|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 10:50 pm: |       |
If Jack the Ripper sent the letter to Lusk and the kidney was real, why would he have eaten part of it?
It seems that Jack the Ripper loathed prostitutes. This being the case, considering that he didn't even have sex with any of them it seems odd that he would feel comfortable sticking an internal organ in his mouth when he seems to have considered them no good scum of the Earth whores. It seems odd that he would want to meld any parts of their body with his.
Just a thought.
Tim |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 469
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:31 am: | |
Cannibalism is often considered the ultimate conquest of one's enemy.
Andy S. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:55 am: | |
Or he said that just for shock value. It seemed to work..
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
I agree with Andrew and Paul here. There is no reason to believe a murderer's word any more than a hoaxer's. So either could have lied about having eaten part of the kidney for shock value.
If sent by the killer, he could have eaten part of it, all the better to 'possess' his victim, but equally he could have disposed of it in another way entirely.
I think it's a mistake to assume that what a killer writes will be what a killer does, or even what a killer would seriously decide to do, if and when given the chance. Yet I have seen this assumption cropping up time and time again.
Love,
Caz |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 917
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
I hadn't thought about this really. I don't really see it making much sense for the killer to eat it, but then we have no idea why he mutilated his victims the way he did. I don't think Jack's mind worked like normal human beings so I think it's very hard to try and figure out why he did the things he did or said he said (he the kidney was sent by the killer).
Sarah |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Mulled in red wine and with some fine seasoning he may have enjoyed it, but I think Caz to be wise in what she writes here and elsewhere.
Many killers are so vain that they would claim that they grilled and ate their grandma... we all deal with our five minutes of fame differently, but killers seem to make a mockery of their chance by sounding like Caligula, you know like your cousin sneezes so you find the perfect cure for the common cold by removing their head. I have always felt the Lusk letter to be genuine, but I too have my doubts as to whether the killer was 'brave' enough to have actually eaten part of his victim.
I'll have to ask uncle Charles. |
Jim Dably
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
This is "jack's" Vanity at work, he wants to be sinister sadistic and Evil. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
I don't think it's at all unlikely that someone who appears to be so fascinated with innards that he'd kill people just to get to play would also take a few bites. It's not uncommon in murders of this type. A good example is Chikatilo. He found vulnerable people (some prostituting themselves), lured them away, ripped them up, and ate pieces. The whole act was sexual to him.
The assumption that Jack hated prostitutes and therefore wouldn't eat their parts is odd. Lots of serial killers target prostitutes not because they hate them but just because they are easier prey than other people.
Of course it's also entirely possible that the letter writer was just out for shock value too, whether or not that writer was Jack. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 358
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:30 am: | |
Hi,
There is something compelling about a kidney. The Lusk letter is the one most people would put their bet on (if they had to pick one) as genuine because of it, because of that half kidney. Also, it's coupled with the most "evil" sounding letter (at least to me).
I've just been thinking about the Lusk letter and the kidney, and all that. And I admit, out of all the letters it's the Lusk letter that I've always felt might be genuine.
What just occurred to me, however, is the following counter argument and I thought I would put it out for some feedback.
The basic idea is that the Lusk letter is a hoax because of the kidney that's sent with it.
The following reasons for that statement are based upon what I've picked up by reading up on criminal profiling and such things. To the extent that such areas of inquiry produce usable information about cases other than the ones the information comes from, the following argument is at least reasonable, though not definate or conclusive; hey, I sit on the fence so much I'm not sure I can even fall off anymore!.
Killer's who collect trophies from their victims do so because these trophies allow them to relive their conquests. These are prizes of their victories, to be treasured. The eating of body parts is part of the ultimate possession of their victims, the complete domination or destruction of them. If it can't be eaten, it will be buried somewhere near just so they can know it's there, to remind themselves. So they can look at the "spot" where it's burried and relive the thrill. etc.
To give it up, to send it to Lusk, is just something that would not be done. It's like the recent letters that BTK sent included photocopies of his pictures. He's not giving up his real ones, they are too valuable to him. (Gee, I wonder if the FBI is going to add me to their suspicious poster list now! ha!) etc.
Anyway, I can't think of a single case where a serial killer collects body parts as a trophy and then sends that trophy to the police (or in this case Lusk). The closest is Zodiac, who sent parts of Paul Stein's shirt, but that wasn't taken as a trophy but rather it appears as if he planned to use it to verify his commincations.
Anyway, I'm not sure even I believe this argument is all that strong. It was just something that occured to me. Because, in the end, there is something compelling about a kidney.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Jeff
As you are probably aware I don’t go along with all this FBI propaganda about killers collecting trophies and revisiting sites to get some kind of thrill from their ‘buried treasure’. They like to think things like this go on because it makes their job a little more interesting and they get to write books about such things when they retire… which augments the sparse police pension. Bless ‘em.
Trophy collecting - as it is called - is most often associated with a killer stripping his victim of all personal items to help avoid identification of that victim and hence subsequent investigation and arrest. The closer the relationship between victim and killer then the more ‘trophies’ removed, even extending down to body parts such as hands, teeth and entire heads.
