Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[Abby Normal]

For me there’s enough ‘conclusivity’ in the fact that the intestines of both Chapman and Eddowes were drawn out and placed on and/or above her right shoulder, indicating that the killer had interest in the insides of his victims, taking the intestines out of the way. Furthermore, in the case of Eddowes a piece of colon was cut out and placed between the left side of the body and her left arm, whilst in Kelly’s case, of course, he had practically emptied her abdomen and placed organs all around her. In addition it was found that a piece of belly wall including the navel was missing from Chapman. Which is exactly what happened in a mutilation murder not committed by the Ripper but by Robert Napper: a piece of her abdomen had been sliced off and her killer took it away with him.

Why should it be such a big step from ‘just’ opening up victims, pulling, cutting off pieces and cutting out organs & placing them besides or around them to doing all of that but also cutting out some organs and taking them with him? I don’t see that and as long as we don’t know his motive, there’s nothing remarkable about one organ being extracted differently on two seperate occasions. What's the compelling reason that should convince people into thinking: no, no, I see it now, he just has to have stopped after pulling out the intestines and cutting out organs and placing them beside the body; he can't have gone any further than that? In my opinion, you have presented nothing compelling so far, so you'd have to do better to convince me. If that's what you want, of course.

hi Frank and Eten

The idea that a serial killer, whos main motivation is post mortem mutilation, would open up and remove internal organs (eddowes, chapman and kelly for example) but wasnt the one who took them away is ludicrous.
especially considering other victims (nichols, stride etc)who didnt have their abdomans opened up and internal organs removed, didnt have any parts missing.

[FrankO]

hi Frank and Eten

The idea that a serial killer, whos main motivation is post mortem mutilation, would open up and remove internal organs (eddowes, chapman and kelly for example) but wasnt the one who took them away is ludicrous.
especially considering other victims (nichols, stride etc)who didnt have their abdomans opened up and internal organs removed, didnt have any parts missing.

My view exactly, Abby. If there was an organ robber, why take organs from some victims at the morgue, but not all? If organ robbing was his thing, then why not take organs from whoever would end up lying in a morgue?

[Michael W Richards]

I think enough has been said about the probability the organs were taken at the morgue. Its clear in at least Annies case that a "portion" of the deceased was excised and not present at the crime scene. If we use Annie as a model of what Jack the Ripper did, which I think is a reasonable assumption, then we have quite a bit we can learn about the killer. Including surgical skill sets and anatomical knowledge. He had both, to what degree is unclear because of the presumption by Phillips that these attributes were somewhat less obvious due to his haste.

For myself, Annie has always been the quintessential Ripper victim. And by my acceptance of that I can see that Polly's murder in many ways fits that same profile. These murders have for over 130 years have been analyzed based on a presumption of a fixed Canonical Group total, which I believe has affected how we see them individually. Accepting the C5 premise means that such a killer changed some key elements from that quintessential example, including overall objectives, skills exhibited and victimology to name just 3. A change from his first victim, which I believe was Polly, to his second victim, is in many ways explainable. By his inexperience and choice of venue. He learned from that, and his second outing is when we see the completed Ripper.

2 kills within 10 days, then a month without action, then 3 within 10 days. I think that month of quiet, and the details that we have for Stride, Eddowes and Kelly indicate that it would seem the man with a mission, Annies killer, had stopped killing during the last 3/4 of September. Is it him that starts up again with Liz? No indication in her murder that a "man with a mission" killed her, she is simply murdered. Did he kill Kate? Thats a 10,000 dollar question, there seems to a mission there, but its not quite the same as with Annie. Although very close to it. Mary is killed in anger, slashes, flesh peeled from bone, many, many wounds seemingly just to deface the corpse, to remove her humanity and leave her unrecognizable. Is that another, new "mission"? I submit that if we gauge his skill and knowledge based on the quintessential victim, then he had substantial abilities and a "mission".

I dont see the need to dismiss all the new features in Marys murder so that we can state its just the same guy who killed Annie. Im pretty sure removal of a heart is the key to that murder, and murderer.

[c.d.]

Mary is killed in anger...

Maybe. Maybe not. Only her killer would know that. But if you want to assign that motive to her killing would you not have to do the same with Kate? Certainly a reasonable and similar argument could be used to show anger in her killing. Simply look at her face.

c.d.

[c.d.]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Mary was killed in anger. That doesn't necessarily indicate that they had a personal relationship of any kind. They might have been total strangers to each other. But what if she said something to set him off like an offhand comment on penis size or a mention of his mother? It could have been anything. It is most definitely not an if A then B argument.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Mary was killed in anger. That doesn't necessarily indicate that they had a personal relationship of any kind. They might have been total strangers to each other. But what if she said something to set him off like an offhand comment on penis size or a mention of his mother? It could have been anything. It is most definitely not an if A then B argument.

c.d.

absolutely cd. amd there may have been anger involved in all of the c5, but it was not the primary motivation, it could have been secondary or even tertiary. the primary motivation of the ripper was a fascination with post mortem mutilation and what his knife could do to the female body.

