Gary Ridgway and Jack killed prostitutes

[jc007]

Saying that Jack did not have intercourse with or masterbate onto his victims also doesn't mean he received no sexual gratification from his crimes, just that he left no such evidence of that gratification behind... and who knows what we might have uncovered at the scenes had modern crime tech like Luminol and black lights been available. So all we can really say is that there were no "observable with the naked eye" levels of semen in, on or around the corpses. Beyond that, it's guessing in the dark.

For someone who doesn't want to get trivial your getting pretty close to it.

Lets picture the scene for a second, we know Jack was at the scenes a matter or mere minutes so he has killed his victim has his knife in one hand sticking it inside the body of his victim opening up the body and slashing away inside, his other hand i take it your assuming is trying to undo his pants and pull out his penis and start masturbating (as there was no semen in the victims you would have to assume he masturbated ) if it was done after the mutilation he wouldn't have the time, certainly not enough time to get any great satisfaction not to mention cleaning up after himself, seriously im trying not to laugh here picturing Jack trying to fumble in the dark with his organs in one hand ready to take home, and in the other hand he is juggling his knife and trying to clean up his semen he left around feeling around the ground or on the body in the dark making sure he left none for the police to find. Its a totally ridiculous scenario to think of.

If Jack was to get any sexual gratification, my opinion it would of come from the organs taken when he got home, not from the actual killing, with the little time he had and being in the dark i don't see how he would of been able to kill, mutilate, masturbate, clean up after himself, make sure there was no semen on the body or the ground and then escape.

[Mitch Rowe]

To me its not definate whether JTR had any form of sex with the victims. Im not sure how much the Doctors could tell from a mutilated corpse. But it seems as if JTR had no time. But that does not mean JTR could have had sex with victims sometime before. Like if he had been using them as prostitutes and decided to kill them.
It seems to me like JTR was acting like a sexual serial killer in most forms except having sex with victims. If there was just one indication that JTR had sex with them then I would rule out all other motives. But since I dont have that then I must consider other motives like trying to change society/ect.. Although they seem unlikely.

[Christine]

Peter Kurten had orgasms, but he did not masturbate. Anyhow, if you really want to think about this for a while, you can see that all he had to do was put the knife down for a few minutes. It's at least believable.

[jc007]

How could he possible had time to masturbate after the murder, in most cases he was only mere seconds or minutes from being caught, like i said earlier to make the scenario believable you would have to think he had time for not only the murder but to stop, put down the organs and knife, undo his pants drop them or pull out his old fella and start going for gold, and even if it didn't take him long to climax he still would have had to take extra time on top of that to clean up making sure there was no semen on the ground or the body or anywhere for the police to find. Logically speaking i just don't think jack had the time, and also for Kelly he had the time to do anything he wanted and no semen was at that scene either, seriously people i think the notion of a sexual charged ripper is a waste of time, there is no evidence to prove this. and again he would be extremely lucky on each murder occasion if he was to stop and take another few minutes on top of the murder time to masturbate and and even more time to ensure no semen was left behind and not get caught not to mention how lucky he was that even tho it was dark he was successfully able to masturbate each time and be able to clean up so quickly without leaving any trace of semen anywhere. Common sense surely has to kick in sometime and you have to ask yourself is someone that lucky for this things to happen 5 times or more in a row the exact same way?? or course not, thus surely him masturbating at the crime scenes is highly improbable, not to say he didn't when he got home with the organs perhaps but to me the killings were not a sexual gratifying thing for him and to refer to cases over a hundred years later to try and prove Jack was a sexual killer beyond a doubt is ridiculous.

[Ben]

but to me the killings were not a sexual gratifying thing for him and to refer to cases over a hundred years later to try and prove Jack was a sexual killer beyond a doubt is ridiculous.

"Proven beyond a doubt" is perhaps over-confident, but it's by far the most plausible explanation, and the idea that a sexually-motivated killer always masturbates at a crime scene really is ridiculous.

