Practicality or madness?

[FrankO]

Itīs that matter that I am not willing to give away yet, Frank - but there is very good reason to believe these two murders are closely connected. Iīm sure somebody will see it sooner or later, it really is not hard at all. But for now, I am clamming up about it.

Ah, I thought as much, Christer. Knowing how you see what was done to Kelly, might it have to do with meticulousness?

[John G]

hi John
yes this is definitely a kick to the one man theory, and one of the reasons why im not 100% convinced they were the same man. Point taken.
However, I think hebbert was a product of his times, and they simply didn't have the experience of what history has taught us about serial killers and the extent that they can do things very differently some times based on their personal circs and he certainly wasn't familiar with the offensive dismemberer type, so that may cloud his judgement somewhat.
But as I said point taken.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. I accept your point about Dr Hebbert, and he was obviously not a criminologist. However, for me, the most important issue highlighted is that the Torso perpetrator was skilled JTR unskilled.

I think there is little doubt that Kelly was hacked to pieces, and that crates another serious problem, quite apart from the skill.

Thus, as well as defensive dismemberers there are aggressive and offesive and, psychologically, they are completely different. I'm mot aware of a single perpetrator who was both aggressive and offensive, and no such cases occurred in the UK from 1985-2017 based on tbe Rutty statistics.

There is no doubt that what happened to Kelly was aggressive mutilation, i.e. with an extreme level of overkill.

None of the Torso dismemberments reflect an aggressive dismemberment, although offensive may be argued. However, an offensive dismemberer often mutilates the sexual regions, although the only clear indication of this in the Torso cases is Liz Jackson, although the issue of the pregnancy complicates matters. Nonetheless, I feel it could be argued that the Torso perpetrator was an offensive defensive dismemberer (I don't think he was completely defensive.)

Of course Dr Phillips seemed to think skill was apparent in respect of Chapman but this is a controversial view. Dr Bond disagreed and Trevor 's experts are clearly perplexed by this view, concluding that the victim could not have been eviscerated at the scene of crime with the level of skill implied by Dr Phillips' comments.

[Fisherman]

Ah, I thought as much, Christer. Knowing how you see what was done to Kelly, might it have to do with meticulousness?

I am really not ready to spill the beans yet, Frank. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

I think there is little doubt that Kelly was hacked to pieces, and that crates another serious problem, quite apart from the skill.

Thatīs what a lawnmower will do, hack people to pieces. If Kelly was hacked to pieces, can you explain why the organs were seemingly carefully extracted and placed undamaged around the body in the bed, John? Why would he not just hack and slash away at them, leaving them as mince-meat in the abdomen? And can you tell me how the eyes were seemingly left unharmed too, as that hacking lawnmower moved over her face? Coincidence?
Under her head, her uterus had been placed together with one of her breasts and both her kidneys. Ergo, the kille placed this heap of organs and flesh together on the bed and then moved Kelly so her head ended up on it. Does that sound like unplanned mayhem to you? It sounds like a conscious act to me. A "hacker", if you will, would probaly not care to take the organs out nice and clean in the first place, nor would he be likely to cut a breast away with the kind of circular incision that was the case here; not in my world, at least. And IF he decided to do a little surgical freelancing, why did he not just toss the organs away? Why did he see to it that Kellys head was left resting on them?

Kelly is NOT the product of somebody hacking away aimlessly at all, Iīm afraid. It has been the standard solution that she was for 132 years now, and as far as Iīm concerned, it has been wrong all that time. Easy solutions are always comfy, but not always correct.

[John G]

Thatīs what a lawnmower will do, hack people to pieces. If Kelly was hacked to pieces, can you explain why the organs were seemingly carefully extracted and placed undamaged around the body in the bed, John? Why would he not just hack and slash away at them, leaving them as mince-meat in the abdomen? And can you tell me how the eyes were seemingly left unharmed too, as that hacking lawnmower moved over her face? Coincidence?
Under her head, her uterus had been placed together with one of her breasts and both her kidneys. Ergo, the kille placed this heap of organs and flesh together on the bed and then moved Kelly so her head ended up on it. Does that sound like unplanned mayhem to you? It sounds like a conscious act to me. A "hacker", if you will, would probaly not care to take the organs out nice and clean in the first place, nor would he be likely to cut a breast away with the kind of circular incision that was the case here; not in my world, at least. And IF he decided to do a little surgical freelancing, why did he not just toss the organs away? Why did he see to it that Kellys head was left resting on them?

