|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:20 pm: |       |
Hi Gary,
I know AP will have a huge problem with this one, but I truly believe that sex and violence, sadly, have all too often gone together like – a horse and carriage? Stride and Eddowes? (I feel a poem coming on!  )
Life isn’t black and white, and however nice and comfy it might be to imagine that the vast majority of us always keep sex in a box marked ‘for mutual pleasure and procreation only’ (please don’t anyone read any significance into the order here, otherwise I shall have to claim it’s alphabetical ), and violence in another box marked ‘for pain and suffering only’.
There is a huge grey area full of instances from the beginning of time where sex has been used by men and women as a weapon, whether it be to gain or retain power; to hurt or humiliate; to profit or blackmail; or simply to manipulate or bribe.
And unfortunately it’s a fact of life that all too many men, who could not imagine themselves wanting to attack another person sexually, nevertheless do so in extreme circumstances, such as in times of war. So I do understand the concept that rape and sexual assault are about feelings of power and the desire to control rather than the pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake.
But a right old assortment of ‘weaponry’ and power games have also been used through the ages by both men and women as part of consensual sex for pleasure. And it seems to be another fact of life, whether we like it or not, that some people find it hard, even impossible, not to associate sex with domination and/or violence – people whose entire sex lives, if they had the means, the opportunity and no conscience, would consist of non-consensual acts that would be considered abnormal and despicable to the rest of us. So I believe that when such people do carry out violent sex attacks they can be primarily taking care of an immediate sexual urge, although this certainly wouldn’t need to be the case every time. Again, the crimes of Fred and Rose West seem to bear this out.
Now then, AP old chap,
I do take on board your opinion that Jack was not in the game of seeking sexual release. But like Erin, I don’t know how you can make such a clean distinction between the horrors you claim Jack suffered over Jill’s ability to produce more little horrors, and a general obsession with all the parts Jill had that Jack didn’t.
What leads you to conclude that it was only reproduction itself that played on Jack’s mind when he did what he did, but definitely not the sexual act or instinct that are usually the prerequisites? Erin’s point about curiosity and sexual immaturity is interesting. One could argue that this would make it more likely, not less, that this supposed obsession Jack had with women having babies would have sprouted from a much earlier preoccupation with matters sexual, that would have included women’s breasts and their functions.
I still think I must be missing something fundamental to the vision you have of Jack. I’m not saying your vision can’t be right, it’s just that I’d like to look at Jack through your glasses instead of my own so I might see why he, and his attitude towards sex (or absence of attitude when it came to committing his crimes?), is so clear to you.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 1:11 pm: | |
Erin
Pseudo-feminist dogma?
I suppose it could have been worse, you could have accused me of having an original thought.
I would prefer my fairly wacky thinking to be labelled as ‘off the wall’ or even ‘radical’, but I’ll settle for your interpretation for the moment.
I know we aint ever going to see eye to eye about this sexuality / reproduction issue so I’ll leave the barbs and comments there, apart from congratulating you on such a worthy dismissal of my ’off the wall’ viewpoint.
However I do fear that you skate on very thin ice regarding this issue of sexual motive.
Since the day I first cast my dread shadow on these boards I have strongly urged others to consider a simpler ’sexual’ motive that may have been the catalyst for the crimes but not the actual ‘sexual’ motive for the crimes. This may seem ’off the wall’ to you at first but please consider the following before I am stampeded in the mad rush to magically transform Jack’s penis into a knife.
The classic example I provided was that of the killer who wasn’t really a killer at all but a simple ’flasher’ (a man who enjoys exposing himself to women). However when one of his chosen victims reacted in an unusual manner to his simple indecent display - by recognising his behaviour rather than ignoring it as did the vast majority of his victims - this then triggered some strange urge in him to destroy that recognition of ’himself’ by destroying that what had recognised him for what he was, his victim.
You see when he was ignored by the victims he was operating in a neat little vacuum of fantasy but when his victims ’recognised’ his behaviour then obviously two worlds fatally collided, the one his comfortable vacuum of fantasy and the other the hard wall of reality… and his reaction was both immediate and deadly.
As well as killing two young girls who ’recognised’ his behaviour, he also made simplistic mutilations on their bodies and even ’played’ sex with one body as if it was a doll.
I hope you can see the end of the dead-end street here, Erin.
