A question about murder locations...

[Wickerman]

Like I said, neutralizing the victim in a safer area, then, if the way is clear, bring her a few feet to proceed to mutilations where the victims can be easily found.

Yes, you did say that, but I asked "to what end"?

Lets say he strangled Chapman in the passage of No. 29, then moved her outside to mutilate her, ....why?

Or Eddowes, strangled in a house, then carried outside to mutilate her.....why?

What is the benefit of doing this?

Perhaps I should be more precise.....what is the benefit of separating the two actions, as opposed to strangling & mutilating at the same location?

[Shaggyrand]

Yes, you did say that, but I asked "to what end"?

Lets say he strangled Chapman in the passage of No. 29, then moved her outside to mutilate her, ....why?

Or Eddowes, strangled in a house, then carried outside to mutilate her.....why?

What is the benefit of doing this?

Perhaps I should be more precise.....what is the benefit of separating the two actions, as opposed to strangling & mutilating at the same location?

While I'm not sold on the idea, the benefit seems plain. Time. While unconsciousness would be quick, he would still need another 2-4 minutes to strangle them to death, even with most types of garrote. If police are passing every 10-15 minutes that would leave him very little time to get elbow deep in his mutilations with a cop coming upon him at any moment. Now if he strangled them out of possible sight and dragged out the body as soon as the patrolman turned the corner he'd have a chance to time the cop's beat and would have a better idea of how long he had before he would have to abandon his victim to get away clean.

[Rosella]

Yes, but police on the beat weren't patrolling inside Mary Kelly's bedroom or up and down Dutfield's Yard or the back yard of 29 Hanbury St.

Jack in those instances had inveigled his victims (or they had taken him there, fortuitously for him) into locales with a certain amount of privacy and no danger of a copper stumbling over them.

He had therefore, enough time if he was swift and silent to undertake his mutilations, without bothering to move the women a few feet or so. If Jack moved his victims to mutilate near a light source it might make a bit of sense, but most of these places were extremely dark wherever he was.

Admittedly, police were patrolling up and down nearby streets, though the difficulty searchers from the Working Men's Club had in initially finding a policeman, once Liz was found, shows that they weren't always immediately to hand when needed.

[Errata]

SJF.
What little ive read about picquerism is infredibly disturbing bcause the fantasies are graphically horrifying. They exceed the standard limits of morality that we traditiobally bind our imaginings to the point of being a sexual farce.

General Warning

Don't read about picquerism. Just don't. Likely Jack wasn't a picquerist at all, so basically you are just filling your mind with disturbing stuff for no reason. But more to the point, it's actually not helpful. It doesn't tell you anything about the crimes or about the criminal. Lots of serial killers have bizarre paraphilias that are clinically interesting but not particularly relevant. And then you get someone like Gein who is clearly batshit crazy but doesn't actually have a specific fetish you could pin on him. Maybe a few could get named after him...

I'm trying to save people from living with the same crap I have in my head one person at a time.

Basically you only need a few pieces of information.

Is there a fetish or paraphilia involved? Which is, do you believe that the only way the killer could sexually function was by doing some specific weird thing, or by fantasizing about that same thing? If yes, you have a paraphilia. Which means you likely have an obsession.

Is this person a sadist, do they get off on causing pain or humiliation? This one defines a killer's behavior outside of the details, so if yes, you get one set of needs, no you get another. In this case he kills them first, so he is not getting off on causing pain. An argument can be made for humiliation, or not. A sexual sadist is a sadist. And sexual sadists have some commonalities. But if he isn't causing pain, he is likely not a sexual sadist, and that whole profile goes out the window.

Is this person an exhibitionist? Does he want his actions or results to be seen? It changes a killer's behavior in where and how they kill.

Is this person a necrophiliac? If so, they likely built up to killing. Where else does a necrophiliac go to satisfy this need, and is there evidence that a necrophiliac was even in town at the time? Were grave or crypts opened, medical schools or mortuaries broken into?

Is this person a partialist? The details about what parts they really prefer and what they do with those parts don't matter. What does matter is that they HAVE to kill to get them, so these guys tend to not be very interested in the actual taking of life, but really keep their attention on the parts they plan to harvest. And it is very like a harvest. So their victim selection and actual murder tend not to matter, so they can be careful or sloppy. The parts of the crime that don't matter to the killer change. The parts that do matter stay the same with an almost ritualistic certainty. And partialists need more time and care.

