Lipski

[c.d.]

Hello Fish and Sam,

We also have to take into account the fact that the killer had more time with Kelly than the other victims. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the act of cutting produced more desire to continue cutting.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

I agree, CD - cutting certainly seems to have been his thing, with the view to removing organs. I sense a focus on the abdomen, but (as Fish rightly points out) he didn't stop there with Kelly.

That said, the killer certainly went to town on Kelly's abdominal organs, and these were the initial focus of his "excavations". The chest organs were only removed after he'd emptied Kelly's abdomen, and they got off lightly in comparison. He didn't even cut all the thoracic organs, remember; the lung was torn away, and only partially at that.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

c.d.

Yes, I would say so. Or what cutting could achieve. However, I reacted to how Abby wrote that "the common denominator IMHO is post mortem mutilation via knife. specifically the abdomen", and Gareth wrote "I agree, but would go a little further - more precisely, the common factor seems to be post mortem cutting open of the abdomen for the desired or achieved purpose of removing abdominal organs."
I thought that it got too specific for the exact reason you are speaking of now: that there is every reason to see the cutting as such as the common denominator.

[Michael W Richards]

do you mean Kate and Annie. theyre the two most similar. Polly didn't have any organs removed.

I thought that I was clear, but Polly then Annie represent the 2 most probable victims to have met the same killer,....the exact same circumstances for the meet, the exact same kind of throat cuts, the exact same additional focus on the abdomen. The Only reason in my opinion that Polly was not mutilated further is due to a poor, knee jerk choice of venue, in the middle of an open ended street...being his first kill, I can understand that adrenaline and excitement played into that. But in the next kill, he uses a backyard, enabling him to accomplish what he wanted...to extract abdominal organs. In no other murder are abdominal organs the focus...in Kates case one might argue that, but he also marks her face, cuts her colon, and does a trace around her navel, demonstrating that her killer played with the corpse.

As for Motive vs Evidence identifying killers, I can state that many murder convictions occur without any accusatory physical evidence being presented. A man takes out a large life insurance policy on his wife, she is found murdered a month later. That is enough to point a finger,....why he wanted to kill her is then the next logical question. How she dies is irrelevant...where the murder weapon is, or what it was, is irrelevant. The Motive suggests the murderer. The Motive suggested by the first 2 murders is somewhere within the realm of mental illnesses. The Motive for Liz, and for Mary, isn't that clear. That their killer was sick enough to do what he did suggests at the very least someone lacking conscience or guilt. But why did those facets, or why the lack of those facets, led to their deaths is unclear. Mary was in a love triangle, Liz broke up with someone earlier in the week, and she was at work among the Jews and found dead on Jewish property. Both of those facts can lead to answers, rather than just assuming something else.

[c.d.]

If his aim was the abdomen, Gareth - then why did he cut up all of the body of Mary Kelly?

Hello Fish,

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, but my point is that "mutilation" (post mortem or otherwise) is probably too wide a term to usefully differentiate between murders. The examples of Tabram and McKenzie demonstrate how using a non-specific "mutilation" criterion can create an artificially wide net. Tabram was stabbed, with the focus of the stabbings extending "north" of the stomach/upper abdomen (there were umpteen stab-wounds in her throat). McKenzie sustained minor scratches/cuts. Neither woman sustained abdominal cuts of any significance, and certainly not to the extent whereby one could conclude that their killers had any designs on their innards.

Actually, I'd hesitate to say that Tabram was mutilated at all. Of course, multiple stab-wounds are horrifically disfiguring, but they are stab-wounds for all that. The collateral (incidental) damage inflicted by a knife punching into the body produces is rather different from the deliberate scoring and cutting away of flesh, which is how I'd personally define "true" mutilation.

well now I disagree
Tabram had stab wounds to the abdomen and private parts and McKenzie had also a cut/s to the abdomen. Both done post mortem. serial/killers who continue to stab/cut/ mutilate post mortem are rare. add to that to the abdomen and rarer still.

if your getting caught up by the specific term "mutilate" then fine-how about injuries inflicted to abdomen post mortem by knife? tabram-through McKenzie all.

add to that both also had neck targeted by knife. add to that both were found with skirt raised up show targeting to the naked abdomen---and Ill eat my hat if tabram-mckenzie weren't done by the same man.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
yes but post mortem mutilation is what I was getting at.

Indeed, but my point is that "mutilation" (post mortem or otherwise) is probably too wide a term to usefully differentiate between murders. The examples of Tabram and McKenzie demonstrate how using a non-specific "mutilation" criterion can create an artificially wide net. Tabram was stabbed, with the focus of the stabbings extending "north" of the stomach/upper abdomen (there were umpteen stab-wounds in her throat). McKenzie sustained minor scratches/cuts. Neither woman sustained abdominal cuts of any significance, and certainly not to the extent whereby one could conclude that their killers had any designs on their innards.

Actually, I'd hesitate to say that Tabram was mutilated at all. Of course, multiple stab-wounds are horrifically disfiguring, but they are stab-wounds for all that. The collateral (incidental) damage inflicted by a knife punching into the body produces is rather different from the deliberate scoring and cutting away of flesh, which is how I'd personally define "true" mutilation.

