Was JtR a necrophile?

[Ausgirl]

I think there's a pretty good possibility of it, mainly as his prime objective seems to have been making all of his victims dead, as quickly as possible, with anything else achieved being something of a bonus (Mary Kelly being the one possible exception, as there's a far longer time frame involved).

Then there's what came after - I think this very well could have replaced the sex act entirely, or provided fuel for fantasies later, if he didn't molest the bodies directly (and I don't think he did, for want of time - and being that the little he had, he spent hacking into them and such instead). I don't think any kind of regular sex act was a priority during the murders, for that reason.

Sex was likely on his mind, though, in his own special way. Choice of victims, genital mutilation, a bit of a womb fixation, etc. Faces, vaginas, breasts, all erogenous areas - okay, and the innards too, probably, since we're dealing with a very sick puppy here and .. 'nuff said, I think.

If I could zap back to that time as a bobby (and was a man, because whoever heard of a policewoman!? outrageous..) I'd maybe have a look at some former morgue and hospital workers and the like. Former, because JtR was stalking about the streets doing some extremely risky things to get his jollies and appears to have been fairly evolved as a killer already, even in the earliest known murders, so he might've had bodies at his disposal at some point and either suddenly wanted warmer ones, or was sacked and had to go for making his own corpses.

Maybe.

[Robert]

Hi Ausgirl

I don't see what is erogenous about faces, except in the mild way that for a heterosexual man, just about any part of a woman can be erogenous. As for breasts, Kelly's were the only breasts he touched - but he touched everything else of hers too, so again there doesn't seem to be anything particularly sexual there.

[Abby Normal]

I think there's a pretty good possibility of it, mainly as his prime objective seems to have been making all of his victims dead, as quickly as possible, with anything else achieved being something of a bonus (Mary Kelly being the one possible exception, as there's a far longer time frame involved).

Then there's what came after - I think this very well could have replaced the sex act entirely, or provided fuel for fantasies later, if he didn't molest the bodies directly (and I don't think he did, for want of time - and being that the little he had, he spent hacking into them and such instead). I don't think any kind of regular sex act was a priority during the murders, for that reason.

Sex was likely on his mind, though, in his own special way. Choice of victims, genital mutilation, a bit of a womb fixation, etc. Faces, vaginas, breasts, all erogenous areas - okay, and the innards too, probably, since we're dealing with a very sick puppy here and .. 'nuff said, I think.

If I could zap back to that time as a bobby (and was a man, because whoever heard of a policewoman!? outrageous..) I'd maybe have a look at some former morgue and hospital workers and the like. Former, because JtR was stalking about the streets doing some extremely risky things to get his jollies and appears to have been fairly evolved as a killer already, even in the earliest known murders, so he might've had bodies at his disposal at some point and either suddenly wanted warmer ones, or was sacked and had to go for making his own corpses.

Maybe.

If there is one thing I am certain of in this whole mess is that YES the ripper was a necrophile a post mortem serial killer. No doubt about that.

[Kitnkaat]

I doubt that Jack had time to have sex with his victims. Also, I don't think sex was the motive. I think it was rage

[Ausgirl]

Hi Ausgirl

I don't see what is erogenous about faces, except in the mild way that for a heterosexual man, just about any part of a woman can be erogenous. As for breasts, Kelly's were the only breasts he touched - but he touched everything else of hers too, so again there doesn't seem to be anything particularly sexual there.

I meant this in the sense of those areas defining what a woman is and phrased it with terrible lack of clarity for which I apologise.

That JtR mutilated faces (personal identity) and sex organs (sexual identity) both as his areas of choice for the knife says quite a lot about him, I think, and where his focus of mind was during the murders.

I would argue that the face is indeed an erogenous zone... for some, perhaps more so than others..

Also, there's 'touching' and there's 'hacking up with a knife', but I agree on the Mary Kelly/breast point, he indeed had many other focal directions, there.

Just to include Kitnkaat's pov in this too -- not all sexually motivated crimes need have erections involved, indeed for some the knife fulfills that function nicely. It's a well documented phenomenon, this using a knife in place of a penis - I believe the term is piquerism. Rage is a major factor in that too, of course (and hence all the stabbing, one must suppose), but targetting sex workers' sex organs and innards strongly suggests to me that rage had its roots in sexuality.

I do not think of these murders as 'sex crimes' in the usual sense, but I do consider the strong possibility of them being sexually motivated (in JtR's own special way).

