Motive....

[Fleetwood Mac]

Compassion? You've got to be joking. What of the spitefull slashing and cutting of Eddowes face, hardly the work of a compassionate man. In my opinion the quick kill was a result of the killers need to silence his victims as quickly as possible.

Observer

I could go with that apart from Mary Kelly.....if he wanted humiliation he could have achieved that in a private room....by keeping her alive while toying with her......but killing someone quickly is not humiliation or sadistic or spiteful.

[DVV]

I could go with that apart from Mary Kelly.....if he wanted humiliation he could have achieved that in a private room....by keeping her alive while toying with her......but killing someone quickly is not humiliation or sadistic or spiteful.

Leaving the dead body of a woman in the street, legs apart, mutilated and disfigured, intestines on the shoulder, isn't....what you said ??

Your thoughts are sad, my friend.

[bolo]

Hi Mac,

the almost complete destruction of a human body like in Mary Kelly's case seems quite spiteful to me. Her murderer stripped her of all dignity and left the remains of her maltreated body and intestines lying there for everyone to see. If that isn't humiliation at the highest possible level I don't know what is.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac,

the almost complete destruction of a human body like in Mary Kelly's case seems quite spiteful to me. Her murderer stripped her of all dignity and left the remains of her maltreated body and intestines lying there for everyone to see. If that isn't humiliation at the highest possible level I don't know what is.

Regards,

Boris

Hi Bolo....

Because humiliation is very personal. It would have to had have been he humiliating her while alive....not something which she wouldn't have known about when dead.....but something that she was aware of when alive...that is the the whole point of humiliation....him directing and her being aware of it (if she's not aware of it then it ain't humiliation....for it to be humilation she must feel the humiliation as it's on her part).

As I read this site the more I appreciate that there is a distinct lack of knowledge around sadism and humiliation. I'd suggest that people on here have a chat with someone who engages in consensual humiliation with a partner and I guarantee you it ain't humiliation where she isn't aware of it - she has to feel it to be humiliated....and he has to see her humiliation to get a kick from it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To make this point clear...

If I'm in a pub and slag you off it is not humilation if you're not present....it is simply slagging someone off. But where you're present and you respond with a half-hearted attempt then that is humilation as you're in the company of people and don't offer much of a defence.

Similarly you can't humiliate a dead person - no matter who sees your guts spewed all over.

For humilation to be complete it is all a matter of the objects emotions - and the feeling of being humiliated. The object is crucial to this - it is not humiliation where the object does not feel humiliated.

Honestly - if people genuinely believe that Mary Kelly was humiliated you really need to read up on the psychology of humiliation as it may radically alter the thinking of people who spend a lot of time researching this case.

[Observer]

Hi Fleetwood Mac

Kelly wasn't any different to the other victims in that she needed to be silenced quickly, in order to shut her up. In reality Jack the Ripper and the word compassion should not appear in the same sentence. Let me ask you a question, do you really believe that Jack the Ripper was exhibiting compassion by quickly killing his victims, or are you delibrately courting controversy?

Observer

[Garry Wroe]

Honestly - if people genuinely believe that Mary Kelly was humiliated you really need to read up on the psychology of humiliation as it may radically alter the thinking of people who spend a lot of time researching this case.

As a psychologist, FM, I would suggest that you read up on the social context of death in late-Victorian East London. Mary Kelly might not have been aware of the state in which her body was discovered, but her compeers certainly were. As far as they were concerned, her body had been defiled and this was a humiliation she would carry into the afterlife. Why else do you think Joe Barnett was disinclined to admit that Kelly was a drinker and prostitute if not to protect her reputation?

As for the notion of the Whitechapel Murderer’s compassionate nature, Mary Kelly’s defence wounds and cry for help are certainly indicative that she didn’t die as speedily as you appear to imagine. So either the killer’s usual lethal efficiency deserted him on the night in question, or he deliberately prolonged the killing process in order to satiate his more sadistic urges. I know which of these two alternatives I find most persuasive.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Hunter]

I think her defensive wounds are more a result of her position on the bed as opposed to the approach that was made on the other victims. He probably tried to silence her as quickly as he could, but in this case it was a little more difficult.

I would imagine that in his mind, as Garry stated, post mortem mutilation was a form of humiliation. The placement of one breast, kidneys and her uterus under her head speaks pretty loudly.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hunter!

Yes indeed; the placement of the organs shows some sort of misogyny!

All the best
Jukka

[DVV]

Similarly you can't humiliate a dead person - no matter who sees your guts spewed all over.

Of course you can, or at least, you can have this desire.

Why were the bodies of Mussolini and Petacci publicly exposed in Milan, spat on, and finally hanged by their feet ?

Amitiés,
David

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mary Kelly’s defence wounds and cry for help are certainly indicative that she didn’t die as speedily as you appear to imagine.

Garry Wroe.

