JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[perrymason]

The retreival of organs may indeed have ranked high on his agenda as he acquired criminal experience, but then evisceral depavity has proved popular amongst sexual serial killers, and in those cases there was never any motive beyond trophy-taking or cannibalism. No need to chalk it up to something silly such as organ collecting or medical research, ......

Hello Ben,

I guess I can gather from the above that you believe I'm a tad bonkers to believe there is potential for specific organ objectives in some of these killings. What I think is a tad bonkers is using all 5 of the Canonicals to create a solo serial killer theory, when there are obvious fundamental differences there, and no clear objective could be suggested or identified in all 5, other than perhaps the killers "madness".

It would appear that by lumping these 5 together it saves them from having to explain why they had 5 individual murder cases where they have no idea of a killer for any of them, and no clues to go by. They all just become one madman's spree.

IMHO, each of the Canon are individual cold cases, and should only be paired
with the 4 others for analysis, not just to substantiate Bond's and Macnaughten's opinions.

There are only 2 women among the 5 that share an organ taken, there are only 3 of the 5 where abdominal organs might have been his focus by the resulting evidence, and there is one included that had nothing at all to do with the style exhibitted with the previous victims, by this "mad" killer.

IF there was a man after female abdominal organs, we can rule out Kelly..and we can rule out Stride. The two square pegs for our round hole peg board...the two that make the weakest arguments for inclusion. Maybe its time we try and figure out who killed these women by what happens to them....not by starting with someone else's "Canon".

Remember, one of the teaching hospitals did not deny that they had been approached by someone seeking female organ samples.

Best regards Ben.

[Blackkat]

But maybe he has a reason he does this beyond reckless slashing of female pedestrians out past midnight.

Have you ever given any thought as to what that or those other reason(s) might have been? What is your opinion on his reasoning?

[jc007]

Michael,
i believe you and I may be on a similar wave length when it comes to the Ripper, i also think a lot of people on this forum seem to want to have thier cake and eat it too.

By that i mean that they want to label the Ripper a sexual sadistic killer yet at the same time ignore certain aspects that refute this. Yes he did attack the sexual organs of his victims along with other organs too, this does not make him a sexual killer, there is no evidence that he gained any kind of sexual gratitude from what he did, nor can anyone say with any kind or certainty that he got aroused in anyway from what he did, yet "intelligent" people want to label him a sexual killer based only on the fact that injuries were sustained to sexual and reproductive organs and as i said before along with other non sexual organs as well, the sexual organs was not his only target. This alone does not automatically make the ripper a sexual killer as many people label him.

Now the sadistic part, the dictionary states that a sadist is: The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others, yet the ripper didn't make his victims suffer physical or emotionally, he killed them rather abruptly, not the actions of someone trying to gain pleasure from seeing someone suffer, they were dead or close to it before he proceeded with his "operations".

Logically its seems that there was some other motive involved as it appears sadism was not one of them nor sexual gratification, so what is the next logical thing the Ripper focused on?? the organs of course, it seems only logical that the motive for the killings was for the removal of the organs, for what reason? who knows? but to speculate the killer was sadistic when he killed quickly and quietly out in the open without making his victims suffer when he could of led them to a more secluded place to make them suffer (if indeed he wanted to do that) or to label him a sexual killer when the only thing to base that on is that the sexual organs where attacked (along with other parts of the body) is rubbish.

[perrymason]

Have you ever given any thought as to what that or those other reason(s) might have been? What is your opinion on his reasoning?

Hi BlackKat,

I have suggested a few different ideas on what, within the realm of possibilities, may have been going on here with some of these women, and Ive I mentioned that its my belief that the only potential connection of victims and killer with this Jack/Whitechapel Murderer/Leather Apron/ fellow that make any sense to me are with Polly, Annie and Kate.

I do feel there is perhaps a connection between Kate and Mary, involving only Kate's killer...although I believe Mary was just presented as a Ripper killing, not an actual one.

These were not isolated incidents of crime during 1888, they were just the ones that involved whores blood,...and between Street Thugs, and Fenians, and Petty Thieves and a known market in years past for cadavers and parts...who knows what the actual mix might have been in these 5 murders.

Maybe three for organs, with the 1st attempt failing....1 by a street thug in anger, and one by an insane acquaintance or spurned lover.

I do not believe that there exists one story, and that includes the actual wounds, that could possibly link all 5 women as by a single hand, that is not based on a killers desire for merely cutting and blood.

Sure...some kill for that. Some dont. Some kill for even more bizarre reasons...or more mundane, such as for profit. And we aren't likely talking about 1 killer for all of these five anyway.

Just caught your post jc....and have to run...catch you later on.

My best jc, BlackKat.

[Ben]

If a serial killer targets the abdominal region, he is by definition a lust murderer or SSK, and pretty much all abdominal mutilators fall into this category. To argue that serial killers don't derive sexual satisfaction from lifeless corpses, or that sadism only refers to the inflicting of pain, or that organ-extractors aren't sexually motivated shows a serious misunderstanding of the topic.

