Evisceration - a side issue?

[lynn cates]

mehr bitte

Hello Tom. I agree, and am persuaded--as so many are--that those letters constitute a hoax.

You noted that:

"I can name other instances like this that point to the same conclusion."

Please continue! This may be grist for my mill.

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

There´s always the smell, though. But would that have put him off?

I don't see why it wouldn't have, Fish - "Oh, $hit! It really is $hit!..." - besides, the smell and "stains" would certainly have been noticeable had he been stopped and questioned. They might even have been apparent to a passer-by.

But we stray off-topic. My fault.

I´d opt for the presence of the police being the more credible reason for his leaving.

...assuming there was only one reason why he putatively curtailed his eviscerating activities, that is.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. Well, When Annie Chapman was killed the press mistakenly reported that a chalk graffiti message was left nearby and also reported that another woman had been murdered elsewhere at the same time. Of course, both of these events were made a reality on the night of the 'double event'. The Ripper giving the people what they want? Perhaps. Also, Dan Norder wrote a really good essay for Ripper Notes exploring the idea that the Ripper got his inspiration from the newspapers. The name of the essay skips my mind, but I believe it was in RN #27.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"...assuming there was only one reason why he putatively curtailed his eviscerating activities, that is."

...and there is no need for us not to be generous and realize that a combination of circumstances may well have been what sent him on his way. That is of course correct, Sam!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Here´s a few questions looking for answers:

1. It is assumed that Jack was mainly an eviscerator, with an interest of procuring organs.
In spite of this, he did not cut any organ out at the Nichols murder site.
In spite of this, it seems he started out on Eddowes by cutting her face, loosing potentially valuable evisceration time in the process.
In spite of this, he did not take more than a heart at the Kelly scene, although he had the opportunity to bring along a lot more of the viscera cut out.

2. It is assumed that Jack´s motive for the killings was a sexual one.
In spite of this, fifty per cent of the organs he claimed were not related to human reproduction.

3. It is assumed that he took the organs for gratification and the opportunity to remember the slayings.
But human organs rot away, and so they make for shortlived souvenirs.

4. It is assumed that Jack may have made an early imprint as an animal torturer, thus nicely reflecting the commonly reported picture of early behaviour of a fledgling killer.
In spite of this, there is every reason to believe - and historical parallels - that he did not belong to the animal molesting species at all.

Can these things be reconciled? Anybody want to have a go?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I like the controversial ones best......

1. The murderer of Polly and Annie did not display any signs or leave any indications that what they/he actually wanted was evisceration. Their murder was suggested a natural step in the procurement of their abdominal organs by a person pretending to be a client for sex.

2. There are no indications that any sexual acts either between client and provider or by either alone, occurred at the murder sites. The gender of the victim is however a pivotal issue for the killer.

3. There were many uses known for dried and preserved organs,.. some for medical research, some for use in black magic related affairs, some for experimentation. Maybe some to covet. The use of the organs may not require it to be kept for very long out of a preservative.

4. Purely speculative based on profiling and analysis of known and interviewed serial offenders in the 20th Century, in many case with a quantified death count.

These assumptions...in my opinion of course , are drawn in part due to the perception that the killer Jack the Ripper killed the five women in The Canonical Group, a "series" with 2 murders that are almost identical, a 3rd that closely resembles the first 2 and 2 murders that have very little in common with the objectives displayed and the circumstantial evidence concerning the murder nights and the first 2 victims.

I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners.

I think for lack of a better expression, the man or men is/are a Unicorn(s). And a plain old work horse likely killed at least one of the other Canonicals.

Cheers Fisherman, all the best mate.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners."

A rare kind of killer indeed, Michael! One of the issues that are being discussed here is the fact that in four canonical cases out of five, the victims were killed in the open, with a minimum of seclusion offered. Frank van Oploo writes that he believes that our man was a "street-smart and practical bloke. No smooth psychopath, no raving lunatic."

