|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 6:05 pm: |       |
Got me there, Glenn.
Too much I fear.
Had a hell of a day, ten hours over the hot griddle of life and then fried myself in brandy.
One day I promise to sober up though and sort out this problem you seem to have with Jack being a 'lust' killer.
All the best to you as well.
copywrite. ap wolf. 2525 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi AP,
That's a deal, then.
"...fried myself in brandy" - that was a funny expression. 
By the way, I wonder if SSB is suitable for frying kidneys. But that would probably be a waste of good liquor, I presume...
The "lust killer" thing is hardly a problem for me and neither is it an invention of mine. It is of course merely a definition, with all its flaws and advantages, but it is justified in many respects.
I know, AP, that you are extremely allergic to all kinds of sexual interpretations connected to serial murder, and I must say that I am a bit surprised that I so far haven't heard any stronger objections from you during those "lust killer" discussions - something I actually had expected.
There are of course exceptions to everything - I think Bobby Joe Long for example, murdered, raped and tortured women (many of them prostitutes) merely because "women had done him wrong in the past". But in general I would say that most murders with mutilations concentrated on the abdominal and sexual areas of the female body, has their source in sexual fantasies and not just evil and rage. It's really no news flash. I wouldn't call it a sure thing just because it's a generally accepted view (because there are no sure things here), but it has at least for many years been considered undisputed, also by those who work on the field, not just the psychologists and the armchair people. And most importantly, the evidence strongly suggests it. You can murder people in quite many other ways, if your just feeling rage. The evidence and mutilations displayed in "lust murders" strongly suggests something more than that.
It is not a notion or knowledge that origins from the dark vaults of profiling or psychological speculation.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Rients
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Im what way does an attempt to guess the Intelligence Quotient of the killer assist an attempt to identify him? By eliminating everyone with IQs less than 50? That doesn't sound very helpful, especially considering that I doubt that many of the known suspects took IQ tests. Also, I have heard second hand that there is a large body of criticism that questions the validity of IQ testing. Is that correct?
If the letter is genuine and the killer really did eat the other half of the kidney, are there any other possible motives besides the ones discussed already in this thread? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Thanks Glenn,
for your kind reply and for clarifying your position with regard to what you - and others - call ‘lust killers’.
Broadly speaking I accept the term when applied to killers who do seem to have a genuine sexual purpose or motive behind their crimes; killers such as Bundy and Duffy, the ‘Railway Rapist‘; and I also have no objection when that ‘lust’ motive might be concealed within the fantasy of the killer concerned and have no bearing to what we might term ‘real’ sexual motive. Here I would picture a ‘soft’ killer like Christie, unable to successfully deal with a living woman sexually, he killed them and masturbated over their remains.
But you are right, I am hyper-allergic to suggestions that Jack might have been a killer of this nature or type. I am particularly sensitive to suggestions that he might have enjoyed some kind of dominating power or control over his victims, and then the easy linkage some of you see between such motive, and the quick and easy escape path of classifying him as a ‘lust’ killer.
I have always thought this to be the escape hatch on a submarine that is sitting disabled on the bottom of the ocean at a depth of a thousand metres, for you can all use the hatch to escape but you will not reach the surface.
It is the spatio-temporal limitations that I object to, you see.
For a killer to enjoy some form of dominating control or power over his victim, he basically needs time and space to exercise this conceptual and formal expression of desire and ‘lust’, and it is for this very reason that killers like Bundy kidnap victims, take them to isolated spots, control and exercise sexual power over them for hours in order to satisfy their desire and lust for such activity… and then kill them, mostly to avoid identification and capture.
As I think you will admit, this is definitely not our Jack.
Jack worked in seconds and minutes, the speed and deliberation of his actions are still unfathomable to us today. He had no time for power or control, he had no time for sex or lust, he just killed them… very fast.
Obviously in the case of MJK, Jack did have more time - if it was Jack - and we see the result as the red carnage of a child lost in a bloody maze, as if he has hacked and hacked at the bloody bushes to get out and only when he had finally hacked everything to the ground could he get out of the bloody maze and run away, and just kept on running after that, so fast that we lost him to history.
But I laid a trap.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Thanks for your response, AP.
