semen talks and I dont mean the navy

[praline]

I am still reading and reading and reading... I think you guys will solve the crime before I am done reading

One thing that keeps coming back to me is the lack of semen on the bodies. Any woman who has worried about her "days" and has been gifted with a wonderful surprise from God knows those little suckers are viable for up to a week. I know there is some debate of prostitute full or part time but I think everyone agrees these ladies were sexually active. I find it hard to believe there was no semen when hygiene was an issue at the time. I have read several of the inquest where it was mentioned the clothes were removed and the body washed before examination. Would the investigators know to look on the clothing for semen? What value should I take that there was no semen found? Am I supposed to believe the same investigators who couldn't take finger prints nor could they get body temp to record TOD can 100% say there was no semen? I apologize that I have not a clue how semen determinations were handled in Victorian times.

We know that the vast majority of modern killers who have had similar MO's were sexual sadist in that killing was the only way for them to manage an erection. At that point "self-abuse" (man I love that term!) is obsessive. Just because they didn't find the evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, right? I keep seeing people debate and reason using the fact that this was not a sex crime because no semen was found. To this I say no fingerprints were found either so should we consider JTR was armless?

I don't think they had the technology to be able to say with any certainty that semen was not found. Take into account the weather and the fact that a ton of bodily fluids were present at the crime scene I am surprised anyone takes the no sexual part to heart.

[Bailey]

This has often caught my mind - these women were prostitutes, at least one of whom claimed to have earned and spent her doss money multiple times that night. To suggest that there would be "no evidence of recent connexion" is indeed something of a poser. There've been plenty of explanations for this, including ways they could have avoided actual penetration, etc.

However - and I'll try to avoid indelicacy as best I can here - as most of us would be aware, immediately after sexual activity, there tends to be an immediate ... outpouring... and I assume that the doctors were referring to the absence of any evidence of this. If there had been earlier activity during the working night, one can assume at least a basic level of cleanup between patrons. Therefore evidence from prior clients would be less than if there had been any sort of sexual interaction with the victim immediately before or after the killing. I guess...

B.

[Canopy]

This has often caught my mind - these women were prostitutes, at least one of whom claimed to have earned and spent her doss money multiple times that night. To suggest that there would be "no evidence of recent connexion" is indeed something of a poser. There've been plenty of explanations for this, including ways they could have avoided actual penetration, etc.

However - and I'll try to avoid indelicacy as best I can here - as most of us would be aware, immediately after sexual activity, there tends to be an immediate ... outpouring... and I assume that the doctors were referring to the absence of any evidence of this. If there had been earlier activity during the working night, one can assume at least a basic level of cleanup between patrons. Therefore evidence from prior clients would be less than if there had been any sort of sexual interaction with the victim immediately before or after the killing. I guess...

B.

Ewww! Despite your attempts to avoid indelicacy a nasty vision sprang to mind!

Given the way in which these women made money, I would expect there to be traces of semen (even that belonging to somebody other than the killer) at the scenes. If penetration was avoided there'd surely be traces on clothing wouldn't there? A "cleanup" could have happened between clients but, being as these women were wearing most/all of the clothing they owned, I pretty much doubt they went and laundered their fabrics too between "tricks"...

I suspect that there was semen at the scenes but, due to lack of technology, it was missed as it wasn't obvious. I also wonder, and this is a horrible thought, whether the intimate parts of these women were mutilated to the point that any "obvious" semen traces would be lost as blood mixed with the fluids... A very sad thought indeed.

Anyway, on that score I wouldn't 100% rule out Jack engaging in sexual acts prior to his killings. I know that the general thought is that he did not but, given as no semen (from anybody) was found in a place where you would expect it, it can't be ruled out...

All the best,

C.

[Hunter]

Leaving Kelly aside, I doubt the murderer would have had time to do anything other than what was his obvious intentions. He may have waited until he had gotten safely home with his trophies to complete the 'connexion'.

