But of course if that be the case and he had a design on their organs why go to all the trouble of carrying out the mutilations and ripping open the abdomens.
The killer would have needed to do at least some cutting in order to access the internal organs, Trev. What we know to be true of such killers, however, is that the mutilations have a sadosexual component, an element that motivates the crimes in the first place. As for the abstracted organs, Albert Fish remained in a state of hypersexual excitement during the nine or so days that it took him to consume the body parts of Grace Budd. Hence such crimes are defined as lust killings.
Why not simply strangle them and then remove the organs much more easily than it would to have removed organs given the state of the bodies and the abdomens in particular.
As above.
Now do I hear the words "ah but he only strangled them to render them unconscious" well that doesn't stand up either.
You do, Trev, and it does.
If the killer goes to the lengths of strangling them its a continuing process to carry on and kill them by the same method
Cutting was this man’s primary motivation, Trev. Subduing a victim by way of partial strangulation was merely the means by which he was able to inflict a series of sharp force injuries on an inanimate woman. Sutcliffe used a hammer. Others have used alcohol, sleeping pills or even gas. In each case this subduing process was simply a means to an end.

Leave a comment: