Examination of a Motive

[protohistorian]

Hello Trevor, I can chalk that up to then and now. Even in modern times you have folks like Gein who loved to play with the bits. I am gonna stick with trophies. Thanks for the heads up. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor, I can chalk that up to then and now. Even in modern times you have folks like Gein who loved to play with the bits. I am gonna stick with trophies. Thanks for the heads up. Dave

Ed Gein was known for digging up bodies from graveyards and making keepsakes etc from the skin and bones. I wouldnt call that trophy taking more like a business enterprise !

He only confesed to two murders and one of the bodies of them they found at his house

[Errata]

Well, either way the question still stands. Even if he isn't taking organs for trophies (assuming he is taking them) what then? They have enough value to not be discarded next to the body, but are somewhat problematic as trophies per se. He took Chapman's uterus and her rings. Eddowes had so much crap on her he could easily have taken something like a tin box or a ribbon. I supposed he could have tossed it down an alley somewhere, and the preponderance of cats in the area would have made sure it wasnt found, but then why take it? I'm really not fond of the idea of him eating them, but if he has more concrete trophies, and he goes through all that trouble...

Maybe he has a little box or something?

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"I think that certain aspects of those cuts are deliberate. I think he specifically targeted the eyes and nose."

In a sense, that would be the obvious goals for a face-cutter, Errata. The eyes are the main feature of the individuals personality, and the nose is the one thing "en-face" that offers an easily cut away portion. Not that it was so easy in this case, since he botched his first attempt to sever the nose, cutting too high up and hitting the nosebone. That, byt the way, apparently was when he produced the much famed V:s on the cheeks. After having come to a stop there, he retracted his knife and cut a bit further down, this time succeeding to sever the nose.

As for what he did to the eyes, I think an interesting comparison can be made with Kelly. In Eddowes´ case, he apparently restrained himself, and only nicked the eyelids slightly. In Kellys case, she looked like she had been run over by a lawnmower - but the eyes were intact. Of course, the eyes are set deeply in their sockets, and protected by bone structure. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the killer at least did not deliberately go for the eyes in Kellys case, and that he excerted a good deal of care when cutting at Eddowes´eyes.

Significance? You tell me! But apart from this feature, I really do not see much of planning or careful execution in any of the cutting involved in the Rippers facial mutilations.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Significance? You tell me! But apart from this feature, I really do not see much of planning or careful execution in any of the cutting involved in the Rippers facial mutilations.

The best,
Fisherman

Yeah, I agree. I don't think there was any planning to the cuts. I just think he was careful with his actual use of the knife. I don't know, delicate seems absurdly inappropriate given the circumstances, but the cuts on Eddowes face were for the most part delicate work, as opposed to Kelly.

I think it is significant about the eyes. It strikes me that the easiest way to butcher a face is to make long strokes crisscrossing the face. Which is apparently what happened. But the orbital bone does not protrude, so there is no wall or speed bump around the eye. In a long stroke with any degree of pressure, you would cut across the eye, and most likely bury the knife into eyeball given the resistance difference between the bone under the forehead and the eyeball. So you kinda have to make an effort to not hit the eyes. Which it seems he did. So yeah, I think the difference between the two means something. Just not sure what yet

[Abby Normal]

The M3 trigger is the liquefaction of the M2 trophy. Dave

Hi Proto
So in your view then the trophies replace the original desire to murder?

[Abby Normal]

I didn't think it was possible to up the gross out factor on this subject. Bravo!

Do you have any theories as to where he's keeping these trophies? Because this always bothered me. You can't keep them on you. If you live in a doss, or if you have a landlord you can't keep them in your room. If you have servants, forget it, they'll assume you lost a bit of sandwich and find it. Bottles were readily available to the poor, but not jars as much. A kidney doesn't fit in a bottle, although a uterus probably might. But even if its in an empty bottle that preserves it a little longer. I mean, it's gonna smell. Above and beyond the normal smells surrounding a poor area. And if it's a middle or upper class neighborhood, the smell is going to stand out even more. And then there's rats. Rats will totally run off with a stray uterus. So it has to be somewhat protected, not where people can find it, not where you could lose it, and the smell either masked or in a place where no one will smell it. I mean, even if you stored it under a floorboard or something, well then you had better be on the ground floor, but even there rats will run off with it, assuming is doesn't fall into some position where you cant retrieve it. Where to keep a uterus?

Hi Errata
The storing of trophies has always led me to beleive that he must have a private place to keep them safe and secure-ie. his own residence and/or place of business.

[Abby Normal]

I hadn't read it. I just did. I would say I agree with a lot of it.