For this man did indeed have a ’sexual’ motive for his ’flashing’ behaviour, it gave him the physical pleasure of orgasm as well as the conceptual pleasure of imagining that his victims were shocked by the unexpected sight of his manhood. However I do believe it would be impossible to ascribe a sexual motive to the murders he committed, perhaps you would, but I would urge you to consider the circumstances carefully first before punching your way through the ice.
Between and after the killings the man continued his flashing behaviour unabated, exposing himself to thousands of women, and had he not been caught it is entirely possible that he could have continued doing this for the rest of his life without murdering another women… unless they ’recognised’ him.
I hope you begin to see the importance of primary and secondary motive now when it comes to crimes of the very nature we discuss.
Now, just what if our Jack was a Colin Pitchfork?
I’d like to know what you think Mr Pitchfork would have done if a Whitechapel whore had approached him - when he was exposing himself for his own sexual satisfaction - and offered him sexual relief for four pence?
When you think you know what Mr Pitchfork would do to the whore, could you please tell me why?
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
Caz
You always say the nicest things, old chap.
Personally I do not accept that rape and sexual assault have ever been used in a generalized fashion by mankind as a weapon - as you do suggest - apart from during the period of the rule of the 18th Dynasty kings and queens of ancient Egypt when it was common practise for the Egyptian troops to firstly sodomize their captured male enemies and then cut off their sexual organs as trophies for their king or queen. Many people maintain that the hands of the foes were cut off and taken back as tribute to the king or queen, but a fine illustration at - I think, for I have not been back there for a few years now -Edfu temple shows that the piles in front of the king are indeed little peters.
I of course agree that sex and violence are used on a daily basis by individuals within society to control, persuade or dictate their circumstances within that society, this is only natural and many examples are available throughout the animal kingdom.
I fear that neither you or Erin have fully read my Colony ravings on the poetry thread, it might be hard work, but it would save the pair of you from taking me to task every time I rear my head above the battlements and say hold on ’ere a minute this aint right. For I have said everything there that needs to be said regarding my peculiar and obviously contentious views concerning reproduction and sexuality.
Because I like your style Caz, I am going to search through the Colony meself and quote some relevant portions for you.
Incidentally if any of you had bothered to read the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, and in particular the chapter I contributed to that volume you wouldn’t need to keep whipping me around the starting block.
I put my running shoes on a long time ago.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 406
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hi Caz
What's all this business about sex for pleasure?
I was taught that all English women were told to close their eyes and think of England.
My mother would be mortified at the sex for pleasure concept; At least according to my father.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 693
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
Dan,
You talk about me making you feel repetitious. Well well. Then you read my posts like the devil reads the Bible. Or else you are completely incapable of reading.
You say:
"This whole recent back and forth started because you said that not only did Jack the Ripper not have any organized traits but also that nobody has even offered any. I have tried to point out that this was wrong, that there have been several offered, and that we shouldn't have to rehash them constantly to avoid you claiming they don't even exist."
As I stated in my earlier post addressed to you, I haven't disputed that people here have described organized features. Because I do believe that has been done quite often, I have done it several times myself, and if I want to I can also read about that in literature. That is NOT the point.
What I was arguing, was (and I won't repeat it again!) that those who claim Jack the Ripper to be a mix of organized and disorganized, haven't described what that mix should look like. They say that they probably see him as a mixed character, but then they only mention the disorganized ones! And they continue to do so! I know very well some of the ground pointers of how an organized killer works, but I would really like to see some example of what organized features they especially refer to in that context -- among the disorganized ones -- in order to make him a mix.
Since when, Dan, am I not allowed to have my own opinion? And when have I implied that I am in possession of the truth?
Oh yes, that's right. I DON'T SEE those organized character features in Jack the Ripper, but that DOESEN'T MEAN THAT THEY DON'T EXIST! How would I know? I am only saying what I think and what I read out of it. And I can very well change my mind next week. To claim that someone is arguing beyond assumptions in the Ripper context is one of the lowest arguments on Earth. I have no proof of anything and I have repeated that until I am blue in the face on several threads, but I do have my own beliefs and I think I am entitled to them without being accused of being better than anyone else. I constantly use words that express uncertainty (I think that is especially evident in my replies to Frank), but I'm afraid you don't.
"Glenn wrote:
'but if he was an organized killer it wouldn't be that hard for him to at least change location or "set up his business elsewhere" after a while to avoid detection'
How do you know he didn't?"