Abby - how likely do you think it, that JtR might have worked in close proximity to fresh corpses in a professional capacity at some point? Might explain his abrupt appearance - and, maybe, disappearance - he lost his job and thus his means of fulfilling his compulsion, and so erupted into Whitechapel with a fully formed idea of what he wanted and how to most efficiently go about getting it, to the best of his ability.

He did not want living women, he could have had those aplenty. He wasn't a sadist as such, as he killed his victims very quickly. He clearly wanted dead women - and once they were dead, he wanted -something- from them..

I have no particular culprit in mind as I write, it ought to be noted.

[Nick Spring]

Necrophile

I think there is definitely an element of Necrophilia in the killer.

Part of his sexual fantasy was showing complete control over the murdered women.

I don't think Necrophilia necessitates having sex with a corpse.

Best

Nick

[Abby Normal]

I meant this in the sense of those areas defining what a woman is and phrased it with terrible lack of clarity for which I apologise.

That JtR mutilated faces (personal identity) and sex organs (sexual identity) both as his areas of choice for the knife says quite a lot about him, I think, and where his focus of mind was during the murders.

I would argue that the face is indeed an erogenous zone... for some, perhaps more so than others..

Also, there's 'touching' and there's 'hacking up with a knife', but I agree on the Mary Kelly/breast point, he indeed had many other focal directions, there.

Just to include Kitnkaat's pov in this too -- not all sexually motivated crimes need have erections involved, indeed for some the knife fulfills that function nicely. It's a well documented phenomenon, this using a knife in place of a penis - I believe the term is piquerism. Rage is a major factor in that too, of course (and hence all the stabbing, one must suppose), but targetting sex workers' sex organs and innards strongly suggests to me that rage had its roots in sexuality.

I do not think of these murders as 'sex crimes' in the usual sense, but I do consider the strong possibility of them being sexually motivated (in JtR's own special way).

Abby - how likely do you think it, that JtR might have worked in close proximity to fresh corpses in a professional capacity at some point? Might explain his abrupt appearance - and, maybe, disappearance - he lost his job and thus his means of fulfilling his compulsion, and so erupted into Whitechapel with a fully formed idea of what he wanted and how to most efficiently go about getting it, to the best of his ability.

He did not want living women, he could have had those aplenty. He wasn't a sadist as such, as he killed his victims very quickly. He clearly wanted dead women - and once they were dead, he wanted -something- from them..

I have no particular culprit in mind as I write, it ought to be noted.

Hi ausgirl
I Beleive he probably was familiar with corpses, be they animal or human, at the very least and knew his way around and inside a body, perhaps through his occupation, but not neccesserally though.

Hunter, butcher, cook,military field surgeon, doctor/assistant, etc. maybe just with practice on killing the stray dogs and cats, and/or perhaps he read a lot of books.

I have always thought though that his occupation had more to do with the timing of the killings, that is his occupation prevented him from killing during working hours and during the middle of the month.


In terms of necrophile, I meant not having sex with the whole body. I don't think there was enough time for that, although i think he was turned on to some extant by the actual murder and mutilation. I Beleive he probably "had sex", as in endulging in solitary vices, with the internal organs he brought home and perhaps even cannibalism.

[Penhalion]

I thought I'd check and see what the official diagnostic criteria for necrophilia are and found that it is subsumed with other quirks in a category called 'Paraphilias' in the DSM V. Here is the portion of the text dealing with necrophilia specifically:

"Necrophilia
Apart from the sample accrued by Rosman and Resnick (1989;
122 cases: 88 from the world literature and 34 unpublished
cases), there are no new substantial data on Necrophilia. In their
review, Rosman and Resnick noted that the primary motivation
associated with Necrophilia was the ‘‘possession of an unresisting
and unrejecting partner. ’’Necrophilia could be considered
as a fetish variant as the sexualized object of desire is ‘‘nonliving’’
but, in my opinion, there are insufficient data to empirically support
this change to include Necrophilia as a subtype of Fetishism.
Necrophilia can be accompanied by ‘‘sadistic acts’’ and sexually
motivated murder, certainly not behaviors associated with Fetishism
as it has been currently defined. Rosman and Resnick also
reported that 57% of their sample were employed in a profession
that gave them access to dead bodies (e.g., morgue attendant,
hospital workers, cemetery employee).
Clearly, Necrophilia is a very dangerous paraphilic affliction
but the paucity of systematically reported data and the rarity of
this important disorder are limitations that, in my opinion, will
maintain Necrophilia as a Paraphilia NOS disorder for DSM-V."