[Michael W Richards]

Mary is killed in anger...

Maybe. Maybe not. Only her killer would know that. But if you want to assign that motive to her killing would you not have to do the same with Kate? Certainly a reasonable and similar argument could be used to show anger in her killing. Simply look at her face.

c.d.

I see your argument cd, but to me, the cuts on Kates face seem like the point of the knife was used with intent. I think Marys face slashes, her arm wounds, seem like the killer venting.

[Michael W Richards]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Mary was killed in anger. That doesn't necessarily indicate that they had a personal relationship of any kind. They might have been total strangers to each other. But what if she said something to set him off like an offhand comment on penis size or a mention of his mother? It could have been anything. It is most definitely not an if A then B argument.

c.d.

Sure, he could have had anger arise in him based on his reaction to something, but would that also explain the fact that he took her heart? For me its cumulative, not a few isolated indicators.

[Michael W Richards]

absolutely cd. amd there may have been anger involved in all of the c5, but it was not the primary motivation, it could have been secondary or even tertiary. the primary motivation of the ripper was a fascination with post mortem mutilation and what his knife could do to the female body.

Actually I believe we see some control in Annies mutilations. Some deliberate acts to achieve the goal he evidently achieved. Phillips believed what was done to Annie was in keeping with the final result, he did what was needed to get what he wanted. In Marys case there are numerous wounds that did not serve the purpose of obtaining her heart.

[c.d.]

Sure, he could have had anger arise in him based on his reaction to something, but would that also explain the fact that he took her heart? For me its cumulative, not a few isolated indicators.

Hello Michael,

But if we are going to assign symbolism to the taking of her heart then we also have to assign symbolism to the taking of a kidney and uterus in previous murders.

As for the symbolism of the heart (I always give credit to Sam Flynn for this), there is a huge difference between the mention of the heart in poetry, a heart shaped locket or a heart on a Valentine's Day card and a slimy, bloody, stinking actual heart. I think he was simply taking organs and the heart is an organ. I don't see anything significant about it.

c.d.

[Aethelwulf]

I think he was simply taking organs and the heart is an organ. I don't see anything significant about it.

c.d.

agree, there is no need to insert some cliched theory about taking her heart and a jilted lover

[c.d.]

agree, there is no need to insert some cliched theory about taking her heart and a jilted lover

And even if there were some significance to the taking of the heart it doesn't necessarily have to be romantic in nature. It could have some sort of black magic or religious significance or cannibalism etc.

c.d.

[FrankO]

And even if there were some significance to the taking of the heart it doesn't necessarily have to be romantic in nature. It could have some sort of black magic or religious significance or cannibalism etc.

The heart could also have stood symbol for 'life', so cutting it out and taking it away could have been the most extreme way he could think of to destroy her life or annihilate her.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

But if we are going to assign symbolism to the taking of her heart then we also have to assign symbolism to the taking of a kidney and uterus in previous murders.

As for the symbolism of the heart (I always give credit to Sam Flynn for this), there is a huge difference between the mention of the heart in poetry, a heart shaped locket or a heart on a Valentine's Day card and a slimy, bloody, stinking actual heart. I think he was simply taking organs and the heart is an organ. I don't see anything significant about it.

c.d.

Your taking this in isolation cd, as I said before. Its the cumulative evidence, including her admission to being in a 3 way relationship, that allows for such positing.

[Michael W Richards]

To all who object to the idea, perhaps revisit the crime scene photos and descriptions, the slashes on her, the cuts on her that had no bearing on removing her heart...then add the circumstantial, indoors in her own room, in sleeping attire, the romantic triangle,..then revisit Annies evidence. Cuts done to achieve a specific purpose, skill and knowledge exhibited, likely met her killer as part of her soliciting on the street. There is no indication at all that Annie was killed by someone she knew or someone that may have had a grudge. There is ample evidence that her killer murdered her to be able to access the organ he took.

Is the evidence in the Kelly case similar or dissimilar? Rhetorical of course. Before reacting to an idea borne from actual evidence review dismissively, maybe step back from your own opinion and see what is actually there, not what you think is there, no what youd expect to be there, not how you see this whole series. Because the reality is that there is no series, its a premise. One that hasnt met the standards of proof all these years. Mary is one unsolved murder, among others. Haphazardly grouping some together isnt truth seeking, its trying to understand what happened and not being objective with every individual case.