Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motives for Druitt and Kosminski?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Motives for Druitt and Kosminski?

    Hello all,

    What, in your opinion, would Kosminski or Druitt's motive have been for supposedly slicing up 4 of the 5 C5 victims? Not just murdering them, but slicing them into pieces and deliberate and seemingly meticulous organ removal.

    A second question. In Druitt's case, the occupation of his father connects him very loosely to surgical procedure. What connects Kosminski to it? From what part of his life can we connect the precision needed to locate and extract a human kidney in poor light?

    Many thanks for your considered opinions.

    Best wishes

    Phil
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


    Justice for the 96 = achieved
    Accountability? ....

  • #2
    To Phil

    I subscribe to both a primary and a secondary source for a theory of the motivation of Montague Druitt:

    Sir Melville Macnaghten's 'Days of My Years' (1914) for the former, and Tom Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror' (1965) for the latter (though these two sources disagree on motivation).

    Druitt killed in the impoverished streets of the 'evil quarter mile' because he was deranged, no doubt sexually so with some kind of 'fury' against harlots. Yet Druitt kept going back to Whitechapel, rather than Hyde Park for his victims, in order to 'save' them too. He was attempting to force the 'better classes' to come to the aid of the poor by publicising their abject social and economic distress via ultra-violence and horrific murder.

    This brutal, terroristic propaganda campaign was somewhat successful.

    At some point Druitt, though never on police radar or suspected by anybody when alive, suffered some kind of fatal meltdown. He was 'Protean' in that he could appear normal and be a successful advocate -- almost to the day he left for Chiswick to drown himself. Trying to do something for the social good, but using evil methods -- and getting some kind of sick pleasure from it all -- finally undid his dual selves and so, unable to live with the paradox, his last victim was himself.

    After making a 'complete' confession to a priest Druitt made the latter swear that the truth would come out in ten years.

    It did, but semi-fictionalised by the family, and by a police chief who had discovered 'some years after' and kept their 'secret'. That decision, to both reveal and conceal, much later created the impression of ignorance and error, setting in motion what some call 'Ripperology'.

    Just a theory, of course.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
      To Phil

      I subscribe to both a primary and a secondary source for a theory of the motivation of Montague Druitt:

      Sir Melville Macnaghten's 'Days of My Years' (1914) for the former, and Tom Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror' (1965) for the latter (though these two sources disagree on motivation).

      Druitt killed in the impoverished streets of the 'evil quarter mile' because he was deranged, no doubt sexually so with some kind of 'fury' against harlots. Yet Druitt kept going back to Whitechapel, rather than Hyde Park for his victims, in order to 'save' them too. He was attempting to force the 'better classes' to come to the aid of the poor by publicising their abject social and economic distress via ultra-violence and horrific murder.

      This brutal, terroristic propaganda campaign was somewhat successful.

      At some point Druitt, though never on police radar or suspected by anybody when alive, suffered some kind of fatal meltdown. He was 'Protean' in that he could appear normal and be a successful advocate -- almost to the day he left for Chiswick to drown himself. Trying to do something for the social good, but using evil methods -- and getting some kind of sick pleasure from it all -- finally undid his dual selves and so, unable to live with the paradox, his last victim was himself.

      After making a 'complete' confession to a priest Druitt made the latter swear that the truth would come out in ten years.

      It did, but semi-fictionalised by the family, and by a police chief who had discovered 'some years after' and kept their 'secret'. That decision, to both reveal and conceal, much later created the impression of ignorance and error, setting in motion what some call 'Ripperology'.

      Just a theory, of course.
      Hello,

      Even if this could have been proved true, lots of people "confessed" to being the Ripper.

      Cheers,
      C4

      Comment


      • #4
        clipped answer

        Hello Phil. To answer the second question, I am given to understand that AK would have picked up at least elementary surgical skills as a barber.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #5
          If it was Kosminski then I think it would be an attempt to release the anxiety of a mind imprisoned in mental illness, expressed as misdirected and frustrated sexual drives.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
            Hello Phil. To answer the second question, I am given to understand that AK would have picked up at least elementary surgical skills as a barber.