I don't! I thought I made that clear in my response to Frank. He MAY very well have done that, even though it doesen't ring true to me personally. Have you any evidence saying that he did? No! Then it all comes down to matter of opinion, then, doesen't it? I don't know how many times I have used the word "assumption" here on the boards, Dan, but I believe that if I had a penny for every time I did, I wouldn't have to work again!
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi Dan (& Glenn),
Although I think Glenn is capable of coming across as quite sure of himself and has shown this in some of his posts, he’s indeed at least been mostly quite cautious making his points in his posts addressed to me and perhaps even more so in his posts to Leanne Perry.
I have no problems with this capability, because I know Glenn simply is no ‘middle of the road’ kind of guy, he’s somebody who likes to take a stand and discuss opposing opinions. He always tries to explain clearly how he comes to a certain opinion or point and almost always succeeds in this in one try (even if I don’t always – mostly not is more like it – see things his way  ). I have the feeling that in a large minority of cases he leaves out some ‘ifs’ and ‘probably’s’ to emphasize his opinion/point a bit and sometimes because he has already mentioned them in previous posts.
Needless to say Glenn, but correct me if I’m wrong about any of this!!
All the best,
Frank
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Caz
Allow me to answer your question in two forms.
The first is a minor tirade of no great import.
The conceptual problem with the ‘sexual’ motive as I see it, is that many of you appear to be stuck in a groove of comfortable and beguiling indoctrination that was first of all inspired by the Freudian slathering of a certain Mr. Wilson, and this has been slavishly and lavishly adhered to ever since. This placebo type of thinking is I admit comfortable, and does explain uncomfortable and alien concepts in a cosy and obviously highly acceptable frame in which we can all enjoy a long soporific sleep with little bubbles emanating from our shut down brains endlessly repeating useless cant and nonsense, but in the final solution and when the case is closed it is a gigantic cop-out, and I’m sure that any of you could shake yourself out of this self-induced trip to banana land and do so much better than regurgitate and dribble pearls of Wilsonian wisdom at me.
Now what was my second point?
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Caz
You asked me to put you behind my glasses, so here goes with two quotes from material that I have already posted on this site.
‘I am not saying that the Colony model is a or ‘the’ solution to the behaviour of serial killers like Jack the Ripper, but it does nonetheless raise many profound issues which I believe have been blithely ignored in the mad rush to explain and explore the house that Jack built.
The most telling issue is perhaps the overwhelming fear and anxiety that many individuals within the Colony have for their Colony.
What should be a protective and reassuring all-encompassing mantle of security for all individuals of the Colony is viewed by a certain type of individual as a smothering horror. All the social padding that should protect that individual - friends, family, love, institutions and religion - is anathema to this individual, and very often he will strike out at the most obvious and cherished symbolic target of that entire social security system: Women.
The female gender - which should quite rightly be the ultimate love object for the male gender - undergoes some kind of weird transformation and distortion in the eyes and minds of these individuals.
Where we might see rounded curves and sensual image, this individual sees hatchet blades and a bloody gaping wound that can’t be healed.
And then not only does he target what should be the object of his love - either as a sister, mother, wife or lover - he specifically targets the reproductive organs of that female, and rips them out in a bloody fit of rage against that gigantic creative machine that pounds away at the bedrock of the Colony like some great hammer, as if all that blood and gore so crudely taken from the reproductive soul of the Colony will act as a magic salve against the fear that consumes him.
But it does not, for he must do it again.
Such is the fragile sand upon which Jack builds his house.’
And:
‘Thus is the mission defined.
These very specific killers firmly believe that what they do is some kind of magical cure-all for the ails of mankind: and that from appalling destructive events and images they will be able to conjure up a magical creative process that gives birth to that essential spark that appears to be missing from the soul of mankind.
To define exactly what that missing ‘spark’ might be is beyond the ken of the 99%, for only the one per cent are privy to that, however it is my contention that this missing ‘spark’ has as its raw base a fearful regard and suspicion of the female gender, with its poisonous roots buried deep within the damaged and fragile psyche of the spurned man.
Spurned by mother and then spurned by would-be lover.
As trite as this may sound the force I talk of here is probably the driving force behind most great crimes, and great works of art, science and literature. It is probably the most compelling force in our universe.
