|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Busman's Holiday?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Busman's Holiday?
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 03:45 pm |        | Hi, all:
Jack is often theorized, possibly without adequate rationale, to have been a slaughterer or a surgeon. However, if he pursued one of these occupations, what could the thrill have been for him if he did the cutting on a daily basis anyway? Thoughts anyone?
Chris George |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 05:32 pm | | Chris,
In my opinion, if he did have such a career, he wouldn't really be doing the same thing he did every day. His day job would fuel his fantasies about killing women. Actually performing the act on a woman would be the fullfillment of that fantasy. In a sense masturbation as opposed to sex. He'd have the day job for the same reason people masturbate, because you can't always get what you want.
John Hacker |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 06:10 pm | | Dear Chris,
Actually, like everything, it depends on the
individual. Back in the 1920s, Germany had several sadistic murderers. In Hanover it was Fritz Haarmann, who combined homosexual lust with
cannibalistic treatment of the victims bodies.
Haarmann's main boyfriend and confederate, Hans Grans, was not executed because he gave testimony at Haarmann's trial in 1923. He spent some years in prison. During World War II, Grans worked as
a guard at one of the death camps. No doubt he
got his jollies on a daily basis at that point.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 03:38 am | | Hi Chris,
The cutting edge of Jack's work came after the moment of death (so not sadistic), and in all cases apart from possibly MJK, was most likely performed with great speed. We could assume that the speed was simply to avoid risk of capture, and that he would have taken his time if only he'd had some more of it. But it's quite hard even to come up with what Jack's idea of the perfect thrill was. We could imagine that it might be the acuter the danger, and the faster he had to work, and the harder the task he set himself at the scene, the bigger the thrill he got if and when he heard approaching footsteps and had to spirit himself away into the night, heart beating like crazy, adrenaline surging through his body.
That would be totally different from the daily grind of cutting into flesh for a living. But then, why change with MJK? What would his big thrill be on that occasion? The risk of being trapped inside with her, as the footsteps approached? Doesn't seem to make much sense.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 08:39 am | | Hi, Caz, Jeff, and John:
Caroline, you make some good points about the thrill of cutting in the face of being captured, although as you say the interior murder of MJK seems an exception when he seemed to have as much time as he needed to wreak as much havoc as he wanted to one human body.
Jeff and John, I also appreciate your points that killing and mutilation would be by nature different from Jack's day job if in fact he wielded a knife in his profession.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 09:00 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Actually I hope what you said is true, that once
Jack cut his victims' throats they died quickly
and did not experience any pain from anything
else. But there is no way that we can ever know
this. It is just as likely, given that speed
was of the essence in the street murders, that
Jack proceeded to mutilate his victims while they
still were living the last seconds of life. As
for Mary Kelly, one of the reports I have seen
quoted said someone heard a woman scream, "MURDER!" that night near Kelly's apartment.
If she was aware of danger and terror, then she
may have been aware that this time the killer had
far more horrible plans than on the previous
occasions. And again, even if she was lying on
her bed, throat cut, bleeding to death, there is
nothing to suggest the killer decided to "be kind"
and not proceed with his vivisection of poor Mary
until he was sure she was dead.
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 09:08 pm | | Dear Caroline,
My apologies, but I just realized this after I
finished writing. By Sadisim you are thinking
of the intentional infliction of physical pain
on a human being by another. However, it can
also be the infliction of mental pain by the
shocking nature of an action: By his very mutalations, Jack is certainly aware of the horror
and terror he is spreading among the public, not
to mention the personal fear spread to women of
the class of his victims, and the families and
relatives and friends of his victims.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 08:51 am | | Hi Jeff,
I take your points. But I think there is a subtle difference between the killer getting his kicks directly from seeing the suffering he has planned to inflict on his victims, and not actually giving a moment's thought to it, or caring either way, about the feelings of anyone but himself.
We don't know much about Jack's raison d'etre, but he did choose to kill at least three women out on the mean streets, with very limited time or light to inflict the kind of lingering or visible suffering that one might expect a sadist to hanker after. If MJK, trapped inside for hours, with possibly a fire to provide light (or even a tad of natural daylight, if we could believe Maxwell's tale), was Jack's ultimate bag, it took a few 'try-outs' of a completely different sort to get him there.