He got away with it, and he stayed undetected, so that is a logical thing to believe on Franks behalf. But one cannot help but to wonder just how street-smart it is to cut women up in the open street? The risks involved were huge, and the opportunities to get at least a bit more out of the way must surely have been there. The choice of venues could well be interpreted as signs of a man who was anything but street-smart.
And of course, in the combination of a man who kills in venues like the ones Jack chose, a man who apparently - at least if we count Kelly into the equation - was intent on destroying and annihilating, separating flesh from bone, carving away faces, and a man that pulled something off that may well be interpreted as a very cooly and calmly calculated series of murders, your unicorn is of course present very much.
Thing is, Michael - these different qualities, ascribed to the Ripper, do not match. They are unblendable, more or less, and one or more of them would therefore be misconceptions on our behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Michael writes:

"I think a killer that subues his victims in the middle of the night and in darkness, silently... before even using a lethal weapon, who lays them flat on their backs and slits their throats so deeply he almost decapitates them, then opens their abdomens with a sharp knife and in minutes extracts organs intact and flees without leaving a single trace of himself at the scene.....one that could be detected then.....is a rare kind of killer. Even today to cut people open in public and leave them for anyone to walk up to would be shocking....let alone to Victorian era Londoners."

A rare kind of killer indeed, Michael! One of the issues that are being discussed here is the fact that in four canonical cases out of five, the victims were killed in the open, with a minimum of seclusion offered. Frank van Oploo writes that he believes that our man was a "street-smart and practical bloke. No smooth psychopath, no raving lunatic."

He got away with it, and he stayed undetected, so that is a logical thing to believe on Franks behalf. But one cannot help but to wonder just how street-smart it is to cut women up in the open street? The risks involved were huge, and the opportunities to get at least a bit more out of the way must surely have been there. The choice of venues could well be interpreted as signs of a man who was anything but street-smart.
And of course, in the combination of a man who kills in venues like the ones Jack chose, a man who apparently - at least if we count Kelly into the equation - was intent on destroying and annihilating, separating flesh from bone, carving away faces, and a man that pulled something off that may well be interpreted as a very cooly and calmly calculated series of murders, your unicorn is of course present very much.
Thing is, Michael - these different qualities, ascribed to the Ripper, do not match. They are unblendable, more or less, and one or more of them would therefore be misconceptions on our behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

The part I highlighted is the crux FM......if we dont actually have a man like the one set in Canonical stone by Macnaghten Bond and others, based on their looking at a series rather than at each new individual murder, which is what at least Strides was in Ripper context,... then we may not have the Destroyer and Ripper at all....we may have a man with almost surgical precision and habits, rather than one who desires an embarrassment of superfluous cutting like Marys killer certainly did.

Marys killer did. But does that in turn then mean that superfluous cutting becomes part of Jack the Rippers new profile as soon as she is found? To some......it does.

I wonder when someone of that mindset will start adding males murdered during that period too....hell, anything that was killed in East London was Jacky's doin....the Torsos, all the stabbings, the gang violence, ....all the work of the mad slashing dude who doesnt know where to find organs but opens bodies in the dark anyway so he can grope around,...till a light bulb goes on over his head...."gee....I bet I could do some real fancy nonsense type cuttin if I had me a whore with a room......bet I could peel a thigh..." ....

Is he so stupid that if he wanted to cut women up all along he wouldnt KNOW that would have to be done indoors? So stupid he kills 4 times before figuring that out? When TorsoMakinMan knew it right off?

Cheers Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Well, that´s just the enigma of it all, is it not, Frank? The elements of organization and disorganization just don´t match!
A clever, cunning man who is dead set on killing and eviscerating (and perhaps more than so) and who is able to go about things in an organized way JUST WOULD NOT KILL OUT IN THE OPEN STREET!
Men who kill out in the open street are disorganized in that respect. Problem is, that disposition often leads to their swift capture, since they go about their killing regardless of the perils connected with killing out on the streets. They are less inclined to keep a sharp look-out, and less inclined to get hold of the police schedule before they kill away.
The common picture of Jack is one of a cruel, calculating killer, somebody who was so compelled to kill that he was willing to take the risks of doing it out on the streets.
But the evidence left tells us that he was not very interested in the actual killing - that was something he speedily got overwith. Therefore, there was no sadistic cruelty involved either - it seems some of the victims would hardly have known what happened to them! NO, our killer was apparently not interested in killink, but instead in what he could do with a body that was totally under his control, and the favoured way of getting that total control was to kill before he started mutilating.
But this kind of killer does normally not posess the alertness and cautiosness that seemed to be part of the Ripper. That is where logic seizes to apply in the Ripper case. Our man seems to display a combination of typically very disorganized traits AND a rationality and awareness that points to an extreme organization.