            Cheers.
            LC
            Hello Lynn,

            Perhaps an expert would care to explain the connection between a street shop barber shaving a man's face and 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill?
            In addition to this 'elementary knowledge of surgical skill' I ask how someone known in his profession to be at their best when NOT cutting into the skin would know, using an unfamiliar tool, a knife, how to cut, how deep to cut, where to cut, how to cut away to locate a hidden organ,(a kidney), carefully cut through an unknown depth of fatty tissue in order to clear the way for that organ to be removed, dissecting it with the precision so that the renal artery is severed in a precise way and all done whilst in a hurry, under pressure and in very poor light, all from a front entry cut in the first place- which most surgeons I have seen say is notoriously difficult?

            I could understand a medical student, a butcher even, having 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill, but a man used to using no more than a barber's razor and a pair of scissors being able to weild an instrument he never used in his evesyday life defies logic and belief.

            On top of all this, we are supposed to believe that the man with mental demons in his head retained what is quite frankiy amazing cool and calm when performing this feat.

            If Kosminski really did do this, he must have been one heck of a barber! So why the lack of work as such?

            Best wishes

            Phil
            Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


            Justice for the 96 = achieved
            Accountability? ....

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
              If Kosminski really did do this, he must have been one heck of a barber! So why the lack of work as such?
              He "accidently" cut too many faces, Phil. He was forced out of the barber business.

              As for Druitt, he was simply trying to imitate his friend, Newland Smith.

              Comment


              • #8
                basic medical training

                Hello Phil. Thanks. The idea--as I have heard it--is that the barber had some surgical training. (I make a terrible Kosminsiite.)

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Macnaghten's proxy, Sims, claims in 1907 that the Polish Jew suspect had worked in a hospital in Poland.

                  Since Macnaghten mixed fact and fiction there is no reason to think that this is literally true.

                  In fact, it is Macnaghten trying to beef up a weak suspect, if a real suspect at all?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                    Hello Lynn,

                    Perhaps an expert would care to explain the connection between a street shop barber shaving a man's face and 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill?
                    In addition to this 'elementary knowledge of surgical skill' I ask how someone known in his profession to be at their best when NOT cutting into the skin would know, using an unfamiliar tool, a knife, how to cut, how deep to cut, where to cut, how to cut away to locate a hidden organ,(a kidney), carefully cut through an unknown depth of fatty tissue in order to clear the way for that organ to be removed, dissecting it with the precision so that the renal artery is severed in a precise way and all done whilst in a hurry, under pressure and in very poor light, all from a front entry cut in the first place- which most surgeons I have seen say is notoriously difficult?

                    I could understand a medical student, a butcher even, having 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill, but a man used to using no more than a barber's razor and a pair of scissors being able to weild an instrument he never used in his evesyday life defies logic and belief.

                    On top of all this, we are supposed to believe that the man with mental demons in his head retained what is quite frankiy amazing cool and calm when performing this feat.

                    If Kosminski really did do this, he must have been one heck of a barber! So why the lack of work as such?

                    Best wishes

                    Phil
                    Hi Phil

                    You have forgot to mention that he is supposed to have done all of this with a knife with at least a six inch blade.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                      Hello Lynn,

                      Perhaps an expert would care to explain the connection between a street shop barber shaving a man's face and 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill?
                      In addition to this 'elementary knowledge of surgical skill' I ask how someone known in his profession to be at their best when NOT cutting into the skin would know, using an unfamiliar tool, a knife, how to cut, how deep to cut, where to cut, how to cut away to locate a hidden organ,(a kidney), carefully cut through an unknown depth of fatty tissue in order to clear the way for that organ to be removed, dissecting it with the precision so that the renal artery is severed in a precise way and all done whilst in a hurry, under pressure and in very poor light, all from a front entry cut in the first place- which most surgeons I have seen say is notoriously difficult?

                      I could understand a medical student, a butcher even, having 'elementary knowledge' of surgical skill, but a man used to using no more than a barber's razor and a pair of scissors being able to weild an instrument he never used in his evesyday life defies logic and belief.

                      On top of all this, we are supposed to believe that the man with mental demons in his head retained what is quite frankiy amazing cool and calm when performing this feat.