Let me sort of put "careful work" in context, which I probably should have done earlier. A great deal of my life involves knives, for many reasons. Everything from stunt combat, to building model stages, to carving waxes for jewelry manufacturing. Never mind the weird things you arent technically supposed to use a knife for, like popping the backs off watches, haircuts, etc. So when I say "careful work", I mean it in two senses. The first is that it is pointwork, as opposed to bladework. The difference between carving your initials in a desk and peeling a potato. It requires finer control. The second sense is that of using a knife in a way that is less likely to cause injury to yourself. Cutting away from your body, using the point, small cuts, etc.

In the context of Eddowes, "careful work" means that she was for the most part drawn on, as opposed to Kelly, who was carved. I do not think Eddowes wounds were planned, or that they hold some mystical significance, or whatever. I think that cutting an eyeball without plunging through it and possibly popping it out are signs of careful pointwork. The cuts were not deliberate, but the cutting for the most part was. In a frenzy, it would be terribly easy to put out the eyes, cut through the cheeks, etc. by slicing or stabbing too enthusiastically. He did not. He came close a time or two, but for the most part he exhibited remarkable restraint. And if these were the first injuries he gave her, then he showed such control deliberately. I think that certain aspects of those cuts are deliberate. I think he specifically targeted the eyes and nose. I don't think he cared about symmetry or artistry, but I do think he deliberately made sure to mar those features.

according to that article, the author does not think that overall there is anything significantly different between the facial cuts between Eddowes and Kelly, only that the killer had more time with kelly (and thus more facial cuts).

[Errata]

according to that article, the author does not think that overall there is anything significantly different between the facial cuts between Eddowes and Kelly, only that the killer had more time with kelly (and thus more facial cuts).

Yeah, that's the part I disagree with. And maybe it's just because I use knives so I think of this in terms of how I use a knife. So let me see if I can illustrate this is a different way. Obviously you can use just about any knife in any way you please (Barring stabbing with a cleaver, which is nigh impossible) but there are certain knives designed for certain purposes. I think the best way to sort of show what I'm thinking is to go this route.

Firstly, an exacto knife. An exacto knife is designed to be used in a specific way. You use the point to enter (say cardboard) and then uses the tiniest amount of the top of the blade to cut. You use the point to steer the cut. The exacto knife is designed to give a person the maximum control of the blade. And it is held like a pencil for even more control. The design and the way you use the exacto knife allows you to "draw" with the blade, make complex designs, and intricate and delicate cuts. Clearly the exacto knife is capable of carving and slicing. My index fingers are a testament to this. But there are better tools for that kind of job. When I see the facial mutilations on Eddowes, I see an exacto knife at work. Not the actual knife, but the cutting technique. You can use any knife with that cutting technique. But it looks like the point of the blade was used to draw the lines, using very little of the edge.

Secondly a carving knife. Also designed to be used in a specific way. The point is rarely used unless a stab is required to start the cutting process. When you use a carving knife, you use about three quarters of the blade (unless you are cutting grapes or some such). It is designed to be used in long strokes. If you carve, you lay the blade flat against the surface, angle downward, and use a slight sawing motion to start the cut. Even if you use the point of a carving knife to cut something very thin, you use long strokes. One does not steer a carving knife. You get long even cuts, and if you need to go in a different direction, you reposition the handle. When I look at Mary Kelly, I see a carving knife. Eyebrows, cheeks, ears, nose all mostly severed. Long crisscrossing strokes all over the face. It looks like the point was used very little, that this was mostly the work of the edge. And unfortunately a not very sharp edge.

Like I said, you can use just about any blade with any style. I certainly dont think he had an exacto on him. But I think he used a style similar to using an exacto. So what does that mean? Well, it means that if it is the same killer, he changed his bladework. Which is not easy to do. My knife usage is typically point driven. Carving, intricate cuts, even when sword fighting I use a rapier and think in terms of points. Every year people think I should be able to carve a turkey, but I suck at it. I keep trying to use the point instead of the edge. A knife is a tool. People who use them tend to think of them either in terms of point or edge, depending on how they use them. My dad is a doctor. He thinks in terms of edges, so our Halloween pumpkins always looked like crap. Does this make changing bladework impossible? Not at all. But it requires a certain amount of concentration to avoid any habit. Sort of like if you have to drive more than five feet in reverse. It takes some brain shuffling. And why change anyway?

I have no idea if I am right or not, but I don't think it's the same cutting style at all.

[protohistorian]

Hi Proto
So in your view then the trophies replace the original desire to murder?

