Examination of a Motive

[Abby Normal]

Which ones? Good question. And one I have to do more research on. Shawcross comes to mind certainly, Charles Albright, Benjamin Atkins, Robert Hansen clearly had something else going on... The difficulty in this is that rape is used as a marker for sexual sadism. And it is. But the first thing they tell you as a rape victim is that rape isn't about sex. It's about power, domination. And that is also true. Many killers rape their victims. The question is, is it a sex thing or a power thing? Or both? Ted Bundy raped his victims, but seemed sexually uninterested in them. Until they were dead, and even then, the turn on was the kill, not the woman. So his own power over life and death is arousing. Not the woman, or even the corpse. So does that make sex the motive? I don't know. Kemper clearly had a sexual motive. Gein did not. So, I'm going to look into this more, and get back to you.

My pet theory (which has little evidence and no proof) is that the murders were committed by someone who's life had been ruined by prostitutes. From day one. I think someone was going around neutering these women, taking out the organ that had caused the offense. Someone who's beef with prostitutes is not remotely sexual. I think Jack the Ripper is the child of a prostitute.

Hi Errata
Thanks! As I said to Proto on his last post- I say to you too-Wow. Not bad, not bad at all! William Bury anyone? perhaps James Kelly? D'onston??

Do you have anyone in particular in mind?

[protohistorian]

Abby I suspect he has placed a value on the womb that is well beyond any realistic biological valuation. I suspect this stems from an absent understanding of the biological mechanics and a truly over simplified and even romantic conception of the reality. Dave

[protohistorian]

Interesting thoughts Dave, is it defeminizing them or de-humanizing them? Could it be that the killer has an internal need to see the victims as other than human beings? Dave

[Abby Normal]

So here is my take. The investigators at the time were using the opinions of men like Krafft-Ebing as interpretive filters. The focus of Krafft-Ebing on sexuality heightened the investigators perception of sexuality in the crimes. At some point witnesses who knew the victims described enough of them as "unfortunates", that a conflation between social status and sexuality occurred. This has been the dominant paradigm for viewing these crimes over the subsequent years because no one wanted to say the interpretive filter of the investigators was skewed.

Errata has correctly observed that there is no discernible sustained focus on the genitals in either attack or mutilations. I hope I am not running a spoiler here by saying a sexually motivated offenders first interest is by definition the genitals, the regions used in the sexual act. It seems to me a more accurate conception might be that the killer had a womb fixation. This is more likely to be the case as Victorian sexual identities for women were fixated on this very thing. Couple this with a piss poor understanding of female biology, and the offender is not targeting a "womb" as a modern understands the term, but some mythical, magical organ women have that men do not. He is targeting a culturally dominant myth regarding aspects of female biology, and not the actual biology. Wound descriptions bear this out. Dave

Hi Dave
Wow! Very interesting and creative!

It seems to me a more accurate conception might be that the killer had a womb fixation.

Would you care do elaborate on this-Why do you think he did have a womb fixation?

Couple this with a piss poor understanding of female biology, and the offender is not targeting a "womb" as a modern understands the term, but some mythical, magical organ women have that men do not. He is targeting a culturally dominant myth regarding aspects of female biology, and not the actual biology.

But then why the other stuff? (The face mutilations, breast removal, kidney, etc.)

BTW-nice username HAHA-very witty. next time someone asks me what I do for a living- i am going to tell them I am a Proto Historian or maybe a Pre-Historian.

[DaveShuts]

Hello,
I would imagine that he selected prostitutes partly because he could get them somewhere secluded to kill them.

I wouldn't think revenge was a motive - if he wanted revenge then he could just stab them, there would be no need to remove organs.

The fact that he cuts them open and removes organs means that theres something much deeper at work.

The way that he obliterated Kelly - removing her face and destroying the thing that made her recognisable as a Human or a person (or woman perhaps) - and that he had apparently disfigured the face previously on at least one other victim, suggests hatred.

You could perhaps think that removing the womb humiliates them, the loss of all dignity by defeminising them, in the same way that emasculating a man destroys his own self worth and humiliates him.

You couls also understand taking the heart to "possess" the soul if you like, but why take the kidney?

[Errata]

Which ones? This definitely of interest for me and i am not asking this as a kind of "prove it" argument.

BTW-I am not adverse to being convinced that there is no sexual element in the MO of JtR. frankly, Its now kind of got me thinking along the lines that maybe he was impotant and or had gotten a disease and it was for revenge and/or he blamed them for something. Good thread.

