Evisceration - a side issue?

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Let's say that it is a side issue. What is the MAIN issue?"

Controlling to such a degree that you can allow yourself to destroy at will. Devouring another person - perhaps even as food.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"Let us not forget good ol' Long Liz."

Please letīs! (But I do see your point...)

"Regarding Nichols, it seems he intended to get dirtier, but Charles Cross interrupted him."

Or, he was simply too unfamiliar with his own inside to know that the path led on. Tough call.

"Calling the organs 'trophies' is just too cut and dried (pardon the pun). I believe there was more to it than that."

Owning? Controlling? Eating?

"He may or may not have hurt animals. It's another 'profiling' throwback."

My point is that I suspect that he would NOT have hurt animals. Killed? Yes, perhaps, but not "hurt" as such. We are not dealing with a sadist, by the appearance of things, and sadists are the ones who torture animals as a training session.

Good points all over, Tom. Thanks for chiming in!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

main issue

Hello Fish. Let's say that it is a side issue. What is the MAIN issue?

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Good questions.

1) Let us not forget good ol' Long Liz. I agree that it shouldn't be assumed that taking organs was his primary motive. I think destroying the women was his primary motive, because that escalates in the crimes, whereas the organ taking does not. If organs were his motive, Kelly should have been his buffet, yet he only took a heart. Regarding Nichols, it seems he intended to get dirtier, but Charles Cross interrupted him.

2) Pretty much EVERYTHING a man does is motivated to some extent by sex, and murder is no exception. However, I again believe that sex was a secondary motivator here. The reason for these assumptions is the proliferation of the 'profiling' techniques that were so popular in the 80's and 90's. Much of it has been proved malarkey, but yet it keeps popping it's head up like a royal conspiracy theory.

3) Same thing as number 2. Calling the organs 'trophies' is just too cut and dried (pardon the pun). I believe there was more to it than that. Following Chapman, the Ripper would have believed himself a Superman, because that's what the inquest made him out to be.

4) Why anyone would assume such a thing, when we don't know who the Ripper was, is beyond me. He may or may not have hurt animals. It's another 'profiling' throwback.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Limehouse!

What I am looking for is a way to put things - ALL things - in a frame. And if we settle for naming Jack an eviscerator and nothing else, we are left with a couple of giant sized holes in our scenario.
Just like you, I think we may be dealing with a man who DID eviscerate - but only as part of what he needed to do. And just like you, I think we may be looking at a main goal of dehumanization by way of the knife.

Time would have been an issue of almighty importance - it could well account for the escalation we are seeing. He would have worked up courage, determination and technique as he went along. And recognizing that the facial mutilations belonged to the two last victims is important.

The parallel I am talking about in this case is Dahmer. Itīs strange - I have read so much about him, but I have not seen the full potential significance until now!

Dahmer lived a sordid loners life in a crime-infested area. He lured (male) victims to his apartment, offering money for sex.
Once he got them into the apartment, he drugged them, using Mickey Finns in their drinks. After that, when they had passed out, he attacked them, blitz-style, in spite of them being unable to defend themselves, and strangled them.
Once they were dead, he cut them open, getting aroused by looking at the shiny intestines and feeling the warmth rising from their bodies. From there on, he moved on to cutting parts off and out, keeping some for trophies, while feastin on others - Dahmer was, of course a cannibal.
It was all about control for Dahmer - and what could be a more efficient way to gain control over somebody than to actually devour his flesh?

Jack cut out uterus and a kidney from Eddowes, and took with him. If he needed a symbol to reach sexual gratification by, why not just go for one of the organs, instead of two? Because, perhaps, he had already tried the uterus (Chapmans) as food, and wanted to try something new?
Same thing with Kelly - what if he cut it all out for annihilationsīsake - and kept the heart for devouring?

Dahmer was known in his young teens to travel round with plastic bags and collect dead animals - road kills and such. And what did he do with these putrid animals? He cut the bones clean from flesh. Years on, he would do the same thing to his human victims - strip them of their flesh, denying them as much as possible of a human form. He kept stripped skeletons in his home.

He had animals of his own, Dahmer - but he seems never to have hurt them. Instead he loved his dog, and treated it well.

And what does Jack do, when finally given the time inside Millers Court? He cuts away breasts, cuts away buttocks and strips the legs of Mary Kelly from flesh, down to the bone. He demands total control of her and makes sure he gets that control using his knife. And - perhaps - he tops it off by eating her heart afterwards.

What troubles me somewhat is that this all seems to point to a killer that would perhaps have been disorganized enough to lag behind at the crime scenes; someone who would have gotten caught.
Then again - Dahmer! When one of his victims, a fourteen year old Asian boy, escaped his flat, Dahmer calmly followed the naked boy into the street, and when the police arrived and asked questions, he was able to convince them that the boy was a grown up lover of his. And so convincing and well-mannered and rational was he, that the police bought his story, and returned the boy to him, leaving them both in Dahmers apartment. Minutes after the police were gone, the boy was strangled and Dahmer set about opening him up and dismembering him.
Another speciality of Dahmerīs was to try and cut the face from the skull off his victims.

I have thrown forward the suggestion that the Tabram deed could well be the deed of a scavenger. If we work along these lines, it seems this may hold some water - maybe the Ripper was not about eviscerating in the first place. Maybe that was nothing but a by-product of a wish to own, to control, to annihilate?

The best!
Fisherman

[Limehouse]

Hi Fisherman,

What an excellent and thought provoking thread. I'll have a go!

1. Jack certainly was an eviscerator - but I don't believe he did so to procure organs. He enjoyed cutting and slicing and he enjoyed de-humanising his victims which is why, I believe, he destroyed the facial features of two of his victims. Why not others? Well, if Polly was his first true ripper-style victim he may not have had the full courage (or time) to go further than he did. After all, cutting through a person's abdomen must take some guts (pardon the pun) and not a little strength (to get through the muscles). If we accept the 'five' theory then it is true that the killings escalate in their ferocity (except for Stride) and it is the last two vicitms who have their faces destroyed.

2. I believe he was a sexual psychopath who gained sexual gratification from cutting, stabbing and 'wallowing' in the warmth and slime of the abdomen. I don't think he wanted to possess the sexual organs as such, but he was sexually aroused by slashing and rummaging around the abdominal cavity.

3. The organs probably did provide some sexual gratification on a short-term basis - whilst they were still warm and moist or something equally revolting.

4. Can't answer that one! It's certainly possible but knowing that would not really lead us to our killer.

[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