Pathological Issues: Is It Perhaps What It Looks Like ?

[sepiae]

Hi Sepiae/Daniel,
I better watch how I address you, don't want to get too familiar with a nutter

David Russell Williams.

organs important to him.
'cure' (...) 'spell' (...) religious (...) sold (...) message.
I think my best suggestion was that he took them home and revisited his obsession with them.

Maybe because the act of the actual killing was perhaps more fulfilling for him.
If the ripper did kill Kelly then that may explain why her reproduction organs were left. He may have developed another obsession with something of the victims or was more interested in a new organ. If all the killings are connected, then the choice of organs taken, and the level of injury inflicted may have been part of a 'story' the killer was trying to tell.

Hi Natasha,

just call me Cuttlefish - The Beast

organs important to him: undoubtedly.

'I think my best suggestion...': I think so, too

act of killing: this is something I'm trying to fully understand, too, what was of more importance/weight, the killing or what he did afterwards, or both of the same. Or, as I carefully consider, the second 'growing' out of the first, an aspect that gradually comes to his attention.

Kelly-organs: I know what;s on your mind, the 'change' from uterus to heart. I still believe that the significance of the uterus shows to the same degree with Kelly; that he didn't take it with him might be almost incidentally - in fact, that he did 'better' this time: he could do things with it. The things he did with it being a first-timer, but [following the serial- and escalation hypothesis] considering the ongoing role of the uterus, of all the organs he moved and placed in Kelly's case, the uterus playing a, perhaps still the main part.
And perhaps it had to stay there. Yet having taken it with him before had provided the 'repeat', as you suggested [and me as well]. If the uterus had to stay where he put it, it had to be another organ to be taken away. The heart. If I'd envision him to go on [still in the context of this hypothesis] the uterus would stay from now on, in a special place for it, the heart, or another organ, would go with him.
That's just imagination for the sake of illustration.

[lynn cates]

point

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Actually, you are making a point I have long sought to gain. In more than one case--but especially at Hanbury--the culprit seems oblivious to the possibility of detection.

And then, not only taking Annie's worthless ring, and rifling her belongings, but also arranging them methodically, seems to suggest someone who was focused on the task ONLY.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Louie

Hello (again) Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, that's it. Implicating Mann seems to me a bit like implicating the "Louie" character from the Berman and Baker film, "Jack the Ripper."

Being not the sharpest instrument in the drawer is not a good reason to suspect one of murder.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hello (again) Daniel. Thanks.

I am always struck by:

1. His speaking loudly to Annie near the windows.

2. His killing AFTER sunrise.

3. Doing so in the backyard of a highly populated house.

Not exactly the behaviour of a sane person.

Cheers.
LC

Seeing as you put great faith in the doctors observations let me bring it to your notice that Dr Philips was of the opinion that TOD in the Chapman murder was approximately 4:30 a.m.

You refer to "His speaking loudly to Annie near the windows." Don't you mean they were talking loudly? Mr's Long stated

[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Note that the Coroner led Mr's Long into the question "were they talking loudly". Three words is all she heard, "will you", and "yes". Think about it, considering what was heard, is it likely that this very brief conversation required Chapman, and her companion to raise their voices? Why would Chapman need to raise her voice to answer "yes"? I believe Long responded to a leading question. Also, she modified the Coroner's leading question to "talking pretty loudly". I believe she went along with him, and the fact was that Chapman, and her companion, spoke in a normal manner, not at all loudly.

Mr Cates believes that Isenschmid was "shaking down" prostitutes. Does the conversation between Chapman, and her companion, as heard by Mr's Long sound as if her companion is shaking her down? It sounds like a normal punter prostitute transaction to me.

Oh, Mr Cates might come back and say the rough stuff started at the rear of the building, as it indeed did; but if this is the case, would a deluded insane man have the nous to carefully manoeuvre Chapman to the rear of the building with the promise of a few coppers in exchange for a short time?

[Jon Guy]

I do believe the actual words Mrs Long heard were "Wool, you ?"

[Observer]

A Troll by any other name would smell as obnoxious!

I do believe the actual words Mrs Long heard were "Wool, you ?"

