Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More than just murder?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Hello,Mike

    Why do you think JTR committed these horrific acts?

    I tend to think that the simplest answer is sometimes right. But I like to hear other viewpoints as well.
    I am quite mad and there's nothing to be done for it.


    When your first voice speaks,listen to it. It may save your life one day.

    Comment


    • #47
      Hello all,

      Regarding Annie's items by her body,...they were there, whether by the ripping of the inner skirt pocket, or by being placed. Lets not forget he also took her rings.

      The murderer of the post mortem mutilation victims used their death as his nights beginning. The mere fact he doesnt kill and just walk away shows he killed to enable the mutilations. You cant very well cut a squirming screaming woman open in public and get away scot free. Plus the letting of blood is certainly relevant in the organ thefts.

      Why he wanted to cut them open....after the swift kill was over, is the daunting question.

      For me, the only real evidence that we have of his intentions are the results of his actions. What he takes....it would appear, ...is what he wanted. To do what with? Who knows? I know of two illicit uses for the uterus, and a story that an american doctor had been seeking them in recent past. As the Lusk letter intimates, kidneys can be quite 'nise' fried.

      I do think the only pragmatic way to address this though is to seperate out the women who were killed then mutilated.

      Best regards all.

      Comment


      • #48
        i find it hard to believe it was a killer after uteri, given:

        -only 2 victims had them removed.

        -one was the top part, the other with the cervix & portion of the vagina attached.

        -there were other parts missing, such as a part of the intestine, etc - hardly someone whos after something. who takes 2/3 of a bladder?

        i would say a killer in a hurry, who yanked stuff out as quickly as he could, and took whatever was easiest, as a personal trophy or as proof of killing (part of my own personal theory).

        to say he was specifically after a certain organ (i.e. he had a fixation to procure), is not a logical conclusion. if this were the case:

        -there would have been similar abdominal opening.

        -they would always/only have taken this.

        -a killer would surely have gone somewhere more secret to be sure of securing his prize.

        -the removing of organs would not have been so messily done.

        -other mutilations would not have been so purposefully done.

        i could add a few more, but in short - the killer(s) didnt really care what they took. just as long as it was something.

        joel
        if mickey's a mouse, and pluto's a dog, whats goofy?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by joelhall View Post
          i find it hard to believe it was a killer after uteri, given:

          -only 2 victims had them removed.

          -one was the top part, the other with the cervix & portion of the vagina attached.

          -there were other parts missing, such as a part of the intestine, etc - hardly someone whos after something. who takes 2/3 of a bladder?

          i would say a killer in a hurry, who yanked stuff out as quickly as he could, and took whatever was easiest, as a personal trophy or as proof of killing (part of my own personal theory).

          to say he was specifically after a certain organ (i.e. he had a fixation to procure), is not a logical conclusion. if this were the case:

          -there would have been similar abdominal opening.

          -they would always/only have taken this.

          -a killer would surely have gone somewhere more secret to be sure of securing his prize.

          -the removing of organs would not have been so messily done.

          -other mutilations would not have been so purposefully done.

          i could add a few more, but in short - the killer(s) didnt really care what they took. just as long as it was something.

          joel
          You can believe what you will, based primarily on the lack of evidence to assert any motive or goals Joel, but Polly seems to me to be a step short of abdominal organ theft, THAT was perhaps an interruption, Annie is a complete uterus with partial bladder taken, and Kates is a partial uterus, kidney and other viscera, and Mary's killer didnt care for abdominal organs. If you look at the post mortem cutting victims within the C5, which include Mary, 3 of 4 were abdominally focussed. If you take Liz and Mary out...which should be looked at seriously, then you have a more focussed killer in the body geography and the environments.

          I think it depends on what you see here...one madmans rampage, or a series of murders of unfortunates.

          Best regards.

          Comment

          Working...
          X