Getting inside the Ripper

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=K-453;318422]Hi Fisherman,
I pretty much ignored the description of Verzeni's skull. Actually, had I found a source with copy-and-pasteable text, I would have left that part out, replacing it with [...]
QUOTE]

I´m glad you didn´t get around to that - it would deprive the case some of it´s context, and that´s never a good thing. And it´s not just about the skull.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But we do know that frontal lobe damage or malformation in the frontal lobe is not uncommon in serial killers. The part of the brain that controls empathy is right above the eyes, and any damage or lack of development in that area creates sociopaths. In PET scans of serial killers, those are the dim spot they are looking for. Irregularities in frontal bone structure are often a sign or either previous damage or birth defect (in this case, non bilateral defect). It's in fact a sign of possible psychopathy. And Verzini was a psychopath.

I'm not gong to run around espousing the theories of Krafft-Ebbing any more than I'm going to worship at the altar of Freud. But both of them made discoveries and connections that have greatly improved what we know about mental health. Not necessarily what they thought was their magnum opus, but KE actually did get some legitimate work done. Mostly in the gathering of data.

I am not contesting that, Errata - he rightly defends his position as a foreground figure even today. What I wanted to point to, though, was how physical traits were looked upon as evidence of criminality on a more general scale, how it was seen as hereditary to a large extent and how it could and would have affected the way of thinking for many people in that age - policemen not excluded.

The best,
Fisherman

[K-453]

Hi Fisherman,
I pretty much ignored the description of Verzeni's skull. Actually, had I found a source with copy-and-pasteable text, I would have left that part out, replacing it with [...]

Hi Errata,
I don't worship on any altar either.

It's the case itself that is interesting, and what the perpetrator himself said about his motives.

[Errata]

Did you pick up on this:

”His cranium is of more than average size, but assymetrical. The right frontal bone is narrower and lower than the left, the right frontal prominence being less developed, and the right ear smaller than the left (by 1 centimetre in lenght and 3 centimetres in breadth), both ears are defective in the inferior half of the helix … Bullnecked, enormous development of the zygoma and inferior maxilla; penis greatly developed, fraenum wanting … Lombroso concludes from these signs of degeneration that there is a congenital arrest of development of the right frontal lobe … As seemed probable, Verzeni has a bad ancestry – two uncles are cretins, a third, microcephalic, beardless, one testicle wanting, the other athropic … Verzenis family is bigoted and low-minded...”

That should tell us a thing or two about what was expected from a villain in 1886, when Kraft-Ebbings book came out. The Lombroso mentioned is of course Cesare Lombroso, one of the fathers of racial biology and criminal anthropology, both underlying sources for phrenology.

The Ripper is a mere two years away when Kraft-Ebbing writes this.

The best,
Fisherman

But we do know that frontal lobe damage or malformation in the frontal lobe is not uncommon in serial killers. The part of the brain that controls empathy is right above the eyes, and any damage or lack of development in that area creates sociopaths. In PET scans of serial killers, those are the dim spot they are looking for. Irregularities in frontal bone structure are often a sign or either previous damage or birth defect (in this case, non bilateral defect). It's in fact a sign of possible psychopathy. And Verzini was a psychopath.

I'm not gong to run around espousing the theories of Krafft-Ebbing any more than I'm going to worship at the altar of Freud. But both of them made discoveries and connections that have greatly improved what we know about mental health. Not necessarily what they thought was their magnum opus, but KE actually did get some legitimate work done. Mostly in the gathering of data.

[Fisherman]

Dr. Krafft-Ebing describes in his work "Psychopathia sexualis" the case of Vinzenz Verzeni, who committed Ripper-style lust murders. If he committed such murders today, he would surely be nicknamed the "Italian Ripper" or such, because of the similarity.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...ew=1up;seq=110

"Case 20", Page 86 - 90

I recommend this to everybody who wants to get "inside the Ripper".

