Pathological Issues: Is It Perhaps What It Looks Like ?

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

Btw., have you thought about the handling? I'm obsessing, I know.
Handling as in handling for handling's sake.
I'm really most curious about people's thoughts about that...

Hi Sepiae

Remember the case of Ed Gein. He used skin, bone and body parts to make ornamental things out of. He also had organs in his fridge, Maybe to eat, maybe to fashion into some kind of trophy.

The handling may have been done to 'size' up the organ. He had to carry things back to wherever he was residing, so bearing that in mind he would needed to be careful that he never dropped anything, was never caught with things etc.

Also, we have to look at the way he saw the victim. Each trophy was important to the kill. The heart may be reflected in the sense that Kelly was young, possibly perceived as healthy. That saying comes to mind 'young at heart'. The fact that Kelly was young, makes this an important fact in the ripper case. It says alot about the killer. This wasn't his usual victim. Maybe he was unable to obtain the confidence of a young victim before, and this kill was a major breakthrough to him.

Using Ed Gein as an example could JTR have been Inspecting weather it had a purpose to him? Maybe he did indeed want to fashion a trophy out of these organs. Serial killers usually take objects, not organs. But if a serial killer knew about taxidermy for example, then the killer could turn a living thing into an object, and preserve his 'trophy'.

What do you think?

[sepiae]

Hi Sepiae

Remember the case of Ed Gein. He used skin, bone and body parts to make ornamental things out of. He also had organs in his fridge, Maybe to eat, maybe to fashion into some kind of trophy.

The handling may have been done to 'size' up the organ. He had to carry things back to wherever he was residing, so bearing that in mind he would needed to be careful that he never dropped anything, was never caught with things etc.

Also, we have to look at the way he saw the victim. Each trophy was important to the kill. The heart may be reflected in the sense that Kelly was young, possibly perceived as healthy. That saying comes to mind 'young at heart'. The fact that Kelly was young, makes this an important fact in the ripper case. It says alot about the killer. This wasn't his usual victim. Maybe he was unable to obtain the confidence of a young victim before, and this kill was a major breakthrough to him.

Using Ed Gein as an example could JTR have been Inspecting weather it had a purpose to him? Maybe he did indeed want to fashion a trophy out of these organs. Serial killers usually take objects, not organs. But if a serial killer knew about taxidermy for example, then the killer could turn a living thing into an object, and preserve his 'trophy'.

What do you think?

Hi Natasha,

short reply as I have to rush off.
I think that you're still not quite with my meaning

Trophies: yes, it's common.

Ed Gein: yes, he fashioned. Now here's my question:
do you think he was sort of an upholsterer, did he simply and merely fashion something for his lamps, a belt for himself - and that'd be it?
Or - why? Why did he do it.

I'm harking on this, because this was precisely one of the reasons why I opened the thread. All the explanation models for these, somewhat bizarre, details are very, very practical. You, me, everyone KNOWS the significance when you're talking about Gein's 'productions' - but in itself, your description could fit any manufacturer.

What connected him to IT?

You know what I'm getting at? The sensual. The tactile. The thing that once lived - the dead matter, and the best dead matter there is would have to be the one that was once part of a life.
It makes this thing very special.
Very special to look at. Very special to touch.

The focus on it. The immense attention. The immense preoccupation with it - not only after the killing. But before, in between.

Picture the killer taking an organ - somewhere. Where he can look at it. Give it attention. No matter the fury, the hate, right now we're looking at him focusing on that very special thing.
Picture what he wants to do with it, but it never is any good, never as good as he wants to. Picture the room now. All is new and different. Different opportunities - for what he might want to do with those special thing.

Ok, that is VERY speculative - on purpose. I'm trying to illustrate what I mean by 'sensual.' This is what I'm asking about, with 'handling'.

Everything else you said makes perfect sense.
From a sane point of view....

