Evisceration - a side issue?

[FrankO]

He was more compulsive than brave in that his urge to kill was too strong to ignore. But he took precautions where he could and was clever, so he was no lunatic.

I completely agree with you there, Tom. In my view he was a street-smart and practical bloke. No smooth psychopath, no raving lunatic.

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn,

As you know, much is often made about how the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky letters arrived around the same time as the Ripper committed his 'double event'. I'm not convinced the Ripper wrote these letters, but neither am I convinced it was coincidence that the letters came at the same time that the Ripper went to work. The reason is that BOTH the letter writer and the Ripper were following the inquests in the papers (or in person) to see what the police and doctors knew - the writer so he would have fodder for the letters, and the Ripper so he could see if they were on his trail. It's circumstancial evidence, but I believe it's strongly suggestive that the Ripper read the papers. I can name other instances like this that point to the same conclusion.

Fish Stix,

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. One of them he drilled a hole in his head and poured acid, attempting to create a living zombie. This actually worked for a time. He didn't want to kill them but felt he had to when they wanted to leave him. He wanted the exact opposite of a 'quick kill'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[FrankO]

1. It is assumed that Jack was mainly an eviscerator, with an interest of procuring organs.

Hi Fisherman,

Obviously, as this point is about motivation, anything anybody says is always speculative. Having said that, I don’t think he was mainly an eviscerator. As you suggested it yourself in some other post, maybe it ‘was nothing but a by-product of a wish to own, to control, to annihilate’ - to which I’d like to add ‘to explore the female body’. Whatever his wish or need, I’m quite sure that what he did was a by-product of this wish or need.

2. It is assumed that Jack´s 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.

JtR did not just attack women; he attacked prostitutes who offered their bodies for sex. Furthermore, his first interest obviously lay under his victims’ skirts, where their private parts were, which is even accentuated by the fact that their legs were open. That he, in all cases (if we leave out Stride), at least mutilated the lower abdominal area, is another suggestion of a sexual motive.

Seen in this context, I wonder how important the count of taken away body parts is in deciding whether his motive was sexual or not. Furthermore, I’d say that part of the belly wall including the navel might be seen as a sexually interesting part of the female body too and that, even though he didn’t take it away with him, he still did cut out MJK’s womb, just as he attacked about all of her feminine parts: vagina, buttocks, thighs, breast, face.

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.

My take is that, even though it worked for only a short time, the body parts he took mainly served as souvenirs, but to him may also have represented part of his power over his victims without anybody knowing he was JtR, part of the feeling of having annihilated a woman, the feeling that he owned them. To even own them more, he may very well have eaten or tried to eat parts that he took.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"It's a mistake to compare Dahmer to the Ripper."

Let´s see about that when we know who and what the Ripper was, shall we? No two people are totally comparable, but there are details about Dahmer that may well offer very good insights into the driving forces within the Ripper.

"Dahmer sought privacy and committed his murders in the privacy and safety of his own sanctuary. His motives and needs would have been quite different from that of the Ripper."

The Ripper, Tom, may well have been denied the privacy that Dahmer enjoyed. Given the same circumstances, how can we tell what choice the Ripper would have made? Reasonably, the Kelly scene provided a better opportunity to go longer with her than with the other victims. I fail to see why he would have given up such circumstances freely to kill in the streets, if given a choice.

Finally, regarding your assertion that his motives and needs would have been "quite different" from those of Dahmer, I can only say that maybe they were - but the resulting evidence supports no such stance. Both men evidently needed a quick kill, giving access to a dead body. Both men, it would seem, felt compelled to annihilate those bodies. Both men opened up the abdomens of their victims. Both cut away bits and pieces. Both engaged in stripping the skeleton of it´s meat. I say the likeness is there - and to a very clear extent too. Beyond the evidence, we are left with guesswork.

What would be your own choice of comparison here, Tom? Any suggestions?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

what I read in the papers

Hello. I'm wondering if there is any evidence to support that "Jack" read the papers and followed his own exploits there?

I have seen some models of Jack--schizophrenic, hallucinatory--which would seem at loggerheads with the sophisticated taunting model of Jack, with which I grew up.

If Jack had really written "Dear Boss," then of course he did. He was playing cat and mouse with the police and was involved in an egotistical mind game. Roslyn D' Onston would be an excellent suspect here.

On the other hand, a Kosminski, being guided by voices (?), would likely not have followed the press reports about himself.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

It's a mistake to compare Dahmer to the Ripper. Dahmer sought privacy and committed his murders in the privacy and safety of his own sanctuary. His motives and needs would have been quite different from that of the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Natalie writes:

"The guys you talk of were much more "out of it" than the ripper appears to have been.The ripper took calculated risks and knew how to play at dodging the police."

Well, Natalie, Dahmer and Gein are not exactly on the same level - they are just connected by their fascination for dead meat.
But have a look at Dahmer! He was no more "out of it" than it allowed him to do away with seventeen men without being detected. He kept his deeds to his lair, and took a number of precautions not to get caught. He stripped the skulls of his victims from all meat - and then he painted them gray, to make them look like plastic, only to mention one thing! And don´t forget that he was able to convince two policemen who had a 14-year old Asian boy running round them in circles, naked and terrified, that there was nothing wrong, they boy was just hysterical, but he (Dahmer) would take care of him and calm him down. The police even took the couple back to Dahmers apartment!
Now, just how "out of it" is that?