Which ones? Good question. And one I have to do more research on. Shawcross comes to mind certainly, Charles Albright, Benjamin Atkins, Robert Hansen clearly had something else going on... The difficulty in this is that rape is used as a marker for sexual sadism. And it is. But the first thing they tell you as a rape victim is that rape isn't about sex. It's about power, domination. And that is also true. Many killers rape their victims. The question is, is it a sex thing or a power thing? Or both? Ted Bundy raped his victims, but seemed sexually uninterested in them. Until they were dead, and even then, the turn on was the kill, not the woman. So his own power over life and death is arousing. Not the woman, or even the corpse. So does that make sex the motive? I don't know. Kemper clearly had a sexual motive. Gein did not. So, I'm going to look into this more, and get back to you.

My pet theory (which has little evidence and no proof) is that the murders were committed by someone who's life had been ruined by prostitutes. From day one. I think someone was going around neutering these women, taking out the organ that had caused the offense. Someone who's beef with prostitutes is not remotely sexual. I think Jack the Ripper is the child of a prostitute.

[protohistorian]

So here is my take. The investigators at the time were using the opinions of men like Krafft-Ebing as interpretive filters. The focus of Krafft-Ebing on sexuality heightened the investigators perception of sexuality in the crimes. At some point witnesses who knew the victims described enough of them as "unfortunates", that a conflation between social status and sexuality occurred. This has been the dominant paradigm for viewing these crimes over the subsequent years because no one wanted to say the interpretive filter of the investigators was skewed.

Errata has correctly observed that there is no discernible sustained focus on the genitals in either attack or mutilations. I hope I am not running a spoiler here by saying a sexually motivated offenders first interest is by definition the genitals, the regions used in the sexual act. It seems to me a more accurate conception might be that the killer had a womb fixation. This is more likely to be the case as Victorian sexual identities for women were fixated on this very thing. Couple this with a piss poor understanding of female biology, and the offender is not targeting a "womb" as a modern understands the term, but some mythical, magical organ women have that men do not. He is targeting a culturally dominant myth regarding aspects of female biology, and not the actual biology. Wound descriptions bear this out. Dave

[Abby Normal]

The problem with finding clues to motive is that just about anything points in several directions. Prostitute victims can point to a sexual element. Or he could hate prostitutes for a non-sexual reason. Or it is simply that prostitutes are the only women in Victorian times who will go off with a strange man, and breaking and entering is not his strong suit.

Not all serial killers have psycho-sexual issues. Certainly many do. But I can also think of maybe ten fairly well known serial killers who killed for other reasons. In fact looking through it, the majority of killers of prostitutes are more sort of revenge motivated. More concerned with extermination of a societal blight that with sex. So I thinks it's possible there is another driving force.

Hi Errata
I agree-there probably are other driving forces-such as revenge as you say. i was merely giving my opinion and reasons that it looks like there is also sexual element involved. It has definitely struck me that there was never any signs of sexual intercourse/assault of any kind with the JtR victims. My thought was that perhaps its the mutilations and then the organs themselves that provided the sexual attraction for JtR.

In fact looking through it, the majority of killers of prostitutes are more sort of revenge motivated. More concerned with extermination of a societal blight that with sex


Which ones? This definitely of interest for me and i am not asking this as a kind of "prove it" argument.

BTW-I am not adverse to being convinced that there is no sexual element in the MO of JtR. frankly, Its now kind of got me thinking along the lines that maybe he was impotant and or had gotten a disease and it was for revenge and/or he blamed them for something. Good thread.

[protohistorian]

I agree Errata, the sexual element is way overplayed. Dave

[Errata]

Hi Errata
I think there is clearly a sexual element to his MO and psych. First its with prostitutes who are about engage in a sex act. He targets the sexual organs, then later the face and breasts. And god knows what he does later with the organs he removes. Plus all that we know about serial killers now is that somehow sex/death/violence get rather twisted and equated in their brains.

The problem with finding clues to motive is that just about anything points in several directions. Prostitute victims can point to a sexual element. Or he could hate prostitutes for a non-sexual reason. Or it is simply that prostitutes are the only women in Victorian times who will go off with a strange man, and breaking and entering is not his strong suit.

Not all serial killers have psycho-sexual issues. Certainly many do. But I can also think of maybe ten fairly well known serial killers who killed for other reasons. In fact looking through it, the majority of killers of prostitutes are more sort of revenge motivated. More concerned with extermination of a societal blight that with sex. So I thinks it's possible there is another driving force.

[Abby Normal]

I'm sort of feeling my way through this one, so bear with me. My impression is that the murderer is neither rushed nor frenzied. I think I would expect more stabbing in a sexual murder, but I'm a little Freudian. It's almost like dissecting a fetal pig in biology, but you have to do it in five minutes and you are not skilled with a blade. There are some kind of random cuts on the abdomens and pelvises of these women, but even this strikes me as sloppy knife work. He kills methodically and quickly. Evidently he chokes them before cutting their throats. He doesn't seem interested in struggle, or blood, or even strangulation. He does nothing to prolong any of these things.