Uhm, got a lil longer,

Must shoot,

bye 4 2day

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

short reply as I have to rush off.
I think that you're still not quite with my meaning

Trophies: yes, it's common.

Ed Gein: yes, he fashioned. Now here's my question:
do you think he was sort of an upholsterer, did he simply and merely fashion something for his lamps, a belt for himself - and that'd be it?
Or - why? Why did he do it.

I'm harking on this, because this was precisely one of the reasons why I opened the thread. All the explanation models for these, somewhat bizarre, details are very, very practical. You, me, everyone KNOWS the significance when you're talking about Gein's 'productions' - but in itself, your description could fit any manufacturer.

What connected him to IT?

You know what I'm getting at? The sensual. The tactile. The thing that once lived - the dead matter, and the best dead matter there is would have to be the one that was once part of a life.
It makes this thing very special.
Very special to look at. Very special to touch.

The focus on it. The immense attention. The immense preoccupation with it - not only after the killing. But before, in between.

Picture the killer taking an organ - somewhere. Where he can look at it. Give it attention. No matter the fury, the hate, right now we're looking at him focusing on that very special thing.
Picture what he wants to do with it, but it never is any good, never as good as he wants to. Picture the room now. All is new and different. Different opportunities - for what he might want to do with those special thing.

Ok, that is VERY speculative - on purpose. I'm trying to illustrate what I mean by 'sensual.' This is what I'm asking about, with 'handling'.

Everything else you said makes perfect sense.
From a sane point of view....

Uhm, got a lil longer,

Must shoot,

bye 4 2day

Hi Sepiae

I'm not saying JTR took these organs purely to make things, I'm saying the ripper may have took them to preserve them to revisit his obsession with these organs. Reproduction organs: maybe a sign of rebirth. The heart: as I mentioned before in my post.

Handling: I'm not sure what the ripper was doing, but the fact that he never took kelly's reproduction organs suggest that whatever he was doing was done there and then as he had more time in an enclosed space rather then being outside.

What I am about to say may seem funny, but, is it possible that the ripper was so tormented that he may have been jealous of these women? Did he want to be a woman?

[lynn cates]

opportunities

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Well, I have always wondered why, if he wanted a slow, grisly kill, he did not move inside sooner? Lots of opportunities.

So, he wasn't sure what he wanted? OK.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Well, I have always wondered why, if he wanted a slow, grisly kill, he did not move inside sooner? Lots of opportunities.

So, he wasn't sure what he wanted? OK.

Cheers.
LC

What opportunities would those be exactly?

[sepiae]

organ obsession

to preserve them to revisit his obsession with these organs. Reproduction organs: maybe a sign of rebirth. The heart: as I mentioned before in my post.

Handling: I'm not sure what the ripper was doing, but the fact that he never took kelly's reproduction organs suggest that.. [sorry, accidentally erased].

What I am about to say may seem funny, but, is it possible that the ripper was so tormented that he may have been jealous of these women? Did he want to be a woman?

Hi Natasha,

first of all, I'm glad that you don't appear to think me a maniac
I was a little tired the other day, and in retrospective thought I was a little drastic in my description; it was meant as an illustration of what I'm on about.

Right, plunging into your post -

revisit his obsession with these organs: that comes pretty close to what I think about why he took organs. In the way as described rather graphically in my previous reply.

doing what he was doing with the organs right there with time and in security: also pretty much my sentiment. Which in my opinion also explains the 'change of heart', if you allow. What he was doing with the uterus in particular, so essential to all the mutilations. It was better than whatever he could have done with it if taking it away with him.

torment and jealousy: it's been suggested. Frankly, I don't know, and what's been in this room doesn't imply even an unconscious wish for sexchange to me, not even a false one. Ed Gein had said something to this effect about himself, but with him I'm also doubtful as to how genuine that was [genuine to himself, first of all].

[sepiae]

slow grisly indoor opportunities

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Well, I have always wondered why, if he wanted a slow, grisly kill, he did not move inside sooner? Lots of opportunities.

