How to sort the Ripper

[FrankO]

It would be nice if I had more than a single point of reference, but it's really all I have at the moment.

You may want to have a look at William MacDonald, Errata. He killed derelict men and cut off their private parts in the early sixties in Sydney, Australia:

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/macdonald-william.htm

All the best,
Frank

[John G]

I'm going to straight up admit that I am getting tunnel vision. And I might be seeing connections that aren't really there. So I would appreciate it if a couple of you guys would look at Soto's little summation.

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/soto-erno.htm

It's not pleasant, I will warn you. He killed kids, and that just makes everything he did worse. But if you could, just read it, think about in terms of comparing it to the Ripper. I'd feel better if I knew other people could see what I see, even if they disagree that he has potential to be used as an analog.

I'm trying to orient myself at the moment, and it would be nice to know whether or not I'm on some path. It doesn't even need to be the right one, just some logical progression other people can see. Because if not I really need to turn the ship around. It would be nice if I had more than a single point of reference, but it's really all I have at the moment.

Hi Errata,

Yes, I agree with Abby, as there are clearly similarities between the two killers, i.e. mutilation, removal of body parts, no attempt to hide the body or disguise the identity of the victim.

Soto's crimes also appear to be sexually motivated, as evidenced by the fact that several victims were sexually mutilated (although Soto claimed that he had received divine instructions to convert little boys into little girls.) However, do you agree with Keppel's assessment that JtR's "signature is organized around the sexualized violence committed against his victims."? (Keppel et al. 2005) Of course, much of this analysis appears to be predicated on the assumption that JtR was a picquerist which, as discussed on other threads, is a somewhat controversial condition.

Keppel also argues that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were "stabbed repeatedly in the genital area, but might this have been simply incidental given the number of wounds inflicted, and the poor lighting conditions that the killer was operating under?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Errata,

Yes, I agree with Abby, as there are clearly similarities between the two killers, i.e. mutilation, removal of body parts, no attempt to hide the body or disguise the identity of the victim.

Soto's crimes also appear to be sexually motivated, as evidenced by the fact that several victims were sexually mutilated (although Soto claimed that he had received divine instructions to convert little boys into little girls.) However, do you agree with Keppel's assessment that JtR's "signature is organized around the sexualized violence committed against his victims."? (Keppel et al. 2005) Of course, much of this analysis appears to be predicated on the assumption that JtR was a picquerist which, as discussed on other threads, is a somewhat controversial condition.

Keppel also argues that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were "stabbed repeatedly in the genital area, but might this have been simply incidental given the number of wounds inflicted, and the poor lighting conditions that the killer was operating under?

Hi johnG
That seems to be the big question. How much of his crimes had a sexual component?

. I think in the rippers case there is sexual motivation.

Not so sure about soto. Yes he targeted the sexual organ, but I guess a big question would be was soto homosexual? If he was then I would ascribe a more possible sexual motivation because as we now, in lust murders, the killer usually only targets the object of there sexual attraction.


Errata
Was there any evidence soto was a homosexual?

[Pierre]

I'm going to straight up admit that I am getting tunnel vision. And I might be seeing connections that aren't really there. So I would appreciate it if a couple of you guys would look at Soto's little summation.

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/soto-erno.htm

It's not pleasant, I will warn you. He killed kids, and that just makes everything he did worse. But if you could, just read it, think about in terms of comparing it to the Ripper.

Hi,

Not meaningful to compare this killer to Jack the Ripper, who killed prostitutes and not children. The population of prostitutes is very diferent from any population of children. If Jack the Ripper would have wanted to, he could have chosen kids. But he did not. He chose prostitutes.

Regards, Pierre

[Harry D]

But this wasn't about "punishing whores". Too general. Leaves too much unspecified. I mean, how do you know when you're done? And it wasn't about sex. Again, too general. Not that these things didn't float through his head, but it wasn't the driving factor. This was mostly about something very specific, like getting the uterus. And that kind of single mindedness where a person just walks away after doing it really suggests some kind of command. There was a command in his mind that he had to do this specific thing. Once accomplished, murder done, walk away.

Hello, Errata.

How would you reconcile this with the facial mutilations to Eddowes and Kelly? The common explanations are that the killer's violence was escalating or that he had some kind of personal connection to the victims. It is interesting that with the previous murders, the killer was much more clinical, he focused on the abdominal area and left the rest of the body relatively unspoiled, which would support the idea that he was only interested in the trophy organs. Eddowes and Kelly appear to blow this theory out of the water.

