JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Doctor X]

[QUOTE=Observer;9657]I know this is a defeatist argument but there you go. It seems my attempt at arbitrator has failed.[QUOTE]

No need for an arbitrator; just a simple realization that we are all stuck in a situation where there are little definitive answers. Make no mistake, I agree with concentrating on what facts are available. Unfortunately, interpreting those facts require speculation--some reasonable . . . some . . . well . . . not so reasonable.

JSchmidt:

Mayhaps after 30+ pages you could list what needs to be covered?

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

Would someone please open another thread for the pro sexual sadist/contra sexual sadist discussion? I find it really interesting, but we're cluttering this thread with it.

[paul emmett]

the fact remains the killer was never caught, never interviwed, therefore the true nature of his motivation shall never be revealed. I know this is a defeatist argument but there you go.

Hello, Observer.


I'm not trying to "out-defeatist" you, but I don't think the killer himself could give us his true motives--at least not the deepest and the darkest. JTR, like us all, had to have been driven by motives which were both complex and unconscious. And if this is true, it certianly isn't defeatist because it implies that his actions--his crime scenes, if you will--can tell us more about him than he could himself.

[Observer]

Hi Doctor X

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.

No, I don't suppose it is an argument, but the fact remains the killer was never caught, never interviwed, therefore the true nature of his motivation shall never be revealed. I know this is a defeatist argument but there you go. It seems my attempt at arbitrator has failed.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Dan

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.

Yes they can, and I respect their expertise but surely they only honed their expertise by interviewing known offenders, and even then they could only ground their conclusions upon what the offenders revealed to them. Our particular offender was never caught, never questioned, now there is no harm in trying to fathom out what motivated his mutliations, but ultimately only he knew why he performed those mutilations.

Observer

[Ben]

Perhaps the foundation for that confidence being a learned discipline that was required to accomplish the tasks ahead?

Perhaps, Mike.

And if you have an innate "confidence" coupled with a bit of killing practice (which very few Eastenders could have claimed in late September 1888), I'd say we have a more than adequate "foundation".

Best wishes,
Ben

If the killer of some of the Canonicals did possess skill sets and knowledge on how to access and remove abdominal organs, he would also possess an acquired confidence in his ability to accomplish whatever objectives he had...as long as they concerned his area of "expertise".

Perhaps looking at the very brazen nature of the attacks, and the locations he chooses, and the extremely tight quarters physically, and with likely short time periods alone with a victim, might reveal something of his self-confidence. "Only a fool rushes in",...and although his skill level may be unclear by the things he does with knives, or the objectives he may have had for each kill, don't things like the absolute brazen self-confidence shown by this man point towards someone who has a feeling going into each episode that he will get the women and what he wants, and will get away clean. Perhaps the foundation for that confidence being a learned discipline that was required to accomplish the tasks ahead?

No-one in history has ever been that lucky,... if he was just a mentally malfunctioning belly slicer.

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

With respect, that's even more intangible than discussions about skill or sexual sadism - it takes things to another level of subjectivity. ("So, we're looking for a sadist who was trained in medicine/butchery, but decided to eschew his training...", if you see what I mean. It almost becomes an infinite regression.)

The execution of the mutilations was a physical act, and the manifestation of that act is purely physical. The killer's motives, his state of mind at the time and how/why it might have driven him to commit that physical act, are by definition psychological. Interesting though discourses on dualism sometimes might be, it usually helps to keep the two subjects separate.

You seem very keen on keeping things in tidy categories, Sam, but real llife and death situations arent always amenable to filing cabinet neatness and particularly when they involve a high risk murder. Even a trained and experienced surgeon [as opposed to a "mad" student doctor], intent on committing murder and mutilation in the dark ,would still be in a hurry,and in a probable state of ecstatic sexual excitement ,and would therefore be most unlikely to have as his priority "operating theatre" type care and precision.
Natalie

[Doctor X]

I don't know about "hashing", but it's high time someone "hatched" another thread or threads (or sought out those which I believe are already extant) to talk about the more "noumenal" grenades being lobbed into the discussion of this quintessentially physical topic.

Are you saying you have a bone to pick [Right, stop that!--Ed.] . . . okay.