So, he wasn't sure what he wanted? OK.

Cheers.
LC

Hum, nonononono, I think you know exactly what I mean...
Or do you?
If we accept for this moment and for Jack's sake that we're dealing with the same killer it might play out either way:

- it might not have appeared that easy for him to enter a home, nor did it appear that safe. This might contradict what many people, including myself, stress about the different location, but depending on who this person was, it might have looked different to him before entering a home. We don't know what the circumstances really were.

- it might have become an imperative. I don't necessarily expect for his motivation to have been entirely clear to him. How likely is it that he'd have known everything about them to the last bit and detail? Progressing in what he [I]was[I] doing, he might have reached the point where a different location was necessary.

- much more simple: it might have just presented itself. He was an outdoor killer until the moment circumstances presented themselves in a manner that simply invited him to follow them. Once inside, what else did present itself to him...

[lynn cates]

empirical testing

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, in other words, some of his "wants" became clear ONLY after empirical testing.

That's fine.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

empirical home infesting

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, in other words, some of his "wants" became clear ONLY after empirical testing.

That's fine.

Cheers.
LC

Mnnyes, in a manner of speaking.

I've just Isenschmid-mailed you...

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

first of all, I'm glad that you don't appear to think me a maniac
I was a little tired the other day, and in retrospective thought I was a little drastic in my description; it was meant as an illustration of what I'm on about.

Right, plunging into your post -

revisit his obsession with these organs: that comes pretty close to what I think about why he took organs. In the way as described rather graphically in my previous reply.

doing what he was doing with the organs right there with time and in security: also pretty much my sentiment. Which in my opinion also explains the 'change of heart', if you allow. What he was doing with the uterus in particular, so essential to all the mutilations. It was better than whatever he could have done with it if taking it away with him.

torment and jealousy: it's been suggested. Frankly, I don't know, and what's been in this room doesn't imply even an unconscious wish for sexchange to me, not even a false one. Ed Gein had said something to this effect about himself, but with him I'm also doubtful as to how genuine that was [genuine to himself, first of all].

Hi Sepiae

It has crossed my mind

But I feel you make a good point about assessing these crimes from another angle.

I have heard of cases where the suspect has dressed up in the victims clothes, painted his nails, wore her shoes and I suspect may have even emulated the look of a woman using her body parts. This killer I speak of was in the house for so long that the police caught him in there.

There may be a touch of Gender dysphoria, as some clothes were burnt, the defeminisation of MJK, no evident sexual activity. I know what you said about the knife being used in a way suggestive of sexual violence, regardless of any lust being involved. It's another possibility I suppose.
If the above is true, then I think this murderer only killed Eddowes & Kelly. I say this because the attack on the face. This killer was disorganised.

If the other murders were done by someone else they would fit my attempt at a profile I wrote in a previous post.

[Bridewell]

What opportunities would those be exactly?

Yes, I was wondering that!

[lynn cates]

opportunity knocks

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Plenty of ladies with that vocation and indoors too.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

This killer I speak of was in the house for so long that the police caught him in there.

There may be a touch of Gender dysphoria, as some clothes were burnt, the defeminisation of MJK, no evident sexual activity. I know what you said about the knife being used in a way suggestive of sexual violence, regardless of any lust being involved. It's another possibility I suppose.
If the above is true, then I think this murderer only killed Eddowes & Kelly. I say this because the attack on the face. This killer was disorganised.

If the other murders were done by someone else they would fit my attempt at a profile I wrote in a previous post.

