where do you stand?

[curious4]

Pain and pleasure

Hi C4,

Sadism does not apply exclusively to the torture of living victims. A necrosadist, for instance, is someone who derives sexual pleasure from the mutilation of the dead.



Almost certainly done to prevent noise rather than pain.

All the best,
Ben

No, sorry Ben, every dictionary I have consulted gives the definition of sadism as sexual pleasure derived from inflicting pain on others. If one is mutilating dead bodies, one is damaging oneself more than inflicting pain on another.

Where I am with you is in agreeing that there is definitely a degree of disturbed/exploratory behaviour.

Jack didn't need to strangle his victims first to quiet them. Cutting quickly and deeply through their throats with a hand over their mouth would effectively silence them.

Best wishes,
C4

[RivkahChaya]

Why a kosher butcher, BTW? didn't all butchers slit the throats of animals back then?

Rumbelow does not agree with Odell that the shochet ALONE meets all the criteria and reports that the City police gave a set of shochet knives to a surgeon. They were ruled out as "Jack's" weapon because they have curved ends.

True, that. The pointed ends of knives with the potential for nicking either the intestines of the animal, or the skin of the shecter, could render a whole animal unkosher. Something a shecter had to worry about, which I'm pretty sure didn't trouble the gentile slaughtermen much, was accidentally getting a drop of their own blood on the meat, or on the knife. If the knife itself accidentally cut into something treyf, then the knife had to be put aside. I am not a kosher butcher, and I don't know much about it as a trade, but I know about kosher cooking, so I'm presuming that the shecter could kasher his knife by thoroughly cleaning it, then pouring boiling water over it, but he wouldn't stop to do it in the moment-- he'd use another knife, and kasher the treyf one at the end of the day.

Can't agree with you that Jack was a sadist. In fact he went to some lengths to avoid too much pain to his victims, first throttling them until they passed out - ok that's not so nice - and then quickly cutting their throats thus ensuring a quick death. The mutilations were inflicted after the victims were dead. Sadistic implies deliberate and prolonged torture, which Jack almost certainly wasn't guilty of.

We can't know for certain, of course, but I'm inclined to think that JTR was more inclined to play with dead bodies, than enjoy making people suffer.

Jeffrey Dahmer once said in an interview (which I think in online on TruTV's website) that he really didn't like killing people, and if there were some way to get bodies without killing, he would have been happier with that. He tried mannikins, and other substitutes, but those didn't "do it" for him. He kept bodies refrigerated, or on ice, to make them last as long as possible, and even tried some home embalming. He attempted on a couple of occasions, drilling into the skulls of living, but heavily drugged, victims, hoping to create compliant zombies (or Stepford boyfriends, if you will) with a little amateur lobotomy. I'm not asserting that JTR felt the same way, just that he could have had similar inclinations, because we have at least one definite example.

Although, there is the possibility that the throat was cut in order to stop the heart. Mutilation of the abdominal region would not have so much blood splatter. Those parts were important to him, but getting caught with blood all over himself would definite impede a good get-away.

A stab to the abdomen of a living person, which happened to hit the aorta (which goes all the way down to your navel, then splits into the iliac arteries) would result in an enormous, pulsating spray of blood that would soak the assailant as soon as he pulled out the knife. Nevermind the fact that the victim would probably manage one really hideous scream before she passed out from hypoxia.

Brownwell said that he had smelt the stomach contents for alcohol! That would mean that he used his nose. Even today, the Scottish distilleries actually have experts who do not resort to cheap things like gas chromatograhy to establish the quality of the booze - they smell it instead!
And maybe that was what Bond did too - it was he who stated that there was whisky about in her stomach.

I am impressed that he can differentiate whiskey from, say, gin, even after it has been mixed with hydrochloric acid.

[lynn cates]

Who nose?

Hello Christer.

"Scottish distilleries actually have experts who do not resort to cheap things like gas chromatograhy to establish the quality of the booze - they smell it instead!"