Dr. Gordon Brown examined Kate Eddowes at the scene and was an experienced enough physician to know what to look for and where. Kate's birth canal - despite the mutilations and blood- was still intact.

Kelly was so butchered up that the difficulty in establishing any previous 'connexion' would be understandable.

Most of these women, despite their poor hygiene, carried various rags to 'clean up' with before lowering their layers of garments and probably discarded them on the spot. Also, most of them wore no 'drawers' (although I believe Nichols did have on some flannel ones).

[Errata]

However - and I'll try to avoid indelicacy as best I can here - as most of us would be aware, immediately after sexual activity, there tends to be an immediate ... outpouring... and I assume that the doctors were referring to the absence of any evidence of this. If there had been earlier activity during the working night, one can assume at least a basic level of cleanup between patrons. Therefore evidence from prior clients would be less than if there had been any sort of sexual interaction with the victim immediately before or after the killing. I guess...

B.

Okay, I'm gonna say it, I'm going to use technical terms, and stand sure in my knowledge that medical conversation is never indelicate, merely technical. But anyone with delicate sensibilities is not going to want to read this post. Caveat Emptor

If the Ripper had a sexual motivation in these crime, there could be several explanations for the lack of semen. I think that most people would agree that the Ripper simply did not have time to perpetrate such extensive mutilations, and complete sexual intercourse. Not universally true, but mostly true. However, it would not surprise me in the least to find out that semen was in fact present on the corpses of these women, merely not in the vaginal canal. If the Ripper was masturbating to a sexual fantasy he had just fulfilled, he may have ejaculated anywhere. It is also possible that he engaged in intercourse with the mutilated body in the mutilations themselves. Ted Bundy did this with his rotting corpses. I do not think the medical professionals of the time had either the imagination or the stomach to check for semen in locations other than the vagina, the anus, or the mouth. I'm certain no one checked the abdominal cavity or throat wounds for semen. Equally true the armpits, join of the elbow etc.

As for previous clients, obviously the women wiped off. But even so that would not be necessary for a Doctor to find no evidence of ejaculate. Anything that may have been in the vaginal canal would have dried up fairly quickly at the first experience of fear. When a woman's natural lubrication dries up, as it does with fear, any other fluids would also dry. As for any residual traces on her thighs or external genitalia, semen dries clear.

Ironically, if they had washed the clothing, they probably would have found where the semen was on the body, if it was on the body. After the removal of blood, semen would have shown up as little bleached spots on the clothing. Which is how you know they did in fact wipe up after a client. They couldn't afford to bleached stains on their colored skirts.

[praline]

My way of thinking is a lot of what Errata is stating.

On top of what she said very well in spite of the subject matter ~

We know Albert Fish had several spontaneous ejaculations while killing and while cooking his victim.

Not a pleasant topic but I feel in order to understand other killers and JTR this part of the crime should be gone through with a fine tooth comb. I feel the injuries are the only solid core evidence of these crimes.

As she stated, Bundy did something very similar with necrophilia. A sex crime doesn't have to include penetration as we all know and Errate explained.

I tend to disagree with the points of these women cleaning up. Rarely do street hookers (even today) worry about cleaning up after. These women (and I mean no disrespect but in order to find justice for them this needs to be addressed).. were drunks. We could compare them to today's "crack whores". Again I don't mean to offend but I am trying to keep this in mind. Rarely do these lower rung prostitutes worry about cleaning up.

We know that stabbing wounds to the genitals is usually due to sexual dysfunction and sexual frustration. In the heat of the crime it may not take him very long to achieve climax ~ indeed as I stated already Albert Fish and other killers have achieved climax without self abuse while committing the crimes.

I am not aware of any other crime where prostitutes (or women in general) were killed, and their sexual organs mutilated and climax or ejaculation was not involved.

[Errata]

I tend to disagree with the points of these women cleaning up. Rarely do street hookers (even today) worry about cleaning up after. These women (and I mean no disrespect but in order to find justice for them this needs to be addressed).. were drunks. We could compare them to today's "crack whores". Again I don't mean to offend but I am trying to keep this in mind. Rarely do these lower rung prostitutes worry about cleaning up.

