JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, Sam.

Not a problem, Paul - that was a general, and I hope polite, comment suggesting that a little more "focus" should be applied by contributors. I wasn't pinging anyone in particular.

We all find it hard to rein in our enthusiasm at times (or "gallop off on our hobby-horses", as I once put it). I just wish it didn't happen with such alarming frequency.

[Doctor X]

Threads drift as they will. It seems clear that the "skill" required lies somewhere between "not terribly much really" and "like, wow!" and there does not seem to be a conclusive way to narrow down such.

Each can have a reasonable opinion regarding where in that range Jack fell, and others can agree or disagree.

Motive is relevant to the skill. If Jack proved a "highly trained surgeon" but primarily was interested in a sexual/political/religious need to "hack" . . . what does that tell you? I am not advocating that position; however, much of the analysis will depend on such assumptions--reasonable and unreasonable.

--J.D.

[paul emmett]

Sorry, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

It hasn't escaped my sense of irony that I started this specific thread (viz., whether or not the wounds required any particular skill) because another thread was being pulled out of shape.

There are other threads dedicated to "profiling" and matters psychological. This one was meant to be about the very physical stuff of knives and wounds, and the practical manner in which one begets the other.

[paul emmett]

You missed one possibility. That Jack might have fulfilled his sexual needs by killing and mutilating as such, not focusing on the victim's pubic area.

This is a good point, and it is, indeed, one possibility. There are a host of others, because I think we have been seeing sexual motivation too restrictively. To me it is obvious that these killings were sexually motivated, but it is far from obvious what that motivation was. It could entail a whole range of fetishes and perversions, a spectrum of desires--and fears.

To me, for example, NOT focusing on the victims' pubic areas, might well suggest fear, a "sexual" fear of the feminine. And this in turn would make the few stabs to the pubes with Nichols and Eddowes--and Tabram--most suggestive. To say nothing of the all out attack on MJK"s genitals.

And one can agree with this or no, but I do think we must broaden our notion of "sexual" to discuss JTR's sexual motivation.

[Doctor X]

...you must be correct Doc

One becomes use to it. . . .

and I can only fumble in the dark for answers...

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam yet again, for I never made that suggestion.

. . . we can let the rest return to why they came to this thread, discussing possible skill present in actions made by a killer, . . .

Since you are the only one hithertofore who attempted to tangent the thread, I am afraid it is up to you to change your behavior, particularly with regards to the tone.

My opinion is that there was commerce being done using parts of a few of them, . . .

Evidences?

Thanks.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

Well after reading that Im convinced,...you must be correct Doc and I can only fumble in the dark for answers... ...ok, do you feel placated,...then perhaps we can let the rest return to why they came to this thread, discussing possible skill present in actions made by a killer, I am to assume, using all 5 of the Victims of The Canon.

My error Witch, but I hadn't intended to list any possible sexually motivated element, you're right...he may have coveted. My opinion is that there was commerce being done using parts of a few of them, and since at least one of the attributed victims has absolutely nothing in common wound-wise but a throat wound with the others, its from that perspective that I see a mini-canon perhaps.

A poor layman like myself cannot help but be tempted to draw conclusions from the absence of most of what would be present within a sexually motivated serial killers trail, and to wonder whom to believe....now and then.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

Thanks for your critique Dr X, but a smarmy, self important position does nothing to negate any of what I suggested.

Since you are the embodiment of both smarmy and self-importance, I am unsure what your objection is.

Perhaps you and others should refresh yourself as to the requirements within civilized debating.

From one who whines and insults such as yourself? I think not; I prefer the council of gentlemen.

To say Jack was a Sexually Motivated Serial Killer because you studied Psychology...

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam.

or because you understand anatomy as relates to the wounds, . . .

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam.

As a hint, "civilized debating" eschews fallacies such as that. Similarly, making factual errors as you did above does not constitute "civilized debating" either.

Goes on a fair bit without actually making an argument.

Do inform me when you have a serious objection. Your "injur'd merit" is not a "serious objection.

--J.D.

[Witch]

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.

You missed one possibility. That Jack might have fulfilled his sexual needs by killing and mutilating as such, not focusing on the victim's pubic area.

Thanks for your critique Dr X, but a smarmy, self important position does nothing to negate any of what I suggested.

Perhaps you and others should refresh yourself as to the requirements within civilized debating. To say Jack was a Sexually Motivated Serial Killer because you studied Psychology...or because you understand anatomy as relates to the wounds, or because you've read every damn opinion published during and after the Ripper killings, or because a contemporary investigator said so..none of that validates that position. The ONLY criteria you can use to make such a statement is using fixed, identified, forensically attributed, victims.

And in case you havent noticed.....they are all unsolved murders..Not Jack the Ripper victims.

So since the best you have is unknown killer, unknown motives, unknown skill due to accurately defined victims list, and unknown errors on the part of contemporary investigators.....my claim that some women may have been killed for their organs is equal to your claim he killed 5, and was sexually motivated.

Neither can be disproven or proven without that victims list.....so perhaps ease off the smarm a bit for now. You may well be right one day, he may be proven a Sexual Serial Predator....but that day is not Today.

Cheers.

[Doctor X]

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?

I am unaware that anyone is proclaiming certitude with anything regarding "who" the Ripper was and "what" his exact motivations were. However, given that serial killers before and after him were driven by sexual reasons, it is not unreasonable to speculate. To simply claim "we don't know" in the face of what is known about him and other serial killers who mutilate is not an argument.

Doctor X...if the only kills by Jack the Ripper are the ones with abdominal mutilations, and only the ones outdoors, . . .

I am unaware where I made that assertion.

I am unaware how one can sustain that assertion; it appears to consist of "cherry-picking" the victims.

. . . 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.

You have piled up a lot of assumptions there. That does not make an argument.

. . . 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.

Ipse dixit; however, it appears these "very smart men" have made a far better argument for not cherry-picking them out of his victims.

. . . cause its apparent he had no idea what he was doing there, and no objective other than self indulgence.

According to whom?

This makes her ineligible for a Ripper victim how?

Ok...Im trying to be patient and nice with all the innuendo and insults.....

You have been subject to neither from me, but I am happy to demonstrate where you have inflicted both upon others.

. . . but read what I said before commenting on it.....

It seems, from your reaction, I read it quite well.

--J.D.

Actually I have had enough of your BS Norder.....Ive re-read some of your slings and you really have no idea how idiotic it sounds making imperical statements about a killer who never really existed, when we have no foundation of proof of whom exactly he killed, or how many.

You've decided why he killed before even knowing those 2 starting points. A Sexual Serial Killer....well, what if this Jack only killed one of these women? Or just the two that lost uteri?

Regards.

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.

Ok...Im trying to be patient and nice with all the innuendo and insults.....but read what I said before commenting on it.....I did in no way say that it was a requirement...I listed it as a potential signpost.

Regards.

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.

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.