Not quite Abby. They lessen whatever diathesis made him kill. Trophies are not killing equivalents so much as they represent a lesser but acceptable remediation of his anguish. Dave

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"When I look at Mary Kelly, I see a carving knife. Eyebrows, cheeks, ears, nose all mostly severed. Long crisscrossing strokes all over the face. It looks like the point was used very little, that this was mostly the work of the edge."

That, Errata, is mostly what I see too. But I am not too sure that the knife could not have been the same knife that was used on, say, Chapman, and described as a longish, thin blade with double edges and a pointed tip.
A traditional carving knife would have a convexe edge, whereas a thin double-edged blade could not have that to any more significant extent. That, though, is not to say that such a knife could not have been what destroyed Kellys face - it could, as far as I can understand. But you are correct that it would have been used in a slicing manner.
As for Eddowes, what you say about the exacto knife mode of cutting must be true - when it comes to the nicking of the eyelids. But none of the other damages bear witness to such a thing. For example, the large gash that starts on the left side of the bridge of her nose and travels over that bride, cutting her right cheek open, is not what I would call exacto work - it looks very much like a sibling to the cuts on Kelly.

So, at the end of the day, the eyelid nickings only speak exacto language to my ears. And when we look at the massive damage done to Kellys face, it is quite obvious that there may well have been a nick or two underneath it all, undetectable to the medicos in the carnal chaos. And we also know that "the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument" in Eddowes case, so maybe we are dealing with a knifeman that was not either a cutter or a knife-point stabber, but a little bit of both - with a very clear emphasis on the cutting inclinations.
As for your remark that the blade that cut Kellys face was a blunt one, I am not sure how much this is in evidence. But it should be noted that the blade that cut Nichols was described as only "moderately sharp".

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

That, Errata, is mostly what I see too. But I am not too sure that the knife could not have been the same knife that was used on, say, Chapman, and described as a longish, thin blade with double edges and a pointed tip.
A traditional carving knife would have a convexe edge, whereas a thin double-edged blade could not have that to any more significant extent. That, though, is not to say that such a knife could not have been what destroyed Kellys face - it could, as far as I can understand. But you are correct that it would have been used in a slicing manner.
As for Eddowes, what you say about the exacto knife mode of cutting must be true - when it comes to the nicking of the eyelids. But none of the other damages bear witness to such a thing. For example, the large gash that starts on the left side of the bridge of her nose and travels over that bride, cutting her right cheek open, is not what I would call exacto work - it looks very much like a sibling to the cuts on Kelly.

So, at the end of the day, the eyelid nickings only speak exacto language to my ears. And when we look at the massive damage done to Kellys face, it is quite obvious that there may well have been a nick or two underneath it all, undetectable to the medicos in the carnal chaos. And we also know that "the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument" in Eddowes case, so maybe we are dealing with a knifeman that was not either a cutter or a knife-point stabber, but a little bit of both - with a very clear emphasis on the cutting inclinations.
As for your remark that the blade that cut Kellys face was a blunt one, I am not sure how much this is in evidence. But it should be noted that the blade that cut Nichols was described as only "moderately sharp".

The best,
Fisherman

The long gash on Eddowes nose is why I qualified the statement with "mostly" or some such. That is clearly a edge cut. The triangular flaps were also likely edge work, but very careful. I think the lip cuts and the cheek cut were done with the point. Not so much a stab and drag as almost tracery. I can't prove it, and it could go either way I imagine, but a quick slash on the cheek with the edge seems likely to completely sever it. There was still intact tissue underneath. I think had the cheek cuts started higher up, on the bone, it would be more indicative of a slash.

As for my statement that the knife used on Kelly was not terribly sharp, it is based more on personal experience rather than any science, although there is probably a scientific reason for my experience. Which is this. If you have a sharp knife, lay it flat against a piece of meat and start cutting across the top, it is difficult to NOT complete the cut. You start with a bit of a sawing motion, and the knife zips right through. Especially if you are putting any force behind it. If the knife is not that sharp, then you have to essentially saw your way through the meat. As her facial features were mostly severed, I assume that he was sawing through them rather that letting the knife do the work. Which indicates to me it was not that sharp. Of course "not that sharp" is relative. Clearly it was sharp enough to get the job done.

Knife style is never confined wholly to one way or another. Cutters stab, stabbers cut. A rapier is designed to be a point weapon, but it has an edge for a reason. It's just about a comfort level. As I though about it, it occurred to me that someone who is more comfortable with using the point may be less confident in the depth of his cuts. It might explain the massive overkill on many of the neck slashes on the victims. It might explain some of the cuts we see on the organs, if he felt he had to trace over his original cut to get deep enough. Who knows.

