Was JtR a necrophile?

[Errata]

Weren't ridgeway, Dahmer and bundy all nexrophiliacs

Legally yes. Sociologially and psychologically, no, sort of, and no.

[Abby Normal]

Weren't ridgeway, Dahmer and bundy all nexrophiliacs

of course not you ninny! they're Likescrewingdeadbodiacs. ; )

[bolo]

Hi Errata,

thanks for your detailed reply.

My reasoning here is pretty simple, I'm thinking of a person with a necrophile disposition who finds out one day that the moment of death/dying of another person gives him a much bigger buzz than just having sex with a lifeless body. The disembowellment and organ removal is some sort of playful addition to the whole thing, perhaps he wants to get trophies which he may or may not abuse in one way or another later on.

I don't know whether this makes any sense, though.

Thanks again,

Boris

[John Wheat]

I am making the assumption that at the very least he was sexually aroused by the mutilation and removal of the body parts.

IMHO opinion I think there is more chance than not that there was a sexual component to the post mortem behavior.

To Abbey Normal.

I agree I think its highly likely that that Jack was sexually aroused by the mutilation and removal of the body parts however this in itself does not make Jack a necrophiliac.

Cheers John

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

thanks for your detailed reply.

My reasoning here is pretty simple, I'm thinking of a person with a necrophile disposition who finds out one day that the moment of death/dying of another person gives him a much bigger buzz than just having sex with a lifeless body. The disembowellment and organ removal is some sort of playful addition to the whole thing, perhaps he wants to get trophies which he may or may not abuse in one way or another later on.

I don't know whether this makes any sense, though.

Thanks again,

Boris

It makes total sense. And if you think about it, it's something everyone goes through in their own sexual evolution, though one would hope it doesn't involve corpses. For instance men and women deal with a lot of dominance issues in their lives, and it invariably comes out in their sex lives. There's a satisfying balance, but people need to play around with it before they find it. It's no different for paraphiliacs.

Eratophonophiliacs (sexual arousal from murder or violent death) start in one of two places. Necrophilia or sadism, usually choking or cutting. Necrophilia appeals to them not because of the corpse, but because they construct a fantasy about the manner of death. They pretend they have killed that person, but it's not enough so they switch to living people. Then they enact elaborate murder games until someone actually dies. And they tend to progress very quickly. The ones who start as sadists have a fairly predictable progression of increasing violence until they kill someone. But once either subset kills a person, that's it. There is no going back.

Both subsets leave a trail, so to speak. But if you look for a necrophiliac, you won't find them. You have to find the people who are hypnotized by suffering, not by the dead. The only appeal the dead have is that the paraphiliac can act without consequence, but they will never be fully satisfied because they will never actually take a life that way. But the change from necrophiliac to eratophonophiliac doesn't happen when they kill a person. It comes long before that. The first murder is almost always an accident. By the time you get to mutilation, this guy has killed before. Maybe just two or three times, but he's done it before. Jack the Ripper wasn't someone experiencing some new sensation. He had already gotten to the point where he didn't bother hiding it anymore.

[Abby Normal]

To Abbey Normal.

I agree I think its highly likely that that Jack was sexually aroused by the mutilation and removal of the body parts however this in itself does not make Jack a necrophiliac.

Cheers John

Thanks John
Yup I got it, as Erratta has also pointed out.

to me then the Official definition of Necropheliac is too narrow then, but that just my opinion.

In my way of thinking if you are sexualy aroused, get an erection, ejaculate,have intercourse with or any sexual contact with a dead body or a dead body part then you are sexually attracted to a corpse and are a necropheliac. to me it is all the same thing.

[Errata]

Thanks John
Yup I got it, as Erratta has also pointed out.

to me then the Official definition of Necropheliac is too narrow then, but that just my opinion.

In my way of thinking if you are sexualy aroused, get an erection, ejaculate,have intercourse with or any sexual contact with a dead body or a dead body part then you are sexually attracted to a corpse and are a necropheliac. to me it is all the same thing.

