Sexual or not?

[Blues]

Strangely enough, I was thinking about the same thing someone else was in the "rent arrears" thread - were the killing sexual in nature? Now, from the information I have read, the first 2 bodies showed no sign of "connexion". From the damage inflicted, and the rudimentary means of determining sexual contact, I'm not sure it can be assumed that Jack didn't do something with his victims. To top it off - no pun - the first 2 murder victim's bodies were washed by prisoners BEFORE a doctor could examine them. To my knowledge, they weren't asked what they washed off and wouldn't have enough "expertise" to know anyway. Eddowes had extensive damage to the reproductive area and Kelly's was damn near non existent. All of this leads me to say that sexual relations in the area, with the victim alive, with the victim dead, in No. 13, etc. etc. cannot be ruled out. Does anyone else have any insight that I might be missing? Knowledge of medical tests at the time for body fluids etc.? Whether a thorough "search" was done for such things around the bodies...on the clothing etc. And, without DNA testing, who's to know that the "evidence" was Jack's?

Thanks for your time

Blues

[Limehouse]

There has been a lot of debate on this site concerning whether or not the killer was sexually motivated. Some people think he was a classic 'lust killer' and gained sexual satisfaction from the killings. Others think he was a paranoid schizophrenic who attacked due to a form of mania.

In order for the killings to be sexually motivated, the killer does not have to have had traditional sexual contact with the victim. It is possible the act of ripping and slashing itself helped him to achieve satisfaction. It is equally possible he masturbated on or near his victims but this is unlikely in all of the killings because of the short period of time the killer had to perform the killing and mutilation.

Personally, I think the killer shows a relatively high degree of anger and I think there is a strong possibility that he was a sexual sadist who gained sexual satisfaction from his crimes, although this may not have been his initial intention. I do not think he had 'normal' sexual intercourse with any of the victims.

[Stephen]

Trophies

Perhaps ,like other serial killers, he took home trophies to masturbate over in safety and comfort.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Jack's killings are more hateful than lustful in my eyes, but at the same time they're still voyeuristic.

Personally, I think he killed out of hatred and not anything sexual.

[DarkPassenger]

I'm an advocate of Colin Wilson's general theory, must to the consternation of some posters, but I doubt a directly sexual motive for the JTR murders. I think the man was mad, either that or it really was someone after body parts.

[Limehouse]

I think he was mad too. His sexual perversion was part of his madness.

[miss marple]

I think he was fuelled by a disgust for women. I don't think he had intercourse with them. His display of the bodies seems to suggest he wanted to humiliate them. He was not interested in torturing the women, which suggests he was not a sadist, but killed them as quickly as possible, but his violence towards their sexual and reproductive parts suggests a pathological hatred and anger towards them.
I wonder if he had a mother who was a prostitute, who perhaps neglected or rejected him.
Miss Marple

[Mascara & Paranoia]

My thoughts exactly, Miss. Only I don't like the possibly abusive/prostitute mother thing as it seems like a cliché to me, but it's one of the most logical 'explanations' for Jack's work in my eyes.

[Stephen]

Impotent

Perhaps he was impotent and his knife was his substitute penis.

[FrankO]

Hi Miss Marple,

Good post. I agree that he was fuelled by a disgust for women. I think this disgust developed because he was at least socially incapable of having normal relationships with them. What I tend to believe is that, on the one hand, he percieved that women rejected him, which made his disgust and anger towards women grow, while, on the other, he was still very interested in them or, rather, their bodies. If so, this interest obviously grew very twisted as well. So, I'm inclined to believe that the mutilations were caused by curiosity as well, besides hatred and anger. So, to answer the question, I do believe the Ripper's were about sex.

All the best,
Frank

[Limehouse]

In my opinion, when I assert that there was a sexual element to these crimes, I am not thinking of sexual desire in the sense that exists in a loving realtionship so much as a basic form of sexual expression that was certainly confused, perverted and which contained a degree of anger. In my view, there was a need to expose, to disrupt, to deface and depersonalise.

[LadyG]

Hello all! I am fairly new to the Casebook, though 25 years ago I had quite a fascination with researching the Whitechapel murders, Jack and all asociated with the crimes. It's been awhile and I have trotted the old boy out and dusted him off to have another look. This thread is intriguing, and I would like to make a coment or two.

I believe 'Jack' was highly sexually movitated, though never had 'physical congress' with his victims in the acceptible sense. The fact his victims were all female and -- as far as we know-- never males, can indicate a hatred of women, stemming most likely from a hatred of self and his inability perhaps to have a normal sex life. Prossies were easy targets, easy to acquire and dispose of-- a toss-away commodity, more or less, as far as he was concerned. I personally have no doubt he was intelligent, even methodical and charismatic, perhaps much like Ted Bundy. Trophies taken from the scene likely permitted him to relive his 'ectasies' in controlling and carving up his victims, maybe fantasy as well as using body parts for masturbation. I believe it was not so much revenge that motivated him, but rather that he truly enjoyed and derived pleasure from his work. His 'frenzy' escalated perhaps out of a combined need (for a 'higher high') and the 'knowledge' that he was untouchable.

Whether or not there is any connection between the matronally appearance or age of some of his victims and his 'purpose', I tend to think it was merely a matter of convenience, and what was 'available'. That he dehumanized his victims, and 'stole their sex' has a variety of possible explanations, which I am sure has a thread or two of its own, elsewhere here!

This of course is just my opinion. Regarding pathology and forensic practices of the day, I would recommended a read through books by Sir Simon Smith, and Sir Bernard Spilsbury, who were notable in the field in the early 20th century, and often recount the deficincies in the system as well as the 'cleverness', in years preceding their involvement. Of note, when Smith was studying medicine, the famous Dr. Bell was on University staff-- after whom Conan Doyle was said to have modeled Holmes. Conan Doyle in fact had been Bell's clerk-- and apologies, this is probably already known and I've gone off on a tangent!