Aye. You can nae fool a Scots laddie's nose.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

No, sorry Ben, every dictionary I have consulted gives the definition of sadism as sexual pleasure derived from inflicting pain on others. If one is mutilating dead bodies, one is damaging oneself more than inflicting pain on another.

With respect, C4, it's not really up for debate.

The term sadism irrefutably encompasses post-mortem mutilation, and necrosadism is an accepted medical definition:

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=58953

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necrosadism

All the best,
Ben

[mklhawley]

A stab to the abdomen of a living person, which happened to hit the aorta (which goes all the way down to your navel, then splits into the iliac arteries) would result in an enormous, pulsating spray of blood that would soak the assailant as soon as he pulled out the knife. Nevermind the fact that the victim would probably manage one really hideous scream before she passed out from hypoxia.

I think you misunderstood my point RivkahChaya. The reason for cutting the throat was to kill, and since the heart was no longer pumping, there would be no pulsating and no splatter.

The reason for the throat cut was to NOT get blood on themselves while doing business in the abdominal region.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Fisherman]

I am impressed that he can differentiate whiskey from, say, gin, even after it has been mixed with hydrochloric acid.

Yeah? Myself, I´m more like apalled.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"Scottish distilleries actually have experts who do not resort to cheap things like gas chromatograhy to establish the quality of the booze - they smell it instead!"

Aye. You can nae fool a Scots laddie's nose.

Cheers.
LC

True enough, Lynn. I actually discovered this when visiting Grant´s distillery. Me and my wife were very nearly thrown out from there, since my wife asked very many very technical questions, and we were thought to be industrial spies - until we were able to explain that my wife is a microbiologist who did her PhD on making alcohol from organic matter like willow tree.
Once that was established, it went from uncomfortable to tasty in no time at all. Wee drams an´all that!

But back on track ...

Fisherman

[curious4]

With respect, C4, it's not really up for debate.

The term sadism irrefutably encompasses post-mortem mutilation, and necrosadism is an accepted medical definition:

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=58953

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necrosadism

All the best,
Ben

Ok Ben, I give up in the face of the evidence. Wee bit out of my area of expertise. Always a pleasure to learn something new.

All good wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

On the contrary - the image of the "toff" was surely the imposition?

Phil, as an example, take Kelly's murder. Have you counted how many well-dressed men were seen in her company from Thursday night through to Friday morning? There are two reports Thursday, then this Britannia-man and Astrachan, not forgetting the man seen by Bowyer on Wednesday night in the court, talking to Kelly. Then again another one Friday morning.
It's like they were coming out of the woodwork!

How many 'dossers' was Kelly seen with?

Look at Stride, the man she was with at the Bricklayer's Arms, then three witnesses in Berner St. all describe a well-dressed man, the exception was Schwartz, but thats like 4-1 in favor of my argument.

And then Chapman, the witness Thimbleby saw a 'well-dressed' man running from the scene.

No-one saw a man in tophat & tails, what I'm talking about would perhaps be regarded as lower middle class to upper working class. These are not toffs in my estimation.

The reversion to looking for a local man, I believe, reflected not only a deeper study of what Anderson had written,

Right, ...hindsight is always 20/20, you should look at what Anderson wrote at the time of the murders, not 20 yrs later

"They had not a clue"! (Ref: Anderson & Swanson, Oct. 1888)

I would point out that the VAST majority of the suspects questioned or considered by the police in the period were working class..... I'm with the people!!!

Thats funny Phil, I mean, its really amusing to see someone throw their support behind an investigation that failed to come up with the goods, all the while claiming they were on the right track

Your position might be justified, if they'd have caught him!!!



All the best, Jon S.

[Phil H]

OK Jon, humour apart:

as an example, take Kelly's murder. Have you counted how many well-dressed men were seen in her company from Thursday night through to Friday morning? There are two reports Thursday, then this Britannia-man and Astrachan, not forgetting the man seen by Bowyer on Wednesday night in the court, talking to Kelly. Then again another one Friday morning.
It's like they were coming out of the woodwork!