My understanding is that it is open to debate whether or not she cried for help. Someone heard "oh murder" apparently coming from the direction of her room. Would that stand up in a court of law when put forward as most definitely being a cry for help? Regardless - a cry for help and defence wounds does not render it probable that he intentionally did not kill her quickly. It must have been more difficult when she was lying down - when compared with grabbing someone from behind and slitting the throat (or strangulation).

I would concede though that where you have evidence - and I don't mean overwhelming as probable would do for me - that this was intentionally not a quick kill then I'd go with your thinking. As it stands I don't think you have a decent case to show he was a sadist - the evidence suggests otherwise.

In terms of compassion - to answer a poster - to kill someone by slitting the throat is evidently not a compassionate act when viewed in isolation. Perhaps I didn't make clear my intended meaning. It is a comparatively compassionate kill when viewed against the alternatives - such as keeping someone alive while hacking at the body. To illustrate: Emma Smith seems an entirely different type of killing to me: there is a world of difference between abusing someone while alive and quickly killing someone to mutilate a dead body - it takes a certain mindset to do the former and a certain mindset to do the latter - the latter induces less suffering i.e. dead within a couple of seconds versus slowly bleeding to death after feeling some serious pain.

And psychologist or not - I stand by the claim that humiliation is in the mind - it is emotional rather than a physical act. The object of that humiliation has to feel it. Have you ever felt humiliated in your life? I dunno perhaps your working life or by a partner? The reason you feel humiliated is because you're both aware of the situation - it's a power exchange. And I repeat - humiliation is in the mind - no physical act can possibly be humiliating unless the object feels that humiliation in the mind.

What I read in your post is massive leaps of faith - though I could be wrong and perhaps you have evidence of which I am not aware. For example - to claim (as a fact) that Barnett was trying to save her reputation to avoid humiliation on Mary's part is a massive stretch. He clearly wanted to paint a certain picture but then whose interests was this in? Certainly not Mary's because she was dead. Were I to take a similar leap of faith I'd suggest it was in his own interests - to protect his reputation with regard to the type of women he mixed with - and this makes more sense because a) he said it and we all act in our own interests and b) he was alive she wasn't - he was the one with a reputation to save or lose.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of course you can, or at least, you can have this desire.

Why were the bodies of Mussolini and Petacci publicly exposed in Milan, spat on, and finally hanged by their feet ?

Amitiés,
David

That's a very interesting question......

And I'd go for revenge rather than humiliation.

I'm glad you asked that because my thinking on humiliation is that it is an emotional act - a power exchange - that drives any physical act (a physical act that doesn't involve a power exchange between minds is not humilation). And revenge is an interesting concept when viewed in this case.

I would add however that surely it is at least equally likely that he was simply ripping and throwing things around rather than placing organs and intestines in a deliberate manner. I would suggest the latter takes more of a leap of faith - and is more dramatic and thus appealing to some than a bloke simply hacking and throwing stuff around in no deliberate manner.

[DVV]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

you should perhaps stop thinking of humiliation as an exclusive element of sado-masochistic games. It has a wider meaning, hasn't it ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

you should perhaps stop thinking of humiliation as an exclusive element of sado-masochistic games. It has a wider meaning, hasn't it ?

The above is mute considering I clearly stated that humiliation is evident in every day life.

I have put a case forward and defended it - perhaps you should explain why you believe Mussolini being hanged or Jack the Ripper's victims were the result of the objective being humilation - in other words: put a case forward and defend it.

Regardless - I've enjoyed the chat - as the objective/motive is the key to the murders - and the objective should be established before proceeding to look at suspects in detail. Revenge is certainly an interesting one - you see humiliation is a power exchange; revenge on the other hand is not - one takes two to tango the other doesn't. Though revenge does not mean he wouldhave had to have known the victims. At this point I'll go with revenge or obtaining organs as a more viable option than a sadist or a woman hater.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Boy, I think determing a motive a very difficult task. I don't believe we can
say Jtr wasn't a woman hater

Just seen this Greg....and yeah....we can't say for certain...but we can narrow the options based on what we know rather than leaps of faith. We know he killed quickly when he had his victims in a compliant position i.e. when he had an alternative. So I think it's fair to say he did not intend to cause suffering and where there's no intent to cause suffering then it's a leap to suggest the man was a woman hater.

And you mention Dahmer.....not a man hater I'm sure. And the desire to own something is not compatible with owning something you hate.

He may not have tortured them but taking a life is hardly
a compassionate act even if a life lived in squalid circumstances.

Yes....when viewed in isolation. But he had decided to kill so had options at that point: torture/a slow death/a quick kill - the fact he chose to kill quickly suggests he was not intending cause suffering and I believe that based on this fact it is too much of a leap to view revenge/hatred/humiliation as the objective/s.

And where would that leave me? Obtaining organs probably and contradicting my own stupid comment that it was unlikely to be an American quack.

I can't imagine there wasn't an easier & safer and less cruel way to get organs if that was truly the only desire.

That's a fair enough point - but there was a market for organs on the black market?