If not buried at another remote site it is not unusual for a killer to keep these very personal items in his freezer - if they are body parts - in the case of personal jewellery he will often just sling them in the boot of his car or in a draw at home. He is doing this because it is the safest place to keep those items, they may mean absolutely nothing to him, but it is in his own best interests to keep them there. Obviously he is running with the idea that if the investigating authorities appear at his door his days are numbered anyway.
As you say, kidneys do not usually fall into this category of so-called ‘trophies’ so my best guess is that the kidney would have been removed for a more particular personal purpose, which I’m afraid if you study the behaviour of more modern killers - like good ‘ol Richard Chase - you will find that the purpose was indeed culinary.
Chase commonly took bits and pieces of his victims back to his flat and liquidized them for his supper… police found buckets of the stuff in his fridge.
I suppose my only objection to the killer actually sending Lusk the kidney is that I certainly wouldn’t parcel up the KFC I’m having for supper tonight and then post it off to a complete and utter stranger.
Sure I’d send them the letter.
But the kidney?
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 364
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi AP,
Yah, I admit, the entire idea is based upon profiling principles. And it's all dependent upon the validity of those conclusions. If the FBI's conclusions about trophy collection is all rubbish, then obviously my concern is based upon a false premise and so itself becomes false.
Like I said, I'm not convinced it's a great argument myself, just one of those things that occured to me and I thought I would put out there.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
I think Dan Norder's point here is excellent, and especially the Chikatilo example, which I think could be valid in this context.
Quite many serial lust killers have indulged in some form of cannibalism, some for exactly the same reasons that Dan suggests - namely that it becomes a part of the sexual act and fantasy - while others, like Jeffrey Dahmer (who felt attracted to his victims and didn't hate them), according to himself, considered it as an act of love, because if he eat parts of them, they would stay within him forever.
Here I think (if the Lusk letter and kidney was genuine, that is) would rather belong to the first category, since the violent mutilations display more hatred than love against the victims.
A reasonable, although not clear-cut, suggestion would therefore be in my view, that if Jack indulged in cannibalism, it would signify a part of his sexual fantasy and/or to gain final, ultimate control or power over his victims.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 367
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Your final paragraph is the sort of thing I was thinking about. If the act of cannibalism was to gain complete control and power over his victims, does it then make sense for him to give up that power and control by mailing it away, and thereby giving up this power and control to someone else?
I suppose though, if the killer did send the kidney (so it's genuine), then all that indicates is that the kidney was not taken originally to gain such power and control over his victim. And, if that's true, there may be no reason why he should have a problem in giving it up. It would also suggest that the cannibilism implied in the letter might just be a lie (since power and control seems to be a common theme in cannibalism).
Hmmmm, now I'm arguing against myself. See, I knew I wasn't convinced! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I think you are making things to complicated here. What you say might be true, but several body parts are usually found in these murderers' home, not eaten, and also the writer of the letter, indicates that he ate a part of it (true or not). So there is no reason why he shouldn't give away bits and pieces if he had a certain purpose with it, like acknowledging himself.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
I was thinking that too, Jeff. Why go to all that trouble to get some radical alternative cuisine and then just give it up? Maybe he decided he didn't like the taste? Maybe he felt an overriding need to dispute earlier letters claiming to be from the killer and decided to prove once and for all that he had the power, not the hoaxers? (Note that the Lusk letter doesn't use the Jack the Ripper name, doesn't mention a double event, etc.)
I still lean slightly away from thinking the Lusk letter was genuine, mainly because I think Jack would have either eaten the kidney fully or decided to hold onto it forever at that point.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
I think he just wrote that (if the letter came from the ripper) for shock value.
Paul |
A Rusty Ol' Hound Dawg
Sergeant
Username: Burgho2004
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
Note that in almost all SK cases involving opening the body cavity of the victim after death, cannibalism occurs. The recorded history of the Whitechapel case is like a coach flight: there's a meal without desert. The desert's usually always there.
Blitz attack, open up and eat. It's the oldest behavior pattern in the animal kingdom. About half a billion years old.
Assuming cannibalism is not a very far stretch!
Cheers,
Burgho |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
I tend to agree with you, Burgho.
Not sure, but quite possible.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 369
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
Hi,
I probably am overly complicating things. But it's the fact that the body parts are generally "kept", or if they are disposed of, they get burried somewhere they can be revisited. I'm thinking Ed Kemper, who burried a head outside his mother's bedroom window. Or The Green River Killer, who used to find dump sites in locations that he would vacation near. Or Ted Bundy who also revisited murder locations. Dahmer, who ate his victims, and kept the parts for himself to enjoy, or disposed of them when he wanted to. I can't think of anyone who collected body parts are later gives one up volentarily? There probably is someone who has, I'm just stuck on the one's who haven't. Since this is a relatively new line of thought for me, I've not had the time to really think through all the alternatives. Mostly, I'm just tossing out ideas around a theme and trying to see where it gets me.
