Was it a frenzy?

[Cogidubnus]

Stranger things have happened

Yup...because in this particular case I agree with you Christer!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

blown

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Could be, I guess - but it seems to have been a fire much out of the ordinary, and it will be a fair bet that the killer may have been the responsible party. No sure thing, though!"

Indeed. IF she were at some time in an intelligence network, and she subsequently recognised that her cover blown, she would need to destroy many things quickly.

"If I was pressed to vote for acquainted/not acquainted, Iīd go for the latter. Earlier customer perhaps, but I would not bet money on it."

Earlier customer from when? Just after Barnett left?

Cheers.
LC

[sleekviper]

Hello Fisherman!
I would think that there should be a rather large amount of stabbing motion evidence, and not just at the remains, but also to the surrounding area. Someone out of control should miss a fair number of times in all directions. Lack of noise in either vocalization or movement would seem odd with that type carnage. Get that far into a frenzy, and remember to lock the door on the way out? Odd, guess the frenzy was over in a blink, and shock didn't sink in until much later. I would think just making sure that it was closed would be in doubt. Remember to lock the door and take the knife; guy really loves that knife, frenzy or not. If that room was a frenzy, somebody is extremely scary with what they can do when in control. I take that back, some are extremely scary with what they can do when they have control.

[Sally]

How can we tell?

We see only the end result, not the mental processes which took place in the mind of the killer; so we cannot say yes, or no - at least not absolutely.

A frenzy? It might have been, at some point. Throughout?

Obviously not.

There is no clear cut answer here.

[Cogidubnus]

A frenzy? It might have been, at some point. Throughout?

Obviously not.

There is no clear cut answer here.

Hi Sally

Presumably you're implying some form of non-connectional "post coitum omne animal triste est, sive gallus et mulier"...

If there was a frenzied outburst, I'm not sure his heart would be that fully into the continued and thorough mutilation that followed...it seems an odd contrast of moods compared to that propounded by Galen...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

What are your thoughts on this? Was it a frenzy anyway? Or was the killer focused, silent and in control of what he did throughout?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer.
No, the carnage does not speak of frenzy to me, obsessive yes, determined certainly, even relaxed, that is to say no evidence of a hurried mutilation, the very fact it was so extensive tends to support this.

Why would any killer think he had all the time in the world?

Regards, Jon S.

[Sherlock Holmes]

cogidubnus

can I have your help finding some documents please?

Regards Sherlock

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Indeed. IF she were at some time in an intelligence network, and she subsequently recognised that her cover blown, she would need to destroy many things quickly."

Itīs a good thing you are there to remind me of these things, Lynn - I tend to forget them myself.

"Earlier customer from when?"

Any stage, really.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"We see only the end result, not the mental processes which took place in the mind of the killer; so we cannot say yes, or no - at least not absolutely.
A frenzy? It might have been, at some point. Throughout?
Obviously not.
There is no clear cut answer here."

I like the "obviously not" part best - for I also think that this IS obvious. As for the notion that it might have been a frenzy at some point, yes - we cannot look away from that possibility. But letīs keep in mind that this killer got his show on the road by cutting her neck first. And cutting a neck is a very focused thing, intent on one goal and one goal only: to kill. The frenzied partys are NOT focused in that respect; it can be reasoned that they loose all other focuses for a period of time than to kill, but it must also be added that something else than an internal focus takes possession of a frenzied killer. He does not govern what he is doing himself, and cannot help himself, cannot stop, cannot refocus as the frenzy is in the driving seat. That often results in ninetyfive stabs delivered any which where he can hit his target, or a victim beaten to a pulp. What it does normally NOT result in is a focused killing by a cut to the neck, followed by a lengthy session of cutting things away from a dead body.

I concur, though, that frenzy may have been about at some stage - although my own belief is that it was not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"obsessive yes, determined certainly, even relaxed, that is to say no evidence of a hurried mutilation"

Bravo, Jon! My sentiments exactly; however odd the word "relaxed" may seem in this context, this is what I see too. Obsession, determination and a cool, calm deconstruction of the body, giving himself the time to indulge that he never really had at the other spots.

"Why would any killer think he had all the time in the world?"

No killer needs all the time in the world. Killing is a swift business. It is not until we add some OTHER element the clock starts ticking away - a sadistic killer needs a space of time inbetween coming upon his victim and despatching her, for example. But our boy needed a space of time AFTER despatching Kelly and before leaving her behind. The window of time in which he took an interest lay in that space, not the space before her death.
It was not about procuring organs, for he did not take them with him - except perhaps the heart. And procuring organs was something he could do in very few minutes. So that would not have been his sole focus - it may not even have been his true focus at all. He cut the organs out, yes - but left them behind. The excision was thus of greater importance than the procuring, it would seem.
The bottom line - to me, at least - seems to be that he cut parts of Kellyīs body away from her. He took her apart, cut flesh clean away from the bone, filleting Kelly as it were, disattached organs - and did not leave what he cut away close to where it came from. Instead he put it on a table well away from the body, or to the side of her in the bed, the liver between her feet, one breast under her head.

That is what he seemingly chose to do with his time in room 13; he dismembered a dead body in a relaxed manner, nice and quiet, time on his hands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks to Dave and Sleekviper for giving their views too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

The legend of frenzy draws a lot of its strength from the widespread reports of organs being scattered round the room, as if they were tossed in all directions. But these reports appear to have been myths. Kelly's body parts were left in close proximity to each other.

Actually, I've just remembered that in Dan Farson's book, he describes flesh hanging from the picture rails. This also seems to be false. But even if it were true, it wouldn't indicate frenzy. Hanging something from a picture rail requires a bit of care - if it didn't, Christmas decorations would be a lot easier to put up!

[curious]

Could it have been curiosity?

Could the damage done to MJK have been done out of curiosity?

In one article in the New Independent Review, the writer's description of a Florentine Venus reminded me of the pose of MJK, and I have wondered if the killer had seen a display and wondered if that was what someone really looked like inside.

Could the removal of all the parts have been done by someone curious about how the body worked, what was under the skin?

curious

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"The legend of frenzy draws a lot of its strength from the widespread reports of organs being scattered round the room, as if they were tossed in all directions. But these reports appear to have been myths."

True on both counts.

"Kelly's body parts were left in close proximity to each other."

But not in close proximity to where they came from, for some reason.

"Actually, I've just remembered that in Dan Farson's book, he describes flesh hanging from the picture rails. This also seems to be false. But even if it were true, it wouldn't indicate frenzy."

Correct.

"Hanging something from a picture rail requires a bit of care - if it didn't, Christmas decorations would be a lot easier to put up!"



The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Could the removal of all the parts have been done by someone curious about how the body worked, what was under the skin?"

Of course it could. But for my part, I donīt think that was why Kelly was "disassembled". I think that for example Chapman tells us that he seemingly knew where to find the uterus - he flung the intestines up over her shoulder to gain access to it. We also have him excising a kidney from the front of Eddowes, an organ that is hidden from sight beneath a membrane. He plunged through it and took the kidney out just the same.

And even if he DID take an interest in an excursion through the abdominal cavity of Kelly, he ALSO cut away breasts, nose, buttocks, thigh flesh etcetera - things under which he he could not go in search of any organs.

So no, my guess is that curiosity was not any main driving factor. But itīs nothing but a guess, of course.

The best,
Fisherman