A very good point, I think, regarding the domination thing. I may have mentioned it previously in a rather careless manner, so I may have to clarify, that I myself find the domination thing questionable, really. As you say, this is more appropriate in connection with sadistic murderers that torture and stay with their victims for a longer period of time (some call these "sado-sexual" killers), so that their feeling of dominating the victim can be given a free ride. Bundy and Bobby Joe Long are great example of this, and as you quite correctly point out, this is not our Jack.
So I myself is not that certain of the "power and control" issue in the Ripper's case; all I see is that the mutilations points at some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies in possible combination with rage and hatred - for what it's worth.
Now I am going to make myself some hamburgers.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 379
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
I believe all indications are that Bundy did not keep his victims alive for long once he was able to get them isolated. He tended to blitz them in his car (for example) and render them unconscious as quickly as he could. He seemed to get his pleasure for necrophelic reasons, rather than sadism. He didn't seem to take pleasure in the inflicting of fear and pain (which you can't do to a dead or unconcious victim; there's no feedback from them).
In order to include sadistic-type motives, there has to be evidence that the victim was tortured (mentally or physically) for the express reason that the perpetrator enjoyed doing this. I don't think such evidence existed for Bundy. Admittedly, many of his victims only skeletal remains when found so a lot of the forensic evidence would be missing. The other evidence about his general pattern though does not suggest sadism was his motive.
Much like Ridgeway, who also didn't appear to torture for pleasure. He killed them as quickly as he could. So again, he would not be considered a sadist. The forensic evidence backs up his testimony, which is that he strangled them. No evidence exists that he tortured any of his victims (though I think he testified that he considered trying it?) It's a strange world out there.
Anyway, JtR would not be considered a sadist because the mutilations were all post mortem. You can't inflict pain on a dead body. JtR didn't need his victims alive, screaming in agony, but rather dead so he could mutilate them. The first would be sadism, the latter ... necrophilic maybe?
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I think you could be right regarding the lack of pre-death torturing. I must admit, I am not that much of an expert on modern serial killers; I am more into the historical stuff, and it's been quite a while since I've read about Bundy.
Now, when I look back into the case, it seems like the majority of his victims had died from very hard and repeatedly, violent blows to the head with a crowbar (only a few were strangled as far as I know) and after that was raped and sodomized.
However, he did have sadistic tendencies in other ways; his girlfriend Elizabeth Kendall stated that his only interest in sex in later years expressed itself in sadism and bondage, to such an extent that it scared her.
But in this particular serial killer context, he would probably not be considered a sado-killer - that's true.
No, I wouldn't want to call JtR a necrophilic killer - per definition "necrophilic" implies sexual intercourse or rape after death. That is to stretch it too far. Jack was a killer who performed his mutilation signature postmortem; they seem to have sexual meaning, but there is no evidence of necrophilic behaviour or postmortem rape.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:19 am: | |
I'm a bit rusty in the Bundy department myself, but I do seem to recall that he kidnapped two girls on the same day - one in the morning and one in the afternoon - and did keep the one alive while he raped and killed the other, then killed her as well.
I think they were the 'Lake' crimes?
The hapless and haphazard attacks at the end of Bundy's murderous career were I feel based on his desire to committ suicide or be caught... these later crimes were quite different in nature to his earlier crimes where he used a great deal of meticulous planning, relying on his charming personality to 'charm'.
Nice to hear Glenn say: 'seem to have sexual meaning.'
I hope I helped plant that little seed of doubt. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
Haha! I did that for you, AP. Didn't want spoil your day, old chap.
I must admit, I don't remember those two girls and the circumstances you refer to in connection with Bundy, but it could just show how dusty I am on the subject. I don't have a book on Bundy and I don't completely trust the Crime Library.
Well, this thread seem to have turned into all about Mr Bundy...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 383
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 2:49 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think necrophilia includes "sexual gratification gained from the handling of dead body parts" and not just intercourse with the dead. I was using that broader definition, and should have been clear since it's not the usual use of the term. But I agree, there's no sign that JtR performed any kind of sex act with his victims, alive or dead, nor is there anything to suggest he might have masterbated at the scene. However, if (and a big if here), if he found the mutilations and handling of the internal organs sexually gratifying, then this would qualify as a form of "necrophelia". I think even cannibalism, when associated with sexual gratification, also counts as a form of necrophelia.
Anyway, in my above musings, I was using that broader definition. My mistake for not clarifying that.
