The Ripper & Ed Gein

[Hunter]

...
Was JtR closer in nature to Ed Gein than say, Bundy, Dahmer and Kemper?

I said (rightly or wrongly, heh) in a post reply to Errata just now, that out of all of the well-known serial killers, Ed Gein was the ONLY true postmortem mutilator. Technically, he was not a 'serial killer' but if he wasn't caught there's little doubt he would've kept killing if fresh female corpses weren't otherwise available.

I'm thinking it's not very accurate to compare JtR to the rest, as he does not appear to be sadistic (he killed quickly, mutilated after, he wasn't bent on causing prolonged suffering). He doesn't appear to have raped his victims, while being obsessed with their vaginas and wombs and breasts.

I have pondered, in the past, if JtR was a necrophile (or similar..) for that reason. But Gein wasn't, I think, really a necrophile as such. Sex wasn't his motive. I think Gein just enjoyed the illusion (or delusion) of having 100% control of his dominating mum...

While I agree with most that comparing serial killers catagorically is precarious at best, there was one aspect of Ed Gein that is worth noting when it comes to the anatomical knowledge/skill debate in relation to the Whitchapel murders and the apparent inconsistencies demonstrated.

Excerpt from "Murder by Design," New Independent Review, Vol 4:


...Unfortunately, understanding that anatomical knowledge was evidenced in some of these murders does not narrow the field of suspect types. Although the police sought information as to this aspect of the medical evidence, it may not have helped them much. Anyone with a curiosity of the female body would naturally seek information and gain knowledge as a result. Couple that with someone who may have a demented passion and you have a recipe for bizarre behavior that can, on occasion, manifest itself in the most horrid way. Ed Gein collected medical books and anatomical charts in order to gain the necessary knowledge to carry out his gruesome activities with dead bodies — and he was just a farmer with a minimum of formal education.

In 1888 London, there were many books and cheap paperback illustrations depicting the female body in circulation on the streets. In the days before literature and magazines featured photographic prints and the price of real prints of nude women was above the reach of the average male, such publications served as a form of pornography. The popularity of so-called anatomical museums during the Victorian era was due in large part to their displays of nude women, thinly veiled under the guise of ‘medical education’. Some of them included wax forms with cutaway depictions of women with their viscera exposed.

Even Krafft-Ebings book, ‘Psyhcopathia-Sexualis’ was reputed to have been distributed underground because of its sexually explicit literary content. It would be more than ironic if the murderer of these women and the men who sought to apprehend him were operating out of the same playbook. Such a murderer may have learned only what was required to satiate his curiosity and fuel his fantasy — and eventually act upon it in horrific reality.

[Ausgirl]

Nice post, Hunter. I actually did not know this:

Ed Gein collected medical books and anatomical charts

[Michael W Richards]

What sets JtR well apart from any other serial killer is his victimology because of the time and place. He selected a certain type of prostitute/poor woman which caused a massive scale environmental change of the East End by the government to put an end to the murders. So the type of victims Jack had are no longer really with us today or since the turn of the 20th century their numbers dwindled and the way they did business changed.

If Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes then he would have had to know they were in fact prostitutes, yes? Assuming as most do that none of the victims knew their killer, or vice versa. Then he would select the women based upon some indication that they were actively soliciting when he trawled for victims, yes?

We have evidence of that happening in ONLY the first 2 Canonical murders. There is no compelling evidence that any of the remaining three were actively soliciting.

Before swallowing the Ripper dogma whole it would be great if people studied the cases as individual unsolved murders...it would avoid a lot of supposition based on a prejudicial position from the outset....meaning many seem to start with assumptions and then look at the evidence in a manner that supports their beliefs.

If you understand, like everyone who studies these cases should, that there is no evidence connecting anyone to any Canonical murder, nor is there evidence that any Canonical murder is connected to another, you might approach the study with better objectivity and with greater respect of the known evidence.

