Was JtR a necrophile?

[Fisherman]

is having oral sex with a skull necrophilia or just a fetish?

I think the correct term for that is headbanging, Barnaby (he said and reached for his coat ...)

Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Nick has usefully posted descriptions of the ten classes of necrophilia defined by Anil Aggrawal in his paper ‘A new classification of necrophilia' (J Forensic Leg Med. 2009; 16(6):316-320).

Good find. I will check this out. Ten different classes! Who would have thought that defining necrophilia is about as difficult as defining pornography. I'd insert the joke that we know it when we see it, but it appears that reasonable disagreement exists (is having oral sex with a skull necrophilia or just a fetish?) To this end, recognizing different categories of the disorder is helpful.

[Fisherman]

Common sense dictates that anyone who has sex with something dead is a Necrophiliac. But in reality it's a lot more complicated than that. A necrophiliac wants to have sex with a completely unresponsive partner. One that doesn't participate, move, speak, resist, whatever.

Edmund Kemper was a necrophiliac. As was Dahmer. But they were also something else. Bundy and Gein were not necrophiliacs.

Interesting, Errata. I´ve seen Bundy described as a necrophiliac many times, sometimes by authorities. This is food for thought, so thanks for posting it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman,

Part of necrophilia is the controlling and power over your victims.

Best

Nick

Absolutely true - but that is something rather different than enjoying seeing the last flickering life in the eyes of a person die down. Which was what I commented on, in a respone to Barnaby´s post.
Otherwise, the suggestion that Jack may have been a necrophiliac must always be a viable one. Taking an interest in dead people brings out that label.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Fair warning, this might contain more weirdness than people want to know.

Common sense dictates that anyone who has sex with something dead is a Necrophiliac. But in reality it's a lot more complicated than that. A necrophiliac wants to have sex with a completely unresponsive partner. One that doesn't participate, move, speak, resist, whatever. The dead body allows the fulfillment of the fantasy, but usually isn't in and of itself the fantasy. Necrophilia not uncommonly features costumes or props for the corpse in order to add to the illusion that they are living, and most necrophiles pretend to a degree that the corpse is alive. Speaking to them for example.

Edmund Kemper was a necrophiliac. As was Dahmer. But they were also something else. Bundy and Gein were not necrophiliacs. Yes they used parts of dead bodies for sexual gratification. But it's a different paraphilia. Maybe some kind of partialism, maybe an exceptionally sick object fetish.

Think of it this way. Context is the defining factor. It's the driving force that is defined, not the simple act. The act is a symptom, not the disease. Sexual arousal accompanying death, or body parts, or what have you can be necrophilia. But it can also be about a dozen other things. None of which are socially acceptable or even something a person would admit to in a million years, none of which are considered sane, but not necrophilia. Necrophilia is a specific thing, not a catch all for anything that combines sex and death.

[dag]

Nick has usefully posted descriptions of the ten classes of necrophilia defined by Anil Aggrawal in his paper ‘A new classification of necrophilia' (J Forensic Leg Med. 2009; 16(6):316-320).

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. Offenders in this class derive sexual pleasure from killing their victims and then mutilating their bodies, but they do not engage in any sexual act with the corpse. They are distinguished from Class IXc necrophiles (such as Vacher) who sexually assault the corpse as well as mutilating it. Class IXb necrophiles (such as Christie) will sexually assault the corpses of their murder victims but they don’t mutilate.

Dr Aggrawal is also the author of the book Necrophilia: Forensic and Medico-Legal Aspects (CRC, 2011), a copy of which I have in front of me now. The Ripper case is only briefly discussed as an illustration of class IXa necrophilia (page 75). Dr Aggrawal does not cite any sources (beyond ‘contemporary medical examinations’) for his information on Jack the Ripper, but he reasons that the lack of semen at any of the crime scenes tends to argue against the view that sexual activity of any kind took place. He points out that nineteenth century forensic pathologists may not have routinely looked for evidence of extravaginal sexual activity (for example, intercrural connection), hence he accepts it can’t be stated absolutely that no sexual activity, ante- or post-mortem, took place. He does not explain how he knows, or why he believes, that the Ripper derived sexual pleasure from murder or post-mortem mutilation.


