Colony

[Doctor X]

Save for the claim that rejection of it "set back Ripper research twenty years."

Rejection of intentional fiction does not do that. If one wishes to blame others for misunderstanding one's intentions, one would do well to present them honestly and with less histrionics.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Cap'n Jack]

You've been shafted Dr. Do-little. Now go off and enjoy the experience in silence.

[Ally]

Well that's actually a good point. How could a piece of fiction advance research decades into the future?

[Doctor X]

You've been shafted Dr. Do-little. Now go off and enjoy the experience in silence.

Awwwwww . . . did the big words make you cry?

Here: this will help with the pain:



Do not eat it.

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

What I was referring to is the fact that THIS copy of "Colony" got posted in General Discussion, not Creative Writing and Expression.

[Doctor X]

Well that's actually a good point. How could a piece of fiction advance research decades into the future?

Of COURSE IT IS A GOOD POINT!!!11!

Rather indicates he was lying about the whole thing.

Hey, I have a story where . . . like . . . Princess Di . . . and . . . Space Aliens . . . like . . . steal Tom Baker's T.A.R.D.I.S. and beard . . . then . . . like . . . go back in time with O.J. Simpson . . . and. . . .

. . . all to delay Zombie Apocalypse!

--J. "AaaaAAaaaAAAAaaAAAaaargh Me Lad!" D.

[Cap'n Jack]

Because it was putting one of the brightest and most brilliant thinkers and researchers in this field in an element he had not experienced before, and he shone like a sun at it.
I of course refer to Robert.
As you may or may not know, I have always maintained that Robert will solve the Whitechapel Mystery - if he doesn't I will - and this is because he is prepared to step out of the narrow and restrictive world that most researchers impose on themselves.
Our fictional foray into this world made it appear very unlikely that the Whitechapel Murderer was of foreign extraction.
And many other things.
Don't underate fiction Ally, Cornwall is at it all the time.

[rjpalmer]

It’s always easy to bash old APW, but the reason I like to give him a bit of credit, is that he is at least pushing the envelope, while his detractors (mainly) are pounding the same old rotten drum.

Petitio principii, also known as argumentum in circulo: the "question begging" or "argument in circle." The person merely restates the argument in order to support the argument.

Why, may I ask, is A.P.W. singled-out for this observation, when it is the entire back-bone of Ripperology, as well as the dogma that he s attempting to challenge?

You see, I don’t agree with APW’s thinking--not all of it-- but I want to explain why I think he is headed in the right general direction; why he at least has made his way inside the stadium, whereas most all the other theorists I am aware of are bogged down in psychological clichés when they come to discussing ‘serial murder.’

When academics use the term “descriptive,” they don’t mean it in a nice way. It refers to a type of thinking that merely re-describes something, or attempts to catagorize it, rather than bothering to actually analyze it or understand it in any intelligent way. It, too, is a type of circular thought.

Here’s an example of it, from the original thread that started this conversation:

Dan mentioned the term Necrosadist to me when discussing this area a while back, and I think thats about as good a categorization of this killer as Ive heard...

This demonstrates the principle. And the problem.

Anybody who has studied the Whitechaple Murders, even for five minutes, knows what the Ripper did. He killed women and then inflicted wounds of varying degrees of severity. He also did other things, but no one seems to be interested in those; their abiding interest is in his most drastic behavior.

So to catagorize him as a ‘necrosadist’ is the height (or depth) of descriptive thought. It might sound intellectual, and it might sound authoratative, but all it is doing is redescribing what we already knew.

Necro=death
sadism=inflicting injury or pain--a term coined by Krafft-Ebing based on the novels of the Maquis de Sade, who depicted acts of cruelty.

So all Norder/Mason have done so far is to redescribe the act; beyond that, they really haven’t gotten anywhere or learned anything because their catagorization doesn’t tell us anything beyond what the obvious evidence tells us. It’s a kind of a circular smoke screen. Its mere semantics. It catagorizes the behavior without explaining it.

