Pathological Issues: Is It Perhaps What It Looks Like ?

[lynn cates]

Can't rip like I used to.

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

I think Professor Trow would disagree. If I recall, the ripper was getting old and shaky by then.

Cheers.
LC

[Natasha]

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?

Hi Sepiae/Daniel,
I better watch how I address you, don't want to get too familiar with a nutter

In regards to the perp in the case I highlighted, he's a fetish burglar, turned rapist/murderer. Made a mistake, he was nearly caught in the house by the police. He was eventually caught, his name was David Russell Williams.

Organs taken: Maybe he had a plan for these organs, the fact that they were targeted obviously means that they were important to him. I don't think that if he was taking revenge, for perhaps catching a STD that he would then take what he perceived to be diseased organs away with him. On the contrary, if he did catch something, then maybe he took these organs to try and 'cure' himself. If he believed he could 'cure' himself, maybe he was ritualistically trying to rid himself of an illness. There is an old 'spell' that involves ridding someone of warts. This 'spell' involved placing a bag of stones with a curse put upon them, in the road, someone who then proceeded to pick up this bag would then contract the warts and the person who originally had these would be cured. Sounds really silly, but people believed it. How does that relate to this, well if the killer was religious, maybe into satanic rites etc maybe he applied rituals, involving organs etc, into ridding himself of a disease in a way that makes sense to him (I don't know a lot about satanic rites etc just thinking out side the box with this suggestion).

Maybe they were sold.

They may have been chucked away, eaten by an animal.

It could have been a message that he was sending out to all women, in an attempt to control sexual activity.

I'm not sure to be honest, I think my best suggestion was that he took them home and revisited his obsession with them, and once they rotted or he grew bored of these proceeded to attack another victim. Maybe because the act of the actual killing was perhaps more fulfilling for him.
If the ripper did kill Kelly then that may explain why her reproduction organs were left. He may have developed another obsession with something of the victims or was more interested in a new organ. If all the killings are connected, then the choice of organs taken, and the level of injury inflicted may have been part of a 'story' the killer was trying to tell.

[markmorey5]

Going back to the original posting I see compulsive behaviour in some of the murders. The first one which strikes me is Chapman, where for some reason he engaged Chapman later in the evening and murdered in a back yard despite the morning light and people rising for the morning. It was risky and yet he seemed to be driven to do it. The second is the double murders where he was most likely interrupted and then engaged Eddowes very shortly after despite many on the streets looking for the murderer of Stride.

Psychopathic behaviour covers a whole range of behaviouors, and for example the majority of chief executives and senior managers today are social psychopaths. There seems to be a sexual element involved in the mutilations, so it's possible the killer was sexually dysfunctional, physically or psychologically, in some way.

Due to several issues I'm inclined to think that Kelly's murder was by someone else and not an ultimate orgy of mutilation.

[lynn cates]

oblivious

Hello Mark. I wonder if his behaviours were compulsive, or if he were oblivious to his surroundings?

Cheers.
LC

[Natasha]

Hi All

Having looked at all the murders, and reading posts on here, It appears that 4 victims had no underwear. It has been suggested that the victims never wore any to make their job easier. But Nichols had underwear, and if we discount other murders before her, then she would be the first ripper victim. So why was underwear taken, if it was, from the other victims?

[Natasha]

Just to add when I was talking about my suspicions of the killer using body parts to emulate a woman, I was talking about Ed Gein.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Sepiae, something I would like to relate as to the nature of handling something this is something I do myself but Im not sure how to communicate what it gives me. I have in the last week found myself a very fine knife of a type that I have been after for a long time and I have a want to hold it to gain its feel and love to look apon it it turning it in my hand for hours I know this is an odd thing to do but I feel compelled to do this and I gain something by it in some way I marvel at its feel and form but also its a way of making it mine.

[lynn cates]

body parts

Hello Natasha. Think that might rule Kate out? In her case, it was the nose. But if one wishes a body part to represent a woman, surely the mouth is more appropriate? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

trowing not as it used to be

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

I think Professor Trow would disagree. If I recall, the ripper was getting old and shaky by then.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

that'd be Mei Trow, the one who suspected the mortuary employee? As far as there can be such a person, as the mortuary used wasn't a mortuary, but anyway.
There a book? If so, haven't read it, I recall a documentary, haven't seen it.
Old'n'shaky... yes, so much time had passed, had to go back to how it all began, as us ol' folks do. He's professor?

