Cannibalism

[How Brown]

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/index.html This is a pretty decent overview of Cannibalism. Take note in the beginning of the article, the pro and con schools of thought regarding cannibalism. When I was in High School, 200 years ago, I remember being told that cannibalism was a "racist stereotype being cast upon non-White peoples "....When I confronted my teacher, an adherent to the Franz Boas/Margaret Mead/Lysenkian leftist pack of b.s. artists, and asked her "How 'bout them Aztecs?" She hadn't read the accounts of Cortez. Obviously,she had not read much,but nevertheless...we all know its real. Me ? I prefer the picture at left....a cheesesteak with mushrooms,fried onions,garlic,hot peppers and make my cheese Swiss !

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

A "racist stereotype"? Talk about reaching for an excuse, to push one's own agenda! I guess all the recorded data on the subject throughout the world, were all recorded by racists as well?

[How Brown]

Oh yeah,Ghost.....Back in the 1970's and '60's ,there was a revisionistic movement in schools to "eliminate' any references to ostensibly negative practices by non-Western peoples.....the same people who screamed about the Nazi's burning books back in 1933 are usually found to be behind the "re-education" we have been enduring for these last 45 to 50 years over in North America.

[How Brown]

Cannibalism ain't only for the Aztecs,Africans,and Sawney Beans of the world...serial killers have indulged in eating their fellow man too.

Could JTR have been someone of the ilk as Chikatilo..Dahmer...Philadelphia's own Gary Heidnik...Fish...or Ed Gein?

In a previous post made three years ago...when I was 17,I got into a debate with my sociology teacher who tried to pass off cultural cannibalism as a myth for what I consider all the wrong reasons. The Saxons practiced human sacrifice as did the Aztecs...but to mention cannibalism and that cultures did practice it often brings out animosity from within what is generally the left-leaning element of society.

Are we,since most of us are liberal or left-leaning as a rule of thumb...a little hesitant to consider the possibility that the Ripper may have indulged in cannibalism ?

I mention this,not to "gain" support for a feeling that it might be true...but it doesn't seem to get mentioned much on message boards. Most of the time,the organ removal is mentioned in some context regarding ritualism or an insane medical student. I firmly believe that the act of the organ removal meant something....but what,is the question.

So...keep in mind the actions of the grisly killers ( and a couple of them were quite competent mentally and not necessarily psychotics.....Heidnik made tons of money on the stock market,wallpapering his house of horrors on Broad Street in North Philly with it....and Dahmer was equally as competent in his preparation for the subsequent murders )....and please offer your ideas or suggestions as to the question....

Could JTR have been a cannibal?

[admin tim]

Wrong question, Howard. Obviously, JTR could have been a cannibal. The real question is "what is the probability that JTR was a cannibal?"

I personally do not think that he was - he hardly took the choicest cuts available. Surely, the liver would have gone missing from at least one victim if he had been a cannibal. Them's good eatin' with fava beans and a nice chianti.

But a bladder and a uterus? Ugh! I don't know if a uterus could even be made edible due to its toughness. And not even Scots eat cow bladders.

No, I feel there was some deeper purpose to the organ extractions. Either that or it was one hell of a red herring.

[How Brown]

Tim:

Gein ate parts off of buried corpses .

Heidnik made soup out of the parts of the women.

Dahmer ate the penis.

Chikatilo ate testicles and chewed on uteri...and lips.

Fish ate the buttocks.

The Ripper did take the liver...may have taken some intestines ( What do people think "chittlins' are? )...and can hardly be any worse in the selection process of these other monsters.

That some cultures practiced cannibalism.....as a cultural practice ...and STILL ate the hearts ...tells me that their "best" choices were not necessarily the preferable,more savory ones we would choose. We judge the selections based on what WE would eat if we were cannibals. You are obviously right,that the liver beats a penis by a mile or a heart or a uteri.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Could JTR have been a cannibal?

Forgive me for my latest obsession, but the first thought I had when I read this was that he intended to eat it. R.J. seems to be thinking along similar lines.

It is stated that the words, "I shall do another murder and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

[Dan Norder]

I do think that a good portion of the tales of cannibalism that were spread in the 19th century and earlier were the result of eurocentric thought. That of course doesn't rule all the cases out, but many people were quick to to call certain foreign types as heathen barbarian cannibals.

Of course individual cases of cannibalism can and do exist separate from the culture that spawned them. The Donner party alone shows that, if nothing else.

I've always looked at Chikatilo as being a killer who could have a fair amount in common with Jack the Ripper. Certainly those killers known to take body parts are quite frequently eating them. I haven't done anything like a proper study, but it seems to me from what I remember of the cases I have read about, cannibalsim was more common than its absence in such murders.

[How Brown]

Dan:

"I've always looked at Chikatilo as being a killer who could have a fair amount in common with Jack the Ripper."