Except that many people we have talked about are not sexually excited by or attracted to a corpse. They just use it as the method of release. It's not the corpse, it's the memory of violence. The dead bits are just a prop.

Actually getting turned on by a corpse for no other reason than it is a corpse, that's a necrophiliac.

[Abby Normal]

I'm combining this with Abby's

Abby: Sexual excitation caused by a specific body part living or dead is called partialism. It is different, and different for our purposes because living or dead part, that's something that creates a pattern. Someone with partialism (say, a thing for ankles) has always fetishized them, and that's tough to hide, and leaves an odd trail. If a thing for the uterus, that's definitely something to go on, because paraphilias develop early, so this guy was breaking into morgues and hospitals, we would see organ thefts and we would see a lot of preliminary abdominal wounds. Partialism is useful. Unlike Necrophilia, it can't be hidden, and the traits that accompany partialists actual lend themselves to killers.

Partialists tend not to care if it comes from the living or the dead, but certainly some things do not lend themselves to continued living. In which case, conversationally "necrophiliac" is fine. But if referencing the specific act, it's partialism.

Boris: It is absolutely conceivable. But unprovable in this case. People who get off on killing, maiming, disemboweling are not necrophiliacs. Those are necrosadists, or eratophonophiliacs. But a person is not limited to one paraphilia, so sure. He could be both. Or all. If we knew he was a necrophiliac, we could in theory find him that way. But we don't know, and anyway I looked and there doesn't appear to be one in London at that time. There's some graverobbing, which is how necrophiliacs can make money, but people do rob corpses without having sex with them so it's a non starter. If someone finds one in an asylum, that could mean something.

Necrosadism, eratophonophilia, necrophilia, etc. Every paraphilia defines specific behaviors. Which can sometimes overlap a little. Thus causing confusion. But every paraphilia also has a pattern of behaviors associated with them that has nothing to do with the sex act. For our purposes, that's the useful part. Necrophiliacs don't kill as part of their "disease". Necrosadists do. Eratophonophiliacs do. Necrophiliacs have a vivid and pervasive fantasy life building up relationships with corpses, specifically because they can't actually do it with living women. But a woman has to be dead in order for them to do this. Other paraphiliacs can build the fantasy around a living woman, and the fantasy results in her death. Far more likely in serial killers. Far more likely to create a pattern that can be guessed at and understood. But if this killer was a necrophiliac, it's not why he killed. It's not even why he mutilated. It's so far down on the list of things that informed his activities that it might as well not be there. In fact most of his action would be contrary to many parts of him that made him a necrophiliac.

If you want to know what the average necrophiliac is like, look at Ed Gein (who technically wasn't one but hits all the marks in spite of that). Gein is textbook,except for that one detail. And even that makes perfect sense, but that's complicated and a little Freudian, even if in this writer's observation it tends to be true.

Hi Errata

Necrophiliacs have a vivid and pervasive fantasy life building up relationships with corpses, specifically because they can't actually do it with living women. But a woman has to be dead in order for them to do this.

So according to this-Bundy, Ridgeway, BTK are NOT (by the book)Necropheliacs, eventhough they had sex with the dead bodies of their victims, because they could and did have sex with living women?

[Batman]

Frankenripperstein?

In the post Mary Shelley world of Frankenstein, and torso murders, do you think possibly someone had chopped up prostitutes, sowed bits from different ones back on, and then when their sexual parts degraded/rotted, harvested these from the Whitechapel murder victims as fresh replacements?

[GUT]

In the post Mary Shelly world of Frankenstein, and torso murders, do you think possibly someone had chopped up prostitutes, sowed bits from different ones back on, and then when their sexual parts degraded/rotted, harvested these from the Whitechapel murder victims as fresh replacements?

More likely that a lot of rubbish we see around here.