- Jeff
P.S. I'm a bit rusty on Bundy as well. I can't remember if he was supposed to have raped and killed one victim while the other watched, or killed and raped one victim, then brought her back to the same place where she could see the earlier victim already dead? Either way, it all depends upon whether or not the fear he instilled was sexually gratifying, or if this behaviour was simply a result of having to control two victims at the same time (keep an eye on the 2nd one). If the first is already dead, it may reflect Bundy's necrophelic fantasies (being near a dead body while having sex).
In the end, it just goes to prove that definitions can be simple and specific; people are neither. |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 1:34 am: | |
Hi A.P.,
I think you would enjoy Judith Walkowitz' book City of Dreadful Delight, because she seems to capture the essence of what you've been trying to get across here. In her book Jack is not so much a simple serial killer (if there is such an animal) but the physical manifestation of the Victorian male psyche with all its contradictions. For many men of the time Jack was a morality lesson, the consequence of women's increasingly independence and as such, a fitting and inevitable fate for those who strayed too far outside convention. However, he also represents the raw sensuality (notice I didn't say "sexuality" here--the choice of words was deliberate) of the Victorian gentleman, a thing both terrible and fascinating because below the thin veneer of imposed civility they knew all too well that Jack was merely an extreme example of what they themselves could become--and perhaps, on some level, wanted to become. Jack wasn't afraid to throw up a woman's skirts and see what was underneath, to explore all the forbidden recesses of her body, to touch and perhaps even taste that which made her a woman, a creature little understood and often feared. So ultimately Jack is less about the pursuit of power and control than about the Victorian man's desire for mastery over that which is foreign and frightening, but nevertheless, exhilarating. Remember that this was the age of imperialism, when the conquest of deepest, darkest Africa and other unknown regions was on the mind of every decent Englishman. Jack, then, is no different, except that the heart of darkness he explored was ultimately his (and by extension, those of all men of the time) own.
I must add that not all of this comes from Walkowitz. The good professor would probably be somewhat amused by my late-night ramblings on issues best left to college sophomores. At any rate, I think I've addressed the topic at hand in some roundabout way, but you'll have to forgive me if I failed to make myself clear. It's late and I'm a bit out of practice. 
P.S. I think the issue of BTK came up in this thread. Having been preoccupied with this guy as of late, I can tell you that he was actually quite the "hands-on" killer. Strangling is perhaps the most up close and personal method of murder one can perpetrate. For a sadist like BTK, nothing was more fulfilling than seeing the life leave his victims' eyes as he tightened the noose. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Fascinating stuff Erin
As ever you always manage to say what I wanna say but so much better.
I believe you have unveiled the real crutch-piece of the debate here, that we talk not of simple murder, nor of simple motive - such as the much-vaunted ‘sexual gratification’ motive so popular today - but we instead talk of history and the still on-going tussle between two sexual groupings that are often uncomfortable in bed together at various points in our social development as a social species.
It is perhaps the Late Victorian Period that truly highlights this ‘embarrassment of the sexes’, where our expanding knowledge of the world that surrounds the dominating male species is well and truly matched by his complete and utter misunderstanding of the female species that marches through evolution with him.
I did in a much earlier post highlight the fact that it was precisely in the LVP that female surgeons first appeared and I did feel that this was a tremendous slap in the face for the male Victorian ego, for up to then the cutting up of people had been the entire prerogative of the male species, and I postulated that Jack was the pay-back for that female privilege.
Just a mad-cap idea, but one with better legs than others that are running marathons around here.
I like your post very much, it restores my faith in this site and bites my mind in a pleasant fashion.
I much prefer intellectual discussion to bare-knuckle boxing.
I shall dwell further on what you say.
Thanks Erin.
|
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Everyone -
While I am in the feeling that the Lusk letter was fake, and therefore may be biased in my question, I will voice it anyway in a hope that someone else can take it and run. Multiple threads and multiple people from day one seem to hold the biggest example for the Lusk letter being real being the non-signature. Is it all that difficult to assume that a hoaxer of the time may have realised this as well, and decided not to sign one. Especially in the case of a medical student with access to a kidney, most likely an intelligent person, I don't find it very farfetched to believe that said hoaxer would realize for realism he would NOT sign it JtR. Just a thought.
Here's lookin at you kids-
Ken |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page