Stuff like piquerism isn't really relevatory. It doesn't tell you anything about them or the crime except that he was a picquerist. Same with biting fetishes, or blood fetishes or even copraphilia. Gross stuff, but just gross stuff. Bizarre icing on a killer's cake. A line in a case file. Don't go rummaging in the basement of human sexuality if you don't need to. It changes the way you see things, and not in a good way. When someone cuts themselves in front of me, I automatically look at the faces of the people around me to check and see if someone is aroused. Don't do that to yourselves. You think it's bad that you check, but wait until you actually catch someone.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Yes, but police on the beat weren't patrolling inside Mary Kelly's bedroom or up and down Dutfield's Yard or the back yard of 29 Hanbury St.

Jack in those instances had inveigled his victims (or they had taken him there, fortuitously for him) into locales with a certain amount of privacy and no danger of a copper stumbling over them.

He had therefore, enough time if he was swift and silent to undertake his mutilations, without bothering to move the women a few feet or so. If Jack moved his victims to mutilate near a light source it might make a bit of sense, but most of these places were extremely dark wherever he was.

Admittedly, police were patrolling up and down nearby streets, though the difficulty searchers from the Working Men's Club had in initially finding a policeman, once Liz was found, shows that they weren't always immediately to hand when needed.

Oh, I do not imply MJK on this, evidently. With Stride, I think it could have happened in the area near the toilet. The club front door was locked and people walked in Dutfield Yard up to 12:40, plus the kitchen door was ajar.

Let's also not forget that one of the biggest particularity of JtR was to make sure the bodies were "out there". This was, even up to this day as you all aware, a very specific thing from a serial killer.

[Robert St Devil]

Words to live by, Errata.
At some point, the aspect of sex does arise because of the occupation of the victims. So a researcher must decide if sex is an aspect of this case. However no sexual assaults were ever recorded so i would be at ease believing that he picked women he considered of the lowest class, or unfortunates.

Ill take the advice E. because its true. He didnt hide the victims so maybe sexual gratification wasnt his end game. Im going to try using the SON OF SAM murders as a model instead.

Great post.

[Errata]

Words to live by, Errata.
At some point, the aspect of sex does arise because of the occupation of the victims. So a researcher must decide if sex is an aspect of this case. However no sexual assaults were ever recorded so i would be at ease believing that he picked women he considered of the lowest class, or unfortunates.

Ill take the advice E. because its true. He didnt hide the victims so maybe sexual gratification wasnt his end game. Im going to try using the SON OF SAM murders as a model instead.

Great post.

I'm a big fan of just putting things in the wrapper of "Compulsive Sexual Behavior" because naming it means researching it, which means reading a bunch of accounts or watching some unfortunate videos that cling to your head space and why? Because there is a technical difference between the compulsion to slice flesh to release a flow of blood versus the compulsion to pierce flesh for the sake of piercing flesh versus the compulsion to pierce flesh to put jewelry in. To get it technically right, I have to familiarize myself with all of those issues, none of which may apply. By letting it remain less specific, I don't have to open a browser to the most uncomfortable search of my life for information that has little value outside of trivia.

Shrinks have to be specific. We don't. And in truth we screw things up like picquerism, because we don't get the nuances. It is a fetish usually carried out on clothed unwitting victims, which doesn't make it in most definitions but is considered a cardinal behavior in diagnosing it. But that behavior clearly appears nowhere in these crimes. So it's really very complicated, and our understanding of a paraphilia as we define it from a web site may be miles away from how a sex therapist practically defines it. It's the quantum mechanics of human behavior, no place for tourists.

Rule in or out sadism, necrophilia, exhibitionism, and partialism (all of which greatly influence the mechanics of a murder) and the rest can remain in the better left murky generalities of "compulsive sexual behavior". It's easier, and usually more accurate by being less specific.

[Michael W Richards]

Words to live by, Errata.
At some point, the aspect of sex does arise because of the occupation of the victims. So a researcher must decide if sex is an aspect of this case. However no sexual assaults were ever recorded so i would be at ease believing that he picked women he considered of the lowest class, or unfortunates.

Ill take the advice E. because its true. He didnt hide the victims so maybe sexual gratification wasnt his end game. Im going to try using the SON OF SAM murders as a model instead.

Great post.

As a refresher, there is evidence that only 2 Canonicals stated they were out to earn money the night they died, so the assumptions that all Unfortunates or all five of the Canonical Victims solicited at night are just that.

Unfortunates, as we have gone out forever here, were single women without work or any financial support. What they did to earn money varies.