[Batman]

In the post Mary Shelley world of Frankenstein, and torso murders, do you think possibly someone had chopped up prostitutes, sowed bits from different ones back on, and then when their sexual parts degraded/rotted, harvested these from the Whitechapel murder victims as fresh replacements?

Another thing is that if we look at the start of the murders, the women are not exactly models, so he leaves their faces untouched. He only takes the sex organs. If the above is true, then he already had a head.

Yet Eddowes/Kelly both had their faces dashed, but they where better looking than the others. Was he trying to remove their face or parts of it?

The 1873 Battersea Mystery torso was a skull-less head. A mask.

[Batman]

Has this solution ever been suggested before?

Elizabeth Jacksons body parts are turning up in June 1888 through to June 1889. There is also the Whitehall mystery in Sep 1888 and October 1888.

The explanatory power behind someone harvesting sexual organs and replacing body parts on a corpse, and other parts, to maintain it, solves why he took away the organs and connects it to the Torso murders. It means the harvested parts served a function and had purpose.

We should have guessed this from Ed Gein.

I think most people understood that he was harvesting for sexual reasons. What I think we didn't connect was that his sexual reasons didn't involve just using the parts alone, but using them to keep his designer corpse sexually fresh.

This puts a spin on things considerably. It gives us more evidence to go on, Torso murders (I have been reading Trow since a week ago) and means JtR had to have a place where he could keep a corpse to work on. It also brings in the element of medical skill which Bond saw in the body parts.

[John G]

Elizabeth Jacksons body parts are turning up in June 1888 through to June 1889. There is also the Whitehall mystery in Sep 1888 and October 1888.

The explanatory power behind someone harvesting sexual organs and replacing body parts on a corpse, and other parts, to maintain it, solves why he took away the organs and connects it to the Torso murders. It means the harvested parts served a function and had purpose.

We should have guessed this from Ed Gein.

I think most people understood that he was harvesting for sexual reasons. What I think we didn't connect was that his sexual reasons didn't involve just using the parts alone, but using them to keep his designer corpse sexually fresh.

This puts a spin on things considerably. It gives us more evidence to go on, Torso murders (I have been reading Trow since a week ago) and means JtR had to have a place where he could keep a corpse to work on. It also brings in the element of medical skill which Bond saw in the body parts.

I've been wondering whether the Torso Murderer had access to a boat. This would explain why body parts were found in the Thames. Moreover, I believe Trow argues that the Scotland Yard disposal site could have been accessed via the river. And, of course, a boat would have been an ideal place to dismember the bodies.

Regarding necrophilia, didn't Jeffrey Dahmer, who also dismembered his victims, progress to necrophilia?

I would also refer to the Pinchin Street Torso, which provides the strongest link to the Whitechapel murders.

[Batman]

I've been wondering whether the Torso Murderer had access to a boat. This would explain why body parts were found in the Thames. Moreover, I believe Trow argues that the Scotland Yard disposal site could have been accessed via the river. And, of course, a boat would have been an ideal place to dismember the bodies.

Regarding necrophilia, didn't Jeffrey Dahmer, who also dismembered his victims, progress to necrophilia?

I would also refer to the Pinchin Street Torso, which provides the strongest link to the Whitechapel murders.

Yes, Dahmer was a cannibal who had sex with the corpse of his victim, and not necessarily in that order.

The guy I'm looking for here was able to maintain a body somewhere where he could do this. I think it unlikely he left the body to the elements. I think it more likely he did this at a location that was his and his alone. He would have to keep temps down somehow.

Given the apron was found on Goulston Street, he may have gone to this place between Eddowes and dumping the apron. It may give us a location as to where someone could act in such a secretive manner. We are looking for someone with some medical skill too.

[lynn cates]

Lucas

Hello Batman.

"We should have guessed this from Ed Gein."

I should have thought Henry Lee Lucas. If I recall properly, as long as he was getting attention, the body toll proliferated at an alarming rate.

Until, that is, someone called a halt to the nonsense and the toll shrunk just as drastically.

Cheers.
LC