sexually motivated serial killers

[John G]

I think that the authorities probably did believe the JtR murders were sexually motivated. Donald Swanson's report on the Pinchin Street torso, for example, highlighted a clear distinction with the Whitechapel murders, stating that there was an " absence of attack on the genitals as in series of Whitechapel murders."

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that the authorities probably did believe the JtR murders were sexually motivated. Donald Swanson's report on the Pinchin Street torso, for example, highlighted a clear distinction with the Whitechapel murders, stating that there was an " absence of attack on the genitals as in series of Whitechapel murders."

Were the genitals "specifically" targeted in The WM ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I think that conclusion is inescapable. Even Tabran was stabbed repeatedly in the genital area, and 17 of the 39 stab wounds were to the breasts. That is what makes these murders incredibly rare: only one in a thousand murders involves trauma to the genital area: see Keppel (2005).

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that conclusion is inescapable. Even Tabran was stabbed repeatedly in the genital area, and 17 of the 39 stab wounds were to the breasts. That is what makes these murders incredibly rare: only one in a thousand murders involves trauma to the genital area: see Keppel (2005).

Are you obsessed with Keppel ? You keep speaking of him as if he were a god.

Were the 39 wounds centered around the genital area. No they were not, they were from the lower chest down to the abdomen so how does that make this attack sexually motivated, the answer it does not.

None of the other genitals of the victims were specifically attacked in a way that could be described as sexually motivated.

Eddowes in fact was stabbed a number of times through her outer clothing. The wounds started around her breasts and went right down to her pubic area.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Are you obsessed with Keppel ? You keep speaking of him as if he were a god.

Were the 39 wounds centered around the genital area. No they were not, they were from the lower chest down to the abdomen so how does that make this attack sexually motivated, the answer it does not.

None of the other genitals of the victims were specifically attacked in a way that could be described as sexually motivated.

Eddowes in fact was stabbed a number of times through her outer clothing. The wounds started around her breasts and went right down to her pubic area.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Keppel is a highly regarded criminologist and profiler; as a detective, he investigated both Bundy and Ridgeway. All of the C5 victims, except Stride, and Tabram, suffered trauma to the genital area-that is an important factor that differentiates these crimes from the Torso crimes, as Swanson acknowledged. Keppel also argued that JtR's signature involved progressive picquerism, which he defines as "deriving sexual pleasure through stabbing, cutting or slicing another person. " However, in the interest of objectivity, can you see a potential difficulty with that analysis?

[Errata]

Keppel is a highly regarded criminologist and profiler; as a detective, he investigated both Bundy and Ridgeway. All of the C5 victims, except Stride, and Tabram, suffered trauma to the genital area-that is an important factor that differentiates these crimes from the Torso crimes, as Swanson acknowledged. Keppel also argued that JtR's signature involved progressive picquerism, which he defines as "deriving sexual pleasure through stabbing, cutting or slicing another person. " However, in the interest of objectivity, can you see a potential difficulty with that analysis?

Picquerists are sadists. Always always sadists. The very definition, no getting around it. Jack was not a sadist. These wounds were almost all post mortem. Therefor he cannot by the definition of the word be a picquerist. And that's without all the attendant problems in the use of the term "picquerism".

It's also entirely possibly to attack sex organs without a sexual motive. The organs in question are also involved in generation, and the areas more associated with sexual pleasure and not at all involved in procreation remain untouched.

[Barnaby]

It's also entirely possibly to attack sex organs without a sexual motive. The organs in question are also involved in generation, and the areas more associated with sexual pleasure and not at all involved in procreation remain untouched.

This is true, but probably rarer than having a sexual motive. But I have no data on this. Surely Keppel does.

[Trevor Marriott]

Keppel is a highly regarded criminologist and profiler; as a detective, he investigated both Bundy and Ridgeway. All of the C5 victims, except Stride, and Tabram, suffered trauma to the genital area-that is an important factor that differentiates these crimes from the Torso crimes, as Swanson acknowledged. Keppel also argued that JtR's signature involved progressive picquerism, which he defines as "deriving sexual pleasure through stabbing, cutting or slicing another person. " However, in the interest of objectivity, can you see a potential difficulty with that analysis?