However - and here I take a space ship to the stars - the compulsive killing urges of asexual serial killers could just as easily have their roots buried in the mischievous nature of the spoilt or unhappy child who dismantles a watch and then unable to put it back together again, he destroys it, so that it will never be of use to anyone again.
The clock ticks, for such behaviour probably has as its core substance a basic sexual jealousy of the female gender and its frightening and uncanny ability to bring forth almost perfect replicas of itself with what amounts to very little help from the male gender.
Hence does Jack rip out those reproductive organs, for that puts a dramatic halt to this magical nonsense once and for all.’
While you absorb that I’ll have another glass of SSB and then get back to you.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi AP, old bean,
I have read all your posts on the Poetry thread and elsewhere, and I enjoy your speculation about Jack’s possible motivation. I have no way of judging if any of it reflects how he really ticked. Maybe he would recognise himself, maybe he woudn’t , and maybe he would lie about it anyway, so we couldn’t even ask him if he were still with us.
I had also read your chapter in The Mammoth Book of JtR, but it was quite a while back, certainly before we ‘met’ on the boards. I have just read it again and it all comes back to me now. You are the author who explained how your interest in Cutbush came about, and what makes him a smashing suspect, and how the approach of other authors is all wrong and their pet suspects are pants. Then you wrote:
I’m not saying that Thomas Cutbush was Jack the Ripper.
But you followed this up by saying you knew who lived at 29 Aldgate High Street in 1888 - it is a matter of public record and fact – and you claimed that Jack the Ripper lived at that address.
I must admit I remember yawning at that point the first time round, and moving swiftly on to the next contribution, because it seemed like yet another close encounter with the contradictory and teasing kind of riddle I was becoming all too familiar with at the time.
Anyway, I think I do understand now what you think Jack was about sexually, and why you insist that the attacks themselves were non-sexual in nature. Yes, it’s possible he only turned on women who reacted a certain way to some odd behaviour he was indulging in, while leaving alone those who pretended not to notice or be shocked by whatever he was doing or saying. And come to think of it, I’m sure we’ve discussed this possibility before.
But you do seem to be confirming in your previous posts (unless I’ve screwed up again) that Jack was at least sexually abnormal and that this was the underlying cause of his crimes – which is basically what I was asking, because it looks very much that way to me too. You see Jack’s murders and mutilations as powerful reactions to having his sexual abnormalities recognised? But you don’t believe the reactions themselves reflect those sexual abnormalities in any way, shape or form.
Am I getting any warmer, or is it not worth the effort of rubbing your sticks together?
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
Caz
Thank you for such a wonderful reply.
Yes, I do abjectly apologise for the parts of the MBOJTR that you refer to, in fact I hang my head in shame. No excuses, I was adrift in the ocean of life and needed the £220 they paid me for a rudder.
It worked. I now have a most comfortable harbour.
I was hoping that you would have picked up on my references to the Midwich Cuckoos and Billy Liar, for they were of import whilst young Thomas was not, but never mind.
Actually I am still convinced that the address you mention is the key, but that is the logical side of my mind which I do shut out as often as I can with copious doses of SSB.
I shall print out your truly excellent post and dwell on it for a considerable time - for it deserves such - but I have to tell you that the greatest problem I have with Jack as a sexually motivated killer is the fact that the general consensus of opinion appears to indicate that he was what we might term a ‘loner’.
Sexual predators are never ‘loners’, they have good social skills and judgement.
I see Jack. I see an autistic child.
Thanks again Caz, a good slap around the head always does me good.
|
Petra
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Another 'point of vieuw' on whether or not the crimes were sexual:
PRO:
1. Position of the victims
2. Sex organs taken away
3. The victims were prostitutes, killed by a male(?)
4. He might have been sexually insane
AGAINST:
1. The position and the mutilations have too much in common with slaughtered cows
2. None of the victims was raped
3. We can't be sure of the killer being sexually insane
4. These organs can be seen as sexual, OR as reproductive, as the circle of life. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 701
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 5:53 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I think you understand me quite well, and I think your description of what makes me tick is absolutely a fair one. I am definitely someone that likes to take a stand and have a clear opinion of things, and that don't necessarily has to mean that I am better than anyone else. Or that I can't change my mind about things.
