Examination of a Motive

[protohistorian]

Hello Errata, I realize it is not perfect, but I would suggest starting with re-occurring phenomena. Even if we start with the Macnaghten grouping, it should allow us a chance to isolate themes, progressions, omissions,and the like. It would also provide some scale for the rate of change within the suspect, as well as those elements he will not change. Dave

I should also add this line of reasoning would allow for semi solid speculations as to other victims at either end of the Macnaghten sequence. Dave

[Errata]

I hope you see the analogy - as far as I can see, knives would not hold that kind of fetisch value back then. That said, killing by knife is of course a far more personal deed than killing by a gun, for example.

the best,
Fisherman

Okay
A: I am totally stealing the lightbulb story, but I will conversationally cite you.

B: I agree there is little reason to have a knife fetish back then. The really frustrating thing is that being in 1888 doesn't automatically preclude it. Nor does it preclude the potential visual satisfaction on watching someone empty. If the guy had a thing for knives, this would be a lot easier. I suppose it would be a lot like having a thing for pens for us. But people have things for pens! Not even a little the weirdest thing I've heard. It's like on each corpse there is one cut, one mark and the only thing I can come up with is that he was playing with the knife. But I agree with you that I think he is practical. Which would mean every cut every mark has an explanation. Not a purpose, but an explanation. He isn't playing, he has a job to do. So not playing with the knife. ack.

Do we know how intact Kelly's chemise was? I realized while looking at the picture that a great deal of what I see as mutilation could be bunched up bloody chemise. That would be terribly useful to know.

[Fisherman]

Interesting questions, Errata!

As for the knife, I do not think that there was an aesthetic component involved. I can see how you are reasoning, but you are reasoning from a 2010point of wiew, I think - back in 1888, knives and knife-carriers were thirteen a dozen. Meaning that the symbolical value would probably not be there in the same fashion as today.

Back in the early 1970:s, a thesis was presented here in Sweden, dealing with the spiritual value attaching to different forms of light. The author showed that the custom to light candles on the graves here in Sweden, involved the component of candlelight having an emotional value to us. Nobody would have come up with the idea to light a bulb, using electric wiring, and hanging it over a grave.
Not here, that is. But in Sardinia, that was exactly what happened back then. At that time, Sardinia was still an island that lacked electric lighting to a very large extent. They normally relied on candlelights and kerosene lamps as the night fell, and therefore, that kind of light had no emotional value to them, as it did to us Swedes. But electric lighting had! And so, the graveyards were equipped with a net of wiring, and over each grave, you could rent a light-bulb that shone over your dear departed ones.

I hope you see the analogy - as far as I can see, knives would not hold that kind of fetisch value back then. That said, killing by knife is of course a far more personal deed than killing by a gun, for example.

"How practical or how instinctive the guy is really affects a motive discussion. If he is compulsive and practical, then most things have some significance. If he is impulsive and instinctive, then a lot of things won't have significance. At least not that he himself knew. So is he practical? Instinctive? Both? Neither? How do we know?"

I would opt for practical, Errata. What he accomplished, combined with the time he did it in, speaks to me of a very practical man, more or less totally focused on his urge and taking all the precautions necessary to ensure success; ensuring silence, bleeding the victim off, rolling them over on their backs and cutting away, all at a very high speed.

But letīs not forget that there were five victims (alledgedly), and that there is nothing making sure that each victim was treated with the same outcome of a weighing of practicality against impulsiveness. Also, he would have evolved as a killer over time.

the best,
Fisherman

[protohistorian]

Hello Errata, I realize it is not perfect, but I would suggest starting with re-occurring phenomena. Even if we start with the Macnaghten grouping, it should allow us a chance to isolate themes, progressions, omissions,and the like. It would also provide some scale for the rate of change within the suspect, as well as those elements he will not change. Dave

[Errata]

Bear with me on this one. It's a little odd. Due to the availability of guns, etc. today, cutting throats today is considered a bit fetishistic. Not a lot, but just a little. I mean, if you just want someone dead there are less messy ways available, so someone who cuts throats has a bit invested in the.. aesthetics? Maybe a little bit of a blood fetish. Or alternatively was standing next to the cutlery drawer when they decided to attack.

All off which is to say this. There are things like throat cutting, possible strangulation, possible staging of the scenes, possible organ theft, etc. How do you sift through what is practical, and what is a fetish or significant to the killer. Is the length of the knife significant, or is it whats handy? Were scenes staged, or was it an unintended consequence of looking for valuables? Did he strangle them because he wanted to or because it served a practical purpose? I mean, taking organs (in theory) is clearly not necessary. But was it for a trophy? For dinner? Did he think he could sell it? Because that is kinda practical, if misguided. And just because the knife was a bit more practical back then than it is now, does that mean that he used it because it was practical? Does it mean he didn't have a bit of a fetish? Fetish seems wrong. It implies sexual gratification. I mean satisfaction.