The interesting thing about Verzeni is, there is no deeper meaning in his murders, no message. There are no freemasons involved, no "Juwes", no conspiring Royals, and no artists who cut their own ears off. It's just that he had the urge to do strange things, and no conscience to stop him.

Did you pick up on this:

”His cranium is of more than average size, but assymetrical. The right frontal bone is narrower and lower than the left, the right frontal prominence being less developed, and the right ear smaller than the left (by 1 centimetre in lenght and 3 centimetres in breadth), both ears are defective in the inferior half of the helix … Bullnecked, enormous development of the zygoma and inferior maxilla; penis greatly developed, fraenum wanting … Lombroso concludes from these signs of degeneration that there is a congenital arrest of development of the right frontal lobe … As seemed probable, Verzeni has a bad ancestry – two uncles are cretins, a third, microcephalic, beardless, one testicle wanting, the other athropic … Verzenis family is bigoted and low-minded...”

That should tell us a thing or two about what was expected from a villain in 1886, when Kraft-Ebbings book came out. The Lombroso mentioned is of course Cesare Lombroso, one of the fathers of racial biology and criminal anthropology, both underlying sources for phrenology.

The Ripper is a mere two years away when Kraft-Ebbing writes this.

The best,
Fisherman

[K-453]

Verzeni

Dr. Krafft-Ebing describes in his work "Psychopathia sexualis" the case of Vinzenz Verzeni, who committed Ripper-style lust murders. If he committed such murders today, he would surely be nicknamed the "Italian Ripper" or such, because of the similarity.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...ew=1up;seq=110

"Case 20", Page 86 - 90

I recommend this to everybody who wants to get "inside the Ripper".

The interesting thing about Verzeni is, there is no deeper meaning in his murders, no message. There are no freemasons involved, no "Juwes", no conspiring Royals, and no artists who cut their own ears off. It's just that he had the urge to do strange things, and no conscience to stop him.

[John Wheat]

Absolutely Rosella Jack was largely only concerned with the ripping and mutilation.

Cheers John

[Rosella]

Strangely, I don't believe that causing physical pain to his victims was the main motivation of JTR. The victims' deaths were in some way just a prelude to the main act, which was to cut and mutilate. The taking of another's life was a completely callous act but he smothered then cut these women's throats very quickly. There was no sadism or torture.

When Jack fantasised about what he'd done later I don't think the actual killing featured much at all. Nor do I think the organs that were taken signified much beyond trophies, souvenirs, an aid perhaps to his fantasies. I think it was the ripping and mutilation that completely occupied his thoughts and was the sexual spur.

[TomTomKent]

Sounds boring but he was just somebody who got a sexual thrill from hurting others. I don't know if he knew which organs he removed, but I think the satisfaction cam from the way it felt to cut flesh and rip bits out rather than collecting something particular from them.

Who can say? He might have been mutilating some victims more than others because he knew he would not be disturbed, because he was lost in the frenzy, because he was more confident, or because he was more and more aware that he had already snuffed the light out behind their eyes and desperately wanted to satisfy a need that was just not fulfilled when he knew he caused no more pain to the victim? It is all speculation and most likely the fevered remnants of horror stories floating in my head rather than anything remotely useful.

I think like others I am tempted by the theories that sound exciting and bias myself by that standard rather than how qualified the profiler may be. Sorrry.

[GUT]

I feel that, had the Ripper been a pathological collector of organs (whose murders were fueled by the need to possess them), as opposed to an opportunistic colllector (who rummaged when the opportunity presented itself), the missing specimens would have been the same items in each case.

Instead we have two uteruses gone; one bladder; a heart; a kidney; and so on.

I'm not so sure about the heart.

But aside from that the only thing he doubled up on was the Uteri, he might have been after a full set.

[Defective Detective]

I feel that, had the Ripper been a pathological collector of organs (whose murders were fueled by the need to possess them), as opposed to an opportunistic colllector (who rummaged when the opportunity presented itself), the missing specimens would have been the same items in each case.

