Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[The Good Michael]

When Manson gets involved it becomes about ego. But the Tate murders were something other. Very Jim Jones-y. At least for those that drank the kool-aid voluntarily.

There is something absolutely surreal about the testimony of the women. When I read it, it felt like a combination of affection for the victims and an eagerness to do the killing. I read this with a lump in my throat and a little sweat on my brow. I felt I was entering a realm from which there was no return.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

He wouldn't have had too, necessarily. There were others ways this stuff got into circulation. If there's a market for anything, there will be a supplier. Sex has always sold well. There were more explicit photographs in circulation at the time, but difficult to obtain. The legal illustrated publications were much easier to duplicate and distribute.

Makes you wonder exactly what Tumblety was selling as a young man that was called pornography.


Mike

[Errata]

Considering where these women were found, considering the pose, legs apart, abdomen emptied, organs around the body, intestines over the shoulder, some with features slashed.
These women were on display, everything calculated to disturb the viewer, shock and awe!

Perhaps this killer did not hate these women at all. He needed a 'canvas' and they were cheap & plentyfull, his contention was with the establishment.

Do we have a killer's who's primary intent was to challenge and disturb the authorities?

And he can do this whenever & wherever he likes, right under your noses!

Regards, Jon S.

Zodiac was certainly equally as interested in press as in murder...

But I think the best fit I can think of is Tex Watson. The Tate murders, which occurred without any influence from Charles Manson were pretty politically motivated. Very anti-establishment, anti-wealth, anti-authority. Everything was staged for maximum impact, from the bodies to the writing in blood. It didn't matter who was in that house, it was what was in that house, and that was rich people.

When Manson gets involved it becomes about ego. But the Tate murders were something other. Very Jim Jones-y. At least for those that drank the kool-aid voluntarily.

But for artistic serial killers, you can't really ask for more than the Dali murders in Perpignan.

[Wickerman]

Hello David.

"Which kind, though? Necrophilia, necro-sadism, etc have been suggested. None really fits."

Precisely. Conclusion?

Cheers.
LC

Considering where these women were found, considering the pose, legs apart, abdomen emptied, organs around the body, intestines over the shoulder, some with features slashed.
These women were on display, everything calculated to disturb the viewer, shock and awe!

Perhaps this killer did not hate these women at all. He needed a 'canvas' and they were cheap & plentyfull, his contention was with the establishment.

Do we have a killer's who's primary intent was to challenge and disturb the authorities?

And he can do this whenever & wherever he likes, right under your noses!

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

point

Hello David. Well, I agree that nothing fits. And that is my whole point.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I'm trying to picture a "Bill Sikes" at the Whitechapel Library......its a struggle...

He wouldn't have had too, necessarily. There were others ways this stuff got into circulation. If there's a market for anything, there will be a supplier. Sex has always sold well. There were more explicit photographs in circulation at the time, but difficult to obtain. The legal illustrated publications were much easier to duplicate and distribute.

I think Phillips may have been referring to method because only he can compare the methodology in both case, something that we do not see in print.
I do not see anything that we could identify as a difference in ability because there were so many variables between the two killings, location, time of day, light-dark, etc. We can hardly expect two organs to be removed in exactly the same manner.

That's a valid point, Jon... and fits into Bagster Phillips' character. He did not feel the need to consider the variables; that was for others to determine as far as he was concerned. He was, in every sense of the word a 'company man' and a strict profesional... and because he shunned interviews by the press, he was often misconstrued and even surreptitiously paraphrased.

However, he did give an opinion on, not just the method, but the attributes of Annie Chapman's murderer. What he saw, in a practical sense, was that the murderer exercised care in avoiding the rectum and inflicting damage to the cervix, with such skill- as the Lancet stated- 'as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife...'. I can see a man like him being impressed with that and not be impressed with all of the cutting and probing done to the same area of Kate Eddowes. But, he didn't consider why the intestines were removed. That wasn't necessary to obtain what was taken. And what appeared as a skilled maneuverer to remove the pelvic organs can readily be explained otherwise if the description in the Lancet is correct.

Maybe there was something else that he noted that we don't know. All we have left with any detail is that one paragraph from the Sept. 29 Lancet article. If that's the case, then George Bagster Phillips went to his grave only knowing that.

[Errata]

Thanks Caz, Abby and Errata.


In general terms, Dave, a paraphiliac is an individual given to extreme sexual deviancy. Necrophilia is certainly one of the paraphilias, though foot-fetishism is unlikely to be considered as such unless the fetishist resorts to the kind of behaviours liable to result in distress or harm to others.

Actually it has nothing to do with deviancy. Or any degree of it. Fetishism is normal. Paraphilias are simply anything sexually oriented that cause a problem in the sufferer's life, or the inability to function. So if someone likes tying someone up now and again, no problem. When they can no longer function sexually without it, that's a problem. Masturbation can be a paraphilia. Missionary style sex with one's wife can be a paraphilia. It's about dysfunction and disruption.

Certain acts can only be paraphilias due to the nature of the acts. They are illegal, or life threatening. The four guaranteed paraphilias in the Western world are necrophilia, pedophilia, frotteurism, and snuff. There is no way to legally or consensually engage in these acts. Now there are some extremely weird fetishes out there. Sexual gratification from receiving an amputation for example, or the whole Furry thing. And there are quite a few of them that are extremely difficult to engage in legally and consensually, but it is possible. But as long as it is not disrupting a person's life, causing sexual or social dysfunction, or illegal, it isn't a paraphilia.

