scheme" angle is one I favour. Revenge or prevention of a catastrophic downfall is one of my preferred motivations for the murders. Jack acting partly on the behalf of others is an intriguing possibility and like you say, not really been considered all the much, I don't think (except maybe with the Royal/Knight nonesense.).

It appears we differ on Jack's social class. I believe he was middle class. E.g. surgeon's son.

If Jack's father was a doctor/surgeon, perhaps whose patients were dirt poor working class people who were treated coldly by him and treated perhaps with a certain disdain, not necessarily with sympathy or empathy. Perhaps seen nothing more than interesting medical conditions. Maybe Jack inherited this view of the poor and the sick.

Martyn