Dan's point of sending the kidney as a way of "verifying" this is genuine has occurred to me as well. The lack of "Jack the Ripper" on this letter is also interesting and possibly works towards "genuine". If JtR did send the letter, then maybe it indicates that it's more important to him to reclaim his power over the community from the hoaxer who sent the Dear Boss letter?
I know I'm working from the unproven point of view that the letter is genuine here, but I'm only "thinking aloud" here. And, the mentioning of cannibalism isn't what makes me think it's not real by itself, it's the combination of a cannible then giving away his dinner. Somehow, the two don't seem to go together. Then again, if his 2nd half of the kidney has gone off on him, and he sees it just as something to eat that has gone rotten, maybe it has lost it's appeal and now he puts it to "good use"?
Arrrgggh! I've got my head spinning so many ways I no longer know which position I'm supposed to be taking right now! ha!
- Jeff |
Mishter Lusk
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:56 am: | |
I too believe the whole claim that he ate the kidney was only for shock value. Everybody has his own JtR and I'm inclined to see some kind of Nietzcshean übermensch here: bold, arrogant, above everything and everyone. Not to say he was unpleasant, those same traits might have turn out pleasantly masculine for most of the time. Remember how confident his female victims seemed to be according to eyewitnesses - right until they felt his hands around their neck...
What I think he was after was a thrill of killing someone and get away with it. Mutilation and all that was only for greater show, for everybody to see how terrifying guy he was... no hidden messages at all; uterus, kidney, no matter what he took as long as someone will notice it. And posting some of his trophies did the same trick.
The whole case should be put more closely in it's proper context, late 19th century urban Europe and what it was all about. I can't help thinking about Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" and its main character Raskolnikov, justifying himself the murder of "useless" old woman.
Most JtR's victims were elderly women, not attractive to say the least, some so tragically poor they hadn't enough money to pay for their bed for a night - "undesirables" for Our Boy???
Nothing happens in vacuum. Those ideas in JtR's head came from somewhere. Follow the zeitgeist.
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
Dan Norder wrote: "Why go to all that trouble to get some radical alternative cuisine and then just give it up? Maybe he decided he didn't like the taste?" Not to make this thread even more revolting, but I think one reason he may not have eaten it was the possible presence of fecal matter on it. He would not necessarily have planned on this, and may not have noticed it until he examined it later in the light.
Regards, Vincent |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Well, it’s no secret that I don’t go along with all this power, domination, control and sex stuff, so please don’t get ruffled if I have a go at you now. It’s just the natural order of things.
My main objection to this sex and power thing is that it helps to increase the myth and clouds the reality.
Basically what we have here is a child who may be a man but doesn’t know it, he is probably unable to successfully control his own bodily functions and pisses the bed on a nightly basis.
Kid’s stuff.
And there is something terribly and inherently childish about sending someone a kidney in the post.
What a prank!
Like slipping dog crap through the local busybody’s letterbox.
I do try to come around and take in the views of many posters who see Jack as some kind of all-powerful, all-logical, all-purpose, all-knowing, all-feeling killing machine who knows exactly what he is doing and actually enjoys it.
But where they see control, I see a lack of control.
Where they see domination, I see fear.
Where they see power, I see weakness.
Where they see sex, I see toilet training problems.
Sit back, think, and do not accept anything, Jeff.
I think you steer a fine course.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 757
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
what I see quite often with this ripper chap is a showman.I reckon he loved to read about himself
and enjoyed the ride.No matter how many posts I read about him suggesting the opposite I usually see a show off, a dare devil who thought "I can get away with anything if If I can get away with that" and I think he might have thrown away these womens lives for a bit of masturbatory fun.These were Victorian times after all when the attitude of the ruling class towards the lower classes was of itself "throw away" as a general rule and the women would have been considered vermin by many of those with money and power.The ripper may not have come from this class but he was almost certainly influenced by its primary ideology.I think this is how he viewed the women anyway , as disposable objects.
I still can"t decide whether I think he sent the kidney or not.If he did it was probably to raise the temperature even higher and draw more attention to himself and his high wire performances.
Natalie |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 226
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
I wonder if anyone else also remembers the public relations disaster that occured during the Dahmer trial. Anyway, one day a portion of Dahmer's statement was read in which he said he once tried frying up a portion of a victim's biceps, but it tasted terrible.
He went on, however, to the effect that "I tried it again the next night, this time with A-1sauce, and it was delicious."
Not an advertising endorsement to cherish and I imagine company executives were on "suicide watch" for several days afterward.
Don. |
Jeff Rients
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Howdy folks. I'm a long time lurker, but I believe this is my first post.
To give it up, to send it to Lusk, is just something that would not be done.
But he didn't send the whole kidney. Right? He retained part. He still had a trophy, if trophy it was.
BTW, I tend to regard the accompanying letter as geniune because of A) the presence of the kidney and B) the fact that the letter was unsigned. I think a hoaxer would be more inclined to sign a letter in the same manner as he had seen in the press, or at least a hoaxer would invent a suitable spine-chilling pseudonym.
That being said, I don't necessarily believe that the claims made in the letter must therefore be true. What other possible motives could exist for lying about eating the other half of the kidney? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