[Dan Norder]

seriously people i think the notion of a sexual charged ripper is a waste of time, there is no evidence to prove this.

Well, you know, other than that he killed prostitutes, and targeted their abdominal areas, and most serial killings of this type -- as well as ones of varying other types -- are sexual in nature. So basically, all the evidence that exists proves this, which I guess you choose to ignore because you wish to believe otherwise to fit some preconceived ideas you have about Jack being involved in some complicated plan.

to me the killings were not a sexual gratifying thing for him and to refer to cases over a hundred years later to try and prove Jack was a sexual killer beyond a doubt is ridiculous.

Unless you think that people back then had completely different biological structures, neurochemistries and psychological mindsets and therefore thought and acted in ways completely different to modern people it's clearly not ridiculous. And if you do think the Victorians were an entirely different species of animal, then you are sadly mistaken.

[Christine]

I can't think of many reasons to mutilate a victim to that extent that don't involve sexual gratification, or at least some sort of intense and irrational hatred. There are much easier ways to make a point, or to eliminate someone you want to be rid of. The idea that masturbating (if he did indeed masturbate) was too risky but killing and mutilating was simple and easy and risk free is not tenable.

[Mitch Rowe]

I can't think of many reasons to mutilate a victim to that extent that don't involve sexual gratification, or at least some sort of intense and irrational hatred. There are much easier ways to make a point, or to eliminate someone you want to be rid of. The idea that masturbating (if he did indeed masturbate) was too risky but killing and mutilating was simple and easy and risk free is not tenable.

Right. The only other options I guess are political or religious and those seem far fetched. All we can do is study other SKs habits and try to profile JTR. And that aint much help.

[CraigInTwinCities]

JC, your definition of "sexual serial killer" is too modern and too narrow. That is why we're at odds on the definition.

Medical men of the time (I think Dr. Bond may have been one, but it's late and I am not motivated to look it up tonight for the confined purposes of bulletin board discussion posting) included Jack in that definition, although the phrasing may have been a bit different since I'm fairly certain "serial" didn't really enter the lexicon in the specific usage of "serial killer" in the modern sense, until the second half of the 20th century. (Another bit of trivia I don't feel motivated to look up at this late hour for a BB posting, which is why I use imprecise language like "may".)

Anyway, it's completely modern thinking to suppose that a killer must masterbate at the scene to receive sexual gratification from a killing. Some killers do not need to masterbate to achieve orgasm while in the act of murder. Others are living out fantasies that, although they do not commit a sexual act at the scene, create memories that fuel their acts of sexual gratification for some time after the act. This is why many serials keep trophies of their victims, to better spark the memories of the kill.

And as Dan pointed out, sexual gratification itself does not necessarily need to enter the picture to fit the definition as folks like Dr. Bond used it, because by attacks a woman in a way that focuses on her sexual organs makes it a sexual kill by definition, as well as by the victimology of the killer (prostitutes).

As for the passage you quoted by me, though, you did take it out of context and, in doing so, misunderstood my meaning. The tone of that paragraph was not conclusion-drawing in nature; rather, I was speaking to the assumptions of another person posting here, and was attempting to demonstrate that there's a lot more that we don't know or can't be sure of than he was assuming.

So I wasn't drawing a conclusion, I was actually engaged in doing quite the opposite. Hope this helps set that quote into context.

[jc007]

Dan, i really can't fathom why just because Jack killed prostitutes and targeted thier abdominal region (and head too in some cases) that it automatically makes this a sexual killing. There is no other evidence especially physical factual evidence to prove this. Without knowing who he was and what went through his mind and what his actual motive, there is no way you can say with any certainty this his killings were of a sexual nature.
Simply burying your head in the sand and saying "well he killed prostitutes and targeting thier abdominal region therefore it is automatically proven he is a sexual killer or got sexual gratification out of it" is totally ludicris.

