Examination of a Motive

[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

[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

[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?

[DaveShuts]

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

Hello,
well they're just my thoughts, but who knows, you can go round and round in circles for ages with JTR and still end up back where you started.

I think dehumanizing them by hacking their faces, defeminizing them by removing the thing that makes them a woman, but since they're all women perhaps the whole thing is just defeminizing them.

I think there's plenty of examples of murders where the perp knew the victim and they shot them in the face, or attacked the face, since the face is what we associate with the person or as being the person (I'm not suggesting that JTR knew his victims though).

Which is why aggressive people want to "smash your face in" when they're angry with someone.

I think.

[Abby Normal]

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?

To send to someone perhaps?

[DaveShuts]

To send to someone perhaps?

Why the kidney?

Surely it'd be easier to chop off a nose or ear, something that is more easily attributable to the specific person?

[protohistorian]

The M4 crime is interesting. I suspect the kidney as a specific trophy is like asking a kid who reached in the grab bag, why the green hot wheel. It is what he found when he was rutcheling around. Dave

[DaveShuts]

Another thing that's always puzzled me is that he surely must have some knowledge of dissection?

You'd have to know what you were looking for if you cut someone open to take a body part, it's okay seeing pictures in books, but with a real (fresh) body in front of you, the blood, etc - it would be very difficult.

Could you imagine going into a mortuary now and trying to cut someone open and remove some parts? How long would it take with the doubts about where to cut, how to cut, how deep, etc?

Imagine trying to cut someone open and remove an organ quickly in the dark, outside, with no one else to help or not a lot of instruments, etc to help you.

You'd think you'd make a cut, maybe get it in the wrong place, have to do some more hacking, and make a real mess.

He seemed to be very fast and effecient.

I have problems cutting up the Sunday roast.

[protohistorian]

good point Dave, he was fast. I suspect because the actual minutia of the wound did not matter to him. He was plundering. We have medical people who see skill in some of the injuries, but this I feel is a function of someone with skill seeing a wound characteristic that resembles skill and then mis attributing it to skill. Dave

[Errata]

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?

I don't have anyone in mind. Its a stray pet theory. I have no idea where it came from, but now I'm feeding it.

I wonder if there can be an idealized motive in this? Sort of "I am going to make sure that what happened to me will never happen to another." Its not about the death or the mutilation, its about taking the source of the problem. But then why the kidney or facial mutilations? Kidney- I got nothing. Facial mutilations- superficial resemblance to the offender? Superficial resemblance to someone the killer desperately does not want finding out about this? Spare time doesn't seem to be a factor. Was he carving her to look like someone?

And if the womb is the problem, why is it the problem? Because it is the root of femininity? Because it is the root of life? Because it is something the killer can never have? I think these questions may be more profitable at this time than any concerning a sexual motive. A: the sexual thing has been done to death, and B: Somehow this feels more right.

[DaveShuts]

good point Dave, he was fast. I suspect because the actual minutia of the wound did not matter to him. He was plundering. We have medical people who see skill in some of the injuries, but this I feel is a function of someone with skill seeing a wound characteristic that resembles skill and then mis attributing it to skill. Dave

Do you really think he was plundering?

I always thought he seemed pretty specific. Also, why would you cut someone open to remove parts if you weren't being specific, what would be the motive?

Are there examples of other serial killers who've taken internal body parts as trophies rather than personal possessions, etc?

Thanks.

[Errata]

Do you really think he was plundering?

I always thought he seemed pretty specific. Also, why would you cut someone open to remove parts if you weren't being specific, what would be the motive?

Are there examples of other serial killers who've taken internal body parts as trophies rather than personal possessions, etc?

Thanks.

Not to get overly disgusting, but if there was some sort of imagined relationship with Eddowes (and therefore the facial cuts) the kidney is in fact edible, where the uterus would not be. Gein tried to preserve the soul of his victims by eating them.

[protohistorian]

I think so Dave. Particularly in M2, M4, and M5. I do not see systematic action or a coherent unifying valuation schema or method in either in trophy taking or wound placement. Dave

[Abby Normal]

Why the kidney?

Surely it'd be easier to chop off a nose or ear, something that is more easily attributable to the specific person?

Good question-not sure. perhaps he originally took it in order to eat it but then decided half way through to send the rest to someone.

[protohistorian]

Dave, I do not believe attribution of the trophy to the specific victim is a factor. I think trophy valuation was based on something internal to the killer, or perhaps something interacting with his psychopathology. Dave