Hell Is Other People

[Michael W Richards]

The second I found that Mary Kelly had had her abdominal wall cut away in large sections, just like Annie Chapman had suffered the exact same fate, I was never going to accept that these two women were killed by different men. Simple as that.

Mary had her abdomen emptied, nothing like any prior killing. Flaps might just indicate similar characteristics of the killers or even some hommage due to this being a published feature of that crime, but the objectifying involved in Chapmans case is I believe the pinnacle of the JtR guy. No meaningless cuts. In Room 13, almost all meaningless cuts. Stripping thighs, slashing faces, removing all that made her female. Horrific but not really reminiscent of any recent prior or subsequent crime.

[Fisherman]

Mary had her abdomen emptied, nothing like any prior killing. Flaps might just indicate similar characteristics of the killers or even some hommage due to this being a published feature of that crime, but the objectifying involved in Chapmans case is I believe the pinnacle of the JtR guy. No meaningless cuts. In Room 13, almost all meaningless cuts. Stripping thighs, slashing faces, removing all that made her female. Horrific but not really reminiscent of any recent prior or subsequent crime.

Chapman had her uterus taken out. Eddowes had her uterus and her left kidney taken out. So saying that Kelly was "not like any prior killing" is simply wrong. These women all had organs taken out of their abdominal cavities. Kelly had more organs taken out, but that is just a matter of volume, not of a different character.

The idea that the cutting of the flaps were a hommage by another killer is infinitely less likely than it being a case of the SAME killer.

The thing about no meaningless cuts versus meaning less cuts is not something you or I are suited to establish. The one thing that counts is whether or not the cuts were meaningless to the killer.

Chapman and Kelly were doubtlessly victims of the same killer. And that is all I have to say about it.

[Michael W Richards]

Chapman had her uterus taken out. Eddowes had her uterus and her left kidney taken out. So saying that Kelly was "not like any prior killing" is simply wrong. These women all had organs taken out of their abdominal cavities. Kelly had more organs taken out, but that is just a matter of volume, not of a different character.

The idea that the cutting of the flaps were a hommage by another killer is infinitely less likely than it being a case of the SAME killer.

The thing about no meaningless cuts versus meaning less cuts is not something you or I are suited to establish. The one thing that counts is whether or not the cuts were meaningless to the killer.

Chapman and Kelly were doubtlessly victims of the same killer. And that is all I have to say about it.

Its like taking a shovel full of dirt and comparing it with an excavator. Fundamentally different acts, though incorporating the same ideal. It cannot be said that what was done to Mary was required to remove and take what he did from that room, most of the cutting was not required for that purpose. It was said about Annies killer. By the man best able to have an opinion on that.

The fact that the doctor who examined Annie Chapman declared that he, with his medical experience and expertise and actual view of the deceased, said "no meaningless cuts" is something he was very well suited to do. Youre right, we are not as well suited, and therefore have nothing to offer in challenge to that comment. His. The medical guy who saw the dead woman. The inference in his comments was clear, he felt all the cuts were required and made to help excise the organ he took in almost its entirety. Not a partial uterus, no extra cut time to cut faces, or trim around navels, or cut fabric. No time to cut a colon and expose feces. No stripping flesh from bone. No removing handfuls of flesh and emptying the abdominal cavity completely. No defensive wounds. He killed her and cut her to take the organ he took.

Find another murder in this whole mess that is that specific.

[Fisherman]

Its like taking a shovel full of dirt and comparing it with an excavator. Fundamentally different acts, though incorporating the same ideal. It cannot be said that what was done to Mary was required to remove and take what he did from that room, most of the cutting was not required for that purpose. It was said about Annies killer. By the man best able to have an opinion on that.

The fact that the doctor who examined Annie Chapman declared that he, with his medical experience and expertise and actual view of the deceased, said "no meaningless cuts" is something he was very well suited to do. Youre right, we are not as well suited, and therefore have nothing to offer in challenge to that comment. His. The medical guy who saw the dead woman. The inference in his comments was clear, he felt all the cuts were required and made to help excise the organ he took in almost its entirety. Not a partial uterus, no extra cut time to cut faces, or trim around navels, or cut fabric. No time to cut a colon and expose feces. No stripping flesh from bone. No removing handfuls of flesh and emptying the abdominal cavity completely. No defensive wounds. He killed her and cut her to take the organ he took.

