Evisceration - a side issue?

Michael writes:

"I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners."

A rare kind of killer indeed, Michael! One of the issues that are being discussed here is the fact that in four canonical cases out of five, the victims were killed in the open, with a minimum of seclusion offered. Frank van Oploo writes that he believes that our man was a "street-smart and practical bloke. No smooth psychopath, no raving lunatic."

He got away with it, and he stayed undetected, so that is a logical thing to believe on Franks behalf. But one cannot help but to wonder just how street-smart it is to cut women up in the open street? The risks involved were huge, and the opportunities to get at least a bit more out of the way must surely have been there. The choice of venues could well be interpreted as signs of a man who was anything but street-smart.
And of course, in the combination of a man who kills in venues like the ones Jack chose, a man who apparently - at least if we count Kelly into the equation - was intent on destroying and annihilating, separating flesh from bone, carving away faces, and a man that pulled something off that may well be interpreted as a very cooly and calmly calculated series of murders, your unicorn is of course present very much.
Thing is, Michael - these different qualities, ascribed to the Ripper, do not match. They are unblendable, more or less, and one or more of them would therefore be misconceptions on our behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

The part I highlighted is the crux FM......if we dont actually have a man like the one set in Canonical stone by Macnaghten Bond and others, based on their looking at a series rather than at each new individual murder, which is what at least Strides was in Ripper context,... then we may not have the Destroyer and Ripper at all....we may have a man with almost surgical precision and habits, rather than one who desires an embarrassment of superfluous cutting like Marys killer certainly did.

Marys killer did. But does that in turn then mean that superfluous cutting becomes part of Jack the Rippers new profile as soon as she is found? To some......it does.

I wonder when someone of that mindset will start adding males murdered during that period too....hell, anything that was killed in East London was Jacky's doin....the Torsos, all the stabbings, the gang violence, ....all the work of the mad slashing dude who doesnt know where to find organs but opens bodies in the dark anyway so he can grope around,...till a light bulb goes on over his head...."gee....I bet I could do some real fancy nonsense type cuttin if I had me a whore with a room......bet I could peel a thigh..." ....

Is he so stupid that if he wanted to cut women up all along he wouldnt KNOW that would have to be done indoors? So stupid he kills 4 times before figuring that out? When TorsoMakinMan knew it right off?

Cheers Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners."

A rare kind of killer indeed, Michael! One of the issues that are being discussed here is the fact that in four canonical cases out of five, the victims were killed in the open, with a minimum of seclusion offered. Frank van Oploo writes that he believes that our man was a "street-smart and practical bloke. No smooth psychopath, no raving lunatic."

He got away with it, and he stayed undetected, so that is a logical thing to believe on Franks behalf. But one cannot help but to wonder just how street-smart it is to cut women up in the open street? The risks involved were huge, and the opportunities to get at least a bit more out of the way must surely have been there. The choice of venues could well be interpreted as signs of a man who was anything but street-smart.
And of course, in the combination of a man who kills in venues like the ones Jack chose, a man who apparently - at least if we count Kelly into the equation - was intent on destroying and annihilating, separating flesh from bone, carving away faces, and a man that pulled something off that may well be interpreted as a very cooly and calmly calculated series of murders, your unicorn is of course present very much.
Thing is, Michael - these different qualities, ascribed to the Ripper, do not match. They are unblendable, more or less, and one or more of them would therefore be misconceptions on our behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

Hereīs a few questions looking for answers:

1. It is assumed that Jack was mainly an eviscerator, with an interest of procuring organs.
In spite of this, he did not cut any organ out at the Nichols murder site.
In spite of this, it seems he started out on Eddowes by cutting her face, loosing potentially valuable evisceration time in the process.
In spite of this, he did not take more than a heart at the Kelly scene, although he had the opportunity to bring along a lot more of the viscera cut out.

2. It is assumed that Jackīs motive for the killings was a sexual one.
In spite of this, fifty per cent of the organs he claimed were not related to human reproduction.