Instead we have two uteruses gone; one bladder; a heart; a kidney; and so on.

[GUT]

G'day Defective Detective

The acquisition of organs may have been secondary to the act of opening a woman up in itself.

Or the opening a woman up may have been secondary to the acquisition of organs. If so where does that leave any sexual motive?

[Defective Detective]

I can understand and appreciate the psychosexual resonance of stealing a victim's uterus. It's basically a way of forcing yourself into the innermost reaches of her femininity; it is a perpetual rape.

But what the Hell does a kidney have to do with sexuality, of however perverse a nature? There is no eroticism of which I know that focuses upon that organ. The bladder is also questionable to me - on one hand, it is connected to the vagina and so can be associated with it; on the other, none but a urine fetishist is likely to find much arousal in the notion of owning one.

I would caution those trying to read a direct psychosexual motivation into the pilfered organs themselves, rather than an indirect, broad one into the act of body cavity exploration itself. The acquisition of organs may have been secondary to the act of opening a woman up in itself.

[Errata]

What about some researcher handing him reading material about the Ripper to ask him about his opinion later? (When the serial killer is in prison already.)

And I doubt serial killers are not interested in their "colleagues". I even think all modern serial killers are to some degree copycats. This being unique about the Ripper, by the way - him not being a copycat, as he was the first the media got into a frenzy about.

Serial killers are often copycats to an extent. The degree to which it is purposeful is rather unclear. A strangler is not necessarily inspired by another strangler, but may have heard about a harvester and that set him on the path in a way. But ego and comfort driven psychopaths do what feels good. They don't research. Put two serial killers in a cell together, I'm sure they would compare notes. But only clinical sadists are going to get off on what the other guy says.

It would be like if you and I compared our favorite sports. I'm a swim fan. You may be a hockey man. No matter how much you talk about how much you love hockey, it is never going to interest me. I'd really just be waiting for you to stop talking so I could start talking. I don't object to hockey, but since I can't follow the puck and I was a swimmer, it is literally less interesting to me than watching grass grow. Now if I'm talking about football and you are talking about rugby, it's not the same but there is some common ground. The conversation might last longer, but I'm still not going to end up a rugby fan.

The truth is that being a serial killer is a little embarrassing. Not the murder part of it, but the little obsessive details that make the experience worthwhile. Bundy was not a fan of people knowing that he was a necrophile. It was embarrassing to him. It was embarrassing to Jeffrey Dahmer. As was the cannibalism. Kemper is quite cooperative with researchers but he is embarrassed that the only way he had the confidence to initiate opposite sex relations was if they were dead. This is not stuff you want people knowing. The amount of secrecy needed for a serial killer to function does not particularly leave room for research into other killers. It doesn't occur to them that the behaviors they are hiding can be found about other killers. And when they are found, like on Ed Gein's Wikipedia page, they are not comforting at all.

Serial killing is as personal as sex. It replaces sex in many ways. I might be curious to know why someone uses a paddle in the bedroom, but I'm not THAT curious. I don't really need to know what makes other people get off. I need to know how I get off. And serial killing is no different. It doesn't matter to a collector why someone else might be carver. Or even why someone else is also a collector. The reasons are personal. Embarrassing. Not socially acceptable. And it's only the sadists and the severely socially dysfunctional who will talk about the details at all, or is really particularly willing to listen.

Junkies don't revel in stories of other junkies. It's the same principle.

[K-453]

I doubt any modern serial killer has been informed about the Ripper.

What about some researcher handing him reading material about the Ripper to ask him about his opinion later? (When the serial killer is in prison already.)

And I doubt serial killers are not interested in their "colleagues". I even think all modern serial killers are to some degree copycats. This being unique about the Ripper, by the way - him not being a copycat, as he was the first the media got into a frenzy about.