Punishment

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

OK. Here is a text which does not describe punishments by the state through the law and which does not describe punishments by the family connected to honour.

It is a text describing fiction.

Fiction can also be analysed. Similarities with the C-5:

Cut throat / Cut throat but no tongue torn out

Heart and vitals over left shoulder / Not heart but intestines over left shoulder

Severed in two in the midst / Not severed in the midst

David, do you happen to know anything about the first origins of these descriptions?

They are certainly not identical Pierre but similar. In the same way that the JTR victims were not hung, drawn and quartered.

The fact that the story of the execution of the three Jubes (sorry, couldn't resist) was almost certainly fiction is to miss the point that a real life Mason could have taken these punishments literally, or at least close to literally, in order to murder women who had, in his opinion, betrayed the freemasons in some way or posed a threat to them.

[Pierre]

One hundred posts in a thread about the murders being a "punishment" and no-one has even mentioned masonic punishments. So I guess it falls to me to do it.

The sign of the Entered Apprentice was the cutting of the throat which, according to The Ripper File by Jones & Lloyd, was the penalty of revealing masonic secrets.

Further, in the legend, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum were executed as a punishment for murdering Hiram Abiff, according to their own laments:

Jubela - "O that my throat had been cut across, my tongue torn out..."

Jubelo - "O that my left breast had been torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence and thrown over my left shoulder..."

Jubelum - "O that my body had been severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the centre...".

There are certainly some similarities between these punishments and the Ripper murders.

Hi David,

OK. Here is a text which does not describe punishments by the state through the law and which does not describe punishments by the family connected to honour.

It is a text describing fiction.

Fiction can also be analysed. Similarities with the C-5:

Cut throat / Cut throat but no tongue torn out

Heart and vitals over left shoulder / Not heart but intestines over left shoulder

Severed in two in the midst / Not severed in the midst

David, do you happen to know anything about the first origins of these descriptions?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

One hundred posts in a thread about the murders being a "punishment" and no-one has even mentioned masonic punishments. So I guess it falls to me to do it.

The sign of the Entered Apprentice was the cutting of the throat which, according to The Ripper File by Jones & Lloyd, was the penalty of revealing masonic secrets.

Further, in the legend, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum were executed as a punishment for murdering Hiram Abiff, according to their own laments:

Jubela - "O that my throat had been cut across, my tongue torn out..."

Jubelo - "O that my left breast had been torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence and thrown over my left shoulder..."

Jubelum - "O that my body had been severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the centre...".

There are certainly some similarities between these punishments and the Ripper murders.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373988]

Hi Pierre,

Not sure what you mean by "social punishment", that seems a bit abstract to me.

Regarding JtR's signature. This clearly evolved as the killer became more experienced. Thus, according to Schlesinger (2010), the signature of a sexually motivated killer can evolve and become more elaborate, although it remains "behaviourally and thematically consistent." For instance, Schlesinger gives an example of a sexually motivated serial killer who progressed from genital mutilation to dismemberment.

It appears you now accept that JtR's crimes were "sexually motivated", and I'm therefore confused as to why you think this motive is consistent with an intention to punish the victims, as that would clearly suggest a very different rationale.

Hi John,

I think it is easy to accept an hypothesis which postulates that since Jack the Ripper was an extremely rare serial killer, and since he put the victims on display, and since he was NOT a sadistic killer who tortured his victims, his motive was not directly connected to his own sexuality but to the act of social degradation through sexual degradation.

I gave an example for this type of murder in this post, here it is again:

In the second example disembowelling is also a type of punishment. In December 1877, two naked dead bodies were found outdoors, under a tree in Lucknow, India. (Morning Post, Tuesday 25 December, 1877). Both of the victims were headless, disembowelled and mutilated. They were the dead bodies of a young man and a young woman and the crime was understood to be an honour crime.

The social punishment is an act of honour, where the victims have broken social honour rules, thereby damaging someoneīs honour, and therefore getting a socially degrading punishment.

This hypothesis would explain the lack of evidence for rape, the displaying of the bodies and sometimes cutting their faces. Nose-cutting also has a long history and has been used as a social punishment strongly connected to honour.