John
You are back tracking now you specifically stated in a previous post that Tabram was the work of a sexually motivated killer. You now accept that was not the case, and still suggest the others were.

Nicholls is another case where it cannot be argued that her murder was sexually motivated there was no specific attack to her genitals. The same applies to Coles and Mckenzie.

So all in all your theory of a sexually motivated killer does not stand up to close scrutiny.

As to Keppel a fine officer indeed in his day but its easy to profile a killer when you have them under lock and key.

As to Bundy and Ridgway they were both responsible for their own demise. In fact with Ridgway the police let him slip through their fingers several times.

As to Keppels involvement with Bundy much of what he has written in the aftermath has to be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

John
You are back tracking now you specifically stated in a previous post that Tabram was the work of a sexually motivated killer. You now accept that was not the case, and still suggest the others were.

Nicholls is another case where it cannot be argued that her murder was sexually motivated there was no specific attack to her genitals. The same applies to Coles and Mckenzie.

So all in all your theory of a sexually motivated killer does not stand up to close scrutiny.

As to Keppel a fine officer indeed in his day but its easy to profile a killer when you have them under lock and key.

As to Bundy and Ridgway they were both responsible for their own demise. In fact with Ridgway the police let him slip through their fingers several times.

As to Keppels involvement with Bundy much of what he has written in the aftermath has to be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Perhaps poor grammar on my part! "All of the C5 victims, except Stride, and Tabram," was meant to read "all of the C5 victims and Tabram", with the words "except Stride" in parentheses. Perhaps I should have used dashes or brackets, instead of commas, to highlight the in parentheses bit! Donald Swanson, when considering the Pinchin Street Torso, stated that the Whitechapel victims were attack in the genital area- and he was the detective in charge of the case.

This was what Dr Bond said about McKenzie: "I see in this murder evidence of a similar design to the former Whitechapel murders., viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skilfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

[Fisherman]

Nicholls is another case where it cannot be argued that her murder was sexually motivated there was no specific attack to her genitals.

From Spratlings notes on Nichols, later echoed in Swansons report:

"...and tw[o] small stabs on private parts..."

Why is it that you donīt consider stabbing to the genitalia sexually motivated, Trevor? Could you please explain?

[Trevor Marriott]

From Spratlings notes on Nichols, later echoed in Swansons report:

"...and tw[o] small stabs on private parts..."

Why is it that you donīt consider stabbing to the genitalia sexually motivated, Trevor? Could you please explain?

There is specific stabbing of those areas as a result of an overall perhaps frenzied attack. i.e Tabram and specific targeting and stabbing of the genitalia as a result of a sexually motivated attack which is absent.

Eddowes was stabbed through her clothing in those areas so not sexually motivated. You need to look more closely at the term sexually motivated which you seek to rely on. Just because a victim has wounds to that area doesn't always mean sexually motivated.

Apart from Kelly did any of the victims have their breasts mutilated or cut off. Did any of the victims have their vaginas mutilated or specifically targeted? Both these would perhaps point to a sexually motivated killer

So many pointers to suggest that there was in fact more than one killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Perhaps poor grammar on my part! "All of the C5 victims, except Stride, and Tabram," was meant to read "all of the C5 victims and Tabram", with the words "except Stride" in parentheses. Perhaps I should have used dashes or brackets, instead of commas, to highlight the in parentheses bit! Donald Swanson, when considering the Pinchin Street Torso, stated that the Whitechapel victims were attack in the genital area- and he was the detective in charge of the case.

