Tweet
Hi,
Ive suggested here for many years that the murder of Annie Chapman establishes a "bar" that is not met in any other murder within the Canonical Group, or on the extended list of possibles kept in the file.
Her murder was more specific, more clinical, than the other murders, and of course the most invasive to that date. Her face isn't marked. It would appear that her intestines were simply moved for ease of access. It would also appear that the items (or some of them) found about her were consciously put there. She lost rings from her fingers. The summation of the Inquest, covered below by the Bush Advocate newspaper in New Zealand on Nov 17th, indicates that there was strong belief that the man responsible was;
-Not insane
-Medically trained
-Had Post mortem skills with knife, anatomical knowledge beyond that of a slaughter-house man.
Dramatic as it was, and containing a suggestion that the organ obtained could be something that was sought to sell on a black market...a suggestion I believe was made to create an air of acceptance that people will kill and do these kinds of things, despite how abhorrent the idea is to the general public....this summation revealed more police ideology in terms of "killer profile" information than the others.
Here is the excerpt;
"Mr. Wynne Baxter on Wednesday resumed the inquest at Whitechapel on the body of Annie Chapman, who was murdered on 8th. inst. in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The Coroner at one proceeded to sum up the evidence. He recalled the important facts of the case. It was in a Spitalfields lodging house that the deceased received the older bruises found on her temple and front of the chest, in a trumpery quarrel a week before her death. It was in one of these lodging houses that she was seen a few hours before her mangled remains were discovered. She was found dead about six o'clock. All was done with reckless daring. The murder seemed, like the Bucks Row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the rooms were of wood. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body expose to view. Probably as daylight broke he hurried away in fear. The Coroner then proceeded to observe - There are two things missing - her ring had been wrenched from her finger, and had not been found, and an organ had been taken away. The body had not been dissected, but the injuries had been made by some one with considerable anatomical knowledge and skill. There are no meaningless cuts. The organ has been taken away by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it any surgeon knows. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing organ seems overwhelming. If the object were robbery injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from loss of blood at the neck. The difficulty in believing that the purpose of the murderer was possession of the organ is natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object, but when rightly considered the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt. It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case, but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ."
My question is twofold, Why would that profile have to change prior to any subsequent discovery? How does that profile fit with the earlier, and later murders?
Ive suggested here for many years that the murder of Annie Chapman establishes a "bar" that is not met in any other murder within the Canonical Group, or on the extended list of possibles kept in the file.
Her murder was more specific, more clinical, than the other murders, and of course the most invasive to that date. Her face isn't marked. It would appear that her intestines were simply moved for ease of access. It would also appear that the items (or some of them) found about her were consciously put there. She lost rings from her fingers. The summation of the Inquest, covered below by the Bush Advocate newspaper in New Zealand on Nov 17th, indicates that there was strong belief that the man responsible was;
-Not insane
-Medically trained
-Had Post mortem skills with knife, anatomical knowledge beyond that of a slaughter-house man.
Dramatic as it was, and containing a suggestion that the organ obtained could be something that was sought to sell on a black market...a suggestion I believe was made to create an air of acceptance that people will kill and do these kinds of things, despite how abhorrent the idea is to the general public....this summation revealed more police ideology in terms of "killer profile" information than the others.
Here is the excerpt;
"Mr. Wynne Baxter on Wednesday resumed the inquest at Whitechapel on the body of Annie Chapman, who was murdered on 8th. inst. in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The Coroner at one proceeded to sum up the evidence. He recalled the important facts of the case. It was in a Spitalfields lodging house that the deceased received the older bruises found on her temple and front of the chest, in a trumpery quarrel a week before her death. It was in one of these lodging houses that she was seen a few hours before her mangled remains were discovered. She was found dead about six o'clock. All was done with reckless daring. The murder seemed, like the Bucks Row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the rooms were of wood. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body expose to view. Probably as daylight broke he hurried away in fear. The Coroner then proceeded to observe - There are two things missing - her ring had been wrenched from her finger, and had not been found, and an organ had been taken away. The body had not been dissected, but the injuries had been made by some one with considerable anatomical knowledge and skill. There are no meaningless cuts. The organ has been taken away by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it any surgeon knows. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing organ seems overwhelming. If the object were robbery injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from loss of blood at the neck. The difficulty in believing that the purpose of the murderer was possession of the organ is natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object, but when rightly considered the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt. It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case, but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ."
My question is twofold, Why would that profile have to change prior to any subsequent discovery? How does that profile fit with the earlier, and later murders?
Comment