Examination of a Motive

[protohistorian]

Here is another one I think I have the answer to. What is the M3 precipitating factor?

[Hunter]

... When we examine personal histories of sociopathic individuals we see commonalities like arson and animal torture. So much so that there is a perceived triad of precursor behaviors that occur in the vast majority of sociopaths before we reach the level of behaviors that get you permanently incarcerated or executed.

Another link that goes back farther for these individuals seems to be an abhorrent childhood; which suggest that environment may play the key role; especially at such a developmental period of one's perception of social behaviour.

Abby, and to your question about M3, Proto -

Since we're theorizing here, we can take the 'metamorphosis' theory in another direction as well; given what we know of the murders themselves. What if this individual starts out with the intent on violent death and overkill of these women? After the Chapman murder he is well aware of the Leather Apron uproar and the implication of the Jews along with the social clashes that exist. On the night of the double murder he decides to take advantage of this and kills Stride outside of a Jewish club... and only decides to kill her to make some perverted social statement. Then he proceeds to Mitre Square to fulfil his main fantasy, followed by leaving the evidence of his work in Goulston St. along with the graffitto above it to further enflame the already precarious racial tensions. If we're looking at one individual, then he had to be aware of the publicity caused by his activities. Whether a personality of this nature would go beyond just his personal gratification would be the question that would have to be asked.

[protohistorian]

Good one Hunter, but not what I was thinking. Dave

[Errata]

Hi Errata
Maybe the initial killings-Nichols and chapman(even tabram perhaps), were mainly about revenge/anger/mission motivation and with chapman a new stimulus arises when JtR is sexually aroused with her murder and mutilation. Hence, with Eddowes and Kelly (along with the initial motivation) there is now another added "sexual" motivation as evidenced by the facial muliations in Eddowes and the virtual orgy of mutilation you mentioned with kelly.

I don't know... Eddowes still doesn't have anything I would consider a sexual element, and the facial mutilations are different than Kelly's. Eddowes face is cut very deliberately. The eyelids are slit, cutting into the eyes, the v cuts on the cheeks, the nose being both cut high and removed low, the lips being slit... This is careful work. Much easier to stab out the eyes, cut off the nose and lips and cut at the face. Especially with a time crunch. Kelly's facial mutilations don't show nearly as much care and attention to detail, despite the fact he had the time to do it. And he completely emptied her torso. Why leave the eyes untouched? Especially when he took the time to mutilate Eddowes eyes?

I am beginning to think that Eddowes was exceptional to him somehow. I don't think he knew her, I don't see the somewhat typical signs of that, but somehow she was more representative of his problem than the others. Whatever his problem was. It could be escalation, but it sort of seems his timing was terrible for that, since I think he had less time with her than any other barring Stride. Somehow she was worth taking the extra effort. Maybe she looked like someone, maybe she said something, I don't know. If i were to guess I would say it was her looks, because he took special care to mar them with the facial cuts. I don't know if he was trying to make her look like something, or to make her not look like something, but he clearly made it a priority. I would be interested to know whether the facial cuts came first or the abdominal mutilation.

[protohistorian]

I think your right Errata, the M4 is marked by a psycho dynamic change in our boy. Dave

[Errata]

Whether a personality of this nature would go beyond just his personal gratification would be the question that would have to be asked.

It's as good a theory as any. I don't even know that he would have to kill Stride outside the socialist club to make a political statement. If he knows Jews are getting blamed, which he would if he read a newspaper or lived even remotely near the area, it doesn't have to be nearly as altruistic as a political statement. He might merely have come to the (correct) conclusion that Jews are much more easily blamed, and by setting up a murder near them the pressure on others in the neighborhoods at night would be off. As long as they are blaming Jews, they won't be looking for him.

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"Eddowes face is cut very deliberately. The eyelids are slit, cutting into the eyes, the v cuts on the cheeks, the nose being both cut high and removed low, the lips being slit... This is careful work."

I take it, Errata, that you have not read Sam Flynn´s dissertation "By accident or design"? Or have you? It is to be found on the dissertations page on the boards, and it is very ... well, let´s call it "careful work"!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby, if you like puzzles, consider why the M4 trophies did not produce an event lag like the M2 trophies did. Dave

Hi Proto
The difference is 3 and 5 weeks so not sure if I place much significance to this and if there is any it could just be opportunity. But I am open to be convinced otherwise so please-why do you think?