Actually even drunks and crack whores clean up. Not a full lavage or anything, but they do wipe up. Today and back then. I used to work with a needle exchange, and you learn the most fascinating things. Like not wiping yourself off causes "chub rub" (the thighs frictioning together when you walk) and a nasty rash. Which is a rookie mistake not often repeated. That and even customers who watch the previous customer walk away get very distressed by the perceived presence of another man's sperm.

Also, hookers carry large purses so they have something to kneel on. You learn something new every day.

[Hunter]

In the case of Eddowes, it is unlikely that she had a chance to meet anyone but her killer on that fateful night.

[praline]

Actually even drunks and crack whores clean up. Not a full lavage or anything, but they do wipe up. Today and back then. I used to work with a needle exchange, and you learn the most fascinating things. Like not wiping yourself off causes "chub rub" (the thighs frictioning together when you walk) and a nasty rash. Which is a rookie mistake not often repeated. That and even customers who watch the previous customer walk away get very distressed by the perceived presence of another man's sperm.

Also, hookers carry large purses so they have something to kneel on. You learn something new every day.

This thread gets more and more interesting ~ things you learn on the internet!
I could see a definite comfort level with the above issues you explained.

Does any crime busters on here know of another case of genital mutilation that didn't have a sexual base?

One of the things I wonder about is the whole "misogynist" angle. Hating women and fearing them are 2 very different behavior issues. I am trying to play out in my head if JTR hated women and therefore wanted to hurt them or if he feared them and so dehumanized them in order to achieve an erection. The later could account for him taking biological trophies for self abuse later. I am looking at Hate and rage VS fear and frustration. I think there are strong arguments for both.

IMO however the hate and rage angle would be more of a domination and therefore rape would be obvious. He is thinking, "I'll teach this whore a lesson..."

With fear and frustration there wouldn't be a rape but rather to dehumanize and turn HER into an IT. In the famous lines of Silence of the lambs, "It puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again..." This would follow along the lines of spontaneous ejaculation which would cause him humiliation and want to lash out more because he can't control himself. Is what I am saying making any sense? I am terrible at putting thoughts into words.

I think this is important because depending on the motive for the genital mutilation it will give an idea of what type of person to look for.

[JtRMordke]

From an investigative point of view, I think fearing and hating women could easily become mixed up despite being alarmingly different- One would assume that because Jack didn't like associating with women, he hated them, which explains why on so many of the suspects' case notes (I am highlighting Kozminski here) it was written that they had a great hatred of women by policemen and other family/ associates.

Personally, I think the crimes were more likely to be fuelled by fear of women if we are looking at it from the perspective that JtR didn't engage, and certainly wouldn't have had time on most of the cases, in the normal sexual activity that you would expect to see in many lust killers. Of course I am in no way suggesting that he didn't have anger towards them, because this fact is rather evident, but I think his fear of the women was so great that he began to hate what he feared and recoiled over. Such situations occur with spiders for example - a great deal of people are terrified of them and squeal as they squash them in a tissue on the wall. (Bad example I know, but still...) I think what is evident with Jack is that he probably saw them as some sort of threat because of how he feared what he couldn't understand. I come to this conclusion because of the nature of the mutilations- his targeting of the sexual organs effectively neuters the prostitutes creating an it, something that I can assume gave him great sexual pleasure in doing so, causing him to become aroused and ejaculate without self-abuse because of the great rush combined with adrenaline he received. And an interesting point about that Praline, with his possible humiliation at ejaculating causing yet more viciousness, something that I failed to think of. I believe also that his trophy organs were for achieving the same feeling later where he had more time and less to worry about in the region of being disturbed. He may have also had great pleasure in eating them (something which we cannot be sure of and is only speculation of mine, but is highly likely if we look at some other case such as Albert Fish).

