JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Ben]

Is it just me, or does Bond dismiss virtually every contrary opinion to his own

Not at all, Mike. There were more doctors agreeing with him on the subject of the killer's skill than there were doctors disagreeing.

[Dan Norder]

Sure Ben, lets go and pick a few seriel killer cases from the last 100 or so years out of a hat, pick out a few similarites and pin them on the Ripper. wait a minute what was that Dan Norder said about about you and Sam using specific facts

"despite them being able to provide specific facts"

Trying to deduce JtR was a sexual killer just because Ted Bundy was, is not a specific fact, its a assumption and a guess. nothing more.

You really are addled, aren't you? Jack was a sexual serial killer because a whole long line of other crimes of the exact same nature were sexual serial killers, and because your whole idea of the concept of what a sexual serial killer is has been proven to be woefully ignorant. The more you whine and complain about others not agreeing with you the more you highlight the point that the experts on the topics you try to portray yourself as knowledgeable about say the exact opposite of what you, a complete nobody, try to say.

[Dan Norder]

Dr Bond is on record as having suggested the Whitechapel Murderer did indeed have skill and knowledge, by virtue of his comments dismissing Alice McKenzie.

The skill required to cut a throat (especially if one has already cut at least five human throats before, as Bond believed) is not the same as the skill of a doctor or even a butcher.

And for jc007's benefit, I'll repeat that he further noted "each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

[The Good Michael]

One thing I wish to add to this conversation is that we look at this era through 21st century goggles. We look at the ordinary man of today and think, "That banker doesn't have the skill to do such a thing." I may even agree with that. My point is, many, many ordinary citizens were Jacks of all trades (no pun intended, but thought provoking nevertheless). They did much of their own work on repairs and probably even bought bulk meat with friends and neighbors and cut it up themselves. They probably reupholstered chairs, cut cloth, mended sails, and many things that involved tools such as knives, awls, scissors, and even perhaps made do when they didn't have a certain tool, with old bayonets, sharpened files, grandfather's sword, whatever. The truth probably is that most people felt comfortable using tools, including knives. Many people probably did some of their own butchering (very periodically) and at least knew where animals organs were so that they could be removed. They didn't have to know what they were. As I said, they were Jacks of all trades. Anyone was probably skilled enough to do the damage. The mentality for it was another thing.

Mike

[perrymason]

The skill required to cut a throat (especially if one has already cut at least five human throats before, as Bond believed) is not the same as the skill of a doctor or even a butcher.

And for jc007's benefit, I'll repeat that he further noted "each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

Hello Dan,

Im not sure why the reference to a doctor, I know Ive never suggested that. But as to the throat cut, Phillips said during Alice's Inquest that the killer had..."..A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily. "...and that sounds very much like some comments made regarding the Rippers skill at throat cutting.

On the sexual component to the murders, in my amateur opinion I personally fail to see how the abdominal mutilations have anything to do with possible sexually based motivations, particularly with the absence of any evidence he sought some gratification with anything other than the taking organs. No signs ever of sexual congress initiated or attempted, no evidence of self satisfaction at the crime scenes, lack of focus on wounds to the pubic area, and they weren't all beaten to a pulp first. And if he just got off on cutting, then why choose public venues and limit his time...why not kill them all indoors like Mary. I believe he killed them outdoors because he knew that what he wanted was streetwalking outdoors after midnight, ....and what he needed to do would take around 5 minutes alone,..... and he had roughly that at every C5 site it seems, even if he killed Stride, Blackwell had her cut and bleeding no later than 12:56am.

But there is no need to repeat your comment...I did read it before, and I'm aware that your background makes you qualified to have your opinion.

But for me, I think some C5's weren't killed by Jack, .. I believe this Jack character is the one that takes abdominal organs, but without any sexual aspect, and for a reason beyond just trophies.

My best regards.

[jc007]

On the sexual component to the murders, in my amateur opinion I personally fail to see how the abdominal mutilations have anything to do with possible sexually based motivations, particularly with the absence of any evidence he sought some gratification with anything other than the taking organs. No signs ever of sexual congress initiated or attempted, no evidence of self satisfaction at the crime scenes, lack of focus on wounds to the pubic area, and they weren't all beaten to a pulp first. And if he just got off on cutting, then why choose public venues and limit his time...why not kill them all indoors like Mary. I believe he killed them outdoors because he knew that what he wanted was streetwalking outdoors after midnight, ....and what he needed to do would take around 5 minutes alone

Michael, what you say makes perfect sense, when using logic and factual evidence, both which Dan, Sam and Ben like to forget about when making thier arguements, they seem determined to argue he was a sexual serial killer when there is absolutely no evidence at the crime scenes to prove it and since there isnt they turn to modern "experts" and decide to use other crimes to compare with JtR's, sort of the same thing trying to argue Dr Bond is totally and completely right when he didn't even examine 4 out of the 5 accepted victims.