Find another murder in this whole mess that is that specific.

The Kelly murder is an evisceration murder where more violence has been applied to the body than in the other four cases. The likely reason for the added cutting is the venue, offering seclusion and time. The cut away abdominal walls clinch the matter well beyond reasonable doubt.

Shovels and excavators are both about digging into the earth, so that comparison is not bad.

[Mark J D]

I think that to a great extent owes to how "high flying businessmen" feed their psychopathy/narcissism by way of their elevated societal position. The same goes for famous authors and artists etcetera - they do not have the kind of need for self-elevation by way of killing that the psychopaths who cannot (or are too lazy to) reach societal top positions sometimes have.

Pardon my unfashionable aesthetics; but to me, an actual, genuine artist -- as opposed to what R G Collingwood might have described as 'an artist falsely so called' -- is so centrally involved with psychological operations relating to experienced affect, reactivity, empathy, and the realistic 'generalisability' of personal experience that *I can't imagine such abilities coexisting with psychopathy*...

Now, there are professions in which [etc]...
A stressful job: are surgeons psychopaths? | The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (rcseng.ac.uk)

M.

[mpriestnall]

Pardon my unfashionable aesthetics; but to me, an actual, genuine artist -- as opposed to what R G Collingwood might have described as 'an artist falsely so called' -- is so centrally involved with psychological operations relating to experienced affect, reactivity, empathy, and the realistic 'generalisability' of personal experience that *I can't imagine such abilities coexisting with psychopathy*...

Now, there are professions in which [etc]...
A stressful job: are surgeons psychopaths? | The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (rcseng.ac.uk)

M.

Thanks for posting these links.

I have a special interest in the supposed correlation between psychopathy and surgeons. Jack may have had some medical training or at least anatomical knowledge. And my candidate for Jack is descended down from a handful of surgeons through his father's line and his mother's father and grandfather were also surgeons. My candidate though did not follow their lead, but was working in an office at the age of 17. Still he had enough opportunities I would have thought to gain sufficient medical knowledge that some doctors of the time said Jack showed in some of his murders.

If psychopathy has a genetic cause and is inheritable, perhaps then he also inherited this from his surgeon ancestors? Am I correct in believing psychopathy is an inheritable trait?

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks for posting these links.

I have a special interest in the supposed correlation between psychopathy and surgeons. Jack may have had some medical training or at least anatomical knowledge. And my candidate for Jack is descended down from a handful of surgeons through his father's line and his mother's father and grandfather were also surgeons. My candidate though did not follow their lead, but was working in an office at the age of 17. Still he had enough opportunities I would have thought to gain sufficient medical knowledge that some doctors of the time said Jack showed in some of his murders.

If psychopathy has a genetic cause and is inheritable, perhaps then he also inherited this from his surgeon ancestors? Am I correct in believing psychopathy is an inheritable trait?

Yeah, Martyn!

There's thought to be a genetic component to psychopathy according to Robert Hare and others, so it could indeed be inherited.

Thinking about it from a non-genetic angle, I'm sure that having a parent or primary care giver who scored high on the psychopathy checklist could also have an impact without there necessarily being a genetic component (nurture v nature so to speak).

That's merely my own musing though, so treat with caution!

[Fisherman]

Pardon my unfashionable aesthetics; but to me, an actual, genuine artist -- as opposed to what R G Collingwood might have described as 'an artist falsely so called' -- is so centrally involved with psychological operations relating to experienced affect, reactivity, empathy, and the realistic 'generalisability' of personal experience that *I can't imagine such abilities coexisting with psychopathy*...

Now, there are professions in which [etc]...
A stressful job: are surgeons psychopaths? | The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (rcseng.ac.uk)

M.

So an ability to handle stress? Surprise, surprise…

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Pardon my unfashionable aesthetics; but to me, an actual, genuine artist -- as opposed to what R G Collingwood might have described as 'an artist falsely so called' -- is so centrally involved with psychological operations relating to experienced affect, reactivity, empathy, and the realistic 'generalisability' of personal experience that *I can't imagine such abilities coexisting with psychopathy*...