The folks that like to compare these murders to what is known about modern serial killers might want to consider that approach.

Cheers

[Errata]

If Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes then he would have had to know they were in fact prostitutes, yes? Assuming as most do that none of the victims knew their killer, or vice versa. Then he would select the women based upon some indication that they were actively soliciting when he trawled for victims, yes?

We have evidence of that happening in ONLY the first 2 Canonical murders. There is no compelling evidence that any of the remaining three were actively soliciting.

Before swallowing the Ripper dogma whole it would be great if people studied the cases as individual unsolved murders...it would avoid a lot of supposition based on a prejudicial position from the outset....meaning many seem to start with assumptions and then look at the evidence in a manner that supports their beliefs.

If you understand, like everyone who studies these cases should, that there is no evidence connecting anyone to any Canonical murder, nor is there evidence that any Canonical murder is connected to another, you might approach the study with better objectivity and with greater respect of the known evidence.

The folks that like to compare these murders to what is known about modern serial killers might want to consider that approach.

Cheers

Oh, we can do both.

And I think in essence we do end up doing both, just because of the system of adversarial debate. If I am going to respond to a post about Eddowes being killed by someone else, if I'm going to make a logical argument, I have to prove to myself that she wasn't. So I have to find what negates my argument so I can refute that. So the information gets in by the back door, but it gets in.

On the other hand, I think there are many of us who are not trying to solve these cases. We aren't trying to come up with a name. We are trying to understand the person(s) that did this. And we have to look at the individual murders in order to do that. So for example, Nichols murder was exploratory. Whoever did that was trying something fairly new. Seeing what kind of cuts did what. It's not a quick slash job, despite the fact that it kind of looks like one. Chapman's murder was by the numbers. Almost perfunctory. Goal oriented. Kelly's murder looks personal. And there has to be a reason why it looks that way, even if it isn't in fact personal.

And we look at all this, and yes, Stride appears to be the odd man out, for different reasons to different people. But looking at things in terms of behavior, not in terms of forensics, yeah. We can link some of these crimes a little bit. It makes sense that a single person might kill this way. But we need to see the individual behaviors in the individual victims to see a pattern, or a link, or an evolution. So we see them. And then we speculate. Because like you say, we've got bubkis (to paraphrase).

What we know about serial killers does retroactively apply, if we have a serial killer. And we likely do. That does not mean we are going to find a modern analogue. Nobody is saying that this is Ted Bundy but 100 years earlier. Nobody is saying the the Ripper is Gein. But is he in the same category as Gein? Is he a collector? Because that matters. That's what drives these crimes. And it's always going to look different, but collectors want something different than destroyers, who want something different than fullfillers. But if we can come up with a good theory, it might answer some questions. Was he looking for a specific type? How was he finding that type? Was he stalking them? Short term or long term? Did he know Eddowes had a history of soliciting because he remembered her from a month ago? Did he care? All of that can potentially be answered if we can figure out what was driving this bus. And we don't need to know who he was in order to find out. We do probably need a whole lot more information that doesn't exist.

In other words, shh! we're speculating :P

But you're not wrong.

[Ausgirl]

Before swallowing the Ripper dogma whole it would be great if people studied the cases as individual unsolved murders...it would avoid a lot of supposition based on a prejudicial position from the outset....meaning many seem to start with assumptions and then look at the evidence in a manner that supports their beliefs.

If you understand, like everyone who studies these cases should, that there is no evidence connecting anyone to any Canonical murder, nor is there evidence that any Canonical murder is connected to another, you might approach the study with better objectivity and with greater respect of the known evidence.

The folks that like to compare these murders to what is known about modern serial killers might want to consider that approach.

Cheers

Dear Michael,

Please try to be a bit more snide and condescending. I don't think the people in the lower tiers were spattered with it nearly enough.

- Aus

[Ausgirl]

I believe Batman stated "Prostitute/poor woman" - they were all certainly one, the other or both.

So what's the argument.

[gnote]

If Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes then he would have had to know they were in fact prostitutes, yes?

Not necessarily. He could have assumed they were. Many women at the time were basically forced into prostitution due to their circumstances. Would a serial killer care to distinguish between the full and part timers even if he was "targeting" whores?

[Michael W Richards]

Oh, we can do both.

And I think in essence we do end up doing both, just because of the system of adversarial debate. If I am going to respond to a post about Eddowes being killed by someone else, if I'm going to make a logical argument, I have to prove to myself that she wasn't. So I have to find what negates my argument so I can refute that. So the information gets in by the back door, but it gets in.

On the other hand, I think there are many of us who are not trying to solve these cases. We aren't trying to come up with a name. We are trying to understand the person(s) that did this. And we have to look at the individual murders in order to do that. So for example, Nichols murder was exploratory. Whoever did that was trying something fairly new. Seeing what kind of cuts did what. It's not a quick slash job, despite the fact that it kind of looks like one. Chapman's murder was by the numbers. Almost perfunctory. Goal oriented. Kelly's murder looks personal. And there has to be a reason why it looks that way, even if it isn't in fact personal.

And we look at all this, and yes, Stride appears to be the odd man out, for different reasons to different people. But looking at things in terms of behavior, not in terms of forensics, yeah. We can link some of these crimes a little bit. It makes sense that a single person might kill this way. But we need to see the individual behaviors in the individual victims to see a pattern, or a link, or an evolution. So we see them. And then we speculate. Because like you say, we've got bubkis (to paraphrase).

What we know about serial killers does retroactively apply, if we have a serial killer. And we likely do. That does not mean we are going to find a modern analogue. Nobody is saying that this is Ted Bundy but 100 years earlier. Nobody is saying the the Ripper is Gein. But is he in the same category as Gein? Is he a collector? Because that matters. That's what drives these crimes. And it's always going to look different, but collectors want something different than destroyers, who want something different than fullfillers. But if we can come up with a good theory, it might answer some questions. Was he looking for a specific type? How was he finding that type? Was he stalking them? Short term or long term? Did he know Eddowes had a history of soliciting because he remembered her from a month ago? Did he care? All of that can potentially be answered if we can figure out what was driving this bus. And we don't need to know who he was in order to find out. We do probably need a whole lot more information that doesn't exist.

In other words, shh! we're speculating :P

But you're not wrong.

What Im trying to put across errata is that THE TRUTH, as it exists in the records and the evidence, is that the police and the medical experts were unable to link any of these murders to one person, or each other...they were at odds about skill and knowledge displayed, the victims that should be included in any grouping, and who knew what about what.

If you examine the cases beginning with Polly its very easy to see that her murder and the murder that followed it very soon after...consecutively...showed similarities that are only visible in those 2 murders. They are almost certainly linked by the killer. From there on its a mish mash of speculation about why certain elements are not there, why things changed from the previous murder or murders, and why there are new and unexplained elements.

Its hardly a bread crumb trail by one individual.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Dear Michael,

Please try to be a bit more snide and condescending. I don't think the people in the lower tiers were spattered with it nearly enough.

- Aus

When people begin posts with "what sets jtr apart from other serial killers...." there are just too many assumptives to ignore.

That there even was a JtR hasn't been established, or that any 2 of the murders were by the same person, let alone that we are in a position to declare him a serial killer and then study him as such.

There are the "psychological students" here who wish to try and break down the psyche of someone who killed a group of women and then try and understand the acts, and there are some here who wish to play armchair detective and try and interpret the existing evidence or look for new and exciting clues to the possible answer of who killed the women. I realize that each group has its own prejudices.

Its just that I belong to a smaller faction who wants to understand how a group of unsolved murders became an infamous period in English history...and how a fictional character, ...at this point in time... became one of the Most Despised People in history.