[Fisherman]

I agree, but would go a little further - more precisely, the common factor seems to be post mortem cutting open of the abdomen for the desired or achieved purpose of removing abdominal organs.

"Mutilation" in a generic sense, as well as using a knife, occur often enough among serial murders (and one-off murders for that matter), and consequently cannot be used as strong differentiating criteria.

If his aim was the abdomen, Gareth - then why did he cut up all of the body of Mary Kelly?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Tom , How can you identify pipeman as Le Grand ? description given to police by Schwartz. Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand. The height and age seems to be right for him, but surely that description would fit quite a few locals.

[Darryl Kenyon]

1- Sorry Michael i tend to disagree. The MO is consistent, we only have Schwatrz police report that she was attacked shortly before her murder, and even if what he is saying is true would someone then go on to kill her knowing there are at least two witnesses , Schwartz and pipeman who could identify him { especially if it was Kidney, the first suspect the police would turn to ] and send him to the Gallows. The fact that she was an impoverished { probably prostituting herself ] woman , the same as the other victims . In the right area at the right time, during the night , Plus the fact she had her throat cut with a knife,probably silently { no screams heard from the club etc ] and swiftly, lack of defense wounds and the cachous in her hand must weigh heavily in the balance.

[Abby Normal]

I agree, but would go a little further - more precisely, the common factor seems to be post mortem cutting open of the abdomen for the desired or achieved purpose of removing abdominal organs.

"Mutilation" in a generic sense, as well as using a knife, occur often enough among serial murders (and one-off murders for that matter), and consequently cannot be used as strong differentiating criteria.

Hi Sam
yes but post mortem mutilation is what I was getting at. but agree-with target of internal organs.
tabram through McKenzie all exhibit post mortem mutilation to abdomen

[Sam Flynn]

bingo. I would just add that the common denominator IMHO is post mortem mutilation via knife. specifically the abdomen.

I agree, but would go a little further - more precisely, the common factor seems to be post mortem cutting open of the abdomen for the desired or achieved purpose of removing abdominal organs.

"Mutilation" in a generic sense, as well as using a knife, occur often enough among serial murders (and one-off murders for that matter), and consequently cannot be used as strong differentiating criteria.

[Abby Normal]

Nope, evidence catches killers. Countless murders have been solved without ever determining the motive of the killer.

The problem is you're trying to compartmentalize each murder, which might make sense had these murders been isolated incidents with different MOs, but all of the victims were dispatched in the same manner and all but one were subjected to similar mutilations. There weren't many individuals capable of committing such a crime, hence why these murders were unprecedented at the time and evaporated after Autumn 1888. The common denominator would be the person who committed them.

And there's really no point continuing this discussion when you've said in the past that a serial killer is an anachronistic concept in Victorian England and therefore comparisons can't be drawn with modern criminal profiling.

bingo. I would just add that the common denominator IMHO is post mortem mutilation via knife. specifically the abdomen.

[Harry D]

As I said, Motives, not assumptions, catch killers.

Nope, evidence catches killers. Countless murders have been solved without ever determining the motive of the killer.

The problem is you're trying to compartmentalize each murder, which might make sense had these murders been isolated incidents with different MOs, but all of the victims were dispatched in the same manner and all but one were subjected to similar mutilations. There weren't many individuals capable of committing such a crime, hence why these murders were unprecedented at the time and evaporated after Autumn 1888. The common denominator would be the person who committed them.

And there's really no point continuing this discussion when you've said in the past that a serial killer is an anachronistic concept in Victorian England and therefore comparisons can't be drawn with modern criminal profiling.

[Abby Normal]

The way many people group these murders you would think they wrote names of murder victims on individual pieces of paper and threw them into the air...and then assume the ones that touch each other when they land were connected.

There are 2 victims within the Canonical Group that were committed by an opportunistic killer who most likely was a stranger to them. He killed to satisfy urges that were known only to him. These are random killings, and they are virtually identical in every important category...they followed the same A to B to C actions, and they were within 2 weeks of each other.

Neither of those murders resemble in any relevant way Liz Strides murder or Mary Kellys murder. They are however similar to Kates murder.

Adding any other unsolved murder to that list requires a full redo on the profile, both pattern and methodology, demonstrated in those first 2 murders. Those are the facts. I have no problem with people playing "what if", I have a problem with doing that without ANY real evidence to support the theorizing. Such as ....Liz Strides murderer changed his mind...or was interrupted, and that explains why she in no way resembles any other Canonical murder. Absolutely unfounded speculation, with zero supporting evidence, unless of course you prefer to use modern serial killer profiling instead of interpreting hard evidence.

When a killer kills almost exactly the same within 2 weeks, its my opinion you have the makings of a profile. In yours, and others opinions, the consistency isn't relevant. I most strongly disagree. The killer of Polly and Annie was someone very sick who had overwhelming compulsion to kill and mutilate strange women when he found them vulnerable on the streets in the middle of the night. Not someone who cuts and runs, nor someone who enters peoples rooms while they sleep.

As I said, Motives, not assumptions, catch killers.

do you mean Kate and Annie. theyre the two most similar. Polly didn't have any organs removed.