If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[lynn cates]

What?

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"Id like to thank Lynn for the way he addressed some of your earlier concerns, because sometimes it's the speaker not the message that gets heard."

Thank you very much. Umm, what did I say?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Errata, I might quibble with your use of the word fetish, only because I thought it was by definition, something not sexual, like an object, or a non-sexual body part. No one has a penis fetish, in other words. Obsession beyond normal occupation, but not "fetish," by definition. Focusing on organs of sex and reproduction seems a little to, well, "on point," if you will, to be, technically, a fetish. A fetish becomes what it is through some sort of accidental conditioning, or cross-wiring in a particular person's brain. No one has to be conditioned to think of the sex organs as sexual, or for that matter, the adjacent parts of the body, like the lower abdomen, and inner thighs.

A person can absolutely have penis fetish. A fetish does not have to be sexual. It can be emotional, intellectual, behavioral. The term fetish is most often used in conjunction with paraphilias, but it is by no means limited to that sphere. Those guys who collect every Star Wars figure ever made, or 50's cartoon lunch boxes? The guys who live in one room of their house and devote the rest to their collection? That's a fetish.

But even so, a uterus can be fetishized in a sexual sense. As could ovaries, testicles, an number of things. As humans, our biggest stimulus is sight. Our biggest memory triggers are smells. Most sexual fetishes have an element of both in them. But the average man has never laid eyes on a uterus, nor has he been stimulated by the smell of one. It's a closed system. So it can be sexually fetishized, but then the big question would have to be where on earth did he come across one in the first place, and how did he associate it with sexual pleasure? And on that, all I can guess is that it was an intellectual or emotional fetish before it was a sexual one. Maybe he was angry at the uterus for being the thing that brought him into the world. Maybe he was obsessively fascinated with the idea of it, and would not rest until he held one in his hands. I can't imagine how it became a sexual fetish from there, but I can't imagine where copraphilia comes from either. I just know it exists.

[Errata]

Organs are organs and what happened in Whitechapel is extremely rare and bizarre. Let's not lose sight of that.

c.d.

This is my point precisely. Organs are organs to us. And to any number of serial killers who didn't care about innards in the slightest. But organs are not organs to a fetishist, an obsessive. That would be like saying "paintings are paintings" to an art historian. And I can't tell you how many people I have outraged with my view that cars are cars. What the hell do I care about the long design history of a Porsche when all I require a car to do is get me where I'm going. But if you're a Porsche guy, you care a lot. And I myself have had serious doubts about the sanity of people who confuse Star Wars and Star Trek, and then shrug and say "whatever". Not whatever, two totally different things. But to them, a sci fi movie is a sci fi movie.

If the uterus and the abdominal mutilations are a fetish, then my statements about fetishes stand. If they were not a fetish, they don't even come into the conversation. But if part of the argument is that this killer had a need to mutilate torsos and take uteruses, then it's a fetish. If the argument that he was doing it just to screw with cops or because he had a bet with his cousin Larry, then it isn't. I think it is. And if it is, the rules of obsession apply.

[RivkahChaya]

FWIW, we do have serial killers who removed and kept body parts, and had a particular fondness for certain parts, which they nearly always removed, and then, on occasion, removed something else as well, on a whim, or because a particular victim had an unusually interesting one (I can't remember the name, but I recall one killer who normally saved sexual parts, and bones, but on one particular occasion, made an attempt to preserve the skin of a leg, because of the victim's tattoo, and since this was before DNA, that's how they ended up identifying the victim, which is why I remember this). The "fetish" might be for "playing" with bodies, if that makes sense, and the killer has certain things they always like to do, while there are other things they try on a whim, and don't like, and don't try again, or find time-consuming, so they may try again, but much later, with a different method.

If you'll bear with a sort of bizarre analogy: when you go to a theme park, there are certain rides you have to ride, because they are your favorites, certain ones you try once and don't like, and other that you sort of like, but not as much as your favorites, so you'll ride if the lines aren't long, and you haven't been there in a while, and maybe there'll be a new one you decide to try.

JTR may have had a one track mind, and wanted uterses, and either not been especially good a retrieving them in the dark, and possibly even drunk sometimes, or he may have like "playing," and always intended to walk off with the uterus, but wanted to try out other things as well.

I know there was a persistent rumor that MJK was pregnant, but the coroner said in his report that she was not. Did he determine that from a uterus that was in fact present? Exactly how did he determine it? Absence of a clearly visible fetus, or absence of signs of very early pregnancy as well?

If I were writing a work of fiction based on the JTR story, I'd have MJK claim first not to be pregnant, in order to secure a customer, who asked her the question directly, then later, when she realized his intention, claim (falsely) that she was, in an attempt to get him to spare her life, but not only would that enrage him, because it would spoil his plans, he'd be obligated to kill her so she couldn't identify him.

[Wickerman]

Coroner's report?, there was no report.

Nobody mentioned Kelly's state with respect to pregnancy, not the Coroner, nor Dr. Phillips.
Bond referred to the uterus but made no suggestion whether it was gravid or not.

Regards, Jon S.

[c.d.]

So is it being suggested that not only were there multiple killers but there was a killer with a uterus fetish and another with a heart fetish and maybe another one with a kidney fetish?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

not suggestive

Hello CD. I know of no such suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[RavenDarkendale]

So is it being suggested that not only were there multiple killers but there was a killer with a uterus fetish and another with a heart fetish and maybe another one with a kidney fetish?

c.d.

No. Single killer or multiple killers, they had a body parts fetish, which as has been pointed out is common enough, but they can vary from time to time on a whim, like the guy with the tattooed skin. Remember some victims Tabram, Nichols, Stride, for examples, had no body parts stolen. Then comes the uterus, kidney, etc. Maybe the Torso killer was saving heads like Dhalmer.