Incidentally, speaking of going from and going to, I'm not only having troubles seeing how the murderer of Mary Kelly could have scaled back, I'm also having troubles to see where he could have gone from there.
Martin Fido thought it possible, in explanation for his suspect, that the increasing police presence made it too hard for him, hence frustration set in and had him blow, which I don't find too convincing - but a literal overkill, having reached the utmost, so to speak, I'm able to see how that might blow a fuse or two.
Just a thought.

Still need to finish reading, was prevented as I had to count bats [I know. I'm not kidding.]

[sepiae]

Hello Mark. I wonder if his behaviours were compulsive, or if he were oblivious to his surroundings?

Cheers.
LC

Perhaps that is even a component of a compulsion followed.

[lynn cates]

Trow

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, Professor Trow. He wrote a book about his theory. Forget the name. I think there were 3 threads opened to discuss it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

behaviour

Hello (again) Daniel. Thanks.

I am always struck by:

1. His speaking loudly to Annie near the windows.

2. His killing AFTER sunrise.

3. Doing so in the backyard of a highly populated house.

Not exactly the behaviour of a sane person.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

psychopath's wisdom

Going back to the original posting I see compulsive behaviour in some of the murders. The first one which strikes me is Chapman, where for some reason he engaged Chapman later in the evening and murdered in a back yard despite the morning light and people rising for the morning. It was risky and yet he seemed to be driven to do it. The second is the double murders where he was most likely interrupted and then engaged Eddowes very shortly after despite many on the streets looking for the murderer of Stride.

Psychopathic behaviour covers a whole range of behaviouors, and for example the majority of chief executives and senior managers today are social psychopaths. There seems to be a sexual element involved in the mutilations, so it's possible the killer was sexually dysfunctional, physically or psychologically, in some way.

Due to several issues I'm inclined to think that Kelly's murder was by someone else and not an ultimate orgy of mutilation.

Hi markmorey5,

majority of chief executives etc being social psychopaths:
did you read Kevin Dutton's book?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/07/wisdom-of-psychopaths-kevin-dutton-review

There's also a Guardian podcast featuring him and his ideas, and they do convince...

compulsion: I do believe that compulsion is a keyword, but to be fair, in the end it's a headline above a long article. Compulsion drives me, hence I do this and that, I might be able to control it to a degree, but not for long.
I'd be interested in how you see this compulsion. For instance, how aware is the perp of it here, does it torment him, does he try to fence it off, or is what he's doing actually something he likes to do. Where does anger, hate, fury fit in, or does it. Or is he so completely 'gone', for a while, that he takes what he does for something else.
And, I'm obsessing a little over this [mooses***t, I'm obsessing quite a bit], what is it with organs for him?

Stride: I'm tossing to an fro, one day I can explain away the discrepancies, the other day I'm near-convinced she died by another hand. It is decisive in regards of that night, though not so much for the whole definition [of 'JtR'] -
if she was a victim of our man, and if he was disturbed, then it seems likely that your scenario, the generally accepted by Stridists, would apply.
Risk: I think beside there generally always being a risk, it can be seen as boldness [by many] or as lack of care [by me] - be it because his aim was simply higher priority or because he went into a different state, into 'mania', as they'd probably have called it.

several Kelly-issues: please tell.

[sepiae]

Hello (again) Daniel. Thanks.

I am always struck by:

1. His speaking loudly to Annie near the windows.

2. His killing AFTER sunrise.

3. Doing so in the backyard of a highly populated house.

Not exactly the behaviour of a sane person.

Cheers.
LC

No, it's not. Actually all the outdoor locations are almost beyond risky - streets and squares and backyards with people about to rise. Hence to speedy discovery of the bodies.
If it be the places alone it could be put down to opportunity there and then - after all, what would be a safe place in London - Dutfield's yrd? No way out. Right, indoors.

I mean, no, certainly not sane.
The one thing that jumps so into one's face, when reading some of the more,
well, out there theories, their suggested culprits all have an agenda, a motive that is relatively easy to follow and comprehend [e.g. Royal/Masonic, botched abortion, Stan Russo's master criminal duo playing all London police forces, although there I missed the actual motive]. Madness might be mentioned, but actually as if in, 'oh yes, and he/they was/were mad.'

Hence this thread. To what degree the murders were connected or not, but at times I want to ask around, 'have you not eyes?'
Some of the details [on which I'm harking] aside, but starting with behaviour before killing that doesn't at all look rational.

[sepiae]

trow the book

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, Professor Trow. He wrote a book about his theory. Forget the name. I think there were 3 threads opened to discuss it.

Cheers.
LC

Just looked it up:
'Jack the Ripper - Quest for a Killer'