A theory about some injuries!

[Wickerman]

Why wasn't the uterus taken? That's always puzzled me.

Did he grab the wrong organ off the bed, in the dark?

[Wickerman]

Self-correction: what I say about the cut thumb still stands, but there were abrasions to the back of the right hand. I don't believe Bond would have mistaken abrasions ("scrapes") for cuts, so quite how she sustained that damage to the back of her hand is probably something we'll never know. I somehow doubt they would have been caused by a knife.

The cut to the thumb is described as short, and superficial - so it wasn't deep.
This killer was wielding his knife all over the place, if he caught the thumb in his frenzy, we maybe shouldn't be surprised.
As to those abrasions, no idea. Abrasions tend to indicate contact with a hard but rough surface. If these were the result of her fighting back then we should see bruises, not abrasions.

[Sam Flynn]

The cut to the thumb is described as short, and superficial - so it wasn't deep.
This killer was wielding his knife all over the place, if he caught the thumb in his frenzy, we maybe shouldn't be surprised.

I can't see how a blade could accidentally come into contact with the thumb, which is pretty much tucked away for most of the time. And I don't see him flailing his knife about like a whirling Dervish, either, but that's another matter.

[Sam Flynn]

It's just that if he decides to strip flesh & muscle from the torso and then the upper thighs, why did he stop?
He went further than just removing organs, he continued down both legs, partially, but then stopped.

Well, he removed the flesh from her chest, but didn't left the upper arms intact. Perhaps what he did with the legs and pelvic area "pleased" him sufficiently that he didn't feel the need to carry on? Alternatively, maybe he became aware that morning was approaching, and that he'd better start making a move.

[Wickerman]

Well, he removed the flesh from her chest, but didn't left the upper arms intact.

Exactly, unfinished.

Perhaps what he did with the legs and pelvic area "pleased" him sufficiently that he didn't feel the need to carry on?

Really?

Alternatively, maybe he became aware that morning was approaching, and that he'd better start making a move.

Having to leave due to daylight, footsteps, knocking at the door, voices, all means he was not finished.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps what he did with the legs and pelvic area "pleased" him sufficiently that he didn't feel the need to carry on?

Really?

Yes, really. Why not?

Having to leave due to daylight, footsteps, knocking at the door, voices, all means he was not finished.

You seem to be assuming he wanted to leave nought but a skeleton; if so, we have to give him ten out of ten for ambition. From what I can see, he did a pretty thorough job on Kelly, by any standards.

[Wickerman]

Yes, really. Why not?You seem to be assuming he wanted to leave nought but a skeleton; if so, we have to give him ten out of ten for ambition. From what I can see, he did a pretty thorough job on Kelly, by any standards.

I'm wondering what his intent was, if you begin to remove flesh & muscle from the limbs, you have gone beyond organ removal, so why, what was his aim?
Peeling her open down to the skeleton is where he will be if he keeps on, so why go down that road if he has no intention of finishing the job?

[Sam Flynn]

I'm wondering what his intent was, if you begin to remove flesh & muscle from the limbs, you have gone beyond organ removal, so why, what was his aim?
Peeling her open down to the skeleton is where he will be if he keeps on, so why go down that road if he has no intention of finishing the job?

But he doesn't seem to have wanted to skeletonise her face or her arms; he hacked at them, causing the wounds in the forearms and evulsions of skin from the skull - but not complete in either case. The only part of her body to have been denuded to the bone was, apparently, her right leg. He's all over the place, it seems, with no methodical attempt to deflesh any other areas in particular. It appears to me that Jack is simply having "fun".

[c.d.]

"It appears to me that Jack is simply having "fun".

Hello Sam,

I agree and I think that conclusion makes much more sense than trying to find some hidden meaning or symbolism in what he did.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

"Intent", is hardly hidden meaning, or symbolism. All we are looking at is a partial defleshing, or excarnation of the corpse.
Even if we say "for fun" (due to the lack of any real choices), why stop doing something that he is getting 'fun' out of?

The question remains.

[c.d.]

"Intent", is hardly hidden meaning, or symbolism. All we are looking at is a partial defleshing, or excarnation of the corpse.
Even if we say "for fun" (due to the lack of any real choices), why stop doing something that he is getting 'fun' out of?

The question remains.

Hello Jon,

How about paranoia at being caught? Anything could have set it off.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

"Intent", is hardly hidden meaning, or symbolism. All we are looking at is a partial defleshing, or excarnation of the corpse.
Even if we say "for fun" (due to the lack of any real choices), why stop doing something that he is getting 'fun' out of?

Why did Jeffrey Dahmer not completely deflesh his victims?

[Abby Normal]

But he doesn't seem to have wanted to skeletonise her face or her arms; he hacked at them, causing the wounds in the forearms and evulsions of skin from the skull - but not complete in either case. The only part of her body to have been denuded to the bone was, apparently, her right leg. He's all over the place, it seems, with no methodical attempt to deflesh any other areas in particular. It appears to me that Jack is simply having "fun".

Hi Sam and Wick

I agree with this Sam. I think with the ripper it was mainly, or partly(with the removal of organs also) about what his knife could do to the female body. We see the same with eddowes and the cuts to the face, nicks to the eyelids.

On this note, similarily,something that struck me about BTK, Dennis Rader and his motivation. he was commenting on another serial killer in response to questions of why do you think he did this, why do you think he did that-and he made the comment it was also about the instrument of death/torture.

and he went on to compare to himself. why did BTK take pictures of himself dressed as a woman bound with rope, why did he do this with the ligatures etc etc.
His response was chilling. "it was all about the rope".

I think we might have the same with the ripper-It was all about the knife.

[Sam Flynn]

Very insightful, Abby. I've previously noted Jack's "playfulness" with respect to Eddowes' wounds, but I've never quite extended it to the rest of the series. "It's all about the knife" sums up the concept eloquently.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the unfinished nature of the thigh cutting, both thighs...just one completely, indicates that they were likely acts that in the killers mind needed no conclusion. There is no evidence at all of any interruption, so partial acts are partial acts..make what you will of them.

I'm pretty sure that the killer had ample time in that room to accomplish what he wanted to do. I personally believe much of it is setting the stage for the first person to find her in, its why I believe he draped the arm back over an empty cavity and perhaps positioned her head to portray her greeting someone coming into the room.

Just to add....look at the seemingly clinical approach of what happened to Annie Chapman, in comparison with room 13. It could be argued that the semi precision in the backyard of Hanbury was hasty, but it could also be argued that it was target driven. When the objective was met, the killer left. There doesn't seem to be any need for disfiguring wounds.