I do use many "ifs" and "maybes", but sometimes I feel I have to put them in front of every word. The boards get too repetitious too often and sometimes one doesen't bother to put the "ifs" and "maybes" in very time they should be there. I expect the reader to be intelligent enough to understand that noone here can show evidence of anything (I think it must have been the 30th time I written that line) but that doesen't mean that one can't form an opinion of things.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 702
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Petra,
Very interesting. Funny how easier too overlook everything gets when one lists the points in this manner.
One thing about the organs, though. I don't believe every organ that was taken were sex organs or reproductive one, were they? Or am I wrong here? Half a kidney and a heart...
But according to your listed points, Petra, I think it is reasonably evident that we can't really put one possibility before the other, as far as "sexual crimes" are concerned. From where I sit, this is a tricky thing to determine.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 411
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
Hi AP
I'm very surprised to see you describe serial killers as never being loners. Every time a dozen or so bodies turn up buried in someone's backyard, the neighbours have a standard description of the chap. 'He was a quiet fellow who kept to himself and seemed harmless.' As the suspect is taken away in handcuffs the television reporter will add that he had few close friends snd/or they couldn't find anyone who knew him well.' This is standard fare here in the U.S., the serial killer capital of the world.
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:46 pm: | |
Caz
When I throw up these bizarre examples of cases where it strongly appears that there has been both a primary and secondary motive at work in the mind of a killer, I’m by no means saying or claiming that such dual motivation was at work in Jack’s mind.
I’m merely raising red flags in the hope of trying to slow some of you down in the formula one grand prix to label Jack as a ‘sexual serial killer’, but in doing so I would claim that I have come up with some pretty credible motivations other than the simple - oh squeeze me darling, I’m so right - sexual motive, which just goes to show that the subject lends itself well to exploration and further discussion.
It is always heartening to know that there are some on these boards who are also keen to explore and discuss this issue rather than just locking themselves in their Freudian boxes and sticking tape over their mouths and eyes and stuffing cotton wool in their ears.
I don’t know whether I can easily go along with your thoughts concerning ‘sexual abnormalities’, as if we are not discussing purely physical sexual abnormalities then we do find ourselves in a conceptual wilderness where opinion, rather than a physical situation, dictates our differing views on the subject. For instance although I would agree that a man exposing himself is distasteful, crude, a tad frightening and downright peculiar, I do not think I would be happy to label such behaviour as ‘abnormal’.
We all operate within society’s rules as best we can, but some do step outside that structure and indulge themselves in anti-social behaviour such as ‘flashing’. However I have lived in some societies - such as in PNG and island groups of the Indian Ocean - where ‘flashing’ would be merely seen as a proud display of masculinity.
Different strokes for different folks. (good pun AP)
I do see much merit in the Pitchfork example I have given here, for I have always seen a gross sexual immaturity in the crimes of Jack, and I do feel that the vast majority of men who feel the need to expose themselves to women are essentially immature individuals who would certainly be at a complete and utter loss when offered a genuine sexual experience, settling for a reflection of themselves in a mirror for a sexual partner rather than a living person.
I do see in such behaviour a very private and exclusive palace where everything is masterfully constructed and controlled by a single master being (a child in other words)… and god help the person who stumbles unexpectedly into this closely guarded world of the reflected image.
I believe I have already demonstrated conclusively that it is perfectly acceptable to assume that an individual driven by a primary sexual urge or motive could use a secondary motivation to suddenly become a killer.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Quite right, Gary, I should have qualified my bald statement… end of a long night, too much brandy, dogs attacked me again etc and etc.
Actually I know exactly what you mean by the statements that generally come out about these killers once they are caught, but personally I do feel that this is another one of the popular myths, because most killers I have studied have excellent social skills and judgement, and although they might enjoy an isolated role in society they are not truly what I would term as ‘loners’.
I recently saw some interviews with Ed Gein, who is usually portrayed by writers on the subject as a bumbling hick living a madcap life on some isolated oiky farm in the way back of where, but in fact he was a charming, erudite and really quite a sophisticated sort of chap.
Again although Ted Bundy enjoyed isolating himself regarding his home and social life he was a perfect charmer when it came to the social skills required to bait and trap his victims and his victim recognition ability has probably never been bettered by anyone else.
The sort of ‘loners’ I talk of - and mean - are probably more of the ilk of Richard Chase and Berkowitz, people who had genuine difficulty in moving through society, and responded in a bizarre fashion when confronted by that society. These are the sort of guys who won’t put the bins out because they fear some sort of plot and hence the rotting rubbish is left all over the place. Because they don’t talk to other people they talk to themselves, having long and rambling conversations with themselves where they tell themselves that they are good boys. This is where the reflected image comes in.