More dangerous than that, Kraftt-Ebing and his kind then go on to make a leap of faith. They lower themselves to metaphysics. How? By believing that once they’ve described the act, they can now proclaim what an unknown perpetrator felt.

The Ripper felt, they tell us, “sexual excitment.”

Think on that. All we have is a mangled woman. In Bucks Row all we have is Polly Nichols lying dead on her back with several nasty wounds. We don’t know who killed her. There are no signs of ‘sexual connection.” So how in the blazes do we know that the murderer felt “lust,” rather than “confusion?” How do we know he didn’t feel hate? Curiousity? Empowerment? Disgust? Jealousy? We don’t, because we dont’ know who he is.

Now, that said, let me give you an example of one person’s attempt to get an answer to that question. In the 1980s Roy Hazlewood, of the FBI, went to several prisons and studied 28-odd inmates (or so) convicted of sexaul sadistic acts against women.

Hazelwood then filed a report, and it became the backbone of Quantico’s ‘sexual sadism’ study---in other words, the same F.B.I. dogma that is so often repeated on this forum and in Ripper books. Yet, lo and behold, Hazlewood later said, in an interview, the same thing that AP Wolf said on the ‘Begg’ thread! He concluded that the driving motivation behind the sexual sadistic acts against women was homosexuality or latent homosexuality. (By the way, I re-read Ressler last week, and so have Ressler on the mind. In a previous post I said ‘Resler’ when I meant Hazelwood).

Do I believe Hazelwood? No. Was he motivated by homophobia? I have no idea; I don’t know him.

Do I find it funny that some of those who are so adamantly bashing APW’s ideas are the same blokes who so fiercly support the F.B.I. ‘sexual serial murder’’ catagory?

Absolutely.

One of their own unleashed the tiger and they aren’t even aware of it.

In my 8 or 9 years of trawling these forums, and in the dozens of books I’ve read on the Whitechapel Murders, I’ve never seen more than one or two people question the validity of putting serial murderers into nice, neat catagories. Even the finest minds in the field, such as Martin Fido and Melvin Harris, did it. But it all boils down to the same use of descriptive terminology. They tell us we are dealing with a ‘sexual serial murderer’ .

No we’re not. We are dealing with a man who carved up women, and that is merely a description.

This is one reason why these discussions never go anywhere. The descriptive thinking of the past has prevented any serious analysis. And when someone attempts to challenge the dogma (even in a creative way) they are generally lampooned or shouted down.

As a corrective, I would suggest the following:

I would suggest we need to think about the appearance of these murders in a new way. In short, that there is no genuine difference between the sexual serial killer and the non-sexual serial killer. It was an arbitrary distinction made 120 years ago by the Austrian psychiatrist Krafft-Ebing and it is every bit as misleading as it is useful There is, for instance, no real difference between David Berkowitz and Ted Bundy. Nor between Peter Kurten and the “Zodiac.” Nor between a sniper and a poisoner. The sexual act, if it occurs, is merely a sub-set of the driving motivation, a behavior, but not a reason; further, when it doesn’t occur it probably means the killer wasn’ interested. So to ask the question ‘did he sexually abuse his victim?” or ‘was he heterosexual,’ or ‘was he homosexual,’ is to ask the wrong questions from the outset. It is to miss a broader insight that might help us explain what is going on, and who the man might be.

Two or three issues back, I wrote a letter to the Ripperologist challenging the common and dare I say cliché doctrine of ‘lustmord.’ The case involved an Australian man who killed three women in precisely the way Polly Nichols was murdered, with very similar mutilations. I used a modern case because it left no doubt whatsoever as to what the forensic evidence showed. The women had not been sexually abused, even though the perpetrator was alone with the victims and he was sexually functional. The man, who was later, arrested, described his own motivation as ‘hate.’ He was not sexually attracted to the victims, and indeed, he later filed for a sex-change operation, and now considers himself female.

Do I think his murders had anything to do with sex? No. Sexual jealousy? Possibly, but I don’t think that hits the bullseye, either. What I think it does show is that it is far too trite and simplistic to state that all such crimes are movitivated by ‘desire’ or ‘lust,’ when, in fact, they involve highly complex, convoluted, and elusive motivations somehow connected to the murderer’s sense of identity. That’s why APW is headed in the right direction with his thinking about a ‘colony.’ They are rooted in the murderer’s since of social identity. And because human consciousness is so complex, and since sexuality is an intricate part of one’s idenity, a sexual component is often exhibitted in the criminal act. But it’s wrong to be fooled into thinking that these crimes are about ‘sex.’ That is merely a descriptive term--and often an inaccurate descriptive term, for in the Whitechapel murders, there is no direct evidence of sex.

[Doctor X]

It’s always easy to bash old APW, but the reason I like to give him a bit of credit, is that he is at least pushing the envelope, while his detractors (mainly) are pounding the same old rotten drum.

Tu quoque: That others "beat the same drum" does not make his opinions or theories valid nor his behavior gentlemanly.

Why, may I ask, is A.P.W. singled-out for this observation, . . .

He is not. He just happens to be the case discussed.

When I encounter other blatant examples of the fallacy I shall prove happy to identify them.

A great deal of speculation and claims without actual evidence.

Methinks you should consider your criticism applicable to yourself.

"When you point a finger. . . ."

--J. "That is Because You are Stupid Bald-Head Brat, Grasshopper!" D.

[Cap'n Jack]

RJP, you get my vote, french kisses and all sorts of stuff like that tonight.
A very ******* good post.
What many do not realise is that I was given access to a Home Office survey some ten years ago on long term sexual offenders in Her Majesty's Prisons, men who had committed very violent attacks against women including murder, and some of these men admitted that they were homosexual in their sexual persuasion before these crimes happened.
Three cases that particularly struck me I followed up, and actually met with the guys concerned and had a chat, but that's another story.

[perrymason]

Here’s an example of it, from the original thread that started this conversation:

(insert...my comment that Dans term Necrosadist seems appropriate)

This demonstrates the principle. And the problem.

Anybody who has studied the Whitechaple Murders, even for five minutes, knows what the Ripper did. He killed women and then inflicted wounds of varying degrees of severity. He also did other things, but no one seems to be interested in those; their abiding interest is in his most drastic behavior.

So to catagorize him as a ‘necrosadist’ is the height (or depth) of descriptive thought. It might sound intellectual, and it might sound authoratative, but all it is doing is redescribing what we already knew.

Necro=death
sadism=inflicting injury or pain--a term coined by Krafft-Ebing based on the novels of the Maquis de Sade, who depicted acts of cruelty.

So all Norder/Mason have done so far is to redescribe the act; beyond that, they really haven’t gotten anywhere or learned anything because their catagorization doesn’t tell us anything beyond what the obvious evidence tells us. It’s a kind of a circular smoke screen. Its mere semantics. It catagorizes the behavior without explaining it.

Hi RJ,

Dont really know you very well even though Ive been reading and posting here for a while, but thats ok, because it seems that makes us equal. Although I dont post critiques of points or comments you make without knowing why you made them.

My comment was in support of a term used by someone I almost always disagree with that encapsulates the Rippers activities in terms of actions, not motivations....I or anyone else here has no idea why he did what he did.... because for one thing...the "Canon" is a farce, no-one actually knows who he killed,... if he is a creation or a reality,...or why murders he is accused of were committed.

If you knew my views, youd know I dont buy any "Canon", that I disagree with much of what has been propagated and defended as fact by the Ripperologists....for example; a mad killer without focus or skill and killer of just these 5 women....

I argue against much of what has been claimed about this Jack the Ripper phantom, I think the "Canon" was probably 3 or more completely separate killers, and I daily suggest ideas that to me seem underexplored.

So I consider it insulting to use a line of mine, out of context, to portray me as some intellectual offering circular logic and nothing new.