[c.d.]

Hello Raven,

It seems like we have gone full circle back to the whole what are the odds argument? If we go the multiple killer route, it seems to me that Whitechapel in 1888 was like a Star Trek convention for body parts enthusiasts.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi all,

Personally, I think Stride is a ripper victim. No mutilation tells me that he was interrupted or realised maybe that the location didn't give him enough time to carried out more injuries hence Eddowes. For some reason I'm not getting that JTR knew MJK personally, I feel it's more a general dislike for women probably women who lead that life of prostitution/alcoholism etc. The injuries inflicted on MJK just tell me that this is someone who has made the most of the location (less likelihood of interruptions and more time to spend). The other victims locations were enough for him to carry out his mutilations sufficiently but not as much as a room with a locked door.

Hi Nic,

You want to watch your common sense levels. Too much of it will make you unpopular with those who like their 'solutions' to be ten times more complicated than they need to be.

If only they were willing to look at the documented murders of identified serial killers, they would find more variation between their victims, locations, murder weapons, injuries, disposal etc etc, than the C5 (or indeed the entire Whitechapel series from Smith to Coles) gives us.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

duplication

Hello Caroline. Ah, but would they find two near duplicates?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Caroline. Ah, but would they find two near duplicates?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Ah, but how do we account for the differences in those "two near duplicates?"

c.d.

[caz]

Hi

I don't think there is a personal link in the case of MJK, I think it's just a case of progression and pushing the boundaries. When we compare MJK to Eddowes, all the signs are there, face mutilations, removal of organs and and even the specific areas where he placed the intestines for example. This is even apparent in Chapman but there were no facial mutilations, To me it's a case of natural progression and the result being Kelly where he had time and location to progress even further. I do think mutilating the face is personal but this could have been his growing hatred not the fact that he knew them.

Absolutely, Nic. I know it's not fashionable to ask "What are the chances?" but let's face it - what are the chances that somebody close to MJK just happened to want her dead, and just happened to have an overwhelming personal desire to mutilate her face, so soon after somebody else had murdered and mutilated Eddowes, another Spitalfields unfortunate, just a short walk away?

If you see what looks like a tiger coming towards you in the dark and you shoot him between the eyes, chances are you will bag your tiger and live to tell the tale. It's somewhat less likely that you will be eaten by two one-eyed tigers, who were walking towards you arm-in-arm and missed your bullet.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

You don't post often (unfortunately) but when you do you are like a breath of fresh air.

But as I have found out the hard way, a what are the odds argument will get you nowhere on these boards.

c.d.

[Errata]

Hello Raven,

It seems like we have gone full circle back to the whole what are the odds argument? If we go the multiple killer route, it seems to me that Whitechapel in 1888 was like a Star Trek convention for body parts enthusiasts.

c.d.

Multiple serial killers in one area is not common, but not unheard of. I think there were two in New York who overlapped with Son of Sam, and about 5 years ago, we had three in our area, though now there is only one. Far more likely to happen in a big city than in Bucksnort Tennessee. For obvious reasons.

But yeah, the odds are against it. Far be it from me to argue with math. But that being said, there is always the caveat that just because it is freakishly unlikely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

In my admittedly insanely long treatise on fetishes, I addressed the difference between expansion of a fantasy and the alteration of a fantasy. The first happens, especially if the person becomes numb to the original thrill. The second does not without a lot of time, years in fact. Taking the uterus AND a kidney fits with the idea of expanding a fantasy. Switching to the heart and leaving the uterus behind is an alteration of a fantasy, and does not fit with any kind of obsessive mind. Had he taken the uterus and the heart, I would feel better about declaring it the same guy.

One also can't ignore the fact that the heart is highly symbolic. Focusing attention on the heart does not indicate a fetish. It can simply be a message, to the authorities or to the victim. Perhaps he simply took her heart because she would not give it to him. But clearly the uterus is not as symbolic. We cannot say he took her uterus because she would not give it to him. That's weird. And there have always been symbolic targets in murder that are not fetish. Eyes, heart, tongue, penis, even hands. They find a guy stabbed to death with his penis cut off, that tells us something. We can't help but think that this man's penis played an integral part in the reason for his death. Like he was sticking it where he shouldn't. The uterus lacks such clear symbolism. The most common bodily associations with sex on a woman are breasts, external genitalia, and mouth, in that order. Internal genitalia probably comes next, but typically the association is formed by a sight that creates arousal. So the uterus is typically associated with generation and not sex, though I can't swear that was true in the Victorian era. But I trust that we have been visual creatures for awhile not.

As it happens, I don't think Kelly was murdered by a serial killer. I think she was murdered by a psychotic stalker. I think her killer thought he knew her. He may have actually known her, but it's also possible that she simply represented someone else he knew, and so her murder was personal despite the fact she never knew him. A little like Ted Bundy's victims. A lot like Jeffrey Dahmer's victims, where in his head there was a relationship with these men he had known for mere hours that simply didn't exist. Cannibalism is a very intimate act. Far more intimate than his actual relationships with these men warranted. But despite the fact I cite serial killers for examples, it isn't something peculiar to serial killers. The guy who shot John Lennon had it, the guy who shot Reagan, it's inherent to stalkers, and it just so happens Bundy and Dahmer were, at heart, stalkers.

As an aside, I did a thesis on fetish and obsessive thinking. And it was because the topic I really wanted to do was turned down, so I proposed this one thinking that in the heart of the bible belt, they would let me do the one I wanted. I was wrong. I ended up never finishing, because three months of work led to not being able to enter into a relationship without extremely intrusive and distasteful information ruining everything. The moral of the story is, never commit a year or more of your life to something you may not be able to handle appropriately.