Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

Hello Caz

Never been to an orgy, or likely to be but I shouldn' t imagine those who do are particularly in control.

Best wishes
C4

Ok. Just remember please that I worked for an anthropologist who studied serial killers and sex crimes. I means I had a lot of deeply weird assignments.

One of which was at an orgy. And I'm a liberal minded soul, and as long as it's consenting adults who am I to judge? I mean, I volunteered for this, because no one else raised their hand, and I figure I taught sex ed, and it's not like I haven't seen sex before.

Years of therapy. Not kidding. Deeply traumatic, even though I was sure I could handle it.

They are in control. Not always aware, but in control. Potential partners get rejected which is one thing if you're still at a bar, but another thing when they are already naked with you. So there are some tantrums. Protection was used, so that had to be refreshed. There is a hierarchy. People get elbowed in the face, there's some person sitting at the side naked because they are the odd man out or waiting. It's just sex. With a lot of people around you also having sex. And you switch around, but it's still just sex. And it no more pleasurable than two people in a bedroom, but apparently "it just feels more decadent, more rebellious". But one of them was a friend of my Dad's, and he just looked up and gave me a wave and a wink, and my brain broke.

The original orgies which didn't include sex but a lot of wine and drugs, those I imagine were out of control. But the deeply disturbing "silver fox" version I saw was just traumatic. Because I swear to god, I think they were all bored.

I don't know why I'm telling you this. I just apparently am.

[Errata]

No, I don't agree. Gluttonous, orgiastic (your words) imply loss of control. The piles of flesh on the table, no purpose to it, just cutting because he didn't know where to stop. The way in which Mary (and Kate, cut up "like a pig at market"), no control.

Best wishes
C4

In what is going to sound like the lamest backpedaling of all time (though it isn't), there's control, and then there's control. One being emotional and one being functional.

Had he wept the entire time he did it, we would say that he had lost emotional control. He was not clinical, he was not detached, he was not Spock-like. That would be incorrect. Technically speaking, when it comes to feelings or their attendant behaviors, it is not a loss of control until it forces someone to act against their own interests, or they cannot regain their normal state. Whatever was going on in his head, he was not forced to act against his own interests. Any emotion, anger, anxiety, pleasure, is perfectly normal. And expressing those emotions is normal. Of course with serial killers there's a different scale, since serial killing is clearly not a healthy expression of anything. THIS serial killer was pretty clinical. Fairly contained up until the mutilation of Eddowes face. Not devoid of emotion, but wrapped up pretty tight. Then he was less tightly wrapped. He showed anger or frustration or fear, something. Which is actually not unusual for serial killers. Dahmer was similar in that his first kills were pretty basic. Pretty clinical. But once he started figuring out what he wanted, that's when **** got weird (pardon the expression). And Dahmer wasn't out of control. He was relaxing into his groove so to speak.

A lot of things can crack open a tightly wound killer. First of all, he may have finally been confident enough in his skills that could relax and enjoy it. Or being indoors meant he didn't have to devote half of his attention to listening for someone coming. Or maybe he had enough experience to know what he wanted, and could take pleasure in that. If Jack were a natural glutton and was forced by circumstances to live with the bare minimum until he got to what would be the murder equivalent of an all you can eat buffet, we might expect him to indulge where he had not previously. Or if he was finally laying his hands on a victim he actually had an emotional connection to, and is confronting her in a spectacularly unhealthy way, we would also expect to see increased activity. We have no idea what his emotional "normal" was. He probably didn't know. Despite how basic it sounds, it's actually a pretty tough thing to figure out. He might have cracked a little. He might have simply been coming into who he really was. He might have just had a good night because he won $20 buck at poker an hour earlier. But he wasn't forced to act against his own interests, and there's no evidence he could not return to his baseline state.

And he clearly didn't lose functional control. Unless he did it in the corner while someone else did the cutting. Shaking and sputtering, unable to hold a knife, maybe wetting himself.

There was no screaming or shouting, pretty common when people lose it. There were no golf ball sized chunks of mystery flesh strewn about the room. There were no tearing injuries, like he ripped her apart with his bare hands. She was not hacked to pieces. There were not 107 stab wounds. Her organs were cut out, and carefully. Not torn out. And not dumped on the floor or chucked in the fireplace, but sorted in a weird way around the room. Her facial mutilations were meticulous. He destroyed her, but carefully. His hands were steady. His movements purposeful. It looks like he enjoyed it. Reveled in it even. Which is more than we had seen of him in the past. But that's not a loss of control. It's not even a loss of control compared to his other work. It's not exactly the same, but then no two victims ever were. Does someone who did what was done to Chapman end up doing what was done to Kelly? Yeah. That makes sense. There's a difference between losing it and losing yourself in it. There's also a difference between losing control and loosening up.