Kelly is NOT the product of somebody hacking away aimlessly at all, Iīm afraid. It has been the standard solution that she was for 132 years now, and as far as Iīm concerned, it has been wrong all that time. Easy solutions are always comfy, but not always correct.

I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public. However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off. I can see changes happening, these were not static environments...like Disarticulator had when he spent sometime perhaps over days cutting the bodies up privately. Anything might happen out there on the streets, anyone might come by...lots of immediate risk taking. But none of those murders suggest any prior knowledge of predator and prey. He pounced on women who were facilitating a more private public venue...streetwalkers...that were alone, and at least in Polly and Annies case, mentally and physically not 100%. He decided what constituted an opportunity, and worked fast. Marys killer was in her room in the middle of the night, something that we have evidence only Barnett could do in the previous months, she is undressed, and attacked while in bed. The man was permitted to be there in those circumstances. Someone she knew well.

The very nature of that killer does not marry well with someone who spends consecutive days doing this kind of work, and by working indoors out of sight, perhaps a workshop that only he has the key to, Disarticulator is an Organized killer. Not a Spree killer, not an Opportunistic killer. Sure, the actual kill itself was like a seized opportunity, but he has plans. They are why he kills. Like cutting into the abdomens of dead or dying women in the streets was Jacks. The keys there are that the risk was a part of all this for him, and its female abdomens. Not just bowels, not chest cavities, not stripping flesh from bone in private.

Its like he wanted the clock on him. And he had hatred/lust/curiousity/resentment/infantile fury..towards women.

Not enough people wonder why no men victims.

[Harry D]

That's exactly what I mean, Harry. It's a bit hard to imagine that the nights of the Ripper murders were the only nights in 15 years that Torso man didn't have access to this private place. But even if we suppose the change in approach was due to the non-availability of the place, it wouldn't account for the higher frequency of the murders.

a lot of things don't make sense with serial killers harry. they go in fits and spurts all the time. thats why I brought up bundy sorority spree.

My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.

[Harry D]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off.

Nothing certain about that. The extensive damage inflicted on Mary Kelly does not necessitate an intimate connection. You can find numerous examples of gruesome murders where there was no prior relationship between victim and perpetrator.

[FrankO]

I am really not ready to spill the beans yet, Frank. Sorry.

No problem, Christer; I'm a patient man.

[Michael W Richards]

Nothing certain about that. The extensive damage inflicted on Mary Kelly does not necessitate an intimate connection. You can find numerous examples of gruesome murders where there was no prior relationship between victim and perpetrator.

Although the damage done to her face seems malicious and personal, it wasn't damage I was using as a basis for the statement Harry. Its the circumstances.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

And other doctors disagreed, as you will know. Much of the controversy in the errand took itīs beginning when Dr Galoway stated in the Rainham case that an expert had cut up the body. Everything pointed to an anatomist or surgeon at that point, and so Galloway rephrased himself and said that the cutting was BETTER than what a surgeon would achieve, making it more likely that they were dealing with f ex a butcher. What was quite evident was that even if the killer displayed immense skill, he did not cut the way a surgeon would cut and did not do the things a surgeon would do. I believe this is what colours Bonds picture of the Ripper murders - none of it looked in any way the work of a skilled surgeon or anatomist. However, we know that the medicos were impressed by the sheer speed at which the killer must have cut away, and that some of the cutting was deemed very skilful in itself, like the excision of the uterus on Chapman and the kidney extraction from the front on Eddowes.
So no SURGICAL skill, but a lot of skill with the blade nevertheless. The same applies to the Torso man, who knew his way around knife work more than most people.

This is how the deeds should be looked upon, I believe. That is the evidence.