[jc007]

If a serial killer targets the abdominal region, he is by definition a lust murderer or SSK, and pretty much all abdominal mutilators fall into this category. To argue that serial killers don't derive sexual satisfaction from lifeless corpses, or that sadism only refers to the inflicting of pain, or that organ-extractors aren't sexually motivated shows a serious misunderstanding of the topic.

this still does not prove anything, you can put "sugar" label on a jar of flour, it doesn't make the flour anymore sugar than what it was before the label was attached.

[Ben]

True, but if the contents of the jar looks like sugar and tastes like sugar, I'm not going to slap a "Pickled Gherkins" label on the front.

[Dan Norder]

Now the sadistic part, the dictionary states that a sadist is: The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others, yet the ripper didn't make his victims suffer physical or emotionally, he killed them rather abruptly, not the actions of someone trying to gain pleasure from seeing someone suffer, they were dead or close to it before he proceeded with his "operations".

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but someone without any understanding of psychology trying to look something up in a general dictionary and then attempting to interpret what that means isn't helpful at all. Experts on sadism and psychology say Jack the Ripper definitely was one. Sadism is a mental condition that can be expressed with a whole broad range of actions. Cutting up a body, whether the body is capable of feeling pain at that point or not, is classified as sadism. Regardless of whether some people here choose to believe it or not, it's a fact.

Similarly, it's not that targeting the sexual organs is what makes him a sexual serial killer. Sexual impulses also have a wide range of expression. If people accept that someone can have a fetish for shoes or leather or diapers, why do people have a problem understanding that someone can have a fetish for cutting people?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but if one is expressing an opinion on whether a particular psychological classification is appropriate or not, he or she needs to understand how the classification system works. Without that basic knowledge it's like someone without any background in chemistry trying to argue that diamonds can't possibly be made out of carbon because they've seen carbon paper and carbon is soft and black while diamonds are hard and white.

[jc007]

True, but if the contents of the jar looks like sugar and tastes like sugar, I'm not going to slap a "Pickled Gherkins" label on the front.

ah yes but you would if you knew for certain there were pickled gherkins in the jar and had proof to back this up, hence putting a label on something without definatley knowing what it is, is not smart. thus labelling JtR sadist or sexually motivated without much to back this up other then other cases is not smart as no one knows what was going through his head nor can they prove he either sadistic or sexually motivated, no evidence to label him either with any certainty.

[jc007]

Dan Norder,

you can quote as many "experts" as you like, but they were not there, they did not know what was going through his head at the time and the way he carried out his crimes does not show either, the evidence is simply not there. They can use thier judgement to try and determine what they think, it doesn't automatically mean they are right.

[Dan Norder]

...but they sure have a whole hell of a lot more chance of being right than some highly aggressive poster on a message board who can't get basic definitions right, can't spell, and thinks an entire field of academics should be wholly ignored for the sake of winning an online argument.

[jc007]

Dan,
First off i'm not meaning to come across aggressive, nor am i insulting you in anyway and i'd appreciate the same respect back.

I understand where your coming from but instead of getting aggressive and insulting try and understand where someone else comes from instead of thinking of yourself the world does not revolve around you or your opinions.

All i'm getting at is without knowing who the ripper is and without knowning his entire motive for what he did its near most impossible to slap labels on him, they can make educated guesses on what they know from other crimes etc etc, but those crimes are not his, those motives may not be his. They cannot say with any great certainty they they are definately right, they just can't and that my friend is a fact.

[Sam Flynn]

Similarly, it's not that targeting the sexual organs is what makes him a sexual serial killer.

True enough - I'd wager that a "sexual sadist of the JTR type" wouldn't be deterred if his victim had already had an hysterectomy. Killing and mutilating women is a pretty good indicator of sexual sadism in itself, irrespective of whether any organs are removed. Even where organs are removed, we need to be wary of reading too much into the sexual connotations of the organs "chosen", given the constraints under which the Ripper worked.

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I may well be off the mark with these two observations, which may , or may not, demonstrate some method to the slashing and grabbing.

In the cases of Chapman and Kelly, where there may have been some visibility afforded to the killer, the belly was cut away in portions.

Whereas, with Nichols and Eddowes, where he was pretty much working in complete darkness ,he draws a line with his knife from breast bone to pubes.

What d`ya reckon ?

[Fisherman]

What do I reckon? I reckon it is a very good question, seeing as victims 1 and 3 differed in this respect from number 2 and 4. No escalation, thus, and no picking-up-as-you-go-along thing either.
Time? Kelly offered heaps of it, in comparison with the killings in the streets, and maybe he felt more at ease in a backyard than on Buck´s Row and Mitre Square - it would have diminished the chances of people running into you to some small extent, I guess.
Then again, as he managed to harvest both uterus and kidney in Mitre Square, why would he feel the need to rid himself of the stomach flaps in two other cases? Maybe he intended to go longer with Chapman, but was spooked by Cadoches reoccurring lavatory trips? Could his main aim all along have been total evisceration, something he had to give up until Kellys room provided the perfect setting? And if so, why did he not find more secluded murder spots? They must have been around to some extent.
Interesting, Jon!

The best,
Fisherman