Evisceration - a side issue?

[perrymason]

Out of curiosity has anyone ever seen a report or statement before Oct 1st from any senior or mid level investigator.... medical or police, that they felt the killer of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman had a goal of simply mutilating. I cant recall seeing one before myself.

I think the consensus was at that point that he mutilated to achieve his actual objective which was organ extraction.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

I can see what you mean about the "street-smart" detail, and I agree - he would have been quite, quite familiar with the streets and alleys of Whitechapel and Spitalfields!

On the blood issue I also agree, although there is always the possibility that his inclination to kill swiftly, using the cut neck, paved the way to a less bloody handiwork as a fringe benefit - the deep neckcutting would have bled the victims off to a significant extent regardless if the killer had any precautions in mind about getting stained or not. Does not - of course - mean that an element of cautiosness was not there in the first place. It may well have been.

As for the Napper and MacDonald comparisons, I agree that these guys may touch on what the Ripper was all about. As you write: "I too think he was closer to the disorganized end of the spectrum than to the organized end. I do think that, besides being lucky, the Ripper was able to keep an eager eye and ear on his surroundings while performing his outdoors jobs", I believe that is important not to underestimate the luck factor. It simply must have played a major role in it all!
In the end, what we are left wit, is a man that seemingly had that awareness that you are speaking of; the ability to pick up on approaching danger and flee the scene. The irritating thing, though, is that it would seem that he was allowed to go just that little bit further with each victim before he felt the time had come to abandon the scenes. What is your take on that - was he disturbed in each case, just that little bit longer into the proceedings, or did he feel that he had done what he came for in Buck´s Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square?

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael asks:

"Out of curiosity has anyone ever seen a report or statement before Oct 1st from any senior or mid level investigator.... medical or police, that they felt the killer of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman had a goal of simply mutilating. I cant recall seeing one before myself.
I think the consensus was at that point that he mutilated to achieve his actual objective which was organ extraction."

I cannot recall any report speaking about a mind bent on mutilation only. That is not to say it was not there, though. But the general consensus, I believe, was that the Ripper was after organ extraction.
If anybody has fuller information on this, it would be nice to be able to share in it!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

On the blood issue I also agree, although there is always the possibility that his inclination to kill swiftly, using the cut neck, paved the way to a less bloody handiwork as a fringe benefit - the deep neckcutting would have bled the victims off to a significant extent regardless if the killer had any precautions in mind about getting stained or not.

Hi Fish!

As to the issue of blood, I wasn’t only thinking about what you wrote here, but also about the way in which it is thought he cut the throats, i.e. in such a way that the flow of blood was directed away from him.

..., I believe that is important not to underestimate the luck factor. It simply must have played a major role in it all!

I fully agree with you there.

What is your take on that - was he disturbed in each case, just that little bit longer into the proceedings, or did he feel that he had done what he came for in Buck´s Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square?

I don’t think it’s that clear cut. First, I think he was probably disturbed in Buck’s Row and quite possibly in Mitre Square too. I don’t think he had exact plans or ideas about what he was going to do each time, except to at least attack that part of his victims’ bodies that was sexually most interesting to him. I see him as a real opportunist in this respect. He made the most of what he thought opportunity allowed him and where his interest and curiosity lead him.

I think that, due to his gained experience and perhaps even the press coverage, he just developed from Nichols to Kelly as he went along, without any clear thoughts or plans about it beforehand, other than, within the window of opportunity, to at least attack parts that were of sexual interest. Perhaps, on the other hand, he may have tried to get to Eddowes' heart as well, but instead got another organ that was higher up in the body and on the left side. That's just a thought, though.

Perhaps, he had wanted to extract an organ (or 2) from Nichols as well, perhaps not. To me, it seems that he worked quicker and therefore sloppier in Eddowes’ case than in Chapman’s, resulting in Dr. Phillips suggestion that Eddowes was killed and mutilated by another hand than the ‘medically skilled’ hand that he thought killed Chapman.

My short answer: I don’t think he left any of the crime scenes unsatisfied, although he may have been disturbed once or twice.

All of this is speculation of course, although based on what I’ve read about this type of murderer (among others Vernon Geberth, Micki Pistorius and Paul Britton).

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Frank, for laborating and giving your wiew! We are pretty much travelling along the same tracks - as usual! I agree very much that things are not clear cut on the issue at hand, but the overall picture you sketch tallies well with my thoughts.
I´m arriving in London tomorrow evening, and I will of course do some strolling in the East end. It´s always good to go back to basics and start fresh from the beginning!

The best, Frank, as always!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Good hunting then, Christer, and enjoy your stay!

Frank

[Fisherman]

Thanks! I will!

The best,
Fisherman