Was it a frenzy?

[Robert]

Hi Curious

It's just my feeling, but I think the crimes do indicate a certain amount of curiosity. Fish, I'd agree with you that the crimes do not indicate curiosity, if we already knew that the crimes were committed by a doctor - because in that case, curiosity would not be a factor in the equation. But given that the crimes were probably not the work of a doctor, that lets curiosity back in. I think Brown said that the Eddowes murder betrayed a great deal of medical knowledge but not much medical skill. So we are already seeing the effects of curiosity - someone had already been curious enough to read up on the position of the human kidney. Maybe he simply took the step from reading to doing?

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I'd agree with you that the crimes do not indicate curiosity, if we already knew that the crimes were committed by a doctor - because in that case, curiosity would not be a factor in the equation."

All very true.

" given that the crimes were probably not the work of a doctor, that lets curiosity back in."

Potentially, yes. But what curiosity was satisfied by cutting the buttocks away? The breasts, the thigh flesh?

Maybe he had earlier experience of abdominal cavities opened up, perhaps slaughtered animals and so on. I donīt think that curiosity must be weighed in, at any rate. Could well have been there, though.

"Maybe he simply took the step from reading to doing?"

Could well be, of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

I think he cut the flesh away in order to see the bones.

[Fisherman]

But that would not be an act of curiosity as such, would it - he knew they would be there and what they would look like, reasonably, just as a doctor would know where the organs were and what they looked like. And cutting the buttocks and the breasts away would not necessarily expose any bones..?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Well, he may have seen pictures of the leg bones in books - but this might have been the first time he'd actually seen them (literally) in the flesh.

Re the breasts, there may be a small indication of a rudimentary curiosity. If I had to remove a woman's breasts, my first thought would be to slice them off horizontally. It would never occur to me to remove them by circular incisions. Perhaps he was finding out about the muscles of that area of the body.

[Sally]

He had more time to experiment. After the initial pleasure of eviscerating, he had time to create a display to his liking. Display is clearly part of the fantasy, in my view.

He may have targetted Kelly for personal reasons, or just for her indoor space, which allowed him the opportunity to extend his fantasies (or it may simply have been lucky chance for him, we don't know)

[Fisherman]

Well, one can always - I guess - suggest some sort of element of curiosity, no matter what; if he had sliced the breasts horizontally, it could be suggested that he wanted to see what a severed muscle looked like. Then again, if he was really studying anatomy, why cut both breasts off - one would have told him the full story, would it not?

Anatomical curiosity is what you suggest, then, Robert? And was that what ended the murder series? Once he knew, why look again, sort of?

Or was there more than curiosity behind it? Another driving force?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally.

"Display is clearly part of the fantasy, in my view."

That could be a driving force, of course. But what comes first here, hen or egg? I was deeply upset and shocked the first time I saw the Kelly picture, and when something has that sort of impact on oneself, it is easy to draw the conclusion that it has been staged to reach a maximum effect. But the truth of the matter is that a man working away with the knife could create what we see on the picture with no intent at all to display his work.

I find it tempting myself to accept that this killer sought to shock - it would be in line with what other killers have done, afterwards admitting that they wanted to shock.

Of course, Nichols was not spread-eagled and her wounds were covered, so in that particular case, the killer concealed instead of displaying for some reason - but thatīs for other threads!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Oh, I dare say there were other motives at work. We just don't know why he stopped. Perhaps in his own mind he was now a doctor, since he'd not only seen inside his 'patients,' he'd managed to kill them too. After which, he went off in pursuit of some new Great Enterprise.

PS He cut off the other breast as a second opinion.

[Fisherman]

Well Robert, whenever your arguments fail to hold up, they are at least good fun to read. "Second opinion" ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Bravo, Jon! My sentiments exactly; however odd the word "relaxed" may seem in this context, this is what I see too. Obsession, determination and a cool, calm deconstruction of the body, giving himself the time to indulge that he never really had at the other spots.

Hi Christer.

By relaxed I mean, calm, controlled, determined, taking his time, progressing at a leisurely pace.
The embodiment of which, by example might be, Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins).

That is what he seemingly chose to do with his time in room 13; he dismembered a dead body in a relaxed manner, nice and quiet, time on his hands.

We might be accused of over indulgence

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"By relaxed I mean, calm, controlled, determined, taking his time, progressing at a leisurely pace."

Funny you should say that - I mean the exact same!

"The embodiment of which, by example might be, Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins)."

Watch out, or people will call you phantasist and conjecturer. Then again, I think it IS a good general example of a VERY relaxed killer, so why donīt I join you, and we can be called phantasists and conjecturers together. The more, the merrier!

"We might be accused of over indulgence "

That too, yes. But Iīm willing to pay the price, since I think we are making a good and sometimes sadly overlooked point. Crazy as he was, he was controlled and relaxed crazy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Forget frenzy.

The incident at Millers Court could not have taken place with Barnett still in residence, the window remaining intact and the key not having "gone missing".

To me it all smacks of design.

How, and by whom, remains a mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"To me it all smacks of design."

But wasnīt that window broken during a drunken quarrel inbetween Kelly and Barnett? Decidedly undesigned, if so, I would have thought?

But you see preparations here, a planned and premeditated and preparated deed?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I do.

Regards,

Simon