3. It is assumed that he took the organs for gratification and the opportunity to remember the slayings.
But human organs rot away, and so they make for shortlived souvenirs.

4. It is assumed that Jack may have made an early imprint as an animal torturer, thus nicely reflecting the commonly reported picture of early behaviour of a fledgling killer.
In spite of this, there is every reason to believe - and historical parallels - that he did not belong to the animal molesting species at all.

Can these things be reconciled? Anybody want to have a go?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I like the controversial ones best......

1. The murderer of Polly and Annie did not display any signs or leave any indications that what they/he actually wanted was evisceration. Their murder was suggested a natural step in the procurement of their abdominal organs by a person pretending to be a client for sex.

2. There are no indications that any sexual acts either between client and provider or by either alone, occurred at the murder sites. The gender of the victim is however a pivotal issue for the killer.

3. There were many uses known for dried and preserved organs,.. some for medical research, some for use in black magic related affairs, some for experimentation. Maybe some to covet. The use of the organs may not require it to be kept for very long out of a preservative.

4. Purely speculative based on profiling and analysis of known and interviewed serial offenders in the 20th Century, in many case with a quantified death count.

These assumptions...in my opinion of course , are drawn in part due to the perception that the killer Jack the Ripper killed the five women in The Canonical Group, a "series" with 2 murders that are almost identical, a 3rd that closely resembles the first 2 and 2 murders that have very little in common with the objectives displayed and the circumstantial evidence concerning the murder nights and the first 2 victims.

I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners.

I think for lack of a better expression, the man or men is/are a Unicorn(s). And a plain old work horse likely killed at least one of the other Canonicals.

Cheers Fisherman, all the best mate.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"...assuming there was only one reason why he putatively curtailed his eviscerating activities, that is."

...and there is no need for us not to be generous and realize that a combination of circumstances may well have been what sent him on his way. That is of course correct, Sam!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. Well, When Annie Chapman was killed the press mistakenly reported that a chalk graffiti message was left nearby and also reported that another woman had been murdered elsewhere at the same time. Of course, both of these events were made a reality on the night of the 'double event'. The Ripper giving the people what they want? Perhaps. Also, Dan Norder wrote a really good essay for Ripper Notes exploring the idea that the Ripper got his inspiration from the newspapers. The name of the essay skips my mind, but I believe it was in RN #27.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Thereīs always the smell, though. But would that have put him off?

I don't see why it wouldn't have, Fish - "Oh, $hit! It really is $hit!..." - besides, the smell and "stains" would certainly have been noticeable had he been stopped and questioned. They might even have been apparent to a passer-by.

But we stray off-topic. My fault.

Iīd opt for the presence of the police being the more credible reason for his leaving.

...assuming there was only one reason why he putatively curtailed his eviscerating activities, that is.

[lynn cates]

mehr bitte

Hello Tom. I agree, and am persuaded--as so many are--that those letters constitute a hoax.

You noted that:

"I can name other instances like this that point to the same conclusion."

Please continue! This may be grist for my mill.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hmm, Sam; maybe you are right. Though after having dug around inside Eddowes, knife in hand, cutting away, I would suspect that the only thing he would have felt about his hands would be a sticky, oily feeling. And that would have been expected, given the blood about. In the prevailing darkness, I think it would be hard to tell red from brown, if you take my meaning.
Thereīs always the smell, though. But would that have put him off?

Iīd opt for the presence of the police being the more credible reason for his leaving. But it is anybodys guess, of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

One canīt help wondering exactly what it was that made him call a halt in Mitre Square, and leave. Was it enough for him? Was he disturbed in some manner?

Personally, Fish, I think that, when he realised that he was going to have a major problem in removing the caca from his hand(s), he decided to call it a night. This decision might have been helped by the suspicion that a copper was going to call by at any moment - PC Harvey's arrival at one end of the square perhaps reminding him that he was in danger of being caught brown-handed.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"And he also excised a 2' length of her intestine - which might add an element of "mutilating for the sake of it" to the equation; a possibility borne out, perhaps, by what he did to her face."