I did read somewhere of a series of murders which took place many years before Jack's. The killer was caught, and maintained that the thrill for him was seeing the look of horror in his victims' eyes, as his hands closed round their throats, and they knew they were going to die - so more than a touch of sadism there. I can't recall if there was any mutilation, but if so, I'm pretty sure it was after death. Of course, with Jack, it may have been much too dark to see most of his victims' eyes, or he may have killed them from behind anyway.
And we really don't know enough about that cry of 'Murder'. The women who heard it, around 4am, did not think it significant at the time, even during that terrible autumn, and the time of MJK's death still has a question mark hanging over it.
I just hope to God most of the women knew very little before it was too late. Liz Stride seems to be the only one we can say beyond doubt was aware of being under attack. (My daughter finds it quite ironic that she was known as 'Lucky Liz' because she escaped mutilation.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 09:12 am | | Hi, Caz:
If Jack could not properly have seen his victims' eyes in Mitre Square or Buck's Row, for example, he certainly would have sensed their fear and I agree that this as much as anything possibly provided part of the thrill for him.
See you soon in Bournemouth. I am thrashing out with Adam Wood and various people the details for our concert performance of Jack--The Musical on the opening evening of the convention.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 10:28 am | | Hi Chris,
You wrote:
'...he certainly would have sensed their fear and...this as much as anything possibly provided part of the thrill for him.'
This appears to imply that Jack first rendered these victims unable to cry out, then rendered them senseless, otherwise they would have screamed blue murder the instant they felt the fear. No?
Yes, roll on September. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 11:59 am | | Hi, Caz:
No matter how swift Jack was in cutting his victim's throats, and quite probably he was very swift considering that most of the victims do not seem to have screamed, there must have been that moment, however fleeting, when they realized their ends had come.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 12:23 pm | | Yeah, doesn't bear thinking about, does it?
I guess I was trying to imagine Jack enjoying the fear he sensed in his victims, if he was at the same time being forced, by the circumstances in which he chose to commit murder, to make that fear as fleeting as possible - kind of like cutting off his nose to spite his face - if the victims' fear was a significant part of the thrill for him.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Hi, Caz:
In addition to the thrill of the kill I think part of the excitement was to do it in an outdoors, exposed location.
Chris |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 05:42 pm | | Dear Caroline,
STOP!
....turn back the tape...........
"I guess I was trying to imagine the fear he sensed in his victims, if he was at the same time
being forced, by the circumstances in which he chose to commit murder, TO MAKE THAT FEAR AS FLEETINGLY AS POSSIBLE - kind of like cutting off his nose to spite his face - IF the victim's fear was a significant part of the thrill for him."
Does Rosey detect a curious ambiguity in this paragraph...I can't quite place my finger on it.
Why would Jack CHOOSE to cut the throats of all his victims when it is a high probability they were all rendered senseless anyway...the one unifying...and IMPERATIVE feature?
Wondering Rose :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 06:11 pm | | | I suspect that , for Jack , these prostitutes were in his opinion totally beneath him ( no pun intended ! ) and totally inferior to him. He dispatched them like cattle IMHO, I suspect he had few , if any , feelings for them at all. Except for Kelly. He took his time over that one , she was his masterpiece ( in a sick way ). He totally dehumanised her , took away everything of her beauty and what physically made her a person and a woman. He made sure that no-one would forget his work with what he did to Kelly. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 06:26 pm | | My opinion is that Jack rendered his victims senseless in whatever way ( throttling , strangulation , drugging , via submission hold etc ) to make sure that they were easy to kill and didn't cry out. Then he laid them down and cut their throats , killing them and then he mutilated them.
If there was any enjoyment in his work , I think it was a misogynistic pleasure in killing a ' dirty whore ' , maybe a kind of Leopold and Loeb thing too in that Jack felt superior by dispatching a lifeform which didn't contriute much to humanity or human life anyway ( in his opinion ).
I think Kelly was different however , I think Jack enjoyed what he did to Kelly , maybe as a kind of ' payback '.