[John G]

Hi,

Not meaningful to compare this killer to Jack the Ripper, who killed prostitutes and not children. The population of prostitutes is very diferent from any population of children. If Jack the Ripper would have wanted to, he could have chosen kids. But he did not. He chose prostitutes.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

On what basis do you conclude that JtR chose prostitutes? It seems to me that there is no conclusive proof that all of the victims were soliciting on the night they were killed. Moreover, even if they were, he may simply have selected them because they were easy targets, i.e. unaccompanied women-out late at night, or the early hours of the morning-who were prepared to go with him to darkened, or partially secluded, areas.

[John G]

One difficulty with Erno Soto is that he was never convicted of murder, as he was considered unfit to plead. Moreover, he only confessed to one of the murders and a survivor failed to make a positive identification.

Nonetheless, the police seemed to believe he was the perpetrator, on the grounds that the murders abruptly stopped following his confinement to an institution.

[Errata]

Errata
Was there any evidence soto was a homosexual?

No in fact his problems began when he began reconciling with his wife, who conceived a mix race child while they were separated.

It appears to be straight transference. He can't kill the child he raised as his own, even though he blames that child for everything wrong in his life, so he targets kids who look like him. Whatever the guy said his reason was for cutting off the penises of these kids, I would argue that it boils down to a guy thing. What's the worst thing you can do to a male? He did it. I mean, he also stabbed the crap out of these kids. Dozens of times. There was a lot of rage, a lot of dominance being sorted out with these murders. He was working out his issues. Which doesn't actually preclude him being delusional and getting divine instruction. It just makes it complicated. Which I suppose it often is.

[Errata]

You may want to have a look at William MacDonald, Errata. He killed derelict men and cut off their private parts in the early sixties in Sydney, Australia:

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/macdonald-william.htm

All the best,
Frank

Brilliant! Thank you. I'm open to this. The only thing that gives me pause is that he did drag his last victim home and kept him, which is a departure from his previous habits. But prior to that his habits mirror the Ripper's quite closely. The murders occurring in places where anonymous sex is prevalent, sexual style mutilations, walked away from the murder scenes. Mostly.

I think the majority of his work is close enough to the Ripper to throw him in the pile. Thanks!

[Errata]

Hello, Errata.

How would you reconcile this with the facial mutilations to Eddowes and Kelly? The common explanations are that the killer's violence was escalating or that he had some kind of personal connection to the victims. It is interesting that with the previous murders, the killer was much more clinical, he focused on the abdominal area and left the rest of the body relatively unspoiled, which would support the idea that he was only interested in the trophy organs. Eddowes and Kelly appear to blow this theory out of the water.

The types of facial mutilations that he did are really rather fussy. Splitting the eyelids without touch the eyeballs is a painstaking task. Crosshatching the lips is a tiny careful task. So it seems like it's not about rage. Rage doesn't translate into fussy tasks unless you are SUPER passive aggressive, and this is not passive aggressive.

It might be a kind of personal connection. I think that the kinds of facial mutilations you see when the killer actually knows the victim are different. Much more obliterating especially on women. I think if it's personal, it's more about a reminder.

But the more I think about it, the more I see a disconnect between what happens above the chest, and what happens below. The anger in the throat mutilations is not present in the abdominal mutilations. So I wonder if there is an actual disconnect. Every so often I trot out the killer duo theory because it is so odd to have two major focuses of mutilation. But I wonder if one killer has marching orders for one kind of mutilation, and is working out his issues with the other. And if that was the case he may expand his area which previously was only the neck, up into the face. Which would mean that he vented his rage through the neck, and punished in the face. But the facial mutilations are almost more brushstrokes than mutilations. There are simple ways to obliterate a face, he didn't choose that. I think it might have been more of a tactile experience. Maybe. Who knows.

I think it's interesting that the facial mutilations are almost designed to obliterate the features not through destruction, but obstruction. The amount of blood these mutilations generate would wash the face in blood. He doesn't need to cut off the planes of the face, they would be obscured by blood. I have no idea if he knew that and did it on purpose.

[FrankO]

The only thing that gives me pause is that he did drag his last victim home and kept him, which is a departure from his previous habits.