[curious4]

Hello Caz

Never been to an orgy, or likely to be but I shouldn' t imagine those who do are particularly in control.

Best wishes
C4

[Trevor Marriott]

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz

So you would believe that the killer risks arrest and detection to take away organs in what can only be described as almost impossible circumstances with little time available to him. Yet when he had unlimited time to remove almost every organ and take away every organ he fails to do so. I think your logic in your answer has gone a bit wayward.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[curious4]

I believe the quote more exactly was "ripped up like a pig at market". Not nicely cut up then.

But Wickerman is spot on. And to my mind the killer was
out of control.

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

I think the main problem is that the issue of the degree of 'control' displayed by the killer is both subjective and relative.

[Abby Normal]

No, I don't agree. Gluttonous, orgiastic (your words) imply loss of control. The piles of flesh on the table, no purpose to it, just cutting because he didn't know where to stop. The way in which Mary (and Kate, cut up "like a pig at market"), no control.

Best wishes
C4

Bad thinking and bad analogy. A pig cut up in the market is done in a controlled way.

to repeat-There was control. In the ruse phase, in the kill phase, in the mutilation phase and in the escape phase.

He was in control. But to be fair not always. He was human after all not a robot. I believe he lost control with Tabram-probably his first (trigger) kill and with Stride (BSman), who was not going easily to that dark alley.

[Abby Normal]

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes and yes-good post.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, more or less. And to Elizabeth Jackson.

Yup. totally overlooked.

[Abby Normal]

Meaningless. The question was whether or not the murder was controlled. It was.

Totally agree. He wasn't hacking away in some kind of frenzy-throwing stuff around the room, getting blood smeared on him etc.

It was controlled evisceration. same as all of them except perhaps Tabram (who I believe may have been the "accidental" trigger kill.)

There was control. In the ruse phase, in the kill phase, in the mutilation phase and in the escape phase.

[caz]

The clincher for me with regards to all the suggestions about the same killer who killed the others removing and taking away the organs from Eddowes and Chapman sinks without a trace with regards to the Kelly murder.

If the killer of Eddowes and Chapman had have had their organs removed at the crime scene, and had the killer of Kelly been the same killer. Then it begs the question why did he not take away any of the organs from Millers Court?

Now before you and others start jumping up and down saying the heart was missing that has never been conclusively proven and in fact on this site several month ago I posted evidential facts, which suggested that the heart was not taken away and now cast a doubt about specific evidence, which has been relied upon to back up the claims the heart was taken. May I suggest you trawl back over previous threads on the topic.

So what can we conclude? We can conclude that on that basis, that if the same killer killed Eddowes and Chapman then he did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scenes, given the fact that he could have taken away almost all of the internal organs from Millers Court.

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,
So you are suggesting that the killer was someone medically trained who was tracking down a specific local woman by the name of Kelly? That woman was Mary. Am I wrong? If not, can I ask what the motive behind these killings was, in your opinion?

Hi Rosella
Yes.....not claiming to know what the motive is though.I'm not writing a book so I'm not going to make things up like people do but it's inescapable in my mind.
This was way and above any possible coincidence I'm afraid. Passing it off as coincidence would be ridiculously blinkered in favour of profiling.If the same thing happened today I doubt it would be ignored.Not just any 2 victims,but the last 2 of the C5... What odds??

[curious4]

It was terribly controlled. Carefully extracting the organs and dividing them into piles. Extracting the heart from the pericardium.

It was controlled. It was not however particularly sane as a layperson would define it.

It was excessive, it was overkill, it was unnecessary. It was almost ritualistic. Gluttonous. Orgiastic. Like he reveled in it. But still meticulous in a lot of ways. Still controlled.

No, I don't agree. Gluttonous, orgiastic (your words) imply loss of control. The piles of flesh on the table, no purpose to it, just cutting because he didn't know where to stop. The way in which Mary (and Kate, cut up "like a pig at market"), no control.

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

While most of the papers did not publish Mr. Phillips' testimony detailing the abdominal mutilations of Annie Chapman, one - the Morning Advertizer - did .... The same was apparently done to Kelly.

Yes, more or less. And to Elizabeth Jackson.

[Rosella]

Hi Packers,
So you are suggesting that the killer was someone medically trained who was tracking down a specific local woman by the name of Kelly? That woman was Mary. Am I wrong? If not, can I ask what the motive behind these killings was, in your opinion?