[jc007]

So basically, all the evidence that exists proves this, which I guess you choose to ignore because you wish to believe otherwise to fit some preconceived ideas you have about Jack being involved in some complicated plan.

What evidence are you talking about Dan? There is no factual evidence from the crimes to prove he was a sexual killer, you say "all the evidence" as if there is a mountain of it? If you seriously ready to shut the door on any other possibilty without using a shred of factual evidence from the acutal crime scenes then your a poor ripperologist who is only preoccupied with your own theorys to the point where you will make things up so to try and sound as if what you believe is true when in reality you are clutching at straws.

[jc007]

Unless you think that people back then had completely different biological structures, neurochemistries and psychological mindsets and therefore thought and acted in ways completely different to modern people it's clearly not ridiculous. And if you do think the Victorians were an entirely different species of animal, then you are sadly mistaken.

And again Dan it seems the only way you can defend your theory of a sexual serial killer is to put words in my mouth, instead of using factual evidence. No where did i say victorians were an entirely different species of animal, why put words into my mouth? what you trying to discredit me by attempting to make out like i said that crap? Yes the possibility is there that he was a sexual killer but there is NO i repeat NO evidence that proves he was. Putting words into my mouth won't change that nor will clinging on to a theory based purely on the fact that other killers who targeted prostitutes and thier abdominal region prove beyone a shodow of a doubt that Jacks intentions were sexual.

[Pinkerton]

jc007, NO ONE has said that it is a FACT that JTR was a sexual serial killer. With all due respect you are using a typical straw man argument technique--the "false dichotomy". No offense, but it kind of infuriates me when some on these boards take this tact. Someone makes a legitimate argument that it is PROBABLE or there is a "good chance" of "X", and a poster responds with "You are claiming that 'X' is a fact. You don't know that!"

I will spare everyone one of my rants about the concept of "probability" which is lost on many to these boards. I will only say this.

1--Most serial killers (excluding those who kill for profit, such as hitmen and gang members) ARE SEXUALLY motivated PERIOD
2--JTR killed prostitutes
3--JTR mutilated most of his victims, including they're female reproductive parts

Do you disagree with any of these three points? If you disagree with point #1 I recommended reading up on the research conducted on past serial killers. Also someone earlier made the point that the killer doesn't have to have sex with a victim, or masturbate at the scene to be sexually motivated. I recommend reading interviews with Dennis Rader who stated that he was much more sexually aroused by his memories of murder than the murders themselves. Many serial killers also visit the gravesites of their victims (as did Bundy and Ridgway) to help them relive the fantasy.

[jc007]

Pinkerton,

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points, my issue is with people on these boards saying certain aspects of Jacks crimes was DEFINATLEY this or DEFINATELY that, when they have nothing to back up thier pompus remarks. I am also not saying that Jack is definately not a sexual killer but using one similarity between Jack and other sexual killers does not automatically make Jack one, i really don't know why its so hard for people to understand. The killers you all compare Jack too have been caught have been tried, thier heads have been gotton into or they have admitted certain things, there is no such luck with Jack the Ripper, jumping up and down on the spot saying his is one because certain other people are is not enough. Everyone seems to miss the point where most sexual serial killers relish in thier crimes and take alot of time doing what they are doing, Jack did not, he was in an out of his crime scene in a matter of minutes, he did not lure his victims away somewhere where he could take more time, i'm sure Bundy, Ridgeway and Radar all took plenty of time when it came to thier crimes, yet this is one aspect where people will ignore, its easier to follow the herd looking at it from a one sided view basing thier theorys on totally different unrelated crimes.

[Ben]

Everyone seems to miss the point where most sexual serial killers relish in thier crimes and take alot of time doing what they are doing, Jack did not, he was in an out of his crime scene in a matter of minutes, he did not lure his victims away somewhere where he could take more time

And if that option was not availble to the killer, and he was forced to act quickly to avoid the approaching policeman on beat, are you saying that this is somehow an obstacle to him being a sexual serial killer?