Was Bond right about the cut linen?

[Mrs.Bucket]

It has also been said that killers of this nature simply do not stop, they cannot.

Richard,

Good points. I know this has been said these killers can't quit. Until a few years ago I would have believed you. I think if you take a look at BTK or the Green River Killer, you'll see that there's always exceptions to the rule - both of these rather prolific killers went on a hiatus for years, which was only interrupted when they were caught.

JTR also doesn't follow the typical pattern of devolving and the killings getting closer together.

I think JTR either quit after MJK or moved off. I don't think he would have gone back to the low-grade carnage he was inflicting before MJK.

[Mrs.Bucket]

My take on it is that he first cut her throat, and only thereafter pulled the sheet over her face and cut it. Thus no resistance from Kelly - she was very still and very dead as he started to cut her, I believe.

All the smiles and all the tears you have shared with someone, is something you have shared by a face-to-face dialogue.

I'm with you Fisherman. I totally see where you're coming from and completely agree with you. Cut the throat, then cover the face so he can mutilate beyond any viable recognition.

[Mrs.Bucket]

Bed linens

I don't think the oversheet vs. undersheet argument has any place here . It's clear her mattress was covered by some sheet. It's not like she went to her local store and pondered which bed set to purchase. There were no flat and fitted sheets. The woman was probably lucky to have a sheet at all to cover her mattress.

She lived in a 10x12 room. She probably had a sheet to cover her mattress and whatever blankets to cover herself. It's not even like she had multiple changes of clothes.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm with you Fisherman. I totally see where you're coming from and completely agree with you. Cut the throat, then cover the face so he can mutilate beyond any viable recognition.

Hi Mrs B.

How come he seemed to have no need for any "covering" when he so utterly demolished the rest of her face, her chest and abdomen, not to mention carving out a "saddle" of flesh that included her vulva?

The idea of the killer's having to shield his eyes "just a little bit" before going on to commit such appalling atrocities I find very difficult to understand. Whether he knew Mary Kelly or not, it just doesn't make any sense.

[Mrs.Bucket]

Sam,

It's extremely common for a killer, when they know the victim, to cover or mutilate the face because they can't stand the victim "staring" at them while they are committing their other atrocities. A leg or arm can be just a leg or arm... or vulva, but a face and the eyes are unmistakeable. The killer would be unable to look at her if he knew her

You can look into it if you'd like, but experts say mutilation of the victim's face is consistent with killings in which the victim knew the murderer personally.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mrs B,

It's extremely common for a killer, when they know the victim, to cover or mutilate the face... You can look into it if you'd like, but experts say mutilation of the victim's face is consistent with killings in which the victim knew the murderer personally.

It might help me to get started if you - or anyone else - could point me in the direction of the expert research that shows that it's extremely common for a killer to do so. (That goes not only for the alleged correlation between knowing a victim and mutilating the face, but also for the practice of covering the face under such circumstances.)

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"It might help me to get started if you - or anyone else - could point me in the direction of the expert research that shows that it's extremely common for a killer to do so."

Hi Sam!
Off the top of my head one case springs to mind that would be useful, that of Fritz Haarmann, back in the beginning of the 20:th century. He was in the habit of killing young boys for sexual gratification (and if I don´t misremember, he sold their meat afterwards as ordinary food flesh). He was a gruesome killer, who would bite through the Adam´s apple of his young victims to kill them, after having molested them severely first. He could stomach A LOT! He could not, however, stomach to look at his victim´s faces as he went along, and thus he covered them.

There are more examples, and there are many a text - although I do not have them at hand - that speak of some killers need to cover their victims´ faces for fear of having to look them in the face. I will try and find some more reference in the coming week - but for now I think Haarmann is a very good example of somebody who did not mind blood and and cruelty and gore to the extreme - as long as he did not have to look his victims in the face.
Incidentally, not all killers who are of this diisposition cover their victims´ faces - some just place then face down. Same ****, different story kind of thing.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Fish - although I should say at the outset that any attempt to prove a "face/familiarity" link must also show that it's rarer (to the point of statistical significance) for a stranger to mutilate a victim's face. In other words, simply latching on to cases that support the "face/familiarity" link just won't do... anymore than it would be correct for me to quote individual instances that disprove it.