Now, there are professions in which [etc]...
A stressful job: are surgeons psychopaths? | The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (rcseng.ac.uk)

M.

Hi Mark,
This might be up your street.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406675/

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

https://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1308/rcsbull.2015.331

Henry Sutton?

[mpriestnall]

Yeah, Martyn!

There's thought to be a genetic component to psychopathy according to Robert Hare and others, so it could indeed be inherited.

Thinking about it from a non-genetic angle, I'm sure that having a parent or primary care giver who scored high on the psychopathy checklist could also have an impact without there necessarily being a genetic component (nurture v nature so to speak).

That's merely my own musing though, so treat with caution!

Thanks MS Diddles.

The nurture v nature non-genetic component was an interesting thought. My candidate's father was a surgeon and I have wondered how he may have influenced him, genetically or otherwise. His behavior and attitude to his "low class" patients, being absent from home because of work, his parent's relationship and so on.

[Michael W Richards]

The Kelly murder is an evisceration murder where more violence has been applied to the body than in the other four cases. The likely reason for the added cutting is the venue, offering seclusion and time. The cut away abdominal walls clinch the matter well beyond reasonable doubt.

Shovels and excavators are both about digging into the earth, so that comparison is not bad.

On the last line the point I was making is that using a shovel and using an excavator may both be for moving earth, but they are 2 very different tools. They are generally not used for the same types of jobs. You mention that you feel the "likely" reason for this additional activity is that he was alone and had time with the deceased. Im not sure based on Annie Chapmans murder or Kate Eddowes murder that perceived available time was any hinderance to him, and presumably all the woman were alone with their killer...including some of the 8 or nine unsolved murders that are not presumed carried out by JtR. The flaps were in the papers almost a month before this murder, that potential influence must be considered, so you being reasonable sure and the matter not being solved by that comfort is still problematic. As is presuming that myriad of cuts and slashes and excavations and bone exposing activities is just a result of time on his hands. Your Torso guy also had extended private access and time......I wonder, was there any bone stripped of flesh? The Torso maker worked indoors... alone, how come Mary is in one piece structurally if that man was involved here?

The thing is that some of the wounds that are made reveal intent, to some degree. If wounds are made that do not easily reveal intent...like stripping one thigh of flesh completely and 1 thigh only partially for example, you cannot be sure of why the actions were taken.

In the case of Annie Chapman, the doctor who examined her in death, and 4 of Five Canonicals, suggested that in Annies case "there were no meaningless cuts". He felt he could determine why the cuts were made, why the order, why the type, and to what end. He cut where and how he had to, to obtain what he wanted to acquire.

Now do that with the thigh stripping.

[Mark J D]

Hi Mark,
This might be up your street.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406675/

Thanks so much for this! Lots to digest, there!

M.

[c.d.]

In the case of Annie Chapman, the doctor who examined her in death, and 4 of Five Canonicals, suggested that in Annies case "there were no meaningless cuts". He felt he could determine why the cuts were made, why the order, why the type, and to what end. He cut where and how he had to, to obtain what he wanted to acquire.

Hello Michael,

The doctor was expressing his opinion not an established fact. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Do we know what expertise he possessed in that regard? Also, he was never pressed on his conclusion or forced to defend it. I think we need to treat his opinion with respect but also take it with a grain of salt and certainly not take it as the word of God.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

In the case of Annie Chapman, the doctor who examined her in death, and 4 of Five Canonicals, suggested that in Annies case "there were no meaningless cuts". He felt he could determine why the cuts were made, why the order, why the type, and to what end. He cut where and how he had to, to obtain what he wanted to acquire.

Hello Michael,

The doctor was expressing his opinion not an established fact. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Do we know what expertise he possessed in that regard? Also, he was never pressed on his conclusion or forced to defend it. I think we need to treat his opinion with respect but also take it with a grain of salt and certainly not take it as the word of God.

c.d.

His opinion is far more relevant, insightful, educated than either yours or mine, and he saw 4 of five canonicals dead. I wish people would start accepting expert testimony as just that. Hes the expert, unless you have proof to the contrary.

When someone expert is asked for their opinion, its based on credibility. He has that.