Inside-Out

[Henry Flower]

Hello everyone, this is my first posting here, having followed debates on the forums for some time. I'm Michael, I'm an artist with a long-standing JTR interest who currently lives and works in the East End.

Trying to make sense of MJK1, I recently photoshopped myself a colourisation of the image, and used Bond's post-mortem report in order to understand what I was seeing. Reading that report, certain things struck me as peculiar or interesting. Bond states that:

The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock.

And also:

The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

What struck me as odd was that this is often described as a 'sex crime', but in fact we see here what might almost be called a disregard for the external genitalia of the poor victim - simply removed as part of a large slice of flesh and heaped on a nearby table - whereas other parts are used almost as treasured props in a theatrical mise-en-scène: liver between the feet; uterus, kidneys and one breast acting as a pillow; another breast down by the right foot; intestine and spleen either side of the torso; the heart 'absent'.

This led me down several meandering and unresolved avenues of thought: are these 'sex crimes' in a normal sense? What are the normal criteria by which investigators classify something as a sex crime? Is sex about surfaces or can it be - even if on an unconscious level - about things such as organs and bloodied meat (in other words - is JTR's pathology a complete deviation from normal male sexuality, or simply a perverted exaggeration of it?)

Skin is the attractive part - the warm, soft, living surface. In Kelly's room, given for once a relatively free hand, JTR seems to want to get rid of as much of it as possible, cut it off, and dump it on the table - so that he can get down to what really fascinates him; the insides. What do other posters think that represents - a disinterest in the surface of the female, or an expression of hatred for the surface of the female? I don't quite know, and I think that the answer may, partly, determine what type of man we are dealing with.

[Addy]

Hi Michael!

Welcome to the forum.

I think that, depending on the type of crime, there are different criteria for naming something a sex crime. Rape is obvious, but murders probably have different criteria.

What you see in the JtR crimes, is that he targets the abdomen and often the uterus. The outer parts, to put it like that, are stabbed. So I don't think that in this case it is about the outside of the female anatomy (I mean the entire body) but more about the inside. And I don't think this is a "typical" sex crimes case, that this would, in every point in time, be an extra ordinary case.

On the criteria etc someone who is a police officer or knows about police procedures will be more helpfull, these are all just my opinions. I hope they help a bit!

Greetings,

Addy

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone, this is my first posting here, having followed debates on the forums for some time. I'm Michael, I'm an artist with a long-standing JTR interest who currently lives and works in the East End.

Trying to make sense of MJK1, I recently photoshopped myself a colourisation of the image, and used Bond's post-mortem report in order to understand what I was seeing. Reading that report, certain things struck me as peculiar or interesting. Bond states that:

The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock.

And also:

The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

What struck me as odd was that this is often described as a 'sex crime', but in fact we see here what might almost be called a disregard for the external genitalia of the poor victim - simply removed as part of a large slice of flesh and heaped on a nearby table - whereas other parts are used almost as treasured props in a theatrical mise-en-scène: liver between the feet; uterus, kidneys and one breast acting as a pillow; another breast down by the right foot; intestine and spleen either side of the torso; the heart 'absent'.

This led me down several meandering and unresolved avenues of thought: are these 'sex crimes' in a normal sense? What are the normal criteria by which investigators classify something as a sex crime? Is sex about surfaces or can it be - even if on an unconscious level - about things such as organs and bloodied meat (in other words - is JTR's pathology a complete deviation from normal male sexuality, or simply a perverted exaggeration of it?)

Skin is the attractive part - the warm, soft, living surface. In Kelly's room, given for once a relatively free hand, JTR seems to want to get rid of as much of it as possible, cut it off, and dump it on the table - so that he can get down to what really fascinates him; the insides. What do other posters think that represents - a disinterest in the surface of the female, or an expression of hatred for the surface of the female? I don't quite know, and I think that the answer may, partly, determine what type of man we are dealing with.

Hi HF
Good questions.
I beleive the ripper had a fascination with the knife and the act of the knife mutilating or "dissecting" a female body. I don't know if it is a "sex crime" but I beleive there was some type of sexual element(in his mind either consciously or subconsciously) involved: Prostitutes targeted, attack ocurring right before a supposed sex act, reproductive organs targeted, face, breasts targeted, trophies taken. Obviously, it seems JtR did not have sex acts per se with the victims, but he did remove trophies, so who knows what he did with them once he was in private. Or, perhaps, he may have been impotant, and was simulating a (revenge?) sex act with the knife.