Anyways, what more, at this point, can be speculated, written, assumed, et cetera about Jack's skill?

Fine . . . allow me to pontificate:

I do not have a problem with the Canonical Five [Director's Cut Available.--Ed.] However, some, it appears do. Their arguments regarding skill will depend upon "who," in particular, their victims are. If I claim that Jack killed, say, only Mary Kelly, I have greatly colored--perhaps reasonably--the degree of skill.

Still, I have to make assumptions. I have to assume that Jack's intention was to mutilate rather than explore, for example. There we bring in intentions.

If you agree with at least the Canonical Five, that will change the analysis further. Why does he gather organs in this one and not that one? Is it because he had more time? Why if he could skillfully remove the left kidney--as suggested by Phillips--would he hack up the bladder in removing the uterus from a previous victim?

See how, literally messy this gets?

As I have blathered previously, with Eddowes in particular, he does not make a surgical incision. Contrary to some suggestions above, he does slash at her groin region. Why? Because he is unskilled? Because he wants to?

Similarly with Chapman he seemingly makes a mistake in the abdominal opening with regards to avoiding the navel.

So he is not a surgeon . . . unless he is more interested in slashing open a victim.

See how this goes around and around?

Make no mistake, I understand your objection and applaud your desire to focus on "facts" rather than "what ifs" which, frankly, are often chosen to support a particular theory/suspect. However, I do not think you can divorce analysis from intent.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Furthermore, after 30+ pages, what more may be "hashed" from the topic of considering relative skill?

I don't know about "hashing", but it's high time someone "hatched" another thread or threads (or sought out those which I believe are already extant) to talk about the more "noumenal" grenades being lobbed into the discussion of this quintessentially physical topic.

[Doctor X]

With respect, that's even more intangible than discussions about skill or sexual sadism. . . .

Indeed it is; however, it remains relevant to the interpretation of the data.

It almost becomes an infinite regression.)

Yup.

The execution (pardon pun) of the mutilations is a physical act, and the manifestation of that act is purely physical.

No, they are never just physical; you cannot remove the action from the intent. Granted, that recognizes a disturbing level of uncertainty.

Furthermore, after 30+ pages, what more may be "hashed" from the topic of considering relative skill?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

One with considerable skill--and even knowledge of the proper tools--may discard all of that if his motive is mutilation rather than, say, organ gathering.

With respect, that's even more intangible than discussions about skill or sexual sadism - it takes things to another level of subjectivity. ("So, we're looking for a sadist who was trained in medicine/butchery, but decided to eschew his training...", if you see what I mean. It almost becomes an infinite regression.)

The execution of the mutilations was a physical act, and the manifestation of that act is purely physical. The killer's motives, his state of mind at the time and how/why it might have driven him to commit that physical act, are by definition psychological. Interesting though discourses on dualism sometimes might be, it usually helps to keep the two subjects separate.

[paul emmett]

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"

Sam, I certianly agree with the "butcher" stuff; that's why I'm changing gears to suggest that the above is an interesting idea that fits well with Dan's article "Heartless."

They say I'm taking hearts, so I will; they say I'm a doctor, so I'll--try to--be one. If there is any truth to this, then it must say something about his conception of his "skills" that he even tried to be one.

[Doctor X]

I'd dispute that - the subjects are quite separate in my view.

One with considerable skill--and even knowledge of the proper tools--may discard all of that if his motive is mutilation rather than, say, organ gathering.

Make no mistake, I am not arguing that you or anyone else should present a case for the motive of Jack--which may change, actually, from victim to victim--however, you have to recognize that exactly "what" you analyze--the meaning of it--is colored by the intentions.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Motive is relevant to the skill.

I'd dispute that - the subjects are quite separate in my view. Whatever psychological undercurrents or fetishes underpinned the killer's behaviour, they could have been possessed by a butcher, baker, candlestick-maker or surgeon. The question here relates to the physical skills, not the mental makeup - whatever that might have been - of the murderer. We at least have some evidence to discuss when it comes to the descriptions of the wounds, photographs etc, which might inform our opinions as to the level of skill demonstrated by the murderer. We do not have remotely the same luxury when it comes to his mental makeup.