My feeling about all of this is that we KNOW that he chose killing spots that speak of disorganization. We also KNOW that the killing itself was not what he came for - instead he wanted to control and destroy freshly dead bodies. We do NOT know, however, that he planned his escape meticulously, just as we do NOT know that he kept track of the police movements, and just as we do NOT know that he took care not to leave any clues behind - the fact that he did not do so may not be the result of conscious acting and planning.

If we have to rule out one of the sides of the Ripper, then I would rule out the devlishly cunning, smart, organized part - since the other part is more in evidence to my eye.
I still think Dahmer a lot for the moment being.

The best,
Fisherman

[dmann30]

Frank and Fish,

Is there a chance that he may have known the rhythm of the city so well that he wasn't really taking chances? I mean, the policemen walked a specific beat and probably were fairly consistent in timing of the walks. The street-smart man would know the dark areas, the less traveled areas, the timing of the cops on their beats, etc. This might make it less likely he was running huge risks, rather smaller risks because the unexpected may occur. For example, the horse and cart may have arrived sooner than normal.

Anyway, just a thought to consider.

[Victor]

Is there a chance that he may have known the rhythm of the city so well that he wasn't really taking chances? I mean, the policemen walked a specific beat and probably were fairly consistent in timing of the walks. The street-smart man would know the dark areas, the less traveled areas, the timing of the cops on their beats, etc. This might make it less likely he was running huge risks, rather smaller risks because the unexpected may occur.

Hi dmann,

I think the victims may have taken Jack to the murder sites, therefore it could be them, not he, who were aware of the police beats, and knew they had enough time to "service" him.

KR,
Vic.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Tom. Thanks! That's the "kind" of Ripper I grew up with and still desperately want to believe in.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

too many pieces

Hello Fish. Your observation:

"these different qualities, ascribed to the Ripper, do not match. They are unblendable, more or less, and one or more of them would therefore be misconceptions on our behalf."

matches my sentiment exactly. Given the 5 canonical slayings and some other pieces of "evidence," I find we have too many pieces for the puzzle. (See the thread "process of elimination.")

Something must go, but what?

The best.
LC

[FrankO]

But one cannot help but to wonder just how street-smart it is to cut women up in the open street? The risks involved were huge, and the opportunities to get at least a bit more out of the way must surely have been there. The choice of venues could well be interpreted as signs of a man who was anything but street-smart.

I should have explained myself there, Fish, because that’s not what I meant by street-smart. As far as I’m concerned, the street-smartness only relates to his MO, the precautions he took not to get caught, not to the killing and cutting up of women out in the open streets of a densely populated district. Obviously, that was in fact plain stupid, as he was running a huge risk of getting caught. This and the fact that he killed in a relatively short time lead me to believe he was disorganised rather than organised. The precautions he took and the fact that he was able not to give himself away put him more in the direction of ‘organised’.

The best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Well, Frank, that´s just the enigma of it all, is it not? The elements of organization and disorganization just don´t match!
A clever, cunning man who is dead set on killing and eviscerating (and perhaps more than so) and who is able to go about things in an organized way JUST WOULD NOT KILL OUT IN THE OPEN STREET!
Men who kill out in the open street are disorganized in that respect. Problem is, that disposition often leads to their swift capture, since they go about their killing regardless of the perils connected with killing out on the streets. They are less inclined to keep a sharp look-out, and less inclined to get hold of the police schedule before they kill away.
The common picture of Jack is one of a cruel, calculating killer, somebody who was so compelled to kill that he was willing to take the risks of doing it out on the streets.
But the evidence left tells us that he was not very interested in the actual killing - that was something he speedily got overwith. Therefore, there was no sadistic cruelty involved either - it seems some of the victims would hardly have known what happened to them! No, our killer was apparently not interested in killing, but instead in what he could do with a body that was totally under his control, and the favoured way of getting that total control was to kill before he started mutilating.
But this kind of killer does normally not posess the alertness and cautiosness that seemed to be part of the Ripper. That is where logic seizes to apply in the Ripper case. Our man seems to display a combination of typically very disorganized traits AND a rationality and awareness that points to an extreme organization.

