Was JtR a necrophile?

[Robert]

Quick question : it is often surmised that JTR could have started his mutilating career by attacking rats, cats etc. Are necrophiliacs known to start off in the same 'substitute' sort of way, in their case by having sex with unconscious women i.e. drugged or drunk?

[Abby Normal]

Aggrawal, a professor of forensic medicine at the Maulana Azad Medical College in New Delhi, classifies Jack the Ripper as a typical Class IXa homicidal necrophile.

I'll go with the expert. and common sense.

[Nick Spring]

I'll go with the expert. and common sense.

Hi Abby,

I quite agree. It makes perfect sense.

cheers

Nick

[Errata]

I'll go with the expert. and common sense.

And I agree. But as a professor of forensic medicine, he's giving the legal definition. Not the psychological one. The 10 types of necrophiliacs described earlier in the thread are also the legal definitions, well, more the criminology definitions. The difference being that you use one definition to classify, you use another definition in an attempt to cure.

[Errata]

I´m not sure that I grasp all of this correctly, but I believe that Errata is saying that as longs as a person likes to have sex with a corpse and goes through with it, it does not put that person on the same level as somebody who must have a corpse at hand to be able to function sexually. Person number one would be like Bundy, who functioned sexually with living people too, but who enjoyed the odd sexual encounter with putrifying women all the same...

On a basic level, though, I think most people would recognize both categories of people as seriously ill persons, and the "illness" that springs to most minds in both cases would be necrophilia. I can accept that this is wrong, but I would also have a very easy time understanding those who make the mistake - myself included.

The best,
Fisherman

It's not quite that simple. Nothing ever is.

Basically it all comes down to why you want to know if Jack was a necrophiliac.

If you are trying to figure out if he had some sort of sexual release because of the presence of a dead body in order to understand what happened when he was with the body, by all means use the legal definition. However, know that getting sexual satisfaction out of the act of murder is something different. That is erotophonophilia, and it's just a completely different set of needs. They don't care about the corpse. They care about killing.

If you are trying to figure out motive, for example "was he killing these women in order to find a sexual release with their corpses?". Then you really need the medical definition, because you want the behaviors that accompany the the medical definition. For example, there are things necrophiliacs do to try and satisfy their needs before they start killing people. Jeffrey Dahmer was a classic necrophiliac. His desire for total submission from his partners is textbook. And he drugged his partners and cuddled with them and had sex with them before he started killing people on purpose. And he did the same thing to the men he did kill. As a necrophiliac with no easy access to corpses, thats what you would look for with Jack. Warm up behaviors. Did the cops get wind of some weirdo prowling the brothels who made the women pretend they were dead? Were there break ins at mortuaries, medical schools, etc. Was there grave robbing? Were there signs a necrophiliac was in the neighborhood? In Milwaukee, Dahmer's strange ways were known in the gay community. It even made it to the ears of police, though no one made a formal complaint. You can look at the years before he started killing and during his spree and see a necrophiliac was in that city. It's almost impossible to see the pattern when you're in it, but once you know, you can see it. We should be able to see it with Jack, if he was one. Assuming of course records are intact, which is a big assumption.

There is no question whatsoever that Jack was not right in the head. The question is whether or not there was a sexual component to his murders, and if so, what was the object of desire. If there was a sexual component, and the arousal came from the act of murder, Jack was not a necrophiliac. Not that he isn't a sicko, just a different type of sicko. If the arousal came from the presence of a corpse, then he was a necrophiliac. Assuming there was a sexual component, and there doesn't have to be one.

Bundy is not considered a necrophiliac (psychologically speaking) because the corpse was not necessary. He want back to the scenes of his crimes to masturbate. If the body was there, he would use the body. If the body wasn't there, he would use scraps of her clothing, or just lie down in the leaves. And yes he raped these women before and after they were dead. He wanted total dominance. But it was the act of murder that was the stimulation. His interactions with the corpse were for the sole purpose of reliving the murder. Legally he is absolutely a necrophiliac. Psychologically he isn't. What drives a necrophiliac did not drive Bundy. Different motives, different needs. Bundy was a sadist. Bundy was an erotophonopihiliac. Bundy was an asphyxiophile, and a raptophiliac. Bundy was a serial killer, a serial rapist, and Bundy was beyond a shadow of a doubt one of the most screwed up horrible people to ever walk the earth. But he was not a necrophiliac. He wasn't in it for the corpses. The psychological definition deals with the motives and needs. The legal definition does not.