This was what Dr Bond said about McKenzie: "I see in this murder evidence of a similar design to the former Whitechapel murders., viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skilfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

Swansons report was based on what Bond had said, and Bond gave an opinion, but as we know now Victorian doctors opinions were at times nothing more then guesswork. You are taking abdominal stab wounds to the extreme in suggesting sexual motivation. See my previous post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There is specific stabbing of those areas as a result of an overall perhaps frenzied attack. i.e Tabram and specific targeting and stabbing of the genitalia as a result of a sexually motivated attack which is absent.

Eddowes was stabbed through her clothing in those areas so not sexually motivated. You need to look more closely at the term sexually motivated which you seek to rely on. Just because a victim has wounds to that area doesn't always mean sexually motivated.

Apart from Kelly did any of the victims have their breasts mutilated or cut off. Did any of the victims have their vaginas mutilated or specifically targeted? Both these would perhaps point to a sexually motivated killer

So many pointers to suggest that there was in fact more than one killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not speaking about Tabram, Eddowes or Kelly.

I am specifically addressing the fact that you in your last post wrote, and I quote ad verbatim:
Nicholls is another case where it cannot be argued that her murder was sexually motivated there was no specific attack to her genitals.

There WAS a specific attack to her genitals. There were two stabs to the private parts.

So you are wrong: Nichols cannot be ruled out as a sexually motivaret murder on account of any lack of a specific attack on her genitalia.

That is the one and only thing I am commenting on. It is therefore also the one and only thing YOU should be commenting on; were you right or wrong?

Iīll help you out: You were wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not speaking about Tabram, Eddowes or Kelly.

I am specifically addressing the fact that you in your last post wrote, and I quote ad verbatim:
Nicholls is another case where it cannot be argued that her murder was sexually motivated there was no specific attack to her genitals.

There WAS a specific attack to her genitals. There were two stabs to the private parts.

So you are wrong: Nichols cannot be ruled out as a sexually motivaret murder on account of any lack of a specific attack on her genitalia.

That is the one and only thing I am commenting on. It is therefore also the one and only thing YOU should be commenting on; were you right or wrong?

Iīll help you out: You were wrong.

I should also point you in the direction of Dr Llewellyn who makes no specific mentions of wounds to the genitalia in the case of Nichols nor does he pass any opinion that the crime was sexually motivated.

If you are talking about a sexually motivated killer then you have to look at the overall picture with regards to all the victims, what can been seen in one should be seen in others if the work of the same killer, but that is not the case.

Now who is wrong?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I should also point you in the direction of Dr Llewellyn who makes no specific mentions of wounds to the genitalia in the case of Nichols nor does he pass any opinion that the crime was sexually motivated.

If you are talking about a sexually motivated killer then you have to look at the overall picture with regards to all the victims, what can been seen in one should be seen in others if the work of the same killer, but that is not the case.

Now who is wrong?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you have Llewellyns report at hand, Trevor?

No, I didnīt think so.

But you are nevertheless suggesting that Spratling misreported the stabs to the genitalia, as if it was a certainty. You claim confidently that there was no attack to Nichols genitalia.

Why would I - or anybody else - accept that this is the correct view, when the evidence is directly contradictory to it?

I donīt disagree that sexual motivation should preferably be visible in all victims in a series. But once again: that is not what we are discussing, is it?

I would in this context only add that using the approach that only attacks on the genitalia reveals a sexual motivation is rather care- and reckless.

Colicott, if you remember him, stabbed girls in their bottoms. Does the lack of an attack to the genitalia tell us that he was not sexually motivated?

Does taking the feet off from a victim not fall into the category of sexual crimes - if the perpetrator is a foot fetischist?

How is that for looking at the overall picture?

In the Ripper killings, with the one exception of Stride, the lower abdomen was laid open, and the lower abdomen contains the reproductive organs. In two cases, the uterus was taken, in three it was cut out.

Add the stabs to Nichols genitalia that Spratling and Swanson conjured up , and you will have a pretty decent case for a sexually motivated serialist.

But letīs not delve into all of that. Letīs just concentrate on how you wrote that Nicholsī genitalia was not specifically attacked. Was that really so, Trevor? Iīll leave you to ponder that question.