They could be construed as perceptual, of course. Anyonr reasonably well-dressed might see hoity-toity to a working class denizen of Dorset St!! How would a prosperous man like McCarthy have been perceived by them - no doubt something like astrakhan man???

How many 'dossers' was Kelly seen with?

Blotchy might well have been; Dan Barnett??

Look at Stride, the man she was with at the Bricklayer's Arms, then three witnesses in Berner St. all describe a well-dressed man, the exception was Schwartz, but thats like 4-1 in favor of my argument.

I have the impression that Strides's "beau" was a clerk.

And then Chapman, the witness Thimbleby saw a 'well-dressed' man running from the scene.

Well-dressed compared to what and what does it mean?? And i am supposed to be impressed?

No-one saw a man in tophat & tails, what I'm talking about would perhaps be regarded as lower middle class to upper working class. These are not toffs in my estimation.

But neither are they the killer in mine.

The reversion to looking for a local man, I believe, reflected not only a deeper study of what Anderson had written,

Right, ...hindsight is always 20/20, you should look at what Anderson wrote at the time of the murders, not 20 yrs later

I think you'll find I was referring to writers about JtR in the 1980s, and discussing the historiography of the case, not the validity of police opinions.

the VAST majority of the suspects questioned or considered by the police in the period were working class

I stick by my statement.

Thats funny Phil, I mean, its really amusing to see someone throw their support behind an investigation that failed to come up with the goods, all the while claiming they were on the right track

So how do you KNOW Anderson and Swanson were NOT correct??

Phil

[Fisherman]

Look at Stride, the man she was with at the Bricklayer's Arms, then three witnesses in Berner St. all describe a well-dressed man, the exception was Schwartz, but thats like 4-1 in favor of my argument.

Or 5-0, Jon - for in the Star interview, Schwartz said that the man he saw was respectably dressed..!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Och!

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"it went from uncomfortable to tasty in no time at all"

Do you mean a freebie? In Scotland? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

They could be construed as perceptual, of course. Anyonr reasonably well-dressed might see hoity-toity to a working class denizen of Dorset St!!
.
.
I have the impression that Strides's "beau" was a clerk.
.
.
Well-dressed compared to what and what does it mean?? And i am supposed to be impressed?

Exactly, compared to what?
Whether you see a clerk, a small business owner, or a man who just takes care of himself is immaterial, these descriptions do not justify labeling them as Toffs.
And that distinction is all I have been attempting to highlite.

So, a local man, yes.
Respectably dressed, yes.
Some anatomical knowledge, yes.
Ability with a knife, yes.
Adept at strangulation, yes.

So how do you KNOW Anderson and Swanson were NOT correct??

How do you mean, after the fact?
That 20 years later they may have been right?

How could anyone know, including themselves.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Or 5-0, Jon - for in the Star interview, Schwartz said that the man he saw was respectably dressed..!

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks Christer, I missed that

[Michael W Richards]

Good thread question....where do you stand?

I would think, based on what Ive learned from many members here over the years is that it would be best to stand close to the bar and to the exit.

1. There were and are no legitimate suspects for a Jack the Ripper, the killer of 5 women in London in the Fall of 1888.
2. The first 2 victims were killed by someone who was later nicknamed Jack in a letter, around a month later. So that killer is technically the "Ripper". Although I suspect a far less productive one than has been thought for all these years.
3. Isenschmid is one possibility...the key here is it must be someone who could NOT have continued killing after the second murder. Because the killer of Polly and Annie would have killed more if still at large. Jewish immigrant, Butcher, local, had skill set, knowledge, mental illness, institutionalized after the second murder.....even sent to an institution mentioned as holding "the" ripper suspect. Jacob is a real possibility. Thanks Mr Cates.
4. The Lusk Letter and package.

Cheers all