David

[Nick Spring]

Not sure which one the killer fits into and whether this is still current but something I found on the subject.

My guess would be Class VI

10 Classes of Necrophilia

From the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (2009)

Major characteristics of the 10 classes of necrophiles

Class I:
•Role players
•Do not want to have sex with a dead person. Enjoy sex with a living person pretending to be dead.

Class II:
•Romantic necrophiles
•Bereaved people, who would mummify a part of the body of their recently departed loved ones, and keep it with them in order to get a psychosexual stimulation. Would not show a similar interest in any other dead body, i.e. body of a person with whom they were not romantically involved in life.

Class III:
•Necrophilic fantasizers
•Fantasize intercourse with the dead. May visit cemeteries and funeral parlors and may masturbate in the presence of the dead.

Class IV:
•Tactile necrophiles
•Interest in dead bodies increases to the level of touching them. Like to stroke erotic parts of a dead body, such as breasts, May manipulate sexual organs of the dead in order to get an orgasm.

Class V:
•Fetishistic necrophiles
•Cut up parts of a dead body - say a breast - mummify it, and keep it in their possession to use it as a fetish for their necrophilic activities. Differ from Class II necrophiles in the sense that they (Class V) do it with the bodies of strangers with whom they held no romantic relationship in life. Thus they do not merely fill a psychosexual vacuum left by the death of their loved ones.

Class VI:
•Necromutilomaniacs
•Interest in dead bodies is more than merely touching them. Necrophilic pleasure comes from mutilating a dead body.

Class VII:
•Opportunistic necrophiles
•Actual sexual activity with the dead starts from this class. Normally, these necrophiles would be content to have sexual intercouse with the living, but if an opportunity arose, would not refrain from having sexual intercourse with the dead. Necrophilic mortuary attendants belong to this class.

Class VIII:
•Regular necrophiles
•The so-called “classic” necrophiles. They do not enjoy sexual intercourse with the living and prefer dead bodies for intercourse. They can however have sex with both living and dead persons. In this sense they differ from Class X necrophiles, who can have sex only with dead persons

Class IX:
•Homicidal necrophiles
•This penultimate category is the most dangerous of all, in the sense that they would kill a person in order to have intercourse with him or her. They are however capable of having sexual intercourse with the living, but the need for sexual intercourse with the dead is so great that they must kill human beings in order to have sexual intercourse with their dead bodies.

Class X:
•Exclusive necrophiles
•Sexual intercourse is possible only with the dead, with the complete exclusion of living partners.


Best

Nick

[Robert]

Well, all I can say is that JTR was a very strange chap indeed. He found kidneys and hearts sexy but disdained breasts. I suppose he went by the saying "What's important is on the inside."

[Abby Normal]

Everything the ripper did to his victims bodies was post mortem. The act of killing them was an ends to a mean.
Although he may have enjoyed the power and dominance part while killing them his true motivation was in the mutilation of the body and removal of organs and I would say also the pleasure he felt with what he could do to a female body with his nice sharp knife. And sexually reliving the act with the organs.

To me that is definitely a necrophile. Motivation is post mortem.

[Nick Spring]

You are thinking Bundy here, right? Anyhow, I don´t think this has anything to do at all with necrophilia. It is power exertion, the fulfillment of a wish to hold everything in your hand and being the only person to make the calls. To decide between life and death. In short, to be God.

Of course, Bundy WAS a necrophiliac. He repeatedly returned to the bodies. But that is another thing altogether, and not connected to the wish to see a victim´s life expire.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi fisherman,

Part of necrophilia is the controlling and power over your victims.

I don't think meets all the criteria but there are elements there as part of the sexual fantasy.

Best

Nick

[Fisherman]

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?

You are thinking Bundy here, right? Anyhow, I don´t think this has anything to do at all with necrophilia. It is power exertion, the fulfillment of a wish to hold everything in your hand and being the only person to make the calls. To decide between life and death. In short, to be God.

Of course, Bundy WAS a necrophiliac. He repeatedly returned to the bodies. But that is another thing altogether, and not connected to the wish to see a victim´s life expire.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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).

[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

[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.