I'm into the whys of it all. So I use psychological definitions. I wish there were different words for the disease, the act, and the crime but there just aren't. Did Bundy have the disease? No. Did he commit the act? Yes. Did he commit the crime? Yes. So everyone including me is totally excused for being confused as to what it means and who means what in this kind of conversation. I mean the disease. Sometimes I assume others mean the disease when they don't. I'm not sure color coding is totally out of order.

But like I said, it depends on why you want to know if Jack was a necrophiliac.

[JTRSickert]

Perhaps this has been mentioned on this board once before (excuse me if it has), but perhaps JTR was a necrophile not in the literal way, but in a solitary private way.

By that, I mean I think he mostly returned to the scene of the crimes, perhaps a few days after committing them in order to avoid large crowds that were gathering there so that he could relive the crime in his mind as he stood, staring at the spot where it happened.

And also, let's not forget he did take lots of organs with him. While the Lusk letter says that the killer ate his "trophies (Depending on whether you think the letter is authentic), it is possible -and I hope I'm not grossing anyone out here-that he may have molested his trophies for sexual satisfaction.

[GUT]

G'Day JTRSickert

Returning to the scene of the crime, or taking trophies [even eating them] does not a necrophiliac make.

They are relatively "normal" serial killer behavior.

GUT

[Elenahoyos66]

So. . .

are all serial killers necrophiliacs? lol

"He subdued them to kill them quickly. . .sex was the motive."

I thought, while psychologically he is twisted in a sexual manner, that his motive was rage and awe of women.

And he killed them quickly to get away quickly.

[Ausgirl]

And he killed them quickly to get away quickly.

But not quick enough to prevent himself cutting them open and playing with their insides before running away?

The swift kill was more about rendering the victims quiet and still, so the mutilation could occur quickly and quietly; the vast majority of time spent with the victims was postmortem, during mutilation. It seems reasonable to suppose that terrorising was not a primary goal, but mutilation was. I guess the 'necrophile' angle depends on how willing one is to consider that mutilating a freshly dead body was the major focus of his sexual excitation, if there indeed was any.

I suppose there's a chance he might not have gotten sexually aroused at all. Not directly, anyway.

[Barnaby]

I don't think we should get hung up on classifications which often change even within the same discipline. For example, I teach a course in substance abuse and "substance dependence disorder" is no more in the revision from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5. Huh? People not dependent on drugs any more? Is a child with Asperger's syndrome no longer in need of behavioral services because the DSM-5 no longer recognizes it as a separate disorder? Now they are just on the "spectrum" and, somewhat making my point, many object to being labeled autistic. Did homosexuality stop becoming a psychological disorder in the 1970s or was it never? What is and is not a psychological disorder entails a societal component and thus will change over time.

Having said all that, having sex with corpses is creepy then, now, and in the foreseeable future. If Jack achieved sexual pleasure from interacting with the bits of his victims in any which way imaginable, that's good enough for me to label him a necrophile and others can subcategorize away. Now, if he was getting his sexual jollies from the havoc/publicity he was creating, that's a different beast.

[Errata]

Having said all that, having sex with corpses is creepy then, now, and in the foreseeable future.

Totally stoned on pain killers, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Necrophilia in and of itself is a victimless crime. I mean, I don't want people having sex with my corpse, or the corpses of people I love, but I do recognize that the moment of death does in fact negate the need for consent. So like any crime involving the dead, it says more about our views of the dead than it says about the acts themselves.

All I can really say is don't kill someone to have sex with them when they're dead, and put everything back where you found it. What more can I reasonably ask if I don't think the dead have need of or rights for their bodies anymore? More than anything really, it's just rude. Having read a bunch on necrophiles I can't even say it's 100% disrespectful, but it's rude. People have plans for their corpses, and to not respect the tenor of those plans, including the implied "I don't want someone having sex with me when I'm dead", that's just selfish. It's like cutting in line or stealing a cab. Totally disrupting someones plans for no better than reason than you wanted to. It's rude.

But unlike most other criminal paraphilias, the only reason it is dysfunctional is because it's illegal. Every other illegal sex act harms another living being. If necrophilia wasn't illegal, not only could there be a relatively profitable industry attached, it wouldn't hurt anyone. And this argument is why marijuana was legalized in certain states. And if death rituals weren't the most pernicious in any society, there would be states where necrophilia would be legal now.

So while I don't think Jack was a necrophiliac, if he was, my only real objection is that he killed people to do it. If he just took corpses as he found them, I would just see him as some creepy dude.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Errata.