It could well be Jon. After all, poor Annie Chapman "dyed in the" backyard of number29.

By the way, I have a lovely semi-detached cave overlooking the Boknafjord, feel free to use it anytime.

Observer

[Jon Guy]

Sheep that pass in the night

It could well be Jon. After all, poor Annie Chapman "dyed in the" backyard of number29.

Yes, perhaps that was what Cadosche over-herd.

By the way, I have a lovely semi-detached cave overlooking the Boknafjord, feel free to use it anytime.

Thank ewe, Observer.

[Observer]

The not so good shepard

You're welcome Jon. By the way I believe I may have the solution as to why Annie Chapman's rings were missing. Isenschmid took his crook along with him apparently.

Observer

[Jon Guy]

You're welcome Jon. By the way I believe I may have the solution as to why Annie Chapman's rings were missing. Isenschmid took his crook along with him apparently.

Aha, so Annie was fleeced by Isenschmid before he slaughtered her.

[Cogidubnus]

Oh deer...

[Errata]

What is with you people and baa-ad puns?

[sepiae]

arranged oblivion

Hello Daniel. Thanks.

Actually, you are making a point I have long sought to gain. In more than one case--but especially at Hanbury--the culprit seems oblivious to the possibility of detection.

And then, not only taking Annie's worthless ring, and rifling her belongings, but also arranging them methodically, seems to suggest someone who was focused on the task ONLY.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

yes, I think that if one is enveloped by doing something like this it is likely, at least while it lasts. And it never seemed right to me, this idea that he was 'bold', or even boastful.

[sepiae]

Louie the Ripper

Hello (again) Daniel. Thanks.

Yes, that's it. Implicating Mann seems to me a bit like implicating the "Louie" character from the Berman and Baker film, "Jack the Ripper."

Being not the sharpest instrument in the drawer is not a good reason to suspect one of murder.

Cheers.
LC

I haven't seen that one.
Actually I haven't seen a movie about this subject I liked.

[sepiae]

time of tod

Seeing as you put great faith in the doctors observations let me bring it to your notice that Dr Philips was of the opinion that TOD in the Chapman murder was approximately 4:30 a.m.

You refer to "His speaking loudly to Annie near the windows." Don't you mean they were talking loudly? Mr's Long stated

[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Note that the Coroner led Mr's Long into the question "were they talking loudly". Three words is all she heard, "will you", and "yes". Think about it, considering what was heard, is it likely that this very brief conversation required Chapman, and her companion to raise their voices? Why would Chapman need to raise her voice to answer "yes"? I believe Long responded to a leading question. Also, she modified the Coroner's leading question to "talking pretty loudly". I believe she went along with him, and the fact was that Chapman, and her companion, spoke in a normal manner, not at all loudly.

Mr Cates believes that Isenschmid was "shaking down" prostitutes. Does the conversation between Chapman, and her companion, as heard by Mr's Long sound as if her companion is shaking her down? It sounds like a normal punter prostitute transaction to me.

Oh, Mr Cates might come back and say the rough stuff started at the rear of the building, as it indeed did; but if this is the case, would a deluded insane man have the nous to carefully manoeuvre Chapman to the rear of the building with the promise of a few coppers in exchange for a short time?

Hi Observer,

actually Lynn has an explanation model of how this transpired, and it's worth having a look.

You do have a point about the leading question. It still remains that none of what transpired seems careful at all.

I just realized that the acronym TOD for time of death when read as a German word, [der] Tod, means death

[sepiae]

This regards the beginning of this thread.

Apparently I'm not able to edit after a certain time, and so I cannot swap the attached essay for an amended version.

I have to amend the essay, as I'd treated Francis Tumblety unfairly [I did not present him as a good suspect, but had fallen for some generally presented myths about him]. Thanks to Tim Riordan, who'd done an excellent job evaporating many of these myths very convincingly, I feel I have to rectify this.
Until I have time [sigh...] to re-write the paragraph in question in order to get to the point I need to make, I've added a disclaimer at the beginning of said paragraph, and the whole thing is once more attached here.
I'll probably have to attach the final version again

Thanks, everyone has a good day now.