Dahmer was well-spoken, respectably looking and very talented in swaying police and courtroom officials, as can be gleaned from his story. We actually KNOW that he took calculated risks - and pulled it off! - and we KNOW that he did not even have to dodge the police; he was clever enough to talk himself out of a very dangerous situation. No drooling there, I´d say!

The best, Natalie!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"The Ripper waited until the Nichols and Chapman inquests had ended to kill again. He read the papers, he wanted to know what the police knew."

Then again, it can be argued that the periods inbetween the killings were normal cooling off periods. And even if he wanted to know what the police knew - why would that stop him from killing? He would find out just the same.

"He was more compulsive than brave in that his urge to kill was too strong to ignore."

Fits my bill too - I see it the same way.

"But he took precautions where he could and was clever, so he was no lunatic."

Nor was Dahmer, in the usual sense of the word. Mad as a hatter, yes - but perfectly capable of staying away from detection and keeping a facade that allowed him to mix in.

"I'm pretty sure that when you look at Chapman you see what Nichols WOULD have looked like had Cross not shown up."

I´m not so sure of that. There is an overall progression that is hard to explain as just lack of time on his behalf otherwise. If Kelly represented what he always wanted to do, for example, then it is a strage coincidence that he was always interrupted just that little bit further into his explorations. We could just as well have had the line Kelly - Nichols - Eddowes - Chapman, with a rollercoaster of indulging levels, but we don´t, do we? Instead we have this building up, giving away a killer whose aspirations grew alongside his experience - or so it looks to me.

"But after the inquests and Dr. Phillips all but drooling over the Ripper's medical 'expertise', we get Eddowes and Kelly. He risked his liberty even further in order to deliver what would get him more praise (or so he thought) and more fear. That's ego."

I have often thought along these lines - that the Ripper acted partially as an ongoing response to the reports in the press. I´m not so sure of that anymore, just as I am not sure that his ego played a role in manifesting to the world what he could do. That would somehow reflect the mind of a man who felt at war with the norms and conventions of society, and who was determined to give the world hell for it.
But to a man like Dahmer, it seems to have been a very private matter. My take on it is that he would have known that he was supposed to be ashamed of what he had done, and that he accepted this judgement to a major extent. That is why he became a model inmate, just like Gein; they both acted like naughty children who had been found out, and who knew that they had been faulting. There is no bragging involved, as is so often the case with killers who enjoy tormenting their victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

I dont see him as particularly brazen , Fisherman.Just a killer who enjoyed killing and dismembering.The guys you talk of were much more "out of it" than the ripper appears to have been.The ripper took calculated risks and knew how to play at dodging the police.A "matter of fact" chap on the surface but a psychopath- in my view-who had probably been overindulged as a child.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi All,

The Ripper waited until the Nichols and Chapman inquests had ended to kill again. He read the papers, he wanted to know what the police knew. He was more compulsive than brave in that his urge to kill was too strong to ignore. But he took precautions where he could and was clever, so he was no lunatic. I'm pretty sure that when you look at Chapman you see what Nichols WOULD have looked like had Cross not shown up. But after the inquests and Dr. Phillips all but drooling over the Ripper's medical 'expertise', we get Eddowes and Kelly. He risked his liberty even further in order to deliver what would get him more praise (or so he thought) and more fear. That's ego. He killed a few birds (again, pardon the pun) with one stone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I'd say ego might have played a bigger part than sex."

That´s not how I perceive him, though - at least I do not see a bold, brazen type like the one Natalie suggests.
A killer like Dahmer was in fact terrified at the prospect of being left by his lovers. His need for control was a need led on by fright and feelings of unsufficiency to a large extent.
We may also ponder the fact that when a killer like this is caught, he often represents the role inmate, making no fuss at all in jail. Dahmer was like that, and so was Ed Gein, who has touching points here; meek, silent guys. That also means that a jailed Ripper - if he was something along these lines - may not have been the fierce creature people thought he would be...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

This is what I think Tom and that he was a man who hadnt the slightest compunction about killing .The "unfortunates" were to him disposable fodder,probably useful for testing out his killing skills and wits-no more no less.

It was likely just a case of "I feel a bit bored/ at a loose end tonight-if I get to kill someone that will bring me a bit of a fix.So should I cut the next ones insides out or maybe try cutting off her head?".And he thought,possibly correctly ,that he was smarter than those who tried to catch him, especially as they didnt catch him-so his sense of omnipotence just grew and grew - which was gratifying but probably eventually a bit boring-after all where do you go after Mary Kelly?Maybe a bit of torso work?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Limehouse pretty much stole the words right off of my keyboard, as that's exactly how I perceive the Ripper and his killings as well.

[lynn cates]

ego

Hello Tom. Ego may be dependent upon who the Ripper was. If it was a mere violent lunatic (Kosminski or Kaminski) perhaps not.

On the other hand, a D'onston (or someone like him)--now THERE was an ego!

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Why did he take the organs? Because he was there and he could. I'm not sure. I don't think he ate them, though he may have tried that also. I think Eddowes' kidney was collateral, but he specifically targeted womanhood with the uteri. With Kelly's heart, he targeted humanity. The ultimate statement. He believed his own press. We can't forget how big a role Ego played in all this. I'd say ego might have played a bigger part than sex.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott