Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Michael W Richards]

1888 Mary Kelly: Facial tissues not "peeled off", but chopped like mince, with multiple (as opposed to occasional) touches of the knife... Contrary to 1873, Kelly's body was hacked, and there was no neatness - to say nothing of disarticulation - in the manner in which Kelly's femur was defleshed.

Ritualistic aspects notwithstanding, the manner of Kelly's death was very, very different from the more "accomplished" butchering of the earlier victim. If the same person had been responsible for both, it's evident that his skills had drastically diminished during the intervening 15 years.

Hey Sam,

I think in the case of Kelly anyway, the manner in which she is defiled gives us a glimpse of her likely killer. The wounds seem much more violent and angry if you will than the previous victims injuries, although Id say some of Kates wounds seem spiteful and intended only to disfigure. That type of angry slashing with Mary is quite often an indication that the killer and victim knew each other, I suppose because its an emotional act... signaling emotional connection to the act...and perhaps the murder itself.

One issue for me in the Canonical scheme is that I see Annies murder as being done by someone cold, lacking emotion.

[Harry D]

Hey Sam,

I think in the case of Kelly anyway, the manner in which she is defiled gives us a glimpse of her likely killer. The wounds seem much more violent and angry if you will than the previous victims injuries, although Id say some of Kates wounds seem spiteful and intended only to disfigure. That type of angry slashing with Mary is quite often an indication that the killer and victim knew each other, I suppose because its an emotional act... signaling emotional connection to the act...and perhaps the murder itself.

One issue for me in the Canonical scheme is that I see Annies murder as being done by someone cold, lacking emotion.

Would the killer have the same emotional state in each murder, Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

Would the killer have the same emotional state in each murder, Michael?

I think that the minor deviations seen in Pollys murder, like the venue and the aborted abdominal mutilation, indicate some over eagerness or uncontrolled anticipation. Emotional, certainly. Perhaps it was due to Polly being led and uncomfortable going any further with this stranger. That the emotion seems to be absent in the next one might be related to the fact that he seems to have a plan....let the woman lead him somewhere, then pounce, the private venue will allow for more mutilating time.

I think that the public venue killer will have some haste as a result of the anxiety every time, but if the event is going according to some preplan, at least the killer would also have some sense of control over the situation.

[Sam Flynn]

That type of angry slashing with Mary is quite often an indication that the killer and victim knew each other, I suppose because its an emotional act... signaling emotional connection to the act...

I won't quibble with that, Michael. That's not to say I believe it to be true, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[Elamarna]

I won't quibble with that, Michael. That's not to say I believe it to be true, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Same here. Seems very plausible and should not be ruled out.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes it's joshua's wording, but the placement you use for those wounds on your diagram is your placement; it's not specified in that report.
And as the report Joshua is talking about is dated the 8th September I find it odd that you say it is a report on Eddowes.
It's the same report you quoted to me earlier this evening.

Must be a Friday night thing I guess.

Steve

... but itīs Saturday afternoon now.

What I mean is that I fail to see why I should account in my sketch on Nichols for wounds described by Joshua as arrowshaped on Eddowes!

[Fisherman]

Right, the Ripper was killing middle-aged street women as a subsitute for his mother, who abused him and who he felt was a whore... yawn. I don't doubt it fits with some modern serial-killers (including one here in Colorado who selected women with long hair the same color of his mother's), but I think it is speculation on your part.

So, you speculate wildly (and wrongly) about what I have in mind, and then you call ME speculating...?

I see.

[Fisherman]

1873 Torso: "The skin and peri-cranial tissues were then forcibly drawn forward [i.e. peeled off] and the skull thus laid bare, occasional touches of the knife being necessary to remove the skin of the face... Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated" (The Lancet)

1888 Mary Kelly: Facial tissues not "peeled off", but chopped like mince, with multiple (as opposed to occasional) touches of the knife... Contrary to 1873, Kelly's body was hacked, and there was no neatness - to say nothing of disarticulation - in the manner in which Kelly's femur was defleshed.

Ritualistic aspects notwithstanding, the manner of Kelly's death was very, very different from the more "accomplished" butchering of the earlier victim. If the same person had been responsible for both, it's evident that his skills had drastically diminished during the intervening 15 years.

Try to look at it like this:

A killer has time and seclusion to take away part of a victim, he has the implements and the light needed - and he does it meticulously.

The next time the same killer strikes, he does not have the same seclusion and time, he does not have all the implements he wants and he has not as good light - but he nevertheless feels the exact same relentless urge to take away that part.

What will he do, Gareth? Abort, because he does not think he will make a neat enough job? Or do it anyway, since the taking away of the part is more important than how carefully he does it?

When the detail we look at is very, very rare, then the execution is not as important as the overall deed. If Charles Albright was given a chance to extract the eyes of a victim using a eight-inch nail instead of a scalpel, would he do it, or would he abort?

And once the victim was found - would the police say "Nah, this is not the Texas Eyeball killer - he used a less functional implement" or would the say "The killer took her eyes - itīs the Texas Eyeball killer, alright"?

Which is your best guess?

[Fisherman]

As for the supposition of anger on behalf of the killer, and an earlier connection between killer and victim, I do not think there was necessarily either in any more significant amount.

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

I agree. And even if we could discern what constitutes "angry" slashing as opposed to "non-angry" slashing we still would have no way of discerning whether that anger was actually directed toward the victim or whether it originated from some other source.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

So, you speculate wildly (and wrongly) about what I have in mind, and then you call ME speculating...?

I see.

i thought I had guessed your meaning from your use of the word "apparent" in the post I quoted. "A parent" referring to JTR's mother, given the age of most victims.

I surmise from your answer that I was, as usual, wrong. My apologies, sir.

[Fisherman]

i thought I had guessed your meaning from your use of the word "apparent" in the post I quoted. "A parent" referring to JTR's mother, given the age of most victims.

I surmise from your answer that I was, as usual, wrong. My apologies, sir.

Come on now - "apparent" and " a parent"?

I was never that clever.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I agree. And even if we could discern what constitutes "angry" slashing as opposed to "non-angry" slashing we still would have no way of discerning whether that anger was actually directed toward the victim or whether it originated from some other source.

c.d.

True enough, C.D.

[Michael W Richards]

Try to look at it like this:

A killer has time and seclusion to take away part of a victim, he has the implements and the light needed - and he does it meticulously.

The next time the same killer strikes, he does not have the same seclusion and time, he does not have all the implements he wants and he has not as good light - but he nevertheless feels the exact same relentless urge to take away that part.

What will he do, Gareth? Abort, because he does not think he will make a neat enough job? Or do it anyway, since the taking away of the part is more important than how carefully he does it?

When the detail we look at is very, very rare, then the execution is not as important as the overall deed. If Charles Albright was given a chance to extract the eyes of a victim using a eight-inch nail instead of a scalpel, would he do it, or would he abort?

And once the victim was found - would the police say "Nah, this is not the Texas Eyeball killer - he used a less functional implement" or would the say "The killer took her eyes - itīs the Texas Eyeball killer, alright"?

Which is your best guess?

If I may offer an answer Fish, I would say that a killer who in his first, consecutive kills, mutilates the abdomen of the victim after killing them, I would also expect him to do so in subsequent kills. That premise is satisfactory to me, and one of the reasons my Canonical Group is 40-60% smaller than many other peoples.

[Fisherman]

If I may offer an answer Fish, I would say that a killer who in his first, consecutive kills, mutilates the abdomen of the victim after killing them, I would also expect him to do so in subsequent kills. That premise is satisfactory to me, and one of the reasons my Canonical Group is 40-60% smaller than many other peoples.

If his aim was to mutilate the abdomen, I couldnīt agree more.

But I donīt think that mutilating the abdomen was the one and only thing that got this killer ticking. It seemingly belonged to his aims, but I donīt think it was any necessity as such.