These women weren't stripped, nor were breasts exposed. My impression is that the killer did not leave the skirts up to expose the pubic area, but did not pull them down to the degree Victorian decency required. And here's kind of the major one. Their sex organs (barring Kelly) were intact. There was no genital mutilation, no breast mutilation. Eddowes had a cut that may have separated the labia from the thigh, but given everything else, it doesn't seem as though that was the intention. Their inner thighs are not mutilated, their mouths are intact. There is no evidence of sexual contact, either before or after the killing.

Their organs of generation were taken. The uterus, and I'm assuming fallopian tubes and ovaries. The killer seems to have no interest in the vagina, other than to possibly find the uterus. He removes only so much of it to be sure he gets the womb intact. He doesn't take the vagina, he doesn't take the external sex organs, the breasts or even the tongue. Nothing associated with the act of sex is targeted. It seems the target is child-bearing. Or femininity, depending on how much of a symbolic bent he has. He is neutering these women. I would think if it was because of raging misogyny, he would eliminate all characteristics of womanhood. The uterus, the external genitalia, the breasts. Maybe even cut off their hair. But he just takes the womb. And an odd kidney. Everything else is just shunted out of the way. The whole point of the exercise seems to be the uterus. Eddowes is a little different. Her face is mutilated. To me that makes her case the most significant.

To me, none of this is sexual. It's certainly personal, it's misogynistic, and guided by a deep anger. But he didn't.. play with them, Alive or dead. So I have theories, more notions really, but I don't see what I would recognize as a sexual element. Just that his victims were female, and he was most likely male. It's like the murder equivalent of knocking over a liquor store.

Hi Errata
I think there is clearly a sexual element to his MO and psych. First its with prostitutes who are about engage in a sex act. He targets the sexual organs, then later the face and breasts. And god knows what he does later with the organs he removes. Plus all that we know about serial killers now is that somehow sex/death/violence get rather twisted and equated in their brains.

[Scorpio]

Hi, I believe that you are on the right track Errata. There is no reason to categorize JtR as a sadist. The textbook sadist,the Marquis himself, was not homicidal as it was power over the living he craved not the dead.
Paul

[Errata]

What do you mean you don't see any evidence of these murders being sexual in nature?

I'm sort of feeling my way through this one, so bear with me. My impression is that the murderer is neither rushed nor frenzied. I think I would expect more stabbing in a sexual murder, but I'm a little Freudian. It's almost like dissecting a fetal pig in biology, but you have to do it in five minutes and you are not skilled with a blade. There are some kind of random cuts on the abdomens and pelvises of these women, but even this strikes me as sloppy knife work. He kills methodically and quickly. Evidently he chokes them before cutting their throats. He doesn't seem interested in struggle, or blood, or even strangulation. He does nothing to prolong any of these things.

These women weren't stripped, nor were breasts exposed. My impression is that the killer did not leave the skirts up to expose the pubic area, but did not pull them down to the degree Victorian decency required. And here's kind of the major one. Their sex organs (barring Kelly) were intact. There was no genital mutilation, no breast mutilation. Eddowes had a cut that may have separated the labia from the thigh, but given everything else, it doesn't seem as though that was the intention. Their inner thighs are not mutilated, their mouths are intact. There is no evidence of sexual contact, either before or after the killing.

Their organs of generation were taken. The uterus, and I'm assuming fallopian tubes and ovaries. The killer seems to have no interest in the vagina, other than to possibly find the uterus. He removes only so much of it to be sure he gets the womb intact. He doesn't take the vagina, he doesn't take the external sex organs, the breasts or even the tongue. Nothing associated with the act of sex is targeted. It seems the target is child-bearing. Or femininity, depending on how much of a symbolic bent he has. He is neutering these women. I would think if it was because of raging misogyny, he would eliminate all characteristics of womanhood. The uterus, the external genitalia, the breasts. Maybe even cut off their hair. But he just takes the womb. And an odd kidney. Everything else is just shunted out of the way. The whole point of the exercise seems to be the uterus. Eddowes is a little different. Her face is mutilated. To me that makes her case the most significant.

To me, none of this is sexual. It's certainly personal, it's misogynistic, and guided by a deep anger. But he didn't.. play with them, Alive or dead. So I have theories, more notions really, but I don't see what I would recognize as a sexual element. Just that his victims were female, and he was most likely male. It's like the murder equivalent of knocking over a liquor store.

[corey123]

Indeed, Lust murder has nothing to do with sexual gratification, but rather attacking areas of the killers attraction.

Errata,

What do you mean you don't see any evidence of these murders being sexual in nature?

[robhouse]

"Lust murderer" I think refers to the same type of criminal. One whose primary interests involved mutilation of a body after death, or investigation of what is inside a body. Jeffrey Dahmer has been referred to as a classic lust murderer.