Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 33 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 58 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by John Wheat 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square - sets, what happened to them when it was renovated last year? - by Rob1n 4 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (11 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (7 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square, very upsetting! - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-06-2013, 12:03 PM
dag dag is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default

Nick has usefully posted descriptions of the ten classes of necrophilia defined by Anil Aggrawal in his paper ‘A new classification of necrophilia' (J Forensic Leg Med. 2009; 16(6):316-320).

Aggrawal, a professor of forensic medicine at the Maulana Azad Medical College in New Delhi, classifies Jack the Ripper as a typical Class IXa homicidal necrophile. Offenders in this class derive sexual pleasure from killing their victims and then mutilating their bodies, but they do not engage in any sexual act with the corpse. They are distinguished from Class IXc necrophiles (such as Vacher) who sexually assault the corpse as well as mutilating it. Class IXb necrophiles (such as Christie) will sexually assault the corpses of their murder victims but they don’t mutilate.

Dr Aggrawal is also the author of the book Necrophilia: Forensic and Medico-Legal Aspects (CRC, 2011), a copy of which I have in front of me now. The Ripper case is only briefly discussed as an illustration of class IXa necrophilia (page 75). Dr Aggrawal does not cite any sources (beyond ‘contemporary medical examinations’) for his information on Jack the Ripper, but he reasons that the lack of semen at any of the crime scenes tends to argue against the view that sexual activity of any kind took place. He points out that nineteenth century forensic pathologists may not have routinely looked for evidence of extravaginal sexual activity (for example, intercrural connection), hence he accepts it can’t be stated absolutely that no sexual activity, ante- or post-mortem, took place. He does not explain how he knows, or why he believes, that the Ripper derived sexual pleasure from murder or post-mortem mutilation.


David

Last edited by dag : 11-06-2013 at 12:05 PM. Reason: correction
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-06-2013, 12:06 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Fair warning, this might contain more weirdness than people want to know.

Common sense dictates that anyone who has sex with something dead is a Necrophiliac. But in reality it's a lot more complicated than that. A necrophiliac wants to have sex with a completely unresponsive partner. One that doesn't participate, move, speak, resist, whatever. The dead body allows the fulfillment of the fantasy, but usually isn't in and of itself the fantasy. Necrophilia not uncommonly features costumes or props for the corpse in order to add to the illusion that they are living, and most necrophiles pretend to a degree that the corpse is alive. Speaking to them for example.

Edmund Kemper was a necrophiliac. As was Dahmer. But they were also something else. Bundy and Gein were not necrophiliacs. Yes they used parts of dead bodies for sexual gratification. But it's a different paraphilia. Maybe some kind of partialism, maybe an exceptionally sick object fetish.

Think of it this way. Context is the defining factor. It's the driving force that is defined, not the simple act. The act is a symptom, not the disease. Sexual arousal accompanying death, or body parts, or what have you can be necrophilia. But it can also be about a dozen other things. None of which are socially acceptable or even something a person would admit to in a million years, none of which are considered sane, but not necrophilia. Necrophilia is a specific thing, not a catch all for anything that combines sex and death.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-06-2013, 12:21 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Spring View Post
Hi fisherman,

Part of necrophilia is the controlling and power over your victims.

Best

Nick
Absolutely true - but that is something rather different than enjoying seeing the last flickering life in the eyes of a person die down. Which was what I commented on, in a respone to Barnaby´s post.
Otherwise, the suggestion that Jack may have been a necrophiliac must always be a viable one. Taking an interest in dead people brings out that label.

The best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-06-2013, 12:25 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post

Common sense dictates that anyone who has sex with something dead is a Necrophiliac. But in reality it's a lot more complicated than that. A necrophiliac wants to have sex with a completely unresponsive partner. One that doesn't participate, move, speak, resist, whatever.

Edmund Kemper was a necrophiliac. As was Dahmer. But they were also something else. Bundy and Gein were not necrophiliacs.
Interesting, Errata. I´ve seen Bundy described as a necrophiliac many times, sometimes by authorities. This is food for thought, so thanks for posting it.

The best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-07-2013, 12:52 AM
Barnaby Barnaby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dag View Post
Nick has usefully posted descriptions of the ten classes of necrophilia defined by Anil Aggrawal in his paper ‘A new classification of necrophilia' (J Forensic Leg Med. 2009; 16(6):316-320).
Good find. I will check this out. Ten different classes! Who would have thought that defining necrophilia is about as difficult as defining pornography. I'd insert the joke that we know it when we see it, but it appears that reasonable disagreement exists (is having oral sex with a skull necrophilia or just a fetish?) To this end, recognizing different categories of the disorder is helpful.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-07-2013, 04:54 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby View Post

is having oral sex with a skull necrophilia or just a fetish?
I think the correct term for that is headbanging, Barnaby (he said and reached for his coat ...)

Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-07-2013, 04:54 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,734
Default

No its not. Its useless. You can't put people's mental state in a box. Psychiatry should be classed as a mental disorder.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:08 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,828
Default

The trouble is, I have an uneasy feeling that anyone who doesn't fit the boxes will simply be placed in a new box. How many boxes will we end up with?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:33 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,734
Default

One for each person in existence.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:36 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
The trouble is, I have an uneasy feeling that anyone who doesn't fit the boxes will simply be placed in a new box. How many boxes will we end up with?
I agree. And that's the problem. You'll end up with as many little boxes as there are different offenders because they are all different. I think the field errs when it tries to get to specific. Out of all those 10 sub categories, I thought none of them accurately describes the ripper, because it does not account for the removal and possible reason for the removal of organs and what they were then used for.

I go back to the just the broad description of necrophile. But only as one adjective to describe a subject. In this case necrophile serial killer, and you could probably add sexual to that also.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.