When there is no connection known of any 1 Canonical murder to another...excluding geography and timing... or any of them to even a single suspect, I think jumping the gun is the phrase I would use as explanation of my adverse reaction.

Fair point though on the prostitute/poor woman comments...they did have a name at that time though, Unfortunates.

Cheers

[Ausgirl]

Its just that I belong to a smaller faction who wants to understand how a group of unsolved murders became an infamous period in English history...and how a fictional character, ...at this point in time... became one of the Most Despised People in history.

When there is no connection known of any 1 Canonical murder to another...excluding geography and timing... or any of them to even a single suspect, I think jumping the gun is the phrase I would use as explanation of my adverse reaction.

Well, sure. But when you start saying things which amount to "do things the way I like, or STFU" --on a public message board -- you're going to get right up my nose like a hyper-arrogant fart. Just saying.

It's clear you and I come at this from two very different perspectives (and it's not the perspective what's pissing me off here) but I think there's more than enough room on the internets for both.

Both points of view lead to some very interesting discussions, and I can see the merit in both as a means of exploring the whole Ripper phenomenon.

Personally, I think there's more than enough to link most of these murders together, and possibly a few more in the mix. I can argue that all day. And probably will, at some point.

Just please, try to appreciate that some people who don't agree with you are not drooling idiots. And that sneering does absolutely nothing to contribute to meaningful dialogue. Cheers.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, sure. But when you start saying things which amount to "do things the way I like, or STFU" --on a public message board -- you're going to get right up my nose like a hyper-arrogant fart. Just saying.

It's clear you and I come at this from two very different perspectives (and it's not the perspective what's pissing me off here) but I think there's more than enough room on the internets for both.

Both points of view lead to some very interesting discussions, and I can see the merit in both as a means of exploring the whole Ripper phenomenon.

Personally, I think there's more than enough to link most of these murders together, and possibly a few more in the mix. I can argue that all day. And probably will, at some point.

Just please, try to appreciate that some people who don't agree with you are not drooling idiots. And that sneering does absolutely nothing to contribute to meaningful dialogue. Cheers.

I think you misinterpret me "sneering" when its actually more like "steering" Ausi...Ive tried to be consistent with this message over the years and its never been from the position that my opinion rules ....its always been about what can be stated with any degree of authority and accuracy based on known evidence.

Yes, I understand that some threads that use suppositional premises as the fuel are interesting to participate in, I don't partake of many myself, but I do see that discussions need not be restricted to things that can be proven.

The thing is there are literally thousands of people who are, or have, studied these cases from the perspective that they are looking at a series of murders by a madman in the East End in 1888. The truth is that its simply an urban legend at this point, it has no foundation in the evidence that is known, and the only "series" we have is one that was constructed by opinions, not viable links using only the evidence.

You mistake my comments for derision, when they are really intended to keep a steady course using the knowns.

Personally, I am not fascinated with the madman Ripper theory as much as others are, Im more fascinated by how this legend somehow became a kind of factual history. People believe the top hat and cloak stuff...the evil psychotic killer coming out of the fog and murdering strangers, cutting them up on the streets...when as we can see within the Canonical Group alone that 2 of the murders do not fit into that profile, and we don't even know if these women died at the hands of a stranger, let alone that they died by the same hand.

Sorry if that offends you.

Although this is Ripperology, it isn't restricted to those who simply accept the traditional conjecture.

[Errata]

What Im trying to put across errata is that THE TRUTH, as it exists in the records and the evidence, is that the police and the medical experts were unable to link any of these murders to one person, or each other...they were at odds about skill and knowledge displayed, the victims that should be included in any grouping, and who knew what about what.

If you examine the cases beginning with Polly its very easy to see that her murder and the murder that followed it very soon after...consecutively...showed similarities that are only visible in those 2 murders. They are almost certainly linked by the killer. From there on its a mish mash of speculation about why certain elements are not there, why things changed from the previous murder or murders, and why there are new and unexplained elements.