[praline]

Jt ~ EXACTLY!

You just put it better then I did ~ I am terrible with words

It is obvious there is a hate here but the core reason ~ that is the base for the killings stems from fear rather then hate and rage. I think setting a theory or having an idea of why he did these crimes goes a long way in eliminating/picking suspects.

I do agree with you on the fear AS OF RIGHT NOW but I am still fairly new with this research so I don't hold any weight

At the same time there can be very strong arguments made for the other side ~ he hated women, he hated whores and wanted to teach them a lesson. In this personality, rape very well could not have happened as these "whores" were too disgusting to physically arouse him.

FOR me (and again I am new here) the taking of the biological trophies is extremely important to my research. I have discussed this on another thread. If the organs were taken by the funeral homes to be sold VS JTR taking them. If JTR took these organs this tells me fear was the motivator. If he did not take them it shows the hate and rage to be a motivator... he would have too much disgust to want to keep the body parts. Most likely he would have taken a non biological trophy.

I have done some reading on Kozminski as I know many believe him to be the killer. I am not so sure. I will use my own experience to explain why I have trouble with him as the suspect.

In my younger days I volunteered at a group home for mentally handicapped adults. They were such wonderful people and I learned as much from them as they did from me. One of these men in the group home was the sweetest guy you would ever meet. He would be considered (Victorian era) an imbecile. He had severe mental handicaps. Why do I remember him above all the other residents? He was our masturbater
He had no self control when it came to that impulse. It was a long standing joke or at least chagrin whenever one of the volunteers had him in their group on outings. He would literally whip it out ANYWHERE and masturbate. He was not a sexual pervert or anything like that and he was docile and extremely sweet. Of course I would cringe every time I was in charge of the poor guy but who wouldn't?! Let me tell you I learned how fast I could move in public when he was on my watch

I see a lot of the same descriptions of Kozminski as this guy. My experiences with this man really influence my thinking on Kozminski.

[JtRMordke]

Thank you Praline!
I seem to only possess the ability to put things down in words though, as my verbal explanations are quite terrible. xD Makes it easier on here though.
I am pretty open with the case so my views can change as well if I read an excellent deduction, but so far from what I have gathered and assumed from existing evidence, I think we are most likely looking at a response to fear rather than sheer hatred being the rout of the viciousness in which the prostitutes were murdered. What sets this apart from revenge on prostitutes is the fact that his methods correspond with that of a lust murderer - this means that he would have found something attractive in their sexuality, but we cannot be sure of what, and it seems like Jack had a twisted, disturbed view on this. If we assume (and I am almost certain of this) that Jack found what he did with these women pleasurable and a right turn on, I don't think we can accept hatred in as much depth as fear, although we cannot possibly rule this out.

Concerning Kozminski, I think what is getting people off-track with him is the fact that these notes were written for his incarceration to the asylum. By this time, it was said that he had been insane for 5 years, this corresponding exactly to the age and cycles of schizophrenia if we examine the notes in detail. Unfortunately, all we have for his condition in 1888 is that he was having a schizophrenic attack, but any other aspect of his personality remains a mystery to us. When the notes were written, it appears clear that he might have been burnt out, this reducing him to a shadow of his former self as he slipped into his mind, this explaining why he was described as an imbecile. There is also the possibility with Kozminski that he was suffering from two mental disorders in one (See Kozminski board for the conversation on this), but this is after some speculation and comparisons to similar murderers found to have Kozminski's condition.

But what you did there sounds like an extremely interesting and thoughtful thing to do Praline, and reminds me a little of the work experience I did when I was younger, working for a week in a school for children with severe learning difficulties. I agree with you that people seen as imbeciles are treated rather unfairly, and what I found there also is that they were amongst the nicest people you will ever meet. Experiences like that are extremely fulfilling and eye opening are they not? I can also see the similarities in that and the case with Kozminski, but there are still outside factors I can see that keep me convinced that it is likely Kozminski could be our killer.