My point I suppose is that most sexual serial killers appear to be socially accomplished, and I fear this is not a quality we find in this case.
Anyways, good point Gary, and I have not finished with it yet, but I fear I need to drink some first.
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 4:53 am: | |
Hi all
I hesitate to venture on these waters, but here goes 
The nature of the crimes and the mutilations comitted do not suggest to me we are looking at a sexual predator of the Bundy type. Those kinds of killers - and there are sadly many examples - are organised, and do seek a particular controlled 'relationship' with their victims during the crime.
The JtR killings - assuming that part of JtR's trademark was mutilations - seem to be more the result of a disorganised rage or even a bizarre curiosity. There is no evidence of any sexual control or tension in the murders, they seem to have been carried out as soon as the perp was alone with the victim. They must mostly have been carried out very quickly (I mean the whole crime including the mutilations), and the one - MJK - where this was probably not the case is the one which I think to most observers suggests there is something very unusual about this case. 'Normal' , pattern matching, serial killers, however horrendous the mutilations thay carry out may be, are not known to have dismantled a body in that strange way which is simultaneously methodical and yet almost random - I always get this picture of some ghastly child delving into someone else's toy box.
Even Chkatilo's killings seem much more 'sexual' in the sense that there was actually a sexual tension involved in the murders.
So I certainly think that we are more in the Chase/Gein/Pitchfork territory. Something triggered this guy to do what he did , but that something was not necessarily primarily sexual in the sense of being to do with sexual intercourse. It might of course have been to do with gender in more general terms, such as envy of the female ability to reproduce.
Incidentally, I am suprised that Henry Lee Lucas gets classified as a sexual predator - he seems much more to fit into a 'rage' category - i.e. spoil his world picture and you're dead.
Unfortunatly, none of this tells us whether the perp was outwardly sane or 'normal' looking or for that matter rich or poor. Because what we are saying is, effectively, that we are at the totally whacko end of the spectrum of serial killers, where no two are really alike.
Regards
Pete |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
"Do you seriously believe that, and I am conjecturing on M.O. here, he throttled his victims and then severed their jugular viens and allowed them to bleed to death, then eviscerated them without acting out violence. I am dumbfounded by this observation from an intelligent man...As far as a sexual motivation for Jack's crimes is concerned, recall that I said that the sexual element is an integral point of the violence."
>>Gary,
I think he may have been acting out a thin shadow of violence, vaguely and remotely imagined by him. But certainly he wasn't your typical woman-batterer. If he were out to do violence to women, we'd find obvious signs of punching, bruising, bouncing their heads off the cobblestones, crashing them into the bricks of the nearby buildings, etc. But he steadfastly kept sadism to the absolute minimum, by the evidence. You have make a decision of what you are going to do in your mind: Are you going to respect the evidence, or aren't you? Look at the degree of wholesale devastation he did to the bodies. Now imagine that if this depredation represented conventional male woman-battering, how much battering would be involved? In other words, if he HATED the women enough to do what he did, wouldn't he have let them live long enough to feel the pain? Wouldn't he have been pulling his fist waaaaay back behind him, as far as he could, to be able to wale the tar out of them? See what I mean? Conversely, what he did to women is the same, basically, as what we do to bovines in the slaughterhouse. We dispatch them as quickly and humanely as possible, then we cut them up and use them for our purposes. Are we considered to be doing violence to the bovines? He chose to do what he chose to do, and we need to determine why he wanted to do these things. Woman-battering is a cop-out answer, in my opinion.
I have no doubt that the sexual element is present in the crimes. The man went after the uteri and genitals, and that in itself means that these were sex crimes. But I don't think that what we have is quite so much sex-violence-murder, as is the usual case. I think in the case of the Whitechapel murderer what we have is more like sex-murder-showmanship.
Saddam
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 1:22 pm: | |
Peter
You shouldn’t hesitate, just jump right in, the water can get hot but what the hell.
I enjoyed your post as full as common sense as it was, and as ever I am always glad to see someone around who is engaging their brain and not just running blind on Freud juice.
Freud juice can seriously scramble your brain.