Dan...I'll tell ya. Take a look at Chikatilo in the courtroom cage in the documentaries that feature him. Now envision this sort of creature being able to coerce anyone into taking the proverbial walk with him.

Then look at him as he takes the cops to the killsites. Its an act. No amount of Russian prison food can turn someone into a glassy eyed psycho that fast.

I agree and in particular,with you about this killer,that he could have elements in common with the Ripper.

[How Brown]

Sir Bob:

My view ( not that it matters ) is that the effort in taking the organs meant something to the Ripper. In fact,since I first found out that he did,I've been very curious as to what that might be as I am sure others are. I know all about the souvenir theory and even Eduardo Zinna's underrated dissertation on a possible ex-Zulu War veteran being involved,but many,if not most of those who do remove organs,as Dan Norder mentioned,do take them to eat them. I named 5 and could,if pressed,name more.

Its not an obsession in any stretch to "run with the ball", since gems can be culled from the effort,buddy.

No known 19th century individual or individuals took organs from murder victims to use in anything other than candles. There's a link somewhere on the site to that.

The organs taken in the Ripper murders provide so little fat to make such candles that the Ripper must have been awfully disappointed in the total fat content that resulted from his or their work.

Therefore and despite the possibility that the organs could have been used for candles...the odds ,at least from what I have seen in other instances of murder with eviscerations, are that they were either eaten or souvenirs.

[A.P. Wolf]

Good thread, How, and good points raised.
When it comes to murder and mutilation of this nature I’m a little wary of the word ‘cannibalism’, especially when it is used in conjunction or combination with the concept that such killers might have some kind of associated ‘desire’ to eat parts of their victim in some kind of ultimate sexual fix; or indeed as part of a total ‘conquest’ motive.
The explanation can often be far simpler.
Take Richard Chase for example, the ‘Vampire of Sacramento’, who did indeed consume many parts of his various victims by liquidizing them in a Kenwood Chef, but his motive was an imagined illness that he felt could only be cured by firstly drinking the blood of various animals he slaughtered, then later by liquidizing internal body parts; and even later practicing this bizarre cure using the blood and organs of humans.
Young Richard imagined that he had an illness that traveled extensively through his body, and for some reason felt that drinking the blood of rabbits he bought at the pet store and then slaughtered would cure that imaginary illness.
Obviously it didn’t, it made him worse, and when his family and doctors asked him what had made him worse his reply was:
‘Bad rabbit.’
From rabbits he went to dogs, then cows and then finally humans… but they all made him worse… bad rabbits, bad dogs, bad cows and bad humans… but it was really ‘Bad Richard’ who made him ill.
His motives may have been bizarre, but we are able to understand them, he was sick and he felt that consuming blood and liquidized body parts would cure him.
Richard’s problems stemmed from a high level of addiction to modern day drugs which had clouded his mind and allowed him to imagine his wandering disease.
Taking such a set of circumstances back to the Late Victorian Period I could see a similar young man, hooked on the mercury and other dangerous drugs widely available then; and imagining himself to have syphilis, then going out and slaughtering women to consume various parts of the body in a vain effort to cure his imagined illness.
What I think Richard Chase was trying to do was cure himself by homeopathy. He believed the blood running around his body was ‘bad’ and that by drinking ‘good’ blood he would cure himself, hence the blood of rabbits that didn’t cure him became ‘bad rabbits’.
In this regard it is interesting that a certain young man I know wrote to Lord Grimthorpe, the champion of homeopathy in 1888; for in his simple and befuddled mind he may have imagined that there was a cure for his imagined illness, and that cure was to treat like with like.
Believing he had been infected by a prostitute he may well have believed that he could also be cured by a prostitute.
A very ‘Bad Rabbit’ indeed.

[SirRobertAnderson]

The organs taken in the Ripper murders provide so little fat to make such candles that the Ripper must have been awfully disappointed in the total fat content that resulted from his or their work.



That is a great point and one I've never considered.

Of course, if the Lusk letter is legit then we really don't have to wonder if Jack was a cannibal.

One last point, and I hope I'm not being too gross. I chew on pens and pencils while I work. I'm not eating them, obviously. With respect to organs like the womb or bladder that are too tough to cook and eat, I throw out this suggestion:

Maybe he cleaned them up and used them as chew toys.

[Chris G.]

Sir Bob:

My view ( not that it matters ) is that the effort in taking the organs meant something to the Ripper. In fact,since I first found out that he did,I've been very curious as to what that might be as I am sure others are. I know all about the souvenir theory and even Eduardo Zinna's underrated dissertation on a possible ex-Zulu War veteran being involved,but many,if not most of those who do remove organs,as Dan Norder mentioned,do take them to eat them. I named 5 and could,if pressed,name more.