The more you whine and complain about others not agreeing with you the more you highlight the point that the experts on the topics you try to portray yourself as knowledgeable about say the exact opposite of what you, a complete nobody, try to say.

Dan, I never claimed to be knowledgeable, unlike you who happens to think you are a god of some sort and know better then anyone else yet you seem to continually fail to provide any factual evidence to support your claims that Jack was a sexual serial killer except to say, well modern day experts (who would have no idea, like the rest of us what happened 120 years ago) say he was, or gee theres been lots of other killers who were sexual killers so since they were then Jack the Ripper was aswell, which is totally baseless, at least Mike and myself for the most part use factual evidence in the case to argue our points you have yet to date have not in regards to JtR being a sexual serial killer, and before you or Sam or Ben attack back, please use factual evidence from 1888, not some article written by someone in 2000.

[Ben]

Michael, what you say makes perfect sense, when using logic and factual evidence, both which Dan, Sam and Ben like to forget about when making thier arguements

Jc007,

No offense, but you're just a hobbyist endorsing a unpopular minority view. Nothing wrong with hobbyism per se and nothing wrong with minority views, but it gets tedious to keep hearing you argue that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and doesn't use facts blah blah blah. If pretty much every abdomen-targetting and/or organ-retreiving serial killer has been shown to have been sexually-motivated, and every expert recognises as much, do you really want to argue that Jack the Ripper falls into a different catergory? Rejecting what the experts say, and replacing in with your own theorizing as though you were the expert isn't going to fly.

sort of the same thing trying to argue Dr Bond is totally and completely right when he didn't even examine 4 out of the 5 accepted victims

He saw the report. That's all the matters. Unless Phillips filed an incomplete report and withheld details for no reason, a report was all that was required. Yet despite Eddowes and Chapman being attributed to different killers by Phillips, you disagree with him on that and side with Thomas "Didn't see 'em" Bond instead.

[Observer]

Hi

I'd like to ask a question. When was it first mentioned in the media that the killer might posses medical skills? Could the killer have responded to the reports in the newspapers that he possesed medical skills by cutting out womb's and a kidney. In short could the press have prompted him to behave like a surgeon, albeit a very crude one?

Looking at the audacity of the crimes, it seems to me that it would not be out of character if the killer adopted the attitude.

"Oh they think I'm a doctor now, well a doctor I'll be"

Observer

[Doctor X]

On the sexual component to the murders, in my amateur opinion I personally fail to see how the abdominal mutilations have anything to do with possible sexually based motivations, . . .

For normal people, yes.

. . . particularly with the absence of any evidence he sought some gratification with anything other than the taking organs. . . . no evidence of self satisfaction at the crime scenes, . . .

How do you know that?

. . . lack of focus on wounds to the pubic area, . . .

There were wounds to the pubic area, particularly with Eddowes.

. . . and they weren't all beaten to a pulp first.

Sexual predators do not tend to beat their victims "to a pulp."

And if he just got off on cutting, then why choose public venues and limit his time...

It is perilous to apply rational standards to a predator. How is he going to get essentially homeless prostitutes "home?" His home?

It also does not take that long to . . . er . . . um . . . I can send you some literature on it . . . in a plain brown wrapper, of course.

I believe this Jack character is the one that takes abdominal organs, but without any sexual aspect, and for a reason beyond just trophies.

Curiously, the taking of the abdominal organs is one of the stronger indications for a sexual aspect.

You may be correct; however, your objections may easily be . . . be . . . not objections.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

I will skip over the fallacies:

. . . when there is absolutely no evidence at the crime scenes to prove it. . . .

What evidence is required? To be frank, unless he "whipped it out" and . . . well . . . did it "in" her . . . you would not find evidence. Seriously. It is not like there is . . . you know . . . a "lot." However, if he . . . you know . . . in his pants . . . you would not find anything else.