I think JtR had an intimate and intense feeling about the knife and its part in the act. I believe it was BTK who said after capture that it was all about the rope.

[tnb]

On this (old boards) thread...

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4927/7365.html

...mention is made of Vinceznzo Verzeni, in an 1889 Spanish newspaper article courtesy of Chris Scott. The article itself has some bizarre elements (the womb theory again, virgins?) but the comparison to Verzeni is a good one. He is also mentioned in Richard Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis, from which the quotes below are taken, via Cris Malone, from Verzeni himself at his trial.

'I had an unspeakable delight in strangling women, experiencing during the act erections and real sexual pleasure. It was even a pleasure only to smell female clothing...

I took the clothing and intestines, because of the pleasure it gave me to smell and touch them..it never occurred to me to touch or look at the genitals or such things. It satisfied me to seize the women by the neck and suck their blood. To this very day I am ignorant of how a woman is formed....During the strangling and after it, I pressed myself on the entire body without thinking of one part more than another.'

Clearly here, Verzeni himself considered his acts sexual, but because they do not fit our, knowledgable, definition of such activity, his acts (he strangled them, mutilated their abdomens, made attempts to suck their blood, and also - as if the previous wasn't bizarre enough - removed and stabbed the victims with their own hairpins) would not have appeared so to us, had we not (thanks to his being caught) had his own words to give us a window into his world.

To my unqualified mind, 'Jack' has always appeared a sexually (rather than necessarily biological) immature person, and his acts - even re MJK - represent nothing more or less than a particularly twisted form of sexual experimentation.

[Henry Flower]

Thank you - for your kind indulging of my amateurish questions. Your answers are thought-provoking indeed.

Addy:

I don't think that in this case it is about the outside of the female anatomy (I mean the entire body) but more about the inside.

Yes. And despite that being highly perverted, I suppose it is nevertheless a perversion of normality - in the sense that once a 'normal' male has found a female attractive, you could say that the next thing he wants is to get a part of himself inside the body of that female. Combine that urge with a knife, and rage, resentment, a crippled ego, psychopathic narcissism - or whatever - and you may end up with something like the scene in Miller's Court.

Abby N: all about the rope... I've looked in vain for some psychological exploration of those utterly bizarre photos BTK took of himself bound up and masked, half buried or hanged - some of the most disturbing (and in some strange way comic) images I've ever seen. And for JTR perhaps, you think, all about the knife. The strangulation is perhaps only to subdue them, render them unconscious, before the knife does the killing.

tnb - yes, that clears my thinking a great deal. Sex is not the same thing for any two normal adults - one man thinks there is nothing more sexual than a pair of shoes, another likes dirty underwear, while a third will find nothing sexual in either; so why should a sex crime be any different? Why would I expect to find my idea of sex in the acts of anyone else normal, let alone someone as profoundly warped as whoever butchered poor Mary Jane Kelly?

Your fascinating passages concerning Verzeni say to me that for a mind such as his, 'sex' meant nothing less than being god and master of the entire female - body and soul, inside and out. Perhaps something similar is being seen in Millers Court, and perhaps it is, as you say, the vicious rage-driven work of a man who is sexually and emotionally immature. Immaturity is something I've always ascribed to certain killers - Bundy biting nipples nearly clean off, for instance. And I think it may indeed be a significant part of the equation here too.

***

One final thing: I've often heard Mary's arm wounds being described as classic defensive wounds, with the implication that she was conscious when attacked with the knife. I'm not so sure. If she raised her arms to shield herself from assault, (try it with your own arms), wouldn't the parts we see cut on the photo actually be shielded? If she raises her arms in defence, would it not be the underside of her forearms that would be exposed to attack? I might be entirely wrong there, it's just a thought.

[Abby Normal]

On this (old boards) thread...

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4927/7365.html

...mention is made of Vinceznzo Verzeni, in an 1889 Spanish newspaper article courtesy of Chris Scott. The article itself has some bizarre elements (the womb theory again, virgins?) but the comparison to Verzeni is a good one. He is also mentioned in Richard Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis, from which the quotes below are taken, via Cris Malone, from Verzeni himself at his trial.

'I had an unspeakable delight in strangling women, experiencing during the act erections and real sexual pleasure. It was even a pleasure only to smell female clothing...