Again, the different knife illustration has nothing to do with what kind of knives were used. I just used the to illustrate the different ways one uses a knife. Another illustration I suppose is the difference between using a pencil and using a paintbrush. Just sort of a muscle memory thing I guess.

[corey123]

Hello All,


As I am posting lait into the discussion, please forgive me with anything I may repeat, for I haven't had the time to read this all over. Motive, the aspect of this case that is obviously dissernable, yet can vary from how one percieves the crimes. Motivation is a rather simple consept, but a rather complicated behavior. It is partially learnt and partially subcoinceous. What motivates us to do things? With these murders it is obvious we have few possible motivations to explore. Anger, sexual gratification, and material gain(organ harvesting is one example).

To make a model of a possible motivation we need to set an outline by which to simulate it against. We need a (mostly) solid canon. I personaly subscribe to Martha plus C5. Logically this is possible. Now what traits do we need to look at? Analysis of the injurieds?(however interesting I believe it may be harmful to take too close of a look at the injuries. Certain details, no matter how interesting may be irrelevent) The victimology? The Method of Operation? Perhaps a mixture of both?

Human behavior is interesting regarding motivation. Learning is also. Learnt based behaviors may factor heavily in on motivation. If you learned that smoking was harmful to your health, what would motivate you to prevent others from doing so? I would assume it would be that learned behavior.

Dave brings up a clue to the killers motivation, the organ theft. We know that it started midway thoughout the spree and that it mostlikely was not for personal profit. Was it a trophy? Or is it a item to help the killer relive his experience(this is simple associations)?

Obviously the killer didn't have anatomical knowledge and compared to a surgen, he was down right sloppy. However, when trying to compare the murders of say C2 and C5(assuming kelly was the fifth) we have to factor in certain things that would and did affect the outcome. We can tell that he basically cut her to pieces and that the target area in Kelly's case were more broad and as Errata noted, sexual. However, when we say the murderer was a Lust murderer, do we realize that this has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with sex at all. It is rather a killer attacking the sexual organs and areas of the body. We also have to factor in time and circumstances when comparing murders. In Kelly's case he had a almost unlimited environment to do what he wished and almost unlimited time. Yet in Chapman's case he had neither of these. We also have to assume that since he had no anatomical knowledge that the fantasy, or rather the mutilations would increase with each murder, again also factoring in the circumstances. When we look at the murders of Tabram through Kelly we can see a pattern in the escilation of mutialtions and the method at which he performed both submission and the subsecuent mutilations. Moving from frenzied stabbing(the same target areas attacked, same victim type, same Signiture) then to Nichols we see what looks to be the stepping stone between the six. We see both long slashes and shallow cuts. He still cuts haphazardous and now cuts the throat to(assuming he was saturated with blood from Martha's murder) prevent being bloodsoaked. He finaly graduates to a single longitudinal cut with Chapman but still produces two throat wounds. This is also when we first see the organ harvesting.

The rest of the pattern is obvious.

How does this help find Motivation? Well it is obvious by the pattern that he wanted and liked to kill, for if he didn't stive to mutilate them he wouldn't have learned what it obvious. There would also be no mutilations. If he did kill Tabram it is obvious that rage has a part in this equation. If he killed Stride this even further reinforces the idea that he killed partly out of rage(at least at first) assuming that Eddowes was a product of a failure.

Well Im going to end it here. Just my two cents.

Yours truly

[protohistorian]

Nicely put Corey. I think the organ taking is a result of his fantasy to prolong his calmer state and the conception that he could open the abdomen to get one ( a M1 event product). Low and behold in M2 we see trophy taking. The M2 trophy liquefies due to decomposition ( a process he neither understands or predicts) he is caught out and has a profound need for another, does no risk assessment at the M3 crime, is interrupted, and has a renewed vigor to his need. In the M4 event he is fast and taking a risk in scene selection but his need is so profound he risks it like he did in M3. The delayed gratification of the M4 trophy heightens his pleasure in a way he does not understand and the M5 timing and violence are the result. Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

or you could suggest that the trohpy takng was a result to prolong the gratification he recieved from the power over the victim through instnat submission. He relates the trophy with this gratification. This would mean that he may have gained sexual gratification not from the act itself of mutilation but rather the power and control he bad over the victims. Also again if you factor in the possibilty of Martha Tabram being a victim you can insert rage into the formula and perhaps he may have discovered partially through the murder of Nichols(thus she would be C2 not C1) that he gained the gratification through any of the means produced.

All in all I believr it is safe to say that the murders MAY be sexual in origin, however perhaps the means by which the killer obtained this sexual gratifiaction may be different that previously though?

Yours truly

ps please excuse my horrible typing. I am on my iphon in a hotel in Virginia. Ha!