Sexual Theories

[kwanitaka]

It is not written about but add shock, surprise, attack, the fear of the victim, fight, screams, fear of being caught, and violent, bloodily killing all produce heighten sexual release. No one talks about it because no one wants to say killing produces greater orgasm. Where was the semen from JTR’s killings? What about the room he spent so much time with his victim? Why are last victims like Ted Buddy’s and canonical JTR killing so horrific? Is there meaning in last victim’s horror?

[Damaso Marte]

I can't answer the other questions, but there was no seminal fluid.

[Abby Normal]

It is not written about but add shock, surprise, attack, the fear of the victim, fight, screams, fear of being caught, and violent, bloodily killing all produce heighten sexual release. No one talks about it because no one wants to say killing produces greater orgasm. Where was the semen from JTR’s killings? What about the room he spent so much time with his victim? Why are last victims like Ted Buddy’s and canonical JTR killing so horrific? Is there meaning in last victim’s horror?

woah dude. hope you dont know all this by experience. maybe for a sexually motivated serial killer, but if the ripper was it was more subtle and covert, because there is no overt indication of any sexual element to his crimes ie-rape, semen etc. but I think there may have been an element to it, with targeting of privates, breasts, face and he may have masturbated with the organs he took away. but all this is total speculation of course.

[erobitha]

I believe he was some kind of a necrophiliac.

He pleasured himself with the organs he took away.

[Ms Diddles]

I believe he was some kind of a necrophiliac.

He pleasured himself with the organs he took away.

That would be my bet too, Ero!

In the case of MJK, I'm not sure that it would be possible to find "evidence of recent connexion".

The poor woman was completely eviscerated.

Could semen have been identified among all the other blood and bodily fluids?

I'm not sure.

[erobitha]

That would be my bet too, Ero!

In the case of MJK, I'm not sure that it would be possible to find "evidence of recent connexion".

The poor woman was completely eviscerated.

Could semen have been identified among all the other blood and bodily fluids?

I'm not sure.

We cannot rule out that seminal fluid was mixed with other substances, but my own instinct is the kills were methodical in order to get the organs. Once he had them he knew he could do want he want at his own leisure upon escape. Despite the urges that were present he overthrew them.......except perhaps for MJK.

He had time here. The excessive brutality could have been interspersed with sexual acts which reflect the time he had with her.

Anyone who has read up on the likes of Dahmler, Bundy etc and will know that necrophilic acts are quite common with lust killers who have access to the victims after the murder itself. Perhaps this was JtR's act of passion masterpiece.

[JeffHamm]

Like erobitha and others, I think JtR was necrophilic. And it is not unusual for such murderers to masterbate after they have returned to a more private location and relive the experience. While it is also not uncommon to find evidence of sexual activity at the scene as well, it is by no means always the case. For most of the murders, being committed in the streets, I wouldn't expect to find anything at the crime scene. However, it is possible that seminal fluids were left at Mary Kelly's, but were simply lost in the rest of the fluids and blood, and general mess created. But there's no way for us to know that now.

- Jeff

[Meet Ze Monster]

Interesting! Necrophilia never really entered my mind as a motive before, but on reflection, I have read about a murder that was motivated by a lustful desire for the internal organs of the victim. I believe it was actually a specific organ too. That killer was severely schizophrenic and had a powerful drive to feel organ(s) in his hand. Like many others, I think with JtR, murder itself was not the primary motivation, but the post-mortem disfigurement or even accessing the organs, as with my example case above. I think he didn't "finish" Nichols and was perhaps disturbed, like in the Stride case, rather than it being a beginner crime. His next victim, Chapman, reflected his true motivation all along. I had previously viewed the placement of the innards outside of the body as ritualistic, but if JtR was in fact sexually attracted to organs, then that makes a very convincing argument.

[Ms Diddles]

Interesting! Necrophilia never really entered my mind as a motive before, but on reflection, I have read about a murder that was motivated by a lustful desire for the internal organs of the victim. I believe it was actually a specific organ too. That killer was severely schizophrenic and had a powerful drive to feel organ(s) in his hand. Like many others, I think with JtR, murder itself was not the primary motivation, but the post-mortem disfigurement or even accessing the organs, as with my example case above. I think he didn't "finish" Nichols and was perhaps disturbed, like in the Stride case, rather than it being a beginner crime. His next victim, Chapman, reflected his true motivation all along. I had previously viewed the placement of the innards outside of the body as ritualistic, but if JtR was in fact sexually attracted to organs, then that makes a very convincing argument.

Hi Meet Ze!

Nice to see you back!!

Hope you're well!

As always it's pure speculation, but I have always felt that there was a tactile element to Jack's behaviour.

I suspect that he enjoyed rooting around in all the viscera to locate the organs.

Whether the thrill was merely holding the organs in his hand or errrrrrmm doing other stuff with them, I don't know.

Jesus, the chat on this forum takes one to some pretty unsavoury places on occasion!

[MWatson]

It’s the filth that thrills. Think urolagnia, coprophilia etc. but more extreme. Add in the pre-assault excitement with (most likely) just enough alcohol to give him the balls to carry it just that bit further than previous encounters with prostitutes. The thrill of the preparation (clothing considerations, concealment of the knife), the thoughts of being an no-one but everyone knowing of you.

[MWatson]

I think there’s every chance there was semen in the Kelly murder but they failed to see it in all the muck and bodily debris.

I think this was the fantasy come true for him at last. Relief in every meaning of the term.

[kwanitaka]

Regarding my 2021 post, to say that there was NOT a heightened sexual element, is rather naive. But who wants to admit this? I hoped here would be the forum to discuss this. Apparently not. Okay.

Well, let me ask: How did JTR take the bloody organs away? Newspaper? I do not know the common norms of the time. Where newspapers cheap? How did he wrap up the organs without walking home dripping with blood carrying a big package? Am I correct in saying this has not be discussed? In Morocco I was told an aspect of the dress was that people could hide packages of food so that others less fortunate would not be embarrassed that there was a visual separation of the haves from the haves-not. Maybe that was just my tour guide talking but it is possible to walk around without showing off your purchases.

JTR could not have hidden the organs in his clothes. The smell would have been impossible to get rid of.

From just my casual overview of JTR literature, he was not carrying anything. So, what is your theory? I understand organs are not that big, but there has to be some concealment and how do you think he did it? Did he hold the organs in his hand and then enter his dwelling without anyone seeing the blood dripping or the smell?

No one here that I read considers the practical applications of killing someone in Victorian London. He knew how to kill so that there was no blood on his clothes, but what about taking out the organs in the dark and where to hide them? Is it a messy but skillful application? Was the smell exciting to JTR? Of course, we cannot suggest this. Please tell me why this is not acceptable to discuss.

I am a woman. Perhaps there are not many of us on this site, but our views should be considered. Women think about things like how to hide the organs, the clothes, the smell, etc.

[Abby Normal]

Regarding my 2021 post, to say that there was NOT a heightened sexual element, is rather naive. But who wants to admit this? I hoped here would be the forum to discuss this. Apparently not. Okay.

Well, let me ask: How did JTR take the bloody organs away? Newspaper? I do not know the common norms of the time. Where newspapers cheap? How did he wrap up the organs without walking home dripping with blood carrying a big package? Am I correct in saying this has not be discussed? In Morocco I was told an aspect of the dress was that people could hide packages of food so that others less fortunate would not be embarrassed that there was a visual separation of the haves from the haves-not. Maybe that was just my tour guide talking but it is possible to walk around without showing off your purchases.

JTR could not have hidden the organs in his clothes. The smell would have been impossible to get rid of.

From just my casual overview of JTR literature, he was not carrying anything. So, what is your theory? I understand organs are not that big, but there has to be some concealment and how do you think he did it? Did he hold the organs in his hand and then enter his dwelling without anyone seeing the blood dripping or the smell?

No one here that I read considers the practical applications of killing someone in Victorian London. He knew how to kill so that there was no blood on his clothes, but what about taking out the organs in the dark and where to hide them? Is it a messy but skillful application? Was the smell exciting to JTR? Of course, we cannot suggest this. Please tell me why this is not acceptable to discuss.

I am a woman. Perhaps there are not many of us on this site, but our views should be considered. Women think about things like how to hide the organs, the clothes, the smell, etc.

who said its unacceptable to talk about? no one..everyone responded and gave their ideas. and why bring up the woman angle? everyone on this site man or woman, talks about this stuff including here in your thread.

methinks more going on with you and your post.

[paul g]

It is actually a good point.
The removal of the organs from the murder site to the place of safety left no trail. So how were they carried . Newspaper would saturate as would clothing ( to a point) or at least risk some seepage .
Cant imagine walking off with a bucket of body parts.
The timings of the killings at most were around the time the streets would be beginning to get busy so either a very short distance to the bolt hole or carrying something that would not arouse suspicion and not look out of place.
The place of safety no matter how centralised between all the murder sites , Jack would of possibly passed undercover police and members of the public .
walking is the obvious most risky but transport of the day less risky and less likely to stand out .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regarding my 2021 post, to say that there was NOT a heightened sexual element, is rather naive. But who wants to admit this? I hoped here would be the forum to discuss this. Apparently not. Okay.

Well, let me ask: How did JTR take the bloody organs away? Newspaper? I do not know the common norms of the time. Where newspapers cheap? How did he wrap up the organs without walking home dripping with blood carrying a big package? Am I correct in saying this has not be discussed? In Morocco I was told an aspect of the dress was that people could hide packages of food so that others less fortunate would not be embarrassed that there was a visual separation of the haves from the haves-not. Maybe that was just my tour guide talking but it is possible to walk around without showing off your purchases.

JTR could not have hidden the organs in his clothes. The smell would have been impossible to get rid of.

From just my casual overview of JTR literature, he was not carrying anything. So, what is your theory? I understand organs are not that big, but there has to be some concealment and how do you think he did it? Did he hold the organs in his hand and then enter his dwelling without anyone seeing the blood dripping or the smell?

No one here that I read considers the practical applications of killing someone in Victorian London. He knew how to kill so that there was no blood on his clothes, but what about taking out the organs in the dark and where to hide them? Is it a messy but skillful application? Was the smell exciting to JTR? Of course, we cannot suggest this. Please tell me why this is not acceptable to discuss.

I am a woman. Perhaps there are not many of us on this site, but our views should be considered. Women think about things like how to hide the organs, the clothes, the smell, etc.

Why would you think that this wasn’t the case? There are certainly female posters. The administrator of the site is a woman.

On the subject of the heightened sexual element I don’t think that there’s any reluctance to discus any particular aspect of the case. Everything has probably been discussed at some point or other. Can we really be certain of the killers deepest thoughts though? I certainly wouldn’t deny the possibility of a sexual element but should we assume it? Couldn’t his motive equally have been hatred? For women in general or prostitutes in particular?

The question of how the killer carried away organs has certainly been discussed regularly over the years. There is nothing that’s not acceptable to discus and if there was it would be moderators and admin who would decide.