Exactly so, Sam! One canīt help wondering exactly what it was that made him call a halt in Mitre Square, and leave. Was it enough for him? Was he disturbed in some manner? Had he clocked Watkins beat previously, and knew that time was running out?
I am not totally sure about Dahmer, but it would seem that he always stuck to opening his victims bellies up first, taking in the sight and feeling the warmth, and after that he moved on to other, varying activities with his knife - filleting, dismembering, cutting away.
If this holds true - then the parallel is very interesting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

On the organ bit, I think it is interesting that he took TWO parts from Eddowes, one of them sexually oriented, and the other not.

And he also excised a 2' length of her intestine - which might add an element of "mutilating for the sake of it" to the equation; a possibility borne out, perhaps, by what he did to her face.

[FrankO]

On the organ bit, I think it is interesting that he took TWO parts from Eddowes, one of them sexually oriented, and the other not.
One part only would have sufficed if he wanted a souvenir only, or if he wanted a sense of owning and controlling. Two parts - thatīs when my thoughts enter the cannibalistic area.

I agree that it's indeed interesting, certainly when we consider that he also took 2 bits in Chapman's case, one perhaps more edible than the other.

The best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

This, Tom, is the passage I was referring to:

"Masters cites the following example of a crime committed by Jeffrey Dahmer to illustrate the method of approach and the method of attack. On the 20th of May, 1991, Jeffrey Dahmer met Raymond Smith at the 219 Tavern. Dahmer approached him and offered him $50 to come back to his place for sex. This is the method of approach and could most accurately be described as a con. Dahmer used a ruse or ploy to get the prospective victim to lower his guard and follow him back to his apartment. When they arrived back about 3.00 a.m., Smith stated that he would not be staying long for fifty dollars, and Dahmer asked him to stay the night. Smith said it would cost a lot more, and was assured that he would get the rest in the morning. Dahmer went into the kitchen where he mixed up a concoction of alcohol and sleeping tablets. Within half an hour, Smith was unconscious and Dahmer strangled him on the floor. Even though the victim was unconscious, this still constitutes the attack, and in this case, is best described as a blitz."

In essence, Dahmer uses the ruse of a sexual economic agreement - just like the Ripper may well have done. After that, he looses very little time as the couple have reached the apartment. He has the luxury of not having to risk an attack while the prey is still awake and able to offer resistance, and he takes advantage of that. But after he has drugged him, he moves on quickly to aquire what he wanted - a warm, dead body, totally under his control, ripe and ready for cutting.

The similarities are there, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank van Oploo writes:

"I wonder how important the count of taken away body parts is in deciding whether his motive was sexual or not."

That is a fair point, Frank, and there is little doubt that the Rippers interest in these women seemed centered in the reproductive areas to a major extent, no doubt about it.

On the organ bit, I think it is interesting that he took TWO parts from Eddowes, one of them sexually oriented, and the other not.
One part only would have sufficed if he wanted a souvenir only, or if he wanted a sense of owning and controlling. Two parts - thatīs when my thoughts enter the cannibalistic area.

As for the rest of your post, it seems we are much in agreement.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"You might want to refresh yourself on Dahmer. He was not a 'quick kill' type of chap. He'd hang out with these men, sometimes spending the entire night with them. "

I was referring to one of the killings in which he fed his victim his ordinary Mickey Finn, and as the guy passed out on the floor, Dahmer strangled him in a manner that was described by one psychologist as "blitz-style" - although it was completely unnecessary.
The "zombiefication" you are speaking of represents something that is connected to this in a fashion - he did it to get total control of his victims,he wanted exactly what a zombie is: a living dead. What he did NOT want were participators with minds of their own.
So even if it was not alway about a quick kill, it seems always to have been about a quick gaining of total control.

And how do I know this? Exactly - I HAVE read up on Dahmer, thank you very much!

And your candidate for a good comparison would be...?

The best, Tom!
Fisherman