Totally stoned on pain killers, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Necrophilia in and of itself is a victimless crime. I mean, I don't want people having sex with my corpse, or the corpses of people I love, but I do recognize that the moment of death does in fact negate the need for consent. So like any crime involving the dead, it says more about our views of the dead than it says about the acts themselves.

All I can really say is don't kill someone to have sex with them when they're dead, and put everything back where you found it. What more can I reasonably ask if I don't think the dead have need of or rights for their bodies anymore? More than anything really, it's just rude. Having read a bunch on necrophiles I can't even say it's 100% disrespectful, but it's rude. People have plans for their corpses, and to not respect the tenor of those plans, including the implied "I don't want someone having sex with me when I'm dead", that's just selfish. It's like cutting in line or stealing a cab. Totally disrupting someones plans for no better than reason than you wanted to. It's rude.

But unlike most other criminal paraphilias, the only reason it is dysfunctional is because it's illegal. Every other illegal sex act harms another living being. If necrophilia wasn't illegal, not only could there be a relatively profitable industry attached, it wouldn't hurt anyone. And this argument is why marijuana was legalized in certain states. And if death rituals weren't the most pernicious in any society, there would be states where necrophilia would be legal now.

So while I don't think Jack was a necrophiliac, if he was, my only real objection is that he killed people to do it. If he just took corpses as he found them, I would just see him as some creepy dude.

I.... you.... Heh, heh, heh. What you said sounds completely insane, but you are spot on. Very similar in tactics to my pro-incest arguement. I do not support or condone incest. I use a logical arguement. It is used to disturb annoying people who won't shut up when I am trapped. What's the harm in it if no one gets pregnant? That's really the only sound reason to not engage in it. The horrid outcome of the offspring. Morality is an application. Like so much makeup. Let me assure you that we've both been in TN for far far too long. Apologies to all. That will be all.

[John Wheat]

I think its unlikely Jack was a necrophile. It's likely the mutilations were what aroused Jack.

[John Wheat]

To Errata and Digalittledeeperwatson

You sick bastards. Seriously though interesting posts.

[Errata]

To Errata and Digalittledeeperwatson

You sick bastards. Seriously though interesting posts.

Sober now. Owch.

But seriously, we have to temper our disgust with a little logic. When all is said and done, whether talking about psychological definitions, sociological, criminological, legal, whatever... we have to to examine the act itself. Not the motivation, not the implications, just the act itself. Is abnormal? Yes. Is it something most people consider gross? Yes. Is it wrong? That depends. Is t wrong for any good reason? No.

And Watson is right. There's nothing wrong with consensual incest either. And once you get to cousins there isn't even any compelling argument not to have children. Generational incest is a problem. Many royal families have proved that. But a single instance? Mostly problem free.

Truth be told far more actual harm has come to people through the consequences of marijuana than has come to people through either necrophilia or incest. But the social punishment for necrophilia and incest far outweighs the "crime". Why? Social convention.

I have stated elsewhere that I had to do an immense amount of research on paraphilias. And it was both nauseating and informative. I think necrophilia is gross. No getting around that. But there are many many paraphilias I find far more disturbing. Certainly anything involving children or the unwilling. But there are many other consensual acts that I think are far more indicative of a dangerous mind than necrophilia. Furries and Authoepiophilliacs are funny, but it's about a hairs breadth from infantophilia, and thus are far more likely to eventually involve children. Higher creep quotient.

And then there's the gunpoint factor. If I were to be held at gunpoint and given the choice to either engage in necrophilia or say, coprophilia, god help me I'd pick the corpse. Coprophilia is legal and there's a whole industry behind it (not to mention a legendary video), but I'd take the dead guy. Which is a pretty good indication that despite the massive weight of social convention, there are worse things out there that we tolerate. And for no other reason than how we see our dead.

And how we see our dead is as still ours. The body is if not sacred at least sacrosanct. Corpses have significance. Which is odd because no major religion deifies their dead. 99% of humans are taught that their loved ones no longer inhabit the dead body. That a dead body is just an empty vessel. So why we attach so much significance to a body is something of a mystery. There is no biological imperative, no religious one. My professor said that the way we treat our dead is the biggest expression of doubt in human culture. That despite what we know to be true, we hang on to our dead just in case. We signify our dead just in case what we know to be true is wrong. So the crime of the necrophiliac is to challenge our belief that a dead body is just a mound of decaying tissue. And we criminalize it because despite what we know to be true, we want to pretend that our loved ones still somehow inhabit a body. It's a violation only if the spirit and will still remain in the corpse, and we know it doesn't. Nothing in our lives have taught us that it does. So why do we believe it?