[Abby Normal]

Here is another one I think I have the answer to. What is the M3 precipitating factor?

I have not a clue (other than ones I already mentioned). Whats your answer?

[protohistorian]

I suspect that the difference is due to differential autolysis in the trophies. M2 uterus lasts 3 weeks. M3 no trophy, but trophy event the same night, M4 uterus + experimental trophy type. The M4 to M5 gap is longer I suspect because trophy decay was slower. This could be for a variety of reasons. A big one is the ambient temperature difference. There would also be a difference as the tissue type varies and also as Mr. Marriot has noted, the kidney is covered in adipose tissue, thereby protecting it from bacterial colonization. When we get to M5, we see trophy experimentation again, including an attempt to remove the head. Dave

[Errata]

Errata:

"Eddowes face is cut very deliberately. The eyelids are slit, cutting into the eyes, the v cuts on the cheeks, the nose being both cut high and removed low, the lips being slit... This is careful work."

I take it, Errata, that you have not read Sam Flynn´s dissertation "By accident or design"? Or have you? It is to be found on the dissertations page on the boards, and it is very ... well, let´s call it "careful work"!

The best,
Fisherman

I hadn't read it. I just did. I would say I agree with a lot of it.

Let me sort of put "careful work" in context, which I probably should have done earlier. A great deal of my life involves knives, for many reasons. Everything from stunt combat, to building model stages, to carving waxes for jewelry manufacturing. Never mind the weird things you arent technically supposed to use a knife for, like popping the backs off watches, haircuts, etc. So when I say "careful work", I mean it in two senses. The first is that it is pointwork, as opposed to bladework. The difference between carving your initials in a desk and peeling a potato. It requires finer control. The second sense is that of using a knife in a way that is less likely to cause injury to yourself. Cutting away from your body, using the point, small cuts, etc.

In the context of Eddowes, "careful work" means that she was for the most part drawn on, as opposed to Kelly, who was carved. I do not think Eddowes wounds were planned, or that they hold some mystical significance, or whatever. I think that cutting an eyeball without plunging through it and possibly popping it out are signs of careful pointwork. The cuts were not deliberate, but the cutting for the most part was. In a frenzy, it would be terribly easy to put out the eyes, cut through the cheeks, etc. by slicing or stabbing too enthusiastically. He did not. He came close a time or two, but for the most part he exhibited remarkable restraint. And if these were the first injuries he gave her, then he showed such control deliberately. I think that certain aspects of those cuts are deliberate. I think he specifically targeted the eyes and nose. I don't think he cared about symmetry or artistry, but I do think he deliberately made sure to mar those features.

[protohistorian]

The M3 trigger is the liquefaction of the M2 trophy. Dave

[Errata]

The M3 trigger is the liquefaction of the M2 trophy. Dave

I didn't think it was possible to up the gross out factor on this subject. Bravo!

Do you have any theories as to where he's keeping these trophies? Because this always bothered me. You can't keep them on you. If you live in a doss, or if you have a landlord you can't keep them in your room. If you have servants, forget it, they'll assume you lost a bit of sandwich and find it. Bottles were readily available to the poor, but not jars as much. A kidney doesn't fit in a bottle, although a uterus probably might. But even if its in an empty bottle that preserves it a little longer. I mean, it's gonna smell. Above and beyond the normal smells surrounding a poor area. And if it's a middle or upper class neighborhood, the smell is going to stand out even more. And then there's rats. Rats will totally run off with a stray uterus. So it has to be somewhat protected, not where people can find it, not where you could lose it, and the smell either masked or in a place where no one will smell it. I mean, even if you stored it under a floorboard or something, well then you had better be on the ground floor, but even there rats will run off with it, assuming is doesn't fall into some position where you cant retrieve it. Where to keep a uterus?

[protohistorian]

Not particularly. The 21 day estimate is assuming no preservational steps were taken, i.e. he tossed it on the table or put it on his bookcase. The assumption holds that bacterial contamination would be surface transfer or airborn in nature. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

If I may be so bold as to interrupt medical school for a few moments.

There has been talk about the killer removing the organs for trophies.

I recently had a long conversation with a forensic criminal behaviour expert who said that killers who take away organs are not taking them away as trophies.

Objects such as personal effects, clothing, locks of hair which relate to the victim or from a victims home or car are looked upon as trophies.

So perhaps you posters who keep suggesting this may want to perhaps think again.

Now dont shoot me i am only the messenger everyone knows where i stand on the organ issue.