Punishment

[David Orsam]

Hello David, yes it does, but I've misgivings as to the provenance of the Diary.

The provenance is, indeed, terrible but the motive could apply to any cuckolded husband.

[wigngown]

Hello David, yes it does, but I've misgivings as to the provenance of the Diary. Bruce Robinson named Michael Maybrick (the brother of James) as the killer. I feel sorry for the Maybrick descendants! Best regards.

[David Orsam]

Hello Pierre, the Killer may have been wronged by a woman in the past, or was still being wronged by her when he murdered those women. He didn't kill the object of his rage because he was perhaps unable to, for whatever reason. Many factors could have triggered this rage he felt. Certainly, the mutilations would indicate some deep set hatred but I've always believed that the victims were a means for him to vent his anger as opposed to them being the sole object of it. I've always thought that he enjoyed his notoriety, he enjoyed creating a sense of fear, in addition to making the Police look impotent. Just my thoughts. Best regards.

This reminds me of the motive set out in The Diary of Jack the Ripper in which the author (supposedly James Maybrick) makes clear that, in his own mind, he is murdering his adulterous wife, Florence, each time he kills a prostitute.

[wigngown]

Hello Pierre, the Killer may have been wronged by a woman in the past, or was still being wronged by her when he murdered those women. He didn't kill the object of his rage because he was perhaps unable to, for whatever reason. Many factors could have triggered this rage he felt. Certainly, the mutilations would indicate some deep set hatred but I've always believed that the victims were a means for him to vent his anger as opposed to them being the sole object of it. I've always thought that he enjoyed his notoriety, he enjoyed creating a sense of fear, in addition to making the Police look impotent. Just my thoughts. Best regards.

[David Orsam]

Not to mention that you can not let other people say what they think without trying to interfere.

I think you will find that wigngown said exactly what wingdown wanted to say and then I responded to wigngown.

I appreciate you might not have liked my response but your posts do seem to regularly contain factual inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings of the evidence, as we saw recently in the pawn tickets thread, in the writing on the wall thread and now in this thread.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=wigngown;373606]Hello Pierre,
As always your posts proffer much food for thought. We can only guess as to what was on the killers mind.

I've always been of the opinion that the Killer was, in his own mind, murdering the same person over and over again.

Hi,

I think that was a very interesting thought. Could you please elaborate a little on it?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Not to mention factual inaccuracies.

Not to mention that you can not let other people say what they think without trying to interfere.

[Pierre]

OK, so we correct some details.

[David Orsam]

Hello Pierre,
As always your posts proffer much food for thought.

Not to mention factual inaccuracies.

[wigngown]

Hello Pierre,
As always your posts proffer much food for thought. We can only guess as to what was on the killers mind. I've always been of the opinion that the Killer was, in his own mind, murdering the same person over and over again. Those poor women were an easy target for him. The mutilations were carried to vent his anger and designed to shock & create a high sense of panic. I think he achieved what he set out to do. The fact that the Police were unable to catch him and bring him to trial thus making the Police look incompetent was an added bonus to him. Best regards.

[David Orsam]

A) In England disembowelling was used as a punishment for high treason, it was a sentence of the law. An example of that is to be found as late as in 1803 (Aberdeen Journal Wednesday 16 February, p. 2). There are probably even later cases.

Disembowelling as a part of a punishment called ”hanging, drawing and quartering” was abolished in England in 1870, only 18 years before the Ripper murders.

Hi Pierre,

Your history as gone wrong I'm afraid. Disembowelling formerly came to an end as a punishment for treason under the Treason Act of 1814. In the case you cite, from 1803 (of Colonel Despard and others), the disembowelling part of the punishment was remitted and the prisoners were hung until dead before being beheaded (see the Times of 22 February 1803).

What happened in 1870 was not the abolishment of disembowelling (which had already been abolished) but, under the Forfeiture Act, the abolishment of the practice of drawing the person on a hurdle to the place of execution and, after execution, the severing of the head from the body and the dividing of the body into four quarters.

[Pierre]

Jack the Ripper disembowelled nearly all his victims.

If we refrain from just trying to explain this with the idea that "he was mad” which says nothing about him, since we could look upon any serial killer and think he is mad, even when he is found totally sane, and try to understand the act of disembowelling in a couple of contexts as an act of punishment, where could this take us?

I give two examples here, both which include disembowelling among other things also performed by Jack the Ripper, one from an institutionalized ritual in the British legal system, and one from an institutionalized ritual in a family system.

A) In England disembowelling was used as a punishment for high treason, it was a sentence of the law. An example of that is to be found as late as in 1803 (Aberdeen Journal Wednesday 16 February, p. 2). There are probably even later cases.

Disembowelling as a part of a punishment called ”hanging, drawing and quartering” was abolished in England in 1870, only 18 years before the Ripper murders.

It had been used as a punishment since the 13th Century and could also include the burning of entrails.

“As part of the disembowelment, the criminal was also typically emasculated and his genitals and entrails would be burned.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disembowelment

The body of the criminals was also cut into pieces. Their remains were displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged..._and_quartered)

B) 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.

So what are the similarities between the Ripper murders and the acts containing disembowelling as a type of punishment?

In the case of the punishment of the legal system, we could find some similarities like:

1. the hanging of the criminal / the strangling of the victim
2. beheading the criminal / cutting he throat of the victim (in some cases down to the bone, nearly
severing the head)
3. disembowelling, often cutting out genitals / disembowelling, sometimes cutting out genitals
4. putting the criminals on display / leaving the victims visible outdoors or visible from a window
5. burning of entrails / only one possible indication: burning entrails in the room of Kelly
6. further mutilations / further mutilations (face / ears / etc)

In the case of the punishment of the family system, we could find some similarities like:

1 beheading the victim / cutting he throat of the victim (in some cases down to the bone, nearly severing the head)
2 disembowelling, often cutting out genitals / disembowelling, sometimes cutting out genitals
3 leaving the victims outdoors, visible, on display / leaving the victims visible outdoors, on display, or visible from a window
4 victims had no clothes / victims partially not covered with clothes
5 further mutilations / further mutilations (face / ears / etc)

So, the questions I would like to pose is:

Are there reasons to think that this serial killer wanted to punish women?

What does indicate this, and what doesn`t?

Regards, Pierre