I took the clothing and intestines, because of the pleasure it gave me to smell and touch them..it never occurred to me to touch or look at the genitals or such things. It satisfied me to seize the women by the neck and suck their blood. To this very day I am ignorant of how a woman is formed....During the strangling and after it, I pressed myself on the entire body without thinking of one part more than another.'

Clearly here, Verzeni himself considered his acts sexual, but because they do not fit our, knowledgable, definition of such activity, his acts (he strangled them, mutilated their abdomens, made attempts to suck their blood, and also - as if the previous wasn't bizarre enough - removed and stabbed the victims with their own hairpins) would not have appeared so to us, had we not (thanks to his being caught) had his own words to give us a window into his world.

To my unqualified mind, 'Jack' has always appeared a sexually (rather than necessarily biological) immature person, and his acts - even re MJK - represent nothing more or less than a particularly twisted form of sexual experimentation.

Good post and I agree. i think this example is good for comparison to JtR and gives insight into his possible pychology and motive for his crimes.

[Defective Detective]

Have any of you considered the possibility that, with MJK at least, the title of this thread may be literally accurate? That the goal, such as it were, was to actually turn her inside how in a very real sense?

[Henry Flower]

Def.Det. - Yes, that's why I titled it that. I was puzzled as to what getting her insides out had to do with 'sex', but I guess I was thinking rather too literally. I can't second-guess the sexual urges of a man who gets livers out to look at and play with...

[corey123]

Considered it-yes, believe it-no.

[Chava]

I've always thought of it as a sex crime, and that the Ripper's knife was some kind of a surrogate penis. It seems to me likely that he was impotent and took his anger about this out on women. The crimes are sexual in nature in that he always seems to go after the generative organs and that seems to be his main focus. Although when he has a little more time he moves on to other parts of the body.

Henry, I do have a more extended theory about this which I've already written on here and don't want to bore other people with again. So if you're interested in that, please message me I'll message you back and explain it.

[corey123]

I agree with Chava,

This crime speaks sexuality. No he wasn't trying to kill to turn her inside out, what would be the point? This was a sexual act. For the pleasure of the killer only, by both sexual means and the knowledge of her presentation. Gratification through sexual measures and through power over the victim. There were defensive wounds on her arm, perhaps this increased his rage, causing the facial wounds?

Just a thought.

Welcome to the boards Henry.

[sleekviper]

Honestly, I think this is vengeance, an all out shredding of a society. If this fulfilled a sexual desire, he would abduct after testing and getting away with kill one, but he is doing surprise and shock to maximum sensory overload. This guy is at work, and he does not allow emotion or desire to come into play. He is not hiding with his sinister fetish, it is all on display from start to finish. His is a short cycle, his displays are not going to be something he can do for long before being caught, so this is not looking as a long term sexual drive, but a short fear ride that a city, and nation, will never forget. We have no idea how good this guy really is, whatever time that he has is enough to do what he needs, survey the area, take his knife, and disappear into the darkness. Inside out was his victims, and millions of people in 1888, and I think that was his goal.

[Henry Flower]

corey123 - thank you for your welcome.
sleekviper - I think I understand what you're saying, but it's impossible not to be slightly disturbed by your choice of vocabulary! How good this guy really is!? Well, there's a strange word to choose! hehe. But even in terms of what I think you mean, I see him more as opportunistic and lucky. I think there is a strong likelihood that he was witnessed by several people with Eddowes, and perhaps on other occasions too. I would guess that like many serial killers he had a tremendous degree of self-confidence, certainly, and he evidently had no qualms about committing rather involving crimes in confined spaces - a back yard or a small room with a single exit in a narrow court - where he might easily have found himself trapped if discovered; and I used to believe, as you seem to, that these facts pointed to his being some kind of genius at what he was doing. But now I think he was simply opportunistic, and lucky.

[Henry Flower]

Chava - I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this, but don't know how to message you personally. Sorry - I am one dumb newbie.

[sleekviper]

Hello Henry,
It is hard to place what he does in a way that reflects the negative actions that he takes, without sounding slightly bent, lol. In an area where someone is moving around constantly, whether the police, or someone with no where else to go, or someone doing chores, a man can walk passed them, kill in the dark, and carve a body pretty much as he pleases, without being seen. Once would be lucky, but multiple times has a method of skill involved. If I were to go out, play a guy in darts or pool, and he wins saying he must be lucky, I can buy that, but he creams me 5 straight times, that luck is coming into question as a hustle.