Methinks you are imagining a preconceived "sexual predator" and concluding because the evidence does not fit your preconception, Jack could not be a sexual predator. This is akin to perrymason noting he did not "beat them to a pulp." Since when is that a requirement of sexual predation?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Observer]

To be fair to Perry Mason Doctor X can anyone say without reservation that they understand the motives for the extensive mutilations performed on the victims? Can you or anyone else really understand what was going through the killer's mind as he ripped out a womb or a kidney? I think not. Oh plenty has been written about about trophy taking, sexual gratification etc, but only the killer can answer the above question.

Observer

[Dan Norder]

at least Mike and myself for the most part use factual evidence in the case to argue our points you have yet to date have not in regards to JtR being a sexual serial killer

You are either extremely deluded about what the accuracy of what you and Mike have claimed or are a very reckless liar. Perhaps a bit of both.

[Dan Norder]

To be fair to Perry Mason Doctor X can anyone say without reservation that they understand the motives for the extensive mutilations performed on the victims?

To be fair to the experts who have studied other mutilation killers and documented what those people's motivations were, they certainly can say with a whole lot more authority that they understand the motivation than a couple of nobodies on a message board can.

If this were a board about military weapons and some nimrods got into an argument about what caliber certain weapons were and tried to claim that all the books and other resources out there written by soldiers, hunters and policemen who had used those guns were wrong and that they knew better, those people would be laughed at, just as people here talking about sexual serial killers and sadism and so forth but who can't get even the basics right are laughed at. Fair is studying what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off so you can contribute in a meaningful way, not demanding respect while at the same time insulting the intelligence of the people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the topics.

[perrymason]

Hi

I'd like to ask a question. When was it first mentioned in the media that the killer might posses medical skills? Could the killer have responded to the reports in the newspapers that he possesed medical skills by cutting out womb's and a kidney. In short could the press have prompted him to behave like a surgeon, albeit a very crude one?

Looking at the audacity of the crimes, it seems to me that it would not be out of character if the killer adopted the attitude.

"Oh they think I'm a doctor now, well a doctor I'll be"

Observer

Hi Observer,

I believe it was with Martha that there was first hint of knowledge, because almost all major organs were stabbed, but that may not be the first time its mentioned or alluded to.

JC, I think that you are a very interested person, but not cognizant of what people like Sam, Ben and Dan do for the furthering of information about these cases. I cant tell you what to do, but I can tell you that although I may not agree with Sam and Ben and others on every point, I do value their opinion on every point and respect the base of knowledge they have of these cases. I feel the same way towards Dan, but we tend to clash a bit more than I do with others...but make no mistake, he knows his stuff.

Doctor X...if the only kills by Jack the Ripper are the ones with abdominal mutilations, and only the ones outdoors, how might the possible commercial venture of a street criminal capable of murder, meet the sexually driven killer criteria? Yes some of their pubic areas had wounds, but as I said, they were far from being the focus of the attack. Since they arrived on-site with lanterns and candles often just after the killer had departed, I feel sure they probably would have seen fresh ejaculate on their clothing, if he indulged himself on-site.

But again, the main reason I believe that Jack has been dubbed a sexual serial killer is because first we assume he serially killed 5 women that have different objectives present, and secondly, it completely ignores that there are stories about at the time, not denied by all involved, that dealt with the commercial sale of organs.

Heres one for ya...hypothetical of course, ...if any kills were for the uterus...so at least Annie and Kate would be included, with Polly it isn't clear if he would have gone further, ...and they were commission by someone who did know a bit of anatomy....and could advise his contracted thug, or thugs, where to cut and what to look for.

Jack is dubbed a sexual serial killer by some very smart people with the knowledge and experience to make that call....but he is categorized in that way because of the inclusion of murders that showed absolutely no objectives other than cutting and killing within the Canon.

If Jack was a street "merchant" making some decent money for killing street whores and gutting them to get at the valuable objects, and only killed the ones mentioned...then there is nothing at all to support any sexual context.

Now, the other killings...who knows, maybe the guy who killed Mary was a sexual serial predator, cause its apparent he had no idea what he was doing there, and no objective other than self indulgence.

Cheers all.

[perrymason]

Fair is studying what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off so you can contribute in a meaningful way, not demanding respect while at the same time insulting the intelligence of the people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the topics.

Whomever gave you the idea that knowledge equates to accuracy did you a real disservice.

I know lots of well educated people in many disciplines and I dont know any of them that is incapable of error...or discussing their areas of expertise with others that do not have their knowledge specifically, but they may grasp some principles and elements quite well without all the training.

You say you've studied, and so when you say Jack is a sexual serial killer its beyond reproach. Well....not only is it approachable, its defeatable, if the C5 isn't any "Canon" at all.

Best regards.