The reason I think it applies to this case is not due to any specific fetish that Jack might have had. It almost doesn't matter what the fetish was. It's the dysfunction that was caused. Perhaps an inability to engage in healthy sexual behavior, keeping him celibate until he could act out his fantasies. With cases like that, it is not unusual for there to be an explosive escape from self-denial. The legalization of homosexuality and the advent of the AIDS crisis is a perfect example. When people were finally free to indulge their sexual needs, years of repression caused an explosion that decimated the homosexual population because of some unheard disease showing up at the same time.

By the way, the most uncomfortable Abnormal Psych oral presentation ever. Ever. Especially when one of them is your boyfriend. Just saying.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks Caz, Abby and Errata.

As for paraphilia, I find it merely a modern synonym of "perversion" (a necrophiliac and, let's say, a foot-fetichist are both paraphiliac, right ?).

In general terms, Dave, a paraphiliac is an individual given to extreme sexual deviancy. Necrophilia is certainly one of the paraphilias, though foot-fetishism is unlikely to be considered as such unless the fetishist resorts to the kind of behaviours liable to result in distress or harm to others.

[Wickerman]

Hi All,
Surely one can only ascertain the minimum knowledge/experience/skill levels of a killer from what he has done to his victims' bodies - never the maximum. One can say that a specific skill was or was not displayed, but not that the killer possessed no such skill, since there could be many (some pretty obvious) reasons for him being temporarily unwilling or unable to use it.
.
.
Whatever this killer did, he had the skill to do - obviously. But we cannot know what else he may have been capable of, or what he could have done better, if he had had more time, more light, or simply the inclination to show off to the best of his ability. ..

Very clearly put Caz thankyou. There are those on here who expect to see a clear resume in the wounds & mutilations, but as you (& myself) say the best we can determine is a possible minimum indication of his ability, due to time, light, surroundings, etc. All the medical opinions voiced in connection with these murders are aimed at this basic premiss.
Even in a legitimate medical operation at hospital the "work" of the surgeon only indicates the minimum of his abilities.

Caz is right on the money here. It could have been anybody who 'at least' knew the position of the organs'. He could have been a medical student, a butcher...or... consider the targeting of the female characteristics, he could have been someone on the lowest rung of society with an infatuation with the female body; had found books to study;....

I'm trying to picture a "Bill Sikes" at the Whitechapel Library......its a struggle..

...tell me, what certain skill, knowledge, or whatever you want to call it, did the murderer of Annie Chapman display that was not shown in the Eddowes murder?...

I think Phillips may have been referring to method because only he can compare the methodology in both case, something that we do not see in print.
I do not see anything that we could identify as a difference in ability because there were so many variables between the two killings, location, time of day, light-dark, etc. We can hardly expect two organs to be removed in exactly the same manner.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Point taken, Abby.
So let's agree he had the anatomical knowledge of a young tosser.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly




Exactly again.



You are right on the money again. That Chapman's killer avoided the rectum and left the cervix intact may be by accident rather than design. He basically just cut out a chunk and took what was in it and left what was behind.



You're on a roll! As I said in a previous post, this was an entirely different realm for everyone involved. Each subsequent murder left more specific clues. The murderer did target the uterus and knew where it was. It would be remarkable that this was mere happenstance on three occasions. But his method only shows that to be the case and nothing more. He acquired the knowledge somehow because he was interested in it. Medical books that displayed anatomical diagrams and even volumes such as Krafft-Ebing's very recent offering, were picked up by male adolescents and young men as a form of pornography. even amongst the lower classes.

A curiosity is naturally going to result in exploration. For most young males, this natural tendency is more innocuous and part of the normal attraction developing for the opposite sex and it involves much fantasizing (yea, I remember them days). It insures the procreation of the species. Here, however- for whatever reason- it turned into some kind of aberration that went even farther and was acted out in morbid reality. The medicos didn't understand this at first, because it had never been seen by them before ( at least in a repetitive fashion.) You have to understand who Bagster Phillips was, but I doubt he ever came to any conclusion outside of the physical evidence itself. It was up to the detectives, as far as he was concerned, to make conclusions on the evidence in its entirity.

That's why Thomas Bond was eventually called in because he was considered to have credentials in criminal psychology as well as forensic experience, whether some of us now, agree with his assessment or not.

Hi Hunter

Medical books that displayed anatomical diagrams and even volumes such as Krafft-Ebing's very recent offering, were picked up by male adolescents and young men as a form of pornography. even amongst the lower classes.

Thats what I was thinking also re the fascination with the female body and getting a hold of a medical book. perhaps he also indulged (practiced) his fantasies on animals before making the leap to humans.

[DVV]

Precisely. Conclusion?
Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, he was mad (in the popular sense), but could somewhat behave in 1888. That's all I know.

[lynn cates]

Laing and Szasz

Hello Michael. Interesting. You may wish to have a go at Laing and Szasz. They might be your allies.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

conclusion

Hello David.

"Which kind, though? Necrophilia, necro-sadism, etc have been suggested. None really fits."

Precisely. Conclusion?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

normal

Hello Malcolm. Normal? Maybe not. Likely schizophrenic.

Cheers.
LC