The exam question is: "has it been demonstrated that facial mutilations are carried out significantly more in cases where the attacker is known to the victim, than in cases where the attacker is not known to the victim?"

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't think anyone can establish with certainty, Sam, that it is MORE common in cases where victim and offender is emotionally attached to each other than the opposite, but it appears to be a common enough trait.

Vernon J Geberth lists in his crime manual and some articles for Law and Order Magazine that overkill, severe mutilations and facial destruction are typical for these crimes and that this often, quite wrongfully, in the early stages of the investigations leads the police to suspect a sexual predator/serial killer when in fact it turns out to be the spouse of the victim.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Glenn,

"Common enough" is cool - but that's not sufficient to attach any weight to the phenomenon, unless it can be proven to be a statistically significant effect. As to Geberth, I'd be interested to know how many cases of "known" versus "stranger" mutilation cases he'd included in his research, before he came to the conclusion that this phenomenon was "typical" of domestic murders.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Sam,

I disagree. Establishing that the phenomeon is evident and existing in connection with domestic murders is quite enough in order to take it seriously and to consider the possibility. Statistics is overrated since crimes do not always reflect general statistics or real life as we know it.

As for Geberth, he doesn't reveal any number of cases or any exact statistical information - his point is that this happens and that it often can lead the investigators astray in the wrong direction. He lists several examples, but he is a former homicide investigator for the NYPD with decades of personal experience on ther field, not a statistic. Again, those who demand statistics kind of misses the whole point with what he is trsying to say with these examples.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I should say at the outset that any attempt to prove a "face/familiarity" link must also show that it's rarer (to the point of statistical significance) for a stranger to mutilate a victim's face"

I could see that one coming, Sam, and I prepared an answer for you. The trait of covering the face of a victim would - to say it simple - be something that is connected to a feeling of guilt on behalf of the perpetrator. It is related to the fact that many serial killers need to depersonalize their acts to be able to go through with them. They don´t want their victims to become too aquainted to them, since it is easier to kill a heap of flesh and bone than it is to kill somebody that you have begun to know, although only superficially.

In Haarmanns case, I do not know why this feeling of guilt was present - for all we know the fact that he chose young boys (pre-teens, if I remember correctly) may have had it´s origin in something from his past. That may (or may not) be the connection here, and the explanation to why he was not able to depersonalize his victims without covering their faces.

The bottom line, though, is of course that feelings of guilt are more likely to come into play once there is a relation between victim and killer, and thus the chance of somebody resorting to covering up their victims face while killing her/him grows with the grade in which the two had previous bonds.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"I should say at the outset that any attempt to prove a "face/familiarity" link must also show that it's rarer (to the point of statistical significance) for a stranger to mutilate a victim's face"

I could see that one coming, Sam...

Well done, Fish! Not so much a case of having to be psychic, as of being used to my emphasis on the importance of rigour instead of rumour

The bottom line, though, is of course that feelings of guilt are more likely to come into play once there is a relation between victim and killer, and thus the chance of somebody resorting to covering up their victims face while killing her/him grows with the grade in which the two had previous bonds.

The point is, whether that has been proven. It all makes intuitive sense, of course, but that doesn't make it real.

[Fisherman]

You´re ever so welcome, Sam! And I will try to find those bits and pieces I spoke of earlier. I am not sure, but I think that Keppler is one of the authors who have pointed to this phenomenon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mrs.Bucket]

Sam,

I know this is not a specific case, but The Deseret News out of Utah in 1985 had a piece on serial killers, including Bundy and Lucas, both of whom were suspected of murders in that state.

The writers included some information from the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit's practice of criminal profiling "developing a description of a killer using the evidence he leaves behind. Serial killers, as well as other psychopathic individuals, are psychologically unique, their crimes leave a self-portrait.

"For example, a beating about the face usually indicates the killer knew his victim..."

Here's an interesting article out of NY in 1899:


Also, fellow posters, came across something from Peter Vronsky's book, Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters and he says if the crime scene shows evidence of careful planning, the killer is likely to be intelligent and older. If the victim was mutilated in a very disorganized way, her killer is probably schizophrenic, and schizophrenics are more likely to be very thin and unkempt. Is this an organized or unorganized scene? Your thoughts?