...I believe 3 women may have been Ripper victims, I believe at least 2 were definite "organ donor" kills, I believe Stride is killed in a domestic or by a thug,... I believe Kelly had to be killed by someone she knew because she lets him in after 3am, and he wasnt a "Ripper", .. I believe there exists a likely knowledge of one canon victim by another with Kate Eddowes and Mary, I think the International Club lied about the state of the yard and what happened, I think thats why the chalk by Kates killer later that night...and I believe Fred Abberline and the other detectives that sieved Marys ashes again Saturday morning did so because 2 crimes were being investigated in Millers Court, and I believe one involves Irish self-rulers, ......I think the answer to Kates left turn is in her activities her last 24 hours, in which I believe she did not see Kelly at all....and most of all I think the guy who slices open women in the dark and very quickly slices something out of them wanted what he sliced, knew where to find it, and how to cut it free,...and I think he mailed a kidney section to Lusk with a note. The only communique from him.

Thats just a few ways in which I see things differently, and the only thing circular is the re-occurring appearance of one man with knife skill and anatomical knowledge during a series of unsolved murders.

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

I appreciate RJ"s post above and understand,I think,why he supports AP in this.
But as a woman, I find it very hard not to see sexual connotation in these murders.All victims are female.All were found with their skirts up and lower bodies naked with their private parts left either deliberately "displayed" in all their nakedness or with a grotesquely abusive disregard to the shockingly immodest street scenes leaving them like that entailed .In several of these cases the reproductive organs were targeted........now if one approaches that from the unconscious or from a dreamlike state of mind rather than an analytical one........its sex he is talking.
Natalie

[Doctor X]

But as a woman, I find it very hard not to see sexual connotation in these murders.All victims are female.All were found with their skirts up and lower bodies naked with their private parts left either deliberately "displayed" in all their nakedness or with a grotesquely abusive disregard to the shockingly immodest street scenes leaving them like that entailed .In several of these cases the reproductive organs were targeted........

Exactly.

See? Evidence! It makes this all so much easier.

--J.D.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Natalie,

I appreciate your post, but it's worth pointing out that Polly Nichols' mutilated private parts were not left "displayed". Had they been, you'd have thought Charles Cross, Robert Paul, PC Neil, PC Thain, Sergeant Kirby, Dr. Llewellyn or any of the multitude of onlookers which soon assembled might have noticed. Her private mutilations weren't discovered until Inspector Spratling saw Nichols' body at the mortuary, after which he roused Dr. Llewellyn from his bed a second time. And the doctor said, "'Bugger me, Inspector, how did I miss that?"

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Hi Natalie,

I appreciate your post, but it's worth pointing out that Polly Nichols' mutilated private parts were not left "displayed".

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

To add to your point, neither were Liz Strides privates displayed, and Mary Kelly's were removed, not displayed. So in essence, and although I respect Natalie a great deal, her conclusion that there were overt sexual overtones present in the Canonicals, based on the disposition of the bodies, has foundation perhaps in only 2 of the 5 victims attributed by investigators.

I think RJ's point regarding the value of recent contributions to the advancement of the knowledge we have, neglected to mention the massive amounts of inherited opinion that new students have shoved at them, that have no foundation in facts, but are really just the impressions of other students offered over the last 120 years.

I think any theory.....by anyone....should be grounded by the facts available at least.

And since its is far from fact that a killer nicknamed Jack killed all of the women in the Canon, or only them, or only some of them...making an assumption about his motivators and goals, is just that. One thing that can be said about the Canonicals that is indisputable is that only 3 victims had organs taken, and one of those victims organ had nothing to do with gender, sexuality, reproduction, or abdomens.

There is no evidence that links the women to a single killer, and therefore there is far from sufficient data to proclaim he was acting out his personal sexual issues.

Its entirely possible the man called Jack killed women to obtain abdominal organs, and the fact that he needed to lift skirts and expose genitals to do that was likely just a factor of fast outdoor kills. And the Canonicals that have no abdominal focus, were probably a different killer anyway.

Best regards.