If someone has broken a social rule which is considered important for the family for example, that person could get punished by being killed, mutilated and put on display. This type of behaviour is considered the "right" thing to do if someone has been shamed by the breaking of a rule, and this type of murder is aimed at putting the social order back in place again. It is also a type of revenge.

"Bodily mutilations, such as nose-cutting, are recorded worldwide from different cultural settings...
The underlying notion is that cultural categories, such as “honour” and “shame”, are encoded in body morphology and affect behaviour."

(Honour, Shame, and Bodily Mutilation. Cutting off the Nose among Tribal Societies in Pakistan. Jürgen Wasim Frembgen. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Nov., 2006), pp. 243-260)

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373981]

Hi John,

There are different aspect of punishment. Punishments could be physical and they could be social. So what would you say were the dimensions of social punishment in the murders, if any?



But if he only wanted to "secure body organs", why didnīt he take more of them? From Kelly, for example? He would have had the time. And why nothing from Nichols? Was he interrupted or what? Also, if you think Tabram was a victim of this serial killer, why didnīt he take any organs if "securing of organs" was indeed his "main objective"?



And this goes for all of them, with the exception of Stride, doesnīt it?



Naturally it was "sexually motivated" since he did target the organs of reproduction. They were also women, who, by many men, were considered primarily reproductive beings in the 19th Century, and almost all of them were prostitutes, which means they were in a "sexually oriented" business.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Not sure what you mean by "social punishment", that seems a bit abstract to me.

Regarding JtR's signature. This clearly evolved as the killer became more experienced. Thus, according to Schlesinger (2010), the signature of a sexually motivated killer can evolve and become more elaborate, although it remains "behaviourally and thematically consistent." For instance, Schlesinger gives an example of a sexually motivated serial killer who progressed from genital mutilation to dismemberment.

It appears you now accept that JtR's crimes were "sexually motivated", and I'm therefore confused as to why you think this motive is consistent with an intention to punish the victims, as that would clearly suggest a very different rationale.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373796]

Personally, I see no reason to suppose JtR was subjecting his victims to "punishment". Thus, there's no evidence any of the victims were tortured and I doubt he was a sadist. To the contrary, he killed his victims quickly and efficiently, giving them no opportunity to resist.

Hi John,

There are different aspect of punishment. Punishments could be physical and they could be social. So what would you say were the dimensions of social punishment in the murders, if any?

It therefore seems likely that the mutilations were merely a means to an end, with the perpetrators main objective being the securing of body organs.

But if he only wanted to "secure body organs", why didnīt he take more of them? From Kelly, for example? He would have had the time. And why nothing from Nichols? Was he interrupted or what? Also, if you think Tabram was a victim of this serial killer, why didnīt he take any organs if "securing of organs" was indeed his "main objective"?

However, I concede there is some evidence that the victims were posed in a degrading manner but, as Keppel (2005) suggests, he might have simply been demonstrating that he "considered them disposable."

And this goes for all of them, with the exception of Stride, doesnīt it?

Overall, I think JtR was probably a sexually motivated serial killer, not a mission killer, hence the targeting of the organs of reproduction.

Naturally it was "sexually motivated" since he did target the organs of reproduction. They were also women, who, by many men, were considered primarily reproductive beings in the 19th Century, and almost all of them were prostitutes, which means they were in a "sexually oriented" business.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

It is no "subject", it is a description of a set of methods used.
But ripperology is almost always a regression into the realms of pseudoscience, at itīs best, and more often it is fiction.

Regards, Pierre

Yes but, as I've indicated in earlier posts, I'm not sure that any approach/methodology is likely to bear fruit (and "forensic history" is a subject/method that I can find virtually no information on, apart from a course being offered by what appears to be a somewhat dubious college, suggesting to me that it might not be entirety accepted as a legitimate approach to research by the wider academic community).

Even the primary sources are so unreliable they cannot be depended upon with any degree of confidence. And, of course, none of the significant witnesses are still alive, so they cannot be interrogated and cross examined, and their evidence tested.

That's why I say that, at this far remove, I don't see how anyone can construct a case against a suspect that amounts to anything like significant proof.