Hi Natasha,

I didn't say I wasn't...

killer in the house: I searched the ol' brain, but can't say I remember - who was the killer who occupied himself until the police arrived?

sexuality/violence: what I meant was that the absence of rape doesn't exclude a sexual component. I'd reckon in most cases there are some - beginning with the victim of being of the desired sex. There are only few who kill across genders, and some of those who do, like the Zodiac, might still display 'preference'; the Zodiac failed twice to kill the men, but the women always died. He's not the best example, as I believe his motive was another one [actually I'm near convinced that the thriving for executing power, realized by effectively terrorizing an entire state, was begun by executing power over individuals, and the later realized terror/power yielded over so many more people was something he grew to become aware himself, true motivation needn't be something one is 100% aware of - Lynn, if you read this...]. Gacy and Dahmer killed men and boys, and they were of the gender they desired. The vast majority of serial killers target women.
That alone is to me a sexual component.
More depends on to what degree, if any, hate is involved, and how aware the perp is of this hate, if it, say, manifests itself in another form. And the violence in specific. I don't bravely assume the killer used his knife consciously as a means for sexual penetration with the victims before Kelly [with Kelly we simply can't tell]. I was merely remarking that stab wounds to the lower abdomen resemble this in a brutally twisted form. They were aimed at this region, and it were women he killed.
Clothes burned: yes, the whole business with the clothes, not to mention the neatly folded ones. I don't know whether there really is a big mystery there; you didn't imply it, that's more addressed to what I read on some other threads. It may very well be that they were burned for the additional light the fire would give. There was a candle, but a candle only gives that much light. A fire in the fireplace, well, it must have given better light, so for now I'm fine with the explanation that it was lit for that purpose.
Again I'm not saying you're wrong about a 'touch of gender dysphoria', but I'm saying this because I have no idea who the man was who killed Kelly [who, as in: I have no definite idea about him]. Apart from that I don't see the need for it, i.e. I don't see anything specific implying it.

murderer only killed Eddowes & Kelly: you're in honourable company, ask Lynn
I don't discount it. Even less so after reading some of what Lynn wrote about it. I'm not convinced either. There are still plenty of aspects that for me potently link these murders. There are some powerful arguments for the alternative of separating Nichols and Chapman from Eddowes and Kelly.
At this point I don't count the argument of the facial wounds to the latter. If it's only about differences then you'd have to go farther - in the end it can hardly be expected that there wouldn't be any differences at all.
The reason why I continue to give escalation so much credit [I will call myself an Escalationist until having excellent reason to stop] is that in series the increasing violations correspond: wounds to the lower abdomen - wounds to the lower abdomen + removal of organs - wounds to the lower abdomen + removal of organs + facial wounds - excess.
It's a little hard for me to explain, but there wouldn't be much surprise in me if something like it would occur now and facial wounds 'set in' at a later point. As a careful attempt: lower abdomen is central, as is uterus, but not alone: the person woman, the woman-person is still more, even to him.
I can't really buy the idea that Eddowes' face was mutilated in an attempt to hinder identification either, as one has to think that in such a case a rather bad job was done. If we assume, for sake's sake, that the facial wounds of Eddowes correspond with the facial obliteration with Kelly, that, concerning the face, this was where it would lead, this was what he'd kind of wanted to do with Eddowes, it would make a little more sense.
But I'm as far as I can be from stopping to think about Eddowes, and of course I cannot discount the idea that we might have another killer with her than with Nichols & Chapman.

What are your thoughts on what he [for simplicity's sake he] did with the organs he'd removed from the victims prior to Kelly?

[lynn cates]

escalationism

Hello Daniel. Regarding escalation, would you agree that "escalationism" pretty well excludes McKenzie and Coles from the tally?

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

Hello Daniel. Regarding escalation, would you agree that "escalationism" pretty well excludes McKenzie and Coles from the tally?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

yes I would, absolutely.
If I'm swimming in the escalation waters then McKenzie and Coles were probably murdered by someone else.
If it was the same killer then I'm most probably wrong.
A [to my mind] more remote possibility would be that after having reached a peak with Kelly he scaled down [this possibly implying that he'd have increased mutilations again unless stopped]. I'm having troubles with that idea, though. It's hard for me to believe how he could have come back from what had occurred in Kelly's room.