Its hardly a bread crumb trail by one individual.

Cheers

Well good god man, if we only ran with the known facts we would have stopped talking about this in the 50s. And we all would believe Patricia Cornwell's theory. I'm aware of the facts. I'm aware of the limitations. And I'm aware this isn't some Murder She Wrote crime that the audience can follow to it's logical end in 45 minutes.

You seem to somehow think that knowledge of the facts precludes speculation. It doesn't. We come up with something that fits the facts we think are important, we throw it at the wall, we see if it sticks. And 99.9% of the time it doesn't. I haven't had one stick yet, the best I've done is shine the light on the difficulty of subduing a grown woman without a struggle.

But what am I supposed to do on this board, debate the proper spelling of the surname "McNaughton"?

[Michael W Richards]

Well good god man, if we only ran with the known facts we would have stopped talking about this in the 50s. And we all would believe Patricia Cornwell's theory. I'm aware of the facts. I'm aware of the limitations. And I'm aware this isn't some Murder She Wrote crime that the audience can follow to it's logical end in 45 minutes.

You seem to somehow think that knowledge of the facts precludes speculation. It doesn't. We come up with something that fits the facts we think are important, we throw it at the wall, we see if it sticks. And 99.9% of the time it doesn't. I haven't had one stick yet, the best I've done is shine the light on the difficulty of subduing a grown woman without a struggle.

But what am I supposed to do on this board, debate the proper spelling of the surname "McNaughton"?

Sometimes the accuracy is the paramount objective errata, as you well know. But my point is that proper context is reliant on accurate information, and when assumed "truths" that do not express solely what can be supported using known and reliable data are used as a foundation for a theory that can be dismissed by careful review of the data, then the discussions serve only to entertain.

Ive been here off and on for around 10 years and have had the great pleasure to discuss many topics with the knowledgeable and highly intelligent members here, Ive read a ton on the crimes, the times, and the political climes, Ive discussed specific conundrums with the most informed and respected Ripperologists today thanks to this amazing venue....and what Ive appreciated the most is learning the straight goods from those conversations.

Its the reason I became a anti-Ripperite, and although I am not opposed to embracing an alternative view if evidence is uncovered that warrants it, I will continue to see the Canonical Group as a theory, and the possibility that within the Canonical Group a single killer killed more than 2 woman.

That means for me, something else is afoot here. I think others also see the entire world immediately around the murders as a place where deception, terrorism and perhaps treason might have influenced some events.

I don't see the evidence that you and others think shows some kind of evidentiary connection of the Five, and my opposition to that is to direct attention back to the evidence.

In Mary Kellys case, the evidence as it exists points to someone she knew. That once again requires a modification of the killer profile, the third time that is done since Liz Stride was killed. Instead of morphing the killer to try and enable some explanation for the, in some cases, huge discrepancies in style, skill and apparent motive, why not accept the evidence as it exists and admit that we are not likely talking about a single killer for all Five.

Best regards

[Ausgirl]

I think you misinterpret me "sneering" when its actually more like "steering" Ausi...Ive tried to be consistent with this message over the years and its never been from the position that my opinion rules ....its always been about what can be stated with any degree of authority and accuracy based on known evidence.

Yes, I understand that some threads that use suppositional premises as the fuel are interesting to participate in, I don't partake of many myself, but I do see that discussions need not be restricted to things that can be proven.

The thing is there are literally thousands of people who are, or have, studied these cases from the perspective that they are looking at a series of murders by a madman in the East End in 1888. The truth is that its simply an urban legend at this point, it has no foundation in the evidence that is known, and the only "series" we have is one that was constructed by opinions, not viable links using only the evidence.

You mistake my comments for derision, when they are really intended to keep a steady course using the knowns.