I think Tabram is different too , a different killer. The repeated stabbing suggests a pseudo-sexual pleasure derived from the act , ie the knife takes the place of the penis in this case. What Chris and Caz are talking about seems to be a sort of pleasure of this kind , but I don't think it applies to the Ripper murders as I've stated above. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 04:48 am | | Hi Simon, Wondering Rose,
I was speculating, pure and simple. I don't have much of a 'preference' either way for whether Jack's plan was to make the women suffer, and to sense that suffering, or whether he couldn't care less, and if they suffered in the process of his butchery plans, they suffered. If pushed, I think I would favour the second option.
If Jack was forced off the streets and into Miller's Court because of the heat on him during October, I would tend to agree with Chris and return to my original speculation, that Jack may have got his jollies from the excitement of killing outdoors with a certain calculated and perhaps escalating risk of exposure. Then, when the risks became just too great for our Great Jack, thanks to the likes of Lusk etc, he may have taken his anger and frustration out on Lusk, then MJK, saying in effect, "See what you all made me do by forcing me off the streets - your fault, not mine."
Again, pure speculation.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 05:26 am | | Dear Folks,
Can anyone tell me another murderer who... having chosen a certain class of women to murder...both strangles them unconscious and then cuts their throats?
Was Jack implementing a desired modus operandi?
Was this peculiar method conditional on his circumstantial nexus?
Was it a form of ritualised killing...as some writers suggest?
Or, was it ALL of the above?
Nosey Rosey :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 06:51 am | | Consider John Norman Collins, Rosemary, the Ypsilanti Ripper (1967) who shot one of his victims twice in the head, and then garrotted her so fiercely with a stocking that the path people had to do an internal examination to decide whether she'd died of the strangulation or the shooting. (It was the shooting). In spite of his nickname, by the way, he was more of a multiple stabber or frenzied beater than a Ripper.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:40 am | | Hi, Martin:
Isn't it interesting though that so many horrific modern-day killers are given the moniker "Ripper" though their modus operandi or signatures bear little resemblance to the original Ripper. I am thinking for example of the trunk murders found around London in recent months, as in the headline "Victim of the Riverside Ripper" which recounts that a Liverpool woman's remains were found dumped in a London canal
(see http://icliverpool.ic24.com/0100news/0100regionalnews/page.cfm?objectid=7549672&method=full). Those murders appear to resemble more closely the Whitehall and Pinchin Street mysteries and the other Thames Torso murders of 1887-1889 than what we generally think of as the Ripper murders. I think though that it is the savagery that attracts the notice of the press that makes them think of the Ripper. Their continued use of the term "Ripper" for unrelated murders may also, of course, be an indication of how far the fame and reputation of Jack the Ripper has infiltrated modern culture.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 08:08 am | | Quite agree. 'The roadside Ripper' Alun Kyte, actually convicted of a mere two murders, is an extreme example.
Martin |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 11:15 am | | | If Jack got his jollies from the terror, or the act of killing, then Eddowes would never have been murdered. Of course for my argument to hold water one has to assume that Stride was a genuine Ripper victim. If that assumption is correct then what happened was that Stride whetted his appetite but did not satisfy it. Driven by an unsatiated craving he took off to find another victim. I think Douglas, et.al. were right. The ultimate goal was the post mortem mutilation. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 11:32 am | | Regarding the culture's adoption of "Ripper" for
any mysterious, unsolved series of murders (without the anatomical mutilations that Jack
included), there is a similar modern version of
this adoption into language of the syllable "gate"
for addition to all names of American political
scandals: "White-water gate", "Travel-gate". This
has been the situation ever since the Watergate
scandal of the 1970s, even though the name of the
hotel that was the site of the break-in in that
incident was the Watergate, and the hotel was
named for a local site connected to drainage or
the water system.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 12:29 pm | | Hi, Jeff:
Excellent analogy. Of course, some might argue that the Royal Conspiracy was a case of "Rippergate."   |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Dear Martin,
No gun used...stealth and cunning were in Jack's 'bag'...besides that knife.Hardly comparable with the "Ypsilanti Kid".
Rosey :-0 |
|
|
|
|