He didn't actually keep him, Errata. After he had hid him underneath his shop, he fled to Brisbane. To me, this actually shows that he wasn't a hoarder, but rather the abandoner that he was with his outdoors/public bath murders.

All the best,
Frank

[Pierre]

The types of facial mutilations that he did are really rather fussy. Splitting the eyelids without touch the eyeballs is a painstaking task. Crosshatching the lips is a tiny careful task. So it seems like it's not about rage. Rage doesn't translate into fussy tasks unless you are SUPER passive aggressive, and this is not passive aggressive.

It might be a kind of personal connection. I think that the kinds of facial mutilations you see when the killer actually knows the victim are different. Much more obliterating especially on women. I think if it's personal, it's more about a reminder.

But the more I think about it, the more I see a disconnect between what happens above the chest, and what happens below. The anger in the throat mutilations is not present in the abdominal mutilations. So I wonder if there is an actual disconnect. Every so often I trot out the killer duo theory because it is so odd to have two major focuses of mutilation. But I wonder if one killer has marching orders for one kind of mutilation, and is working out his issues with the other. And if that was the case he may expand his area which previously was only the neck, up into the face. Which would mean that he vented his rage through the neck, and punished in the face. But the facial mutilations are almost more brushstrokes than mutilations. There are simple ways to obliterate a face, he didn't choose that. I think it might have been more of a tactile experience. Maybe. Who knows.

I think it's interesting that the facial mutilations are almost designed to obliterate the features not through destruction, but obstruction. The amount of blood these mutilations generate would wash the face in blood. He doesn't need to cut off the planes of the face, they would be obscured by blood. I have no idea if he knew that and did it on purpose.

Hi Errata,

I donīt want to spoil your fun. But I must say that you are spending a lot of energy to find answers where there already are answers:

The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders

Robert D. Keppel
Joseph G. Weis
Katherine M. Brown and
Kristen Welch

Article first published online: 17 MAR 2005

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...24CE505.f02t01

You can read the whole article online by clicking "GET PDF" to the right on the website.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I donīt want to spoil your fun. But I must say that you are spending a lot of energy to find answers where there already are answers:

The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders

Robert D. Keppel
Joseph G. Weis
Katherine M. Brown and
Kristen Welch

Article first published online: 17 MAR 2005

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...24CE505.f02t01

You can read the whole article online by clicking "GET PDF" to the right on the website.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre, the whole point is to look at it a different way to see if we get different answers. I'm aware of the several analyses that exist on the Ripper. Some of them I find cogent and well thought out, some are ridiculous. This is using different parameters to gather together a different pool of similar suspects.

If you find it to be a waste of time, by all means don't waste it. It's an experiment. Nothing more.

[Errata]

He didn't actually keep him, Errata. After he had hid him underneath his shop, he fled to Brisbane. To me, this actually shows that he wasn't a hoarder, but rather the abandoner that he was with his outdoors/public bath murders.

All the best,
Frank

Yeah it's an odd one. Bringing a corpse back to a personal space generally is the definition of body hoarding, but if he didn't stick around it to be near it... then it's just a mysterious decision. It's like what would happen if body hoarding, body dumping, and body abandoning all happened at the same time. Stuffing it under someone else's place of business would be a dump. Sticking around with it would have been hoarding, and just leaving the area is abandonment. I think the stress might have caused him to have an accident in his head. He did all three in a fit of poor decision making.

[John G]

Hi Errata,

I donīt want to spoil your fun. But I must say that you are spending a lot of energy to find answers where there already are answers:

The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders

Robert D. Keppel
Joseph G. Weis
Katherine M. Brown and
Kristen Welch

Article first published online: 17 MAR 2005

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...24CE505.f02t01

You can read the whole article online by clicking "GET PDF" to the right on the website.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I'm afraid Keppel's conclusions are somewhat questionable. For instance, they identified JtR's main signature characteristic as "progressive picquerism", a mental health condition that doesn't officially exist. They also concluded that the murders were sexually orientated, identifying sexualized violence as a core signature component. However, this conclusion is also questionable. For instance, they refer to the victims being "stabbed repeatedly in the genital area,"but these injuries may be incidental given the total number of wounds inflicted.

However, they did rule out the Pinchin Street Torso as a Ripper victim, based upon signature characteristics, which is somewhat ironic as you seem to believe that this victim was murdered by your suspect.