sexually motivated serial killers

[Rosella]

I'm sure you can add a lot, and keep posting!

[Errata]

To be perfectly honest, it matters very little which exact part of her genitals we are speaking of. The reason being that we speak about the topic since it was claimed that Nichols genitalia were not specifically targetted by her killer, and this would go to strengthen the suggestion that the killer was not sexually motivated.

Of course, no matter which exact parts of the genitalia we are speaking of, it goes without saying that a sexual motivation can be argued to have been the ground for the stabs.

There still isn't any evidence they were specifically targeted in this case, though of course her uterus would have been hard to miss with the damage that was done. What was done to Polly Nichols was the knife equivalent of a shotgun blast. Widespread if not global damage, hard to determine where he was aiming at, if he was aiming at all. We can infer from later attacks that he was certainly interested in organs in the region. So it is certainly a logical step towards a Chapman like murder.

Of course anyone can argue for a sexual motive. Most in fact do. But just because it's the popular argument doesn't make it the only one. Or the right one.

Consider that there are four areas of the body associated with sex, and are most commonly targeted by those committing acts of sexual violence. Jack targeted only one of those areas for all the murders except for Mary Kelly, and the one least favored. Internal sexual organs. That which cannot be reached by hand or mouth. Now typically by the time someone gets to the internal organs they are targeting the external ones. Not Jack. And of all of the killers who targeted those four areas, Jack the Ripper remains the only one to not touch the other three for most of his killing career. And when he had all the time in the world to do what he wanted, he only targeted two. That's not normal for a sexually motivated killer. So there's a reason he was so selective in his targets for sexual violence, and it may be that it wasn't sexual violence at all.

[Barnaby]

The discussion of if/what part of the genitalia was attacked may be quite important in determining if more than one killer was involved. It has little to do with whether the killer was sexually motivated. A killer could achieve sexual climax without ever touching the sex organs of his victims. The sexually motivated inference - while I think a good one - is only that. It is also rather unfalsifiable.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

You could say any form of penertration with a blade could have sexual under tones.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks to everyone for their opinions. I still think the LVP police might not have ascribed sexual motivation to the majority of the murders, because they may have been more focused on whether the victims had been "outraged" or not.
It seems as if many of our viewpoints are based on a more sophisticated understanding of psychology, let alone criminal psychology, than they may have had at the time.

Still, I'm an amateur when it comes to criminology, and will bow to the majority opinion of those on the boards.

[Sam Flynn]

You could say any form of penertration with a blade could have sexual under tones.

As Freud himself is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

[Harry D]

Abdominal mutilations and the removal of the uterus & breasts certainly have sexual implications. However, the Ripper didn't engage in any intercourse with his victims, not even Mary Kelly who was reputedly the most attractive of the C5. He might've been the kind of killer who could only get sexually aroused after the mutilations, but no semen was found at any of the crime scenes to back up this theory. Therefore, we're looking at someone like Sutcliffe, a man who frequented prostitutes but never actually sex with any of his victims (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Sam Flynn]

Abdominal mutilations and the removal of the uterus & breasts certainly have sexual implications.

Indeed, but... spleen, navel, kidney, liver? None of these are associated with the sexual act, unless the instruction manuals have got it horrible wrong

Whilst Jack probably obtained sexual gratification from the dominance he exerted over his victims, I'd suggest that the mutilation/excision of organs were another aspect of this power-trip; not overtly sexual in themselves, and not intended to symbolise coital penetration.

[John G]

Abdominal mutilations and the removal of the uterus & breasts certainly have sexual implications. However, the Ripper didn't engage in any intercourse with his victims, not even Mary Kelly who was reputedly the most attractive of the C5. He might've been the kind of killer who could only get sexually aroused after the mutilations, but no semen was found at any of the crime scenes to back up this theory. Therefore, we're looking at someone like Sutcliffe, a man who frequented prostitutes but never actually sex with any of his victims (correct me if I'm wrong).

Hello Harry,

Yes, Sutcliffe is a perfect example of the complexities of this issue. He vehemently denied that he stabbed his victims in areas of sexual attraction in order to obtain sexual gratification. In fact, I believe he reassured his wife that he didn't have intercourse with any of his victims.

However, these denials are untenable. For instance, one victim was stabbed through the vagina three times. Moreover, he stitched together special clothing "under his trousers so that he could enjoy sexual gratification while murdering his victims." ( Bilton, 2012).

[Fisherman]

There still isn't any evidence they were specifically targeted in this case, though of course her uterus would have been hard to miss with the damage that was done. What was done to Polly Nichols was the knife equivalent of a shotgun blast. Widespread if not global damage, hard to determine where he was aiming at, if he was aiming at all. We can infer from later attacks that he was certainly interested in organs in the region. So it is certainly a logical step towards a Chapman like murder.

Of course anyone can argue for a sexual motive. Most in fact do. But just because it's the popular argument doesn't make it the only one. Or the right one.

Consider that there are four areas of the body associated with sex, and are most commonly targeted by those committing acts of sexual violence. Jack targeted only one of those areas for all the murders except for Mary Kelly, and the one least favored. Internal sexual organs. That which cannot be reached by hand or mouth. Now typically by the time someone gets to the internal organs they are targeting the external ones. Not Jack. And of all of the killers who targeted those four areas, Jack the Ripper remains the only one to not touch the other three for most of his killing career. And when he had all the time in the world to do what he wanted, he only targeted two. That's not normal for a sexually motivated killer. So there's a reason he was so selective in his targets for sexual violence, and it may be that it wasn't sexual violence at all.

I do not disagree with any of this at all, Errata. I have never been one to say that there must have been a sexual motive behind the Ripper murders.
The reason I point to the stabs to the genitalia in Nichols case, is because Trevor Marriott confidently stated that there was no reason to conclude that there was any sexual motvie behind the Nichols killing, since her genitalia were not specifically targetted.

As I have already pointed out to you, I basically and overall agree with what you say. That´s because you have the sound mind to say that "there is no evidence" that the genitalia were specifically targetted.

Exactly so. Either they were or they were not. The fact that there were TWO stabs somewhat reinforces the suggestion that they WERE specifically targetted, but even that is not enough to be certain.

And that is where I have all sorts of trouble with the over-confident Mr Marriott, who claims it for a fact that there were no specific stabs to the genitalia.

The way I see it, we must open up for the possibility that these stabs were indeed specifically aimed for the genitalia and also of a sexual nature, JUST AS we must open up for the possibility that they were not.

What we must NOT do, is to reason that they would somehow be proven not to have been either specific or of a sexual nature. They could have been either or - or both. Or neither, for that matter.

Just like you seemingly agree about, it is of course also erroneous to dismiss the idea that OTHER damage to Nichols´ body could have been of a sexual nature. Sexuality is not only about the genitalia. You know that and I know that - but the good Mr Marriott seems not to have been informed about this twist of nature.

I hope you see what I´m after now?

[Fisherman]

As Freud himself is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

"Psychobabble", Gareth?

Ever heard that story about when Groucho Marx during a radio show spoke to a housewife who had had up against twenty children, and asked her how she found time to do anything else?

How about that cigar of yours, the woman answered, you seem to be smoking that all of your time.

-Yes, Groucho replied - but I take it out every now and then...

[Sam Flynn]

"Psychobabble", Gareth?

Got it in one, Fish