Personally, I am not fascinated with the madman Ripper theory as much as others are, Im more fascinated by how this legend somehow became a kind of factual history. People believe the top hat and cloak stuff...the evil psychotic killer coming out of the fog and murdering strangers, cutting them up on the streets...when as we can see within the Canonical Group alone that 2 of the murders do not fit into that profile, and we don't even know if these women died at the hands of a stranger, let alone that they died by the same hand.

Sorry if that offends you.

Although this is Ripperology, it isn't restricted to those who simply accept the traditional conjecture.

...

Just - never mind. Carry on.

[Errata]

Sometimes the accuracy is the paramount objective errata, as you well know. But my point is that proper context is reliant on accurate information, and when assumed "truths" that do not express solely what can be supported using known and reliable data are used as a foundation for a theory that can be dismissed by careful review of the data, then the discussions serve only to entertain.

Ive been here off and on for around 10 years and have had the great pleasure to discuss many topics with the knowledgeable and highly intelligent members here, Ive read a ton on the crimes, the times, and the political climes, Ive discussed specific conundrums with the most informed and respected Ripperologists today thanks to this amazing venue....and what Ive appreciated the most is learning the straight goods from those conversations.

Its the reason I became a anti-Ripperite, and although I am not opposed to embracing an alternative view if evidence is uncovered that warrants it, I will continue to see the Canonical Group as a theory, and the possibility that within the Canonical Group a single killer killed more than 2 woman.

That means for me, something else is afoot here. I think others also see the entire world immediately around the murders as a place where deception, terrorism and perhaps treason might have influenced some events.

I don't see the evidence that you and others think shows some kind of evidentiary connection of the Five, and my opposition to that is to direct attention back to the evidence.

In Mary Kellys case, the evidence as it exists points to someone she knew. That once again requires a modification of the killer profile, the third time that is done since Liz Stride was killed. Instead of morphing the killer to try and enable some explanation for the, in some cases, huge discrepancies in style, skill and apparent motive, why not accept the evidence as it exists and admit that we are not likely talking about a single killer for all Five.

Best regards

I respect you, you know that.

We are on a thread speculating about similarities between a known killer and one or several unknown entities based on the premise that at least 4 women were killed by the same man.

Of course we are making it up as we go. I really don't understand the problem you are having. No one here is saying that it is a fact that Jack killed 5 women. It's a base we are working off of. Sort of how if you are discussing how the lost city of Atlantis could be destroyed by natural forces, you start with the premise that Atlantis existed, despite there being no proof Atlantis existed at all. Despite the fact that it's possible that no one in the discussion believes in Atlantis at all.

Nobody here believes in Atlantis yet. The first stage of this kind of theorizing is like comparing basic shapes. Is this human shaped, and is this human shaped. The kind of facts you are talking about don't come in until we get to hair and eye color. Gein is a square. Is Jack (the purported killer of 5 women, unless amended later) a square? I don't think we've even agreed that both are squares.

Now there are things I agree with you on, and things I don't. And reasons for both. But we aren't there yet. We're not running on facts. We're running on impressions. This is what I think about Jack. This is how I could apply this theory to Jack. Based on assumptions, based on rumors, based on gut feeling, based on impressions. Because we all know we don't have anything else. I promise, we know. If for no other reason than if we did we would likely have a name or names, and again, we would have stopped talking about before tvs were in color.

People work in different ways. Some people carefully craft. Others throw things to the wall and let them stick. Accuracy is important. So are theories. So is creativity, so is camaraderie. I'm not published, I will never write a word on this topic. Who cares if I spitball, or even screw up now and then? And even if I was some sort of Ripper Royalty, I still get to debate wild theories. You should my arguments about why people abducted by aliens should stop fishing.

If your objection is that you don't think Jack exists, just say that. But don't try to make this some sort evidentiary jack assery. In order for that to be true, we'd have to base something off of fact. You're crashing the party three days early. Wait for actual facts to come up, and then bust us if we get it wrong.