Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motivation?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    interesting wick. but i would have thought he would have cut the eyeball/ retina itself if that was the reason.
    no the most reasonable explanation is liked what his knife could do to the female body.
    I think that would be a difficult thing to do, cut the eyeballs but not the eyelids. On the other hand he may have assumed the tip of the knife had cut through both the eyelids & eyeballs, I doubt he hung around the check the damage.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • I just mention it because those small cuts must be intentional. They don't seem to be done by accident, but no-one has come up with a rational explanation for him to do that. One member, many years back suggested he was giving her a clown face. That's more of a modern view where clown faces scare people.
      In the 19th century a clown face was intended to make children laugh, not scare them away, so the vertical slit in the eyelids was not a common part of the 19th century clown makeup. That became more common in today's movie clown, or since the Hollywood of the 1920's.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Did he need to see the eyes? Was he cutting them to open?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          I just mention it because those small cuts must be intentional. They don't seem to be done by accident, but no-one has come up with a rational explanation for him to do that.
          Does it require a rational explanation?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
            Did he need to see the eyes? Was he cutting them to open?
            You might ask that if the cuts were horizontal, but being vertical, weren't the cuts barely a half inch long?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

              Does it require a rational explanation?
              An argument generally does, ever tried to win an argument with an irrational explanation - good luck
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                Does it require a rational explanation?
                The cuts may have been because of a reason only Jack knew. That reason may also not make sense to anyone else. We are dealing with a Serial Killer who may have been insane.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  An argument generally does, ever tried to win an argument with an irrational explanation - good luck
                  Are you saying that the cuts require a rational explanation?

                  As John Wheat said, only the killer knows what was going through his head when he did it.

                  Comment


                  • Lynn Cates, who believed that Eddowes was done by a copycat killer, argued that the facial mutilations to Eddowes was an attempt to duplicate a recent murder elsewhere in England (Liverpool? Manchester? one of those industrial cities further north iirc) where the face was mutilated, which in the press had been attributed to the same killer as Nichols and Chapman.

                    I believe in a Ripper who killed at least 4 out of the C5 (if not the C5 + Martha) so I have to reject that, but respect it as an alternative to my beliefs. None of us can be certain of being right about the case, after all.

                    One thing I suspect the Ripper fantasized about, but was frustrated by for a while, was cutting off a body part. Nichols and Chapman, unlike the others, had their throats cut twice, and I believe this was an attempt by the killer to decapitate them. I think he realized after Chapman that this was impractical. Next he tried to cut off Eddowes's nose, resulting in some of the facial mutilations. This also didn't work. Finally he was able to remove MJK's breasts.

                    I think we can safely conclude that the killer had some kind of morbid fascination with the human body, perhaps the female body particularly. I don't think you butcher people on the street unless you're really fascinated by what is inside. I don't think you take organs home with you unless you find them interesting. There were many possible trophies (clothes, hair, jewelry, etc.) and he picked strange ones.

                    I don't think we can conclude anything about the killer's sexuality. He didn't appear to actually use the services of any of these prostitutes before killing them. Was he impotent, perhaps from an STD contracted from a prostitute? That makes a good story but there's no evidence of it. Just as likely that he thought of sex and Ripping as different activities. Was the selection of prostitutes as victims a sign that he specifically hated the prostitute class, or was it just convenience because prostitutes knew the streets and could take him to secure locations? We don't know. We can't even rule out the idea that he was an ambush killer who never even talked to these women: I think it's unlikely, but we don't have the evidence to rule it out. We can't even conclude that female victims = heterosexual killer because there are known counter-examples.

                    Lastly, the victims were mostly posed. The killer seems to have cared at least a little bit about public reaction.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      Are you saying that the cuts require a rational explanation?

                      As John Wheat said, only the killer knows what was going through his head when he did it.
                      I'm saying an argument requires a rational explanation. If you assume we cannot know the reason - that it is only known to the killer, this is both rational, and a means of avoiding the question.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        I'm saying an argument requires a rational explanation. If you assume we cannot know the reason - that it is only known to the killer, this is both rational, and a means of avoiding the question.
                        Xanthelasma is a rational explanation.

                        Pertains to research Sutton and Gull shared.

                        Sutton who treated Nichols and Eddowes,together as inpatients, for Rheumatic Fever from December 1867.

                        Same guy RLS's cousin Major Henry Smith had examine the "Lusk kidney".
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          I'm saying an argument requires a rational explanation. If you assume we cannot know the reason - that it is only known to the killer, this is both rational, and a means of avoiding the question.
                          No one can answer the question, that's why.

                          Why did the Ripper take wombs from two of his victims and only the heart from another?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            No one can answer the question, that's why.

                            Why did the Ripper take wombs from two of his victims and only the heart from another?
                            With the exception of Stride obviously, all the mutilations carried the same kind of obliteration on the reproductive organs and genitalia. Often that is symbolic and means something to the killer. Could be the representation of the ability to give life. Could be a representation of sexual disgust.

                            The kidney of Eddowes and heart of Kelly might have been additional intrigue or further symbolism.

                            What is certain on the three victims mutilated outside, he was quick to get to the ritualistic parts that mattered to him most.
                            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                              With the exception of Stride obviously, all the mutilations carried the same kind of obliteration on the reproductive organs and genitalia. Often that is symbolic and means something to the killer. Could be the representation of the ability to give life. Could be a representation of sexual disgust.

                              The kidney of Eddowes and heart of Kelly might have been additional intrigue or further symbolism.

                              What is certain on the three victims mutilated outside, he was quick to get to the ritualistic parts that mattered to him most.
                              As you can see, it's all speculative.

                              All we know is that the killer took a womb, a womb and a kidney, then a heart.

                              Whatever value or significance they held to him, is certainly beyond us.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                                Xanthelasma is a rational explanation.

                                Pertains to research Sutton and Gull shared.

                                Sutton who treated Nichols and Eddowes,together as inpatients, for Rheumatic Fever from December 1867.

                                Same guy RLS's cousin Major Henry Smith had examine the "Lusk kidney".
                                Yet, Eddowes never mentioned being paid to be a medical subject, and never had the money to pay for surgery herself.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X