My feeling about all of this is that we KNOW that he chose killing spots that speak of disorganization. We also KNOW that the killing itself was not what he came for - instead he wanted to control and destroy freshly dead bodies. We do NOT know, however, that he planned his escape meticulously, just as we do NOT know that he kept track of the police movements, just as we do NOT know that he took care not to leave any clues behind - the fact that he did not do so may not be the result of any conscious acting and planning.

If we have to rule out one of the sides of the Ripper, then I would rule out the devlishly cunning, smart, organized part - since the other part is more in evidence to my eye.
I still think Dahmer a lot for the moment being.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

We do NOT know, however, that he planned his escape meticulously,...

I'm inclined to think he didn't, Fish, because I think he let his victims lead the way to the crime spots and that he didn't decide upon these places beforehand. Thats why I think he must have been very familiar with the area with all its thoroughfares and alleys. In that way he was street-smart again.

...just as we do NOT know that he took care not to leave any clues behind - the fact that he did not do so may not be the result of any conscious acting and planning.

Unless he left a note saying who he was, whatever the Ripper would have left at the crime scenes, I think it would have been of little direct use to the police. So, I don't think that was a conscious choice. I think the only conscious thing he did in this regard was make sure he got as little blood on him as possible, as that was the only way by which he could have attracted attention and then caught. And that he got away before anybody saw him.

If we have to rule out one of the sides of the Ripper, then I would rule out the devlishly cunning, smart, organized part - since the other part is more in evidence to my eye.
I still think Dahmer a lot for the moment being.

This agrees with my take, Fish. 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.

Although a bit off topic, Fish, it’s interesting to read up on the criminal history of Robert Clive Napper.

As the Green Chain rapist, he attacked women outdoors without much care for the consequences. However, he attacked his first rape victim in her own house, wearing some sort of mask and cutting the telephone line before going upstairs where his victim was. Furthermore, on 15 July 1992 he attacked and killed Rachel Nickell as she walked outdoors on Wimbledon Common with her son. As the boy watched, Napper stabbed his mother to death with 49 stabs. In November 1993 he worked his way into Samantha Bissett's flat after probably having watched his victim’s apartment on several occasions and stabbed her to death before sexually assaulting and smothering her four-year-old daughter Jazmine. He then mutilated Miss Bissett's body in a way that was reminiscent of what was done to MJK.

Even though Napper was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, he was capable of taking precautions not to get caught, of controlling himself.

Another interesting case was that of William ‘the Mutilator’ MacDonald, who killed and mutilated male derelicts in Sydney, Australia, during the 1960’s.

Especially the murder of Frank McLean. On March 31, 1962, in suburban Darlinghurst, he was found mortally wounded by an unfinished assault from MacDonald by a husband and wife with their baby child. The man found McLean still breathing but bleeding heavily and went to get police.

MacDonald followed McLean down Bourke Street past the local police station. He initiated conversation with McLean and suggested they have a drinking session around the corner in Bourke Lane. As they entered Bourke Lane MacDonald plunged his knife into McLean's throat. McLean tried to fight off the attack but he was too intoxicated to do so. He then stabbed him once again in the face and then punched him, forcing him off balance. When McLean fell to the ground, MacDonald was on top of him, stabbing him about the head, neck, throat, face, chest, belly and abdomen until he was interrupted by a young family approaching. MacDonald had hidden himself once he heard the voices and the sound of a baby's cry. Once the man and his family had left to get police, MacDonald returned to the barely alive McLean and pulled him further into the lane and continued to stab him until he was dead. He then pulled down McLean's trousers and sliced off his genitals. He put them into a plastic bag and took them home, disposing of them the next day.

The police at one stage thought that the killer could have been a deranged surgeon. The manner in which McLean's genitals were removed seemed to be done by someone with years of surgical experience. Doctors at one stage found themselves under investigation.

MacDonald killed his last victim indoors, in his own place. He too was diagnosed a schizophrenic.

All the best Fish,
Frank