View Full Version : Were the Whitechapel Murders Sex Crimes?
Few questions in ripperology are more controversial than this one - were the Whitechapel Murders sex crimes? Many believe that JTR was a SSK - sadosexual serial killer, while others believe that these murders had nothing to do with sex. As usual, no one knows for sure, and the possibilities are many.....
12-01-2003, 11:59 PM
I guess it depends on your definition of "sex crimes". If you are going by the literal definition (i.e. there was actual seamen and penetration involved), then NO. But maybe he did get some type of 'sexual thrill', from doing what he did. Maybe his motivation stemmed from his lack of efficiency in the sexual department, and this method of release was his way of compensating. At any rate, it's a tricky question.
12-02-2003, 06:49 PM
IMHO it's misclassified as a sexual serial killing because there was a man and a woman involved...and of course,the women were prostitutes. Had these women been beaten to death with a stick,strangled,shot,kicked to death,whatever heinous methodology,there would be no major re-evaluation of the crimes except for perhaps a few intrepid thinkers,due almost entirely to the fact these women were prostitutes. Had they been from another social strata,more attention to the motive would have emerged a long time ago. Alas,they were proletarian and prostitutes......hence motive is academic...especially to the "experts" and profilers.
12-02-2003, 07:15 PM
The problem with classifing crime, is that in doing so, the end result can be misleading, and almost counter-productive. It threatens to send the detective off on a wild goose chase, and in the opposite direction in which they would need to travel in order to solve it. For example, the label "hate crime" is used when crime tends to be comitted against a specific manority, because of race, creed, colour, or sexual orientation. Say, for example, a gay man is walking down a street in an openly homosexual neighbourhood. Suddenly he's attacked, pulled into an alley, beaten severely, and left for dead. His wallet is taken as well. Some police might jump to the conclusion that this was a "hate crime", and as a result, put an otherwise peaceful community on the edge for absolutely no reason. Because, based on their classification, the man was beaten soley on the assumption he was gay, and would also assume, the perpetrator was homophobic. Henceforth, why he did it. But would this assumption be the least bit accurate? Could we say with absolute certainy that this WAS the reason he was beaten, and the theft of his wallet was an afterthought? Or was it merely a case of a mugging for the sole purpose of acquiring the man's valuables, and the victim just happened to be gay? So much depends on the interpetation of the evidence and crime itself.
12-02-2003, 08:38 PM
My man Ghost says.." It threatens to send the detective off on a wild goose chase, and in the opposite direction in which they would need to travel in order to solve it."-------Amen. Ghost may have also added that the assumptions of not only detectives,but careerist-Ripperologists,have steered a huge number of students of the case down the wrong road,because they parroted the quick and easy belief systems of cops,psychiatrists,and other know-it-alls.-------------------------------------------------------------Ghost has also echoed my sentiments and others regarding the interpretation of, in this case, hate crimes. If we supplant the "label" of a homosexual with "prostitute", the same assumptions arise. If we take the easy assumption that someone didn't like homosexuals,we would be taking the easy way out. Regardless of whatever statistical probability exists,either in reality or in the mind of some lab room analyst,we start down the wrong road. Remember.....according to the same people, who would classify a beating-death like this as most likely an occurence of homophobia, that these very same people will tell us,overall,that almost all homosexual murders are committed by fellow homos. Does this make sense? No. Ever wonder why? Thats easy.................because it is easy to do.
04-24-2004, 11:50 AM
To resurrect this thread, here's a thought.......
Lets say that the Ripper murdered the same 5 women and instead of mutilating them, he simply took their ears ( sorry for being garish...).
All the facts,scenarios,details,and times were the same.....the same 930 yards-950 yards from each site were the same....everything was the same,with the exception being the detachment of the ears and not the internal organs.
Would the people who either have determined independently or relying on profiler assessment, come to the same conclusion that JTR was a sexual serial killer ? What would your opinion be,my esteemed Forumite ?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.