Originally Posted by Scott Nelson
It was sarcasm.
Not it wasn't. I'm a closet advocate of the Lewis Carroll/John Merrick theory. Years ago I even submitted an article about it to The Ripperologist
, but Paul Begg rejected it.
Originally Posted by The Macdonald Triad
nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to an individual and their own psychosis.
Well said! I give you an A+
I apologize for my earlier post, MT; I was indeed having a bit of fun. Two of the police suspects that I am interested in (both widely dismissed these days) are thought to have been homosexual.
Like you, I think it is highly unlikely there is a simplistic ‘linear’ relationship between the murderer’s ‘normal’ sexuality, and those he choses to victimize. Anyone as extreme as the Ripper was, is not likely to adhere to pop-psychological clichés. If Hutchinson was proven to be a child molester and an exhibitionist, then I assure you that I would be among the last to suggest that this is was some sort of psychological ‘alibi’ and I am always rather surprised when otherwise intelligent people argue that it would be.
Let me give you a name. Michael DeBardelen. He is little-known, but might qualify as the worst criminal in American history. He was best known as a counterfeiter, but the FBI became convinced that he was also responsible for a series of cross-country murders. His victims were elderly and middle-aged women that he put on ‘display’ but did not sexually abuse. (Please recall that there is no evidence the Ripper sexually abused his victims). The police noticed that these women bore a strong resemblance to DeBardelen’s own mother.
An interesting if disturbing aspect to this loathsome man is that he was also responsible for a series of rapes. His victims in the rape cases were young, attractive women. He sexually assaulted them, but, as far as we know, never murdered them. Thus, there seems to be a clear ‘disconnect’ between those he chose to murder, and those he chose to sexually abuse. (The Freudians among us would no doubt be puzzled by this). To borrow your phrase, ‘nothing set in stone.’
To make matters even more muddled and convoluted, when the police finally caught up with DeBardelen, they broke open his private locker and found a great horde of homosexual pornography that he had collected. So now there appears to be a THREE WAY ‘disconnect’ between those he murdered, those he sexually abused, and those he privately fantasized about.
What’s the moral to the story? You've already given it. Nothing straight-forward in any of it. Just a dark, black-hole that makes very little logical sense. It has its own, internal logic that is beyond our comprehension. Ditto Jack the Ripper?? I don’t see why not.
So, my sarcasm aside, we are in agreement. Beware of psychological clichés. As you say, it’s not straight-forward. It’s not linear. Anyone as bat-&%$$# crazy as the Ripper undoubtedly was, is not likely to adhere to whatever psychological flavor is currently in vogue.
Now back to the Walrus and the Elephant Man!! All the best.