Was it a frenzy?

[Wickerman]

What are your thoughts on this