Its not an obsession in any stretch to "run with the ball", since gems can be culled from the effort,buddy.

No known 19th century individual or individuals took organs from murder victims to use in anything other than candles. There's a link somewhere on the site to that.

The organs taken in the Ripper murders provide so little fat to make such candles that the Ripper must have been awfully disappointed in the total fat content that resulted from his or their work.

Therefore and despite the possibility that the organs could have been used for candles...the odds ,at least from what I have seen in other instances of murder with eviscerations, are that they were either eaten or souvenirs.

Hi Howard & Sir Robert

Don't forget the story or rather myth out of Vienna, reported in the press at the time of the Whitechapel murders (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/search.html?cx=000723952817035431763%3Aucomtzxdr00&q=Vienna+ritual&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11#696), about Galician Jews who were supposedly guilty of the ritual murder of Christian women and who manufactured candles from the uteruses of the murdered women.

Chris

[How Brown]

A.P.

That Cutbush...or someone like him... may have theoretically have had a bit of what we call " the hair of the dog that bit him " is a good concept I think. Chase is an excellent example of such a case. Thanks a lot for mentioning his reason for his consuming blood and the bad rabbits....

Dear C.G.,sor...

"Don't forget the story or rather myth out of Vienna, reported in the press at the time of the Whitechapel murders (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/search.html?cx=000723952817035431763%3Aucomtzxdr00&q=Vienna+ritual&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11#696), about Galician Jews who were supposedly guilty of the ritual murder of Christian women and who manufactured candles from the uteruses of the murdered women."

Actually,there is another case involving non-Jews with candles as well. That came from Germany or somewhere in the Central Europe area. Thats the one I was thinking of. Its funny in a way that organs with the least amount of fat ( a heart would have more ) are the ones we keep seeing getting mentioned regarding these candles.

One or two or even three uteri don't have enough fat within them to make a candle composed entirely of uterine fat...... The argument that just some of the uteri were included with other ingredients to make a candle is impossible to deny or confirm.

The uteri would therefore,in my view,have to have some 'meaning' as to why it was taken to make a candle or ritual artifact....

And why I do not think that they were taken by the Ripper for that purpose is the extra time spent at Mitre Square looking for the kidney or coming across the kidney. Thats just my view. If others differ,please provide your opinions too. That he spent extra time for the harder to access kidney tells me that he was there for more than the uteri and the uteri was not the goal,but just part of the ill gotten gain.

Dear Bob:

Chikatilo testified that he chewed on organs and body parts like chew toys...so you have company and are not a trend setter..yet.

The Ripper may have taken the organ parts and masturbated on them. He may have put them on his clothes hook. He may have slept with them... There's a lot of things he may have done with them.

I admit I think that he cannibalized them since the majority of s.k.'s who do take organs seem to eventually be found out as cannibals.

[Dan Norder]

Then look at him as he takes the cops to the killsites. Its an act. No amount of Russian prison food can turn someone into a glassy eyed psycho that fast.

I agree with you 100% there, How. Some people have tried to use him as an example of a psychotic mutilating serial killer, but I think it's pretty clear that he was as sane as everyone else. Sane enough to do what a lot of killers do in such a situation: realizing your only hope to survive is to convince people you're crazy so you can get into an asylum and try to find a way out later.

[How Brown]

Sane enough to do what a lot of killers do in such a situation: realizing your only hope to survive is to convince people you're crazy so you can get into an asylum and try to find a way out later.--Big D

Sounds like an epitaph for nearly all of the cannibals I've read about,sor.

I suppose to "counter argue" the possibility of a cannibal running amok ( A Malay term,by the way...) in the East End....one could point to the ample opportunity for this at Millers Court and scratch their head at all that wasn't taken for future consumption,yet displayed. This is the "thing" that I used to believe that showed it was more likely that a ritual found within ritualism was at work and not cannibalism.

Anyone else have views on this situation ? Thank you.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I suppose to "counter argue" the possibility of a cannibal running amok ( A Malay term,by the way...) in the East End....one could point to the ample opportunity for this at Millers Court and scratch their head at all that wasn't taken for future consumption,yet displayed.

Well, How, the thing that comes to mind would be a scenario in which Jack faced a home situation where he had some degree of privacy but not unlimited space or freedom. I.e. he could bring trophies home but there was a practical limit to how much he could 'save' without being noticed.

[Insect Kin]

It's strangely not too uncommon to hear women cook and eat a placenta after the birth of a baby... I'm not sure if that can accurately be called cannibalism, even though it essentially is - self cannibalism, anyway.

Maybe there is a link in the childbirth or reproductive scenario that is more direct than thought. Who knows? All I know is supposing such things without much or any concrete link leads to wild goose chases.

...Excuse me while I talk myself out of every thought and viewpoint on every aspect of the murders.