                      If Kosminski really did do this, he must have been one heck of a barber! So why the lack of work as such?

                      Best wishes

                      Phil
                      We don't know all that occurred in Kosminski's life, though. What he knew and had done prior to 1888.

                      I was reading about two Chinese serial killers who seemed to know how to remove a kidney and eat it, even though their previous job was only selling auto parts.

                      "Shen Changyin and Shen Changping started a business selling Lanzhou auto parts but it didn’t go very well. Faced with severe financial loss, they teamed up with three women (victims who promised to get them more victims if they spare them) and embarked on a new business model – serial killers. Within less than a year – between June 2003 and August 2004 – the five had killed 11 prostitutes whose livers and/or kidneys they cut out and cooked as food."




                      How'd they know how to do that after selling auto parts? Evidently there is more to their lives than that.

                      Don't tell me these guys didn't have demons in THEIR heads. Obviously, something was amiss.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hello Beowolf,

                        Many thanks! Apart from the fact that this group or syndicate did this in organised crime style, and the fact that a pair did this with masses of time in better lighting,have you not realised that if you think that something has never been done before, its always the Chinese who did it FIRST.

                        Sorry- but that comparison doesnt cut it. Good though it was.
                        Too many disimilarities. Time being the main one. More Kelly than Eddowes?

                        Best wishes

                        Phil
                        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                        Justice for the 96 = achieved
                        Accountability? ....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                          Hello Beowolf,

                          Many thanks! Apart from the fact that this group or syndicate did this in organised crime style, and the fact that a pair did this with masses of time in better lighting,have you not realised that if you think that something has never been done before, its always the Chinese who did it FIRST.

                          Sorry- but that comparison doesnt cut it. Good though it was.
                          Too many disimilarities. Time being the main one. More Kelly than Eddowes?

                          Best wishes

                          Phil
                          Lol. Yes, they invented noodles and fireworks, but...we all took the credit

                          Actually, they are finding out now that the Chinese were quite excelled in building techiques...but that is another subject.

                          But to your point: "how someone known in his profession to be at their best when NOT cutting into the skin would know, using an unfamiliar tool, a knife, how to cut, how deep to cut, where to cut, how to cut away to locate a hidden organ,(a kidney), carefully cut through an unknown depth of fatty tissue in order to clear the way for that organ to be removed, dissecting it with the precision so that the renal artery is severed in a precise way and all done whilst in a hurry, under pressure and in very poor light, all from a front entry cut in the first place- which most surgeons I have seen say is notoriously difficult?"

                          Better lighting, yes, time yes but a kidney is covered in a membrane, you have to know where to look. These boys had no surgical training, no medical training and yet cut out a kidney anyhow. Point being, who knows how they learned, but it's obvious they did.

                          Can't rule out Kosminski based on the fact that you figure "a man used to using no more than a barber's razor and a pair of scissors being able to weild an instrument he never used in his everyday life defies logic and belief"...because others have with less to vouch for their know-how.

                          If these guys hadn't been caught would you be saying they couldn't be the murderers, because they worked in an auto parts store?
                          Last edited by Beowulf; 08-01-2012, 04:37 AM. Reason: amendment

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To C-4

                            Yes, that is good point but it is one that Sir Melville Macnaghten, a police chief of the time would also have known, and did know.

                            Yet he believed in Montague Druitt's probable culpability for the Whitechapel murders (for five of them) to the total exclusiuon of all other suspects from about 1891 to his death in 1921. He propagated a veiled version of this story (and debunked the alternate Polish Jew suspect) for the public from 1898.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't think Druitt or Kosminski had a motive and I absolutely do not think either of them was Jack the Ripper. Druitt, presented as suspect number one, has always, from the very beginning, seemed ridiculous to me. The main reason for his consideration as the Ripper seems to be that his family suspected he might be, and when I've asked why they thought so I've never really gotten an answer. Admittedly, I did early on consider Kosminski to be a good suspect but have changed my mind since learning more about him. Kosminski would have been a weird guy to meet. Once the fear of the Ripper had settled over the East End, I doubt many prostitutes would have gone down dark alleys with him.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X