[wigngown]

Hi Pierre,
History is only ever as accurate and reliable as the those who recorded it. Acceptance of evidence & testimony is a subjective matter. Your accepted threshold to the burden of proof may be wholly different from mine and mine of yours. You, or whoever may consider that there is an absolute case (prima facie) against your chosen Candidate, others may not. It's never clear cut. Best regards.

[Pierre]

Unfortunately, we've regressed back into the realms of pseudoscience. As far as I'm aware, "foresnsic history" doesn't even exit as a recognized academic subject, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear that such a course was available at Trump University!

It is no "subject", it is a description of a set of methods used.
But ripperology is almost always a regression into the realms of pseudoscience, at itīs best, and more often it is fiction.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Unfortunately, we've regressed back into the realms of pseudoscience. As far as I'm aware, "foresnsic history" doesn't even exit as a recognized academic subject, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear that such a course was available at Trump University!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=wigngown;373967]Agreed John G. I still think the Killer will be identified at some point.

Seeking a general consensus that it's him: now that will be the hardest part!

Hi,

yes, and various people have been trying, and still are, to do that, without success.

But I think that before someone names some person in the past and starts arguing for that person having been a serial killer in the past, you must have many historical bits of evidence that can be connected, in a reliable and valid way, to that person.

And the method used should be forensic history, since the question about who did the murders is an historical question. It is no longer a juridical question and it can not be a question for natural science.

But as long as people allow many other approaches, failing to understand the historicity of the case, those approaches will not generate substantial historical knowledge.

Personally, I'd be persuaded to accept the lower burden of proof because I think establishing the higher burden is now nigh on impossible. Best regards.

I see. Well, I myself would only accept the higher standard norms for academic history as a standard. This includes a discussion of the problems of analysing and interpreting data.

Kind regards, Pierre

[wigngown]

Agreed John G. I still think the Killer will be identified at some point. Seeking a general consensus that it's him: now that will be the hardest part! Personally, I'd be persuaded to accept the lower burden of proof because I think establishing the higher burden is now nigh on impossible. Best regards.

[John G]

I don't think anything less than the same burden of proof required in Criminal Law (beyond a reasonable doubt) will be enough to satisfy everyone that the killers identity has been uncovered. Balance of probability just won't cut it for some.

Yes, I would agree with this. Of course, even if someone was to unearth a purported confession, which is exactly what proponents of the Maybrick diary claim they have, there would be very little that could be done at this juncture to determine its validity. For instance, we can hardly go back in time and cross-examine the suspect, or even speak to witnesses to determine whether they might have an alibi for one or more of the murders they're accused of committing.

Even DNA evidence is fraught with problems, as Russell Edwards found to his cost! And witness testimony? Well, didn't Lawende unhesitatingly identify Kosminski? But, of course, we can't now cross examine Lawende, to assess is reliability, or question Kosminski in order to determine whether he might have an alibi. Frankly, it's all very unsatisfactory.

Moreover, modern forensic science has demonstrated that we know even less than was first thought. For instance, we cannot rely totally on the primary sources, because estimates of time of death, by the Victorian doctors, and assessments of whether the perpetrator was right or left-handed, the type of weapon used, and whether the murderer had any medical/anatomical knowledge simply cannot be relied upon. In fact, it seems to me that, at this juncture, very little is known, or can be known, with any degree of certainty.

[wigngown]

I don't think anything less than the same burden of proof required in Criminal Law (beyond a reasonable doubt) will be enough to satisfy everyone that the killers identity has been uncovered. Balance of probability just won't cut it for some.

[John G]

Yes. But still, those indicators do not point out one single person as a murderer, not even at one single murder site. So how could this sort of analysis be of any use for that?

Kind regards, Pierre

Well, Pierre, I'm afraid there is no panacea for determining a suspect, with any degree of certainty, via abstract reasoning, and crime signature analysis is clearly not a pure science. However, it can be a useful tool for linking crimes via analogous crime signature aspects, such as unique knots used to bind a victim.

However, put simply there are, as I see it, only three ways of identifying a suspect via substantive evidence: forensic proof, i.e. DNA recovered from the crime scene; reliable witness testimony; or a reliable confession obtained from the suspect. I'm afraid anything short of this amounts to mere speculation.