Kellys organs were taken out whole and undamaged as far as we know, there in no mentioning of half a liver or part of a spleen or anything such. Therefore, the killer took care not to damage the organs or divide them when excising them. The one thing that swears against this is the torn lung, but it seems it was removed to get at the heart. Otherwise, the parts seem all to have been intact.

Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

So you now agree that Rainham was probably also an evisceration case - good! Iīm afraid we donīt know how the heart was taken out in that case; there was an opening from sternum to pubes, so certainly it could have been grabbed and torn down the midriff. Not that I am sure that this happened to Kelly, and I fail to see how Hebbert could have been sure of it. Why could it bot have been cut free and gently pulled down from behind? I have commented on Kellys ribs recenty and will not go into it again, but it seems the ribs were not damaged as such, but instead only the intercostals.

You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public.

He shot people out in the open, though. And the main reason for his entering the homes may have been that this was where he knew that the women he had staked out were. Maybe he did not want to wait for them to come out?

However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.

There are serial killers who have moved between far more separate killing methods, like Coral Watts and Peter Kürten. There are those who have moved inbetween dismembering and not dismembering, like Tsutomu Miyazaki. The assumption that the Ripper was disorganized is an assumption only, and if he was disorganized, he still seemingly:
- Lured the victims into empty places away from the public
- Managed to sneak away in time when there was a risk to get caught
- Left no traces at the sites
- Brought along a blade suited for eviscerations

This is a killer that you have dubbed "the worlds most disorganized killer", until suddenly loosing interest in commenting on it. How about doing so now? A truly disorganized killer will kill in public, will not even try to flee, will leave all sorts of traces and will not premeditate by bringing along a weapon. Maybe the time has come for you to admit that you were being a country mile off the mark? And once you admit that (as if anybody ever admitted anything out here...), you may perhaps see what it does to this last "point" of yours?

[Fisherman]

Kelly was also almost certainly killed by someone she knew intimately, which throws the entire package off. I can see changes happening, these were not static environments...like Disarticulator had when he spent sometime perhaps over days cutting the bodies up privately. Anything might happen out there on the streets, anyone might come by...lots of immediate risk taking. But none of those murders suggest any prior knowledge of predator and prey. He pounced on women who were facilitating a more private public venue...streetwalkers...that were alone, and at least in Polly and Annies case, mentally and physically not 100%. He decided what constituted an opportunity, and worked fast. Marys killer was in her room in the middle of the night, something that we have evidence only Barnett could do in the previous months, she is undressed, and attacked while in bed. The man was permitted to be there in those circumstances. Someone she knew well.

The very nature of that killer does not marry well with someone who spends consecutive days doing this kind of work, and by working indoors out of sight, perhaps a workshop that only he has the key to, Disarticulator is an Organized killer. Not a Spree killer, not an Opportunistic killer. Sure, the actual kill itself was like a seized opportunity, but he has plans. They are why he kills. Like cutting into the abdomens of dead or dying women in the streets was Jacks. The keys there are that the risk was a part of all this for him, and its female abdomens. Not just bowels, not chest cavities, not stripping flesh from bone in private.

Its like he wanted the clock on him. And he had hatred/lust/curiousity/resentment/infantile fury..towards women.

Not enough people wonder why no men victims.

So, how many eviscerating killers who all cut from sternum to groin in London of 1888-89 have you amassed by now, Michael? Is it four? Nichols/Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and Jackson. Is that about correct? Or are there more?

I also expect you to answer my question: Where have I said that there were twelve evisceration murders in victorian London, committed by the same man. You have claimed this, and I have denied it. Itīs your honesty that is on line here, so do your best.

[Fisherman]

My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.

Simplicity. Gotta love it, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Although the damage done to her face seems malicious and personal, it wasn't damage I was using as a basis for the statement Harry. Its the circumstances.

Killed in her own home, you mean? Or which circumstances are we talking about?

[Fisherman]

No problem, Christer; I'm a patient man.

Me too - at times. For example, if you do not wish as of now to tell me what you think the perceived two killers respective mindsets were accordiong to you, I can wait.