So there's the (modern) official word on necrophilia.

[Errata]

I don't think he was a necrophile, because I don't think sex was a part of it. Jeffrey Dahmer was a classic necrophiliac, desiring unresisting partners who were slaves to his will, copulating with dead men and their body parts. Even the cannibalism was part of his necrophilia. But I don't see any correlating evidence to suggest Jack was anything like that.

I don't even think he was a sadist. These women were killed quickly. And probably impersonally. Kind of like the way people kill frogs in jars before dissecting them. Murder seems to be a means to an end. I mean, you can never really separate sex from a serial killer, any more than you can separate rage, pleasure, anxiety and placation. They're all in there somewhere. But the big money question is what did Jack get out of these murders? No one knows, but my bet is that it wasn't sexual satisfaction. My bet is that it was something personal. Maybe even simple victim substitution. But I'm betting more on rage than sex.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I doubt that Jack had time to have sex with his victims. Also, I don't think sex was the motive. I think it was rage

You would have to be on the wrong side of sanity to do that sort of thing. But, I'm not so sure about the rage part.

The facts are that this person took the time to despatch the victims humanely (or at least it seems to be the case), and even in the case of Kelly he was hardly slashing wildly; he was cutting things off and placing them on tables before moving onto the next section.

It doesn't speak to me of a Peter Sutcliffe type who was banging poor women over the head with a hammer and attacking them with chisels. These women clearly would have been in a severe state of fear before dying.

Personality wise, of all the suspects Cutbush appears to be the best fit. Someone reading too many books, with an intense interest in anatomy and more than just one screw missing. Someone who felt he was just laying them out before satisfying some strange curiosity about the human body.

[Kitnkaat]

I'm new to the Casebook, having only recently begun reading about Jack in earnest. I agree that he killed the victims humanely and quickly, but it seems to me that the rage acts would come after the murder. Do I recall correctly that one of the victims had 26 stab woulnd. That sounds like rage to me

[Errata]

You would have to be on the wrong side of sanity to do that sort of thing. But, I'm not so sure about the rage part.

I see it as a rage tempered by fear. He wasn't in control until they were dead, so until that point, there is no rage. Just fear. But once they were dead and he didn't have to fear them anymore, I think he a little punished them for making him afraid.

Kind of like what happens when people kill their abusers. The murder itself tends to be straightforward, but then they like, kick the crap out of the corpse specifically because they couldn't do it when that person was alive.

And I suppose there is nothing to say Jack wasn't suffering from a raging case of transference and that's why he killed. It's a little simplistic, but feasible.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm new to the Casebook, having only recently begun reading about Jack in earnest. I agree that he killed the victims humanely and quickly, but it seems to me that the rage acts would come after the murder. Do I recall correctly that one of the victims had 26 stab woulnd. That sounds like rage to me

Kitnkaat, as a long time casebook member, let me welcome you to the site. Yes you are correct one of his victims did suffer 26 stab wounds and yes that is sounding very much like an enraged killer to me but then what would I know I'm just in the words of Inspector Athelney Jones of The Yard "an amatuer detective". Cheers and good luck
Regards
Mr Holmes

[Barnaby]

He doesn't fit the pattern of a typical necrophile, if there is such a thing. In the study cited above, over half had occupations resulting in access to corpses. No need to kill. Anecdotally among necrophillic serial killers, my impression is that they either kill at home so as to have uninterrupted access to the bodies (e.g., Dahmer) or they dump the bodies in a place not likely to be discovered so that they can repeatedly revisit them (e.g., Bundy).

I suppose it is certainly possible he was masturbating with internal organs. I'm not sure if that meets DSM criteria, but it would fit my common sense one. This also has occurred (e.g., Bundy, Gein to name two).

A gray area is having sex as the person expires. A number of serial killers have commented on their orgasmic experience as the life leaves the victim's eyes, etc. Is this necrophilia, or does some time have to elapse between life and death before it counts? If no time needs to elapse, perhaps Jack's crimes can be considered necrophilia IF we accept the mutilations were sexual in nature (traditionally assumed and assumed by me but I'm not sure anymore if this is the prevailing view).

[Fisherman]

not all sexually motivated crimes need have erections involved, indeed for some the knife fulfills that function nicely. It's a well documented phenomenon, this using a knife in place of a penis - I believe the term is piquerism.

The last time I saw this theory posted, it was thoroughly torn to pieces, accompanied by may a "not that psychobabble AGAIN!"

Everything goes in circles here on Casebook.

The best,
Fisherman