Yes, you are right, Jack is almost beyond definition and recognition, and I believe the determined effort by many here to shove him into the comfortable role of a sexual serial killer makes him even more elusive.
That is why I am so glad to find others who are also prepared to search a little bit more in this useful quest.
I take me old deerstalking cap off to you, sir.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 708
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
I agree with AP.
Indeed a very sensible and reasonable post, Peter, and I believe you've managed to raise a number of interesting points.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Notice the responses following my post. Instead of recognizing my existence as a reasonable commentator on the case, the trend seems to puff the perspective opposite to mine. I'll be frank here. I interpret this sort of thing here and now the same way I've interpreted the same sort of thing for some years. The true meaning of the case streams right past the consciousness of Ripperologists unnoticed. When I try to point the truth out to people, they either drolly innocently entirely miss the point, or they attack me on specious grounds. None of the above posts are on the mark, in fact no one has understood what I'm getting at in the very least. The same has been true on the "Assumptions" board recently.
Saddam
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 1:17 am: | |
For those people looking for a list of organized traits that Jack the Ripper possessed (and why some that have been labeled disorganized probably shouldn't be) you can either pull out your Casebook CD-ROM and do a quick search for my posts on the topic, or read chapter six of Garry Wroe's book, which includes lots of solid information on profiling and the cases of Bundy, Chase, etc. You can read this book for free on this very site:
http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe.html
Some choice quotes:
"So whilst on a superficial level the Whitechapel Murderer appears to slot neatly into the mixed offender category, a slightly different picture emerges once the historical dictates of his urban milieu and restriction of movement are recognized. Yet even disregarding these operational constraints, the planning, versatility and control which exemplified his overall activities are so conspicuous that any notion of him having been debilitated by psychological impairment is nonsensical. [...]"
"The importance of this approach may be better appreciated when it is pointed out that even Ted Bundy, probably the most organized lust killer in the annals of crime, included necrophilia amongst his several disorganized traits. Ed Kemper, another serialist of formidable intellect and organizational skill, stole body parts, experimented with cannibalism and indulged in sexual activity with headless corpses. Evisceration was the primary motivation behind the crimes of Duane Samples, a killer boasting a psychology degree and an IQ rated in the top five percent bracket. And Peter Sutcliffe defied a gigantic manhunt for almost six years, bluffing his way through repeated police interrogations despite the fact that his assaults evinced numerous disorganized features."
"Notwithstanding the Whitechapel Murderer’s entropic dynamics, therefore, careful study of his collective behavioural pattern reveals an organized factor of not less than seventy percent. This, of course, signifies that he almost certainly suffered some degree of psychosis, but not to the extent that his mental faculties were seriously impaired."
I disagree with Garry a bit in that I see no indications of psychosis, manifest or otherwise, but I agree wholeheartedly from the reasons he cites and others that the Ripper was extremely organized. In fact I don't think there's any indication that the term mixed should even apply. I don't think any serial killer would ever be identified as organized if the same assumptions I see applied over and over in this thread were used in their cases as well.
I really don't see how anyone can claim that the ripper was disorganized. He wasn't some madman picking victims at random and jumping out of the shadows with whatever makeshift weapon he could grab. He very selectively picked victims who would be the most vulnerable and easy to dispatch, did so in a very efficient way intended to minimize suspiscious noises and bloodspray, and successfully escaped the scenes of the crimes without arousing suspicion. Disorganized killers are simply not that efficient. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:06 am: | |
Sarah Long wrote: "Dan, Do you honesty think it's likely that JTR went to America, killed one woman and then that was it."
I didn't say that. I said that the Carrie Brown murder looked a lot like a Ripper killing. There certainly could have been others in America we don't know about. There are rumored deaths in a variety of ports around the world, and could be others we never heard of. There may be more (lots more) in England that for one reason or another are ignored as possibly the Ripper's work.
"Yes there were other ripper like murders at the time in other places but I don't think it likely that he went travelling the world. If he did, then he would definately have had to be a rich man as the poor were so poor that they wouldn't have ever left London, let alone England."
Absolutely untrue, as poor people could take jobs on boats simply by showing up at the dock when they were recruiting skilled and unskilled labor. Very poor people did travel the world, and especially to places with busy ports. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 711
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:46 am: | |
I must admit that Garry Wroe is complete news to me, so thanks for that tip -- anything that can enlighten the subject is welcome of course. However, he's just one among many others that are displaying views on the case, and there is really no reason whatsoever to assume that he is more right than his opponents or colleagues. I think one can't disregard the fact that one prefer to go along with the authority that best suits ones own taste. And of course Wroe is right when he points at disorganized signs on organized offenders like Bundy et. al.
I must say, that I -- after some careful consideration -- have to revise my earlier assumptions a bit regarding this matter. I certainly don't agree with Wroe regarding the seventy percent degree of organized features of Jack the Ripper, but I can actually buy that he could be a mixed character, and may have to disregard some of Douglas' and Hazelwood's points to do so (which I actually have no problem with).
The reason for this, I think could be his efficiency in connection with the murder, as stated earlier by others here. Of course such signs, generally interpreted as organized, could just as well originate from a combination of instinct of self-preservation and an skill with knife-work (maybe from an earlier trade) -- I really don't think it would take an Einstein to grasp how to silence someone with as less sound or blood-spurting as possible. HOWEVER -- and this is important -- I can't rule out the possibility here for signs on efficiency and organized manners. I think it would be enormously stupid on my part to continue to do that, just for the sake of it.
But as far as other organized character signs, I think I find it quite doubtful. Where are the evidence of pre-planning? There are none. To choose prostitutes as preferred victims doesen't qualify him for the Nobel price either, and I'm having a hard time with interpreting this as "planning" or "organized" -- it is the most natural choice of all (even for a complete imbecille), since they are both vulnerable AND extremely available -- and they make themselves easy available for him. I can't prove it, but I believe for my part that they were randomly picked, simply because he had easy access to them. From where I sit, I actually think this are one of the more stronger points in favour of a non-intelligent disorganized individual.
Neither I think his ability to escape could be considered as organized in this context, at least not necessarily. A disorganized killer can without any particular problems manage to perform certain parts of the operation that speaks to his own self-preservation, and in the light of that he most likely was a resident in the area of the murders and knew every street and back-alley, I think this "ability" is highly over-rated. This false notion is based on, that a disorganized offender is so sick that he can't act or think in a logical manner at times. That is a simplified interpretation of the term "disorganized" that a great deal of crimes performed here in Sweden, at least, in recent years has disproved. HOWEVER! I don't see Jack the Ripper as a "raving lunatic", I must be clear about that. I do think such a character would have problems with committing serial killings in this manner without being caught or spotted.
I also think the disturbed signs in connection with the signature -- the mutilations -- show disorganized tendencies. The mutilations are done without that kind of skilled elegancy one usually sees in crimes performed by an organized individual. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are in my view no actual evidence to support that kind of interpretations. -- HOWEVER, the tendency to leave the bodies up for open display could show organized signs -- that can't be ruled out. But I can't with all the will in the world, with the facts and "evidence" available see him as a fully organized criminal.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
Hi Folks
Saddam said
"sex-murder-showmanship"
Is there any evidence of sexual intercourse? Or do you mean some kind of rage against prostitutes, from a moral or disease or whatever standpoint? I have no problem with the showmanship part, although I don't insist on it. Do you accept any of the letters as true Ripper letters?
Generally, in my comments, I am not necessarily trying to make a differention between organised or disorganised, I'm simply questioning 'organised sexual predator' as a complete phrase. We don't know his motives, and there is no evidence that the sexual act, with the victims before or after death, or in the vicinty, was his direct motivation, as it is with the typical sexual predator who can only get his rocks off in a situation of complete control of the victim.
I'm not saying there is no sexual motivation at all, but just that partciular category seems not, on the available evidence, to fit. Explanations could be devised to make it fit - for example, the extreme difficulty of finding somewhere secure to establish the conditions of control needed - which might in turn offer an explanation ofr the time spent with MJK - although not, I think, the nature of the mutilations, which do not seem to be exclusively sexual.
There are of course many possibilities, and even when I mention other cases I am not putting forward a theory of what category the offender does fit, just pointing out some cases which seem to have a closer similarity. I believe that rage, fear, revenge, or insane curiosity (in the Ed Gein mould) are as likely - no, more likely - to enter the equation as sexual control.
Just food for thought, really - the desire to put everyone into some sort of category is almost overwhelming. But the reality is that most categories, especially those which are not easily reduced to verifiable numeric quantities such as human behaviour, become awfully elusive on close examination.
Regards
Pete |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