All of this gut feeling stuff made me remember something. A good many people are visually oriented. We imagine things, see them in our head, and then often feel a vague disappointment if it doesn't look like we saw it in our head. Like a painter whose imagination far exceeds his skill. He's rarely going to be satisfied with the outcome til the skills catch up. How much of the more mysterious cuts on these women could be an attempt to make it match the picture in head? I mean, Nichols shallow throat wound was fatal (I think). Could he have made the second big ear to ear cut not out necessity, but because he thought that's what cut throats look like? He thought "it couldn't be fatal, because it's not what I picture when I read penny dreadfuls about slit throats" (or some such)? And if he is very visually oriented, and inexperienced, would that mean that in a sense ALL the scenes were staged? He's most likely at least a little compulsive.

Maybe that explains the cheek flaps on Eddowes. He accidentally makes the first, and makes the other on purpose to preserve the symmetry. It's like making a jack o lantern for your kid. You're not invested in it, you don't particularly care what it looks like, but if you make one eye a lot bigger than the other you even them up. Because even if you don't care, it's what you do. Because people instinctively dislike asymmetry I guess.

How practical or how instinctive the guy is really affects a motive discussion. If he is compulsive and practical, then most things have some significance. If he is impulsive and instinctive, then a lot of things won't have significance. At least not that he himself knew. So is he practical? Instinctive? Both? Neither? How do we know?

[Trevor Marriott]

But isn't this something the police would have been aware of and would have checked out?

c.d.

Why would they have been aware of it and nothing to check out. No one discovered they were missing till the doctors carried out the post mortems. Then it was naturally assumed that the killer took them.

If you look at the other victims we know no organs were missing or any attempt made to remove them at the crime scene. The doctors could see the less extent of the injuries of those victims so had anyone took organs from those it would have been spotted at once.

There was no one in official authority to stand guard over the bodies

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"I haven't ruled out collateral damage. Until I find the thing on the tip of my brain however, It's not going to feel right to me."

Fair enough, Errata!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

You are quite correct and in modern times this would never happen but we are talking about 1888 and organs were still in short supply.So who knows what really went on in these mortuaries. The mortuary keepers were poor men from the workhouses.

Opportunity springs to mind the bodies were there all ready opened up.

It has been documented that at the mortuaries first thing in the mornings there was always a steady stream of organ seekers.

Hi Trevor
Tumblety perhaps? Wanted to add to his collection, had inquired earlier and been rejected. was able to finagle his way in with bribe and/or (fake) Dr credentials?

[c.d.]

But isn't this something the police would have been aware of and would have checked out?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
Interesting and thanks for the explanation. But surely it was not legal for them to do so before the post mortem right? Would they not have to wait until after the post mortem before they removed them?

You are quite correct and in modern times this would never happen but we are talking about 1888 and organs were still in short supply.So who knows what really went on in these mortuaries. The mortuary keepers were poor men from the workhouses.

Opportunity springs to mind the bodies were there all ready opened up.

It has been documented that at the mortuaries first thing in the mornings there was always a steady stream of organ seekers.

[protohistorian]

Hello Abby. I do not see anything that precludes other non prostitute motivations. What I see is a limited grasp of anatomy, little but present experiential learning (which precludes psychopathy), a profound reliance on the trophies, and after the M4 event, a psycho pathology that is truly a hunter of people. We have a not so bright, not very quick hunter of people with a string of successful murders as experience to go off of, with a profound reliance on captured bits. At least thats what I see. Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hi

Thats a question many have asked over the past 2 years or so since i raised a doubt about the accepted theory. I keep answering it in the same way.

In my opinion and with corroborated evidence to back it up the organs were removed whilst the bodies were lying in or outside the mortuaries by a bona fide doctor,medical student, or an anatomist prior to the post mortems being conducted. Having regard to the fact that the post mortems were not carried for mnay hours after hey were taken there.

The above catergory of persons had a lawful right to go to mortuaries and freely remove organs and body parts for medical reserach under the Anatomy Act of 1832.

Hi Trevor
Interesting and thanks for the explanation. But surely it was not legal for them to do so before the post mortem right? Would they not have to wait until after the post mortem before they removed them?

[Abby Normal]

This thread made me think of a new idea in terms of motivation.

What if JtR:

Did not hate prostitutes/women -because they were sinners, or that they were a blight on society, etc

Was not out for revenge-because they gave him a disease, broke his heart etc

Was not just mad at the world-and prostitutes were merely the easiest targets

Did not have any sexual and/or lust motive-because killing/mutilation got him off in any way.

Or any other beforementioned reasons stated as a motivation.


What if his motivation was envy-he wanted to be one- a woman

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery

Which is? If Jtr did not remove the organs, who did and why?

Hi

Thats a question many have asked over the past 2 years or so since i raised a doubt about the accepted theory. I keep answering it in the same way.

In my opinion and with corroborated evidence to back it up the organs were removed whilst the bodies were lying in or outside the mortuaries by a bona fide doctor,medical student, or an anatomist prior to the post mortems being conducted. Having regard to the fact that the post mortems were not carried for mnay hours after hey were taken there.

The above catergory of persons had a lawful right to go to mortuaries and freely remove organs and body parts for medical reserach under the Anatomy Act of 1832.

[D.B.Wagstaff]

Hello D.B. we have to be very careful about importing values from other cultures unless we have a historically grounded suspect to define those values. Dave

Very true, but East end of London was a very metropolitan area where many cultures were respresented. It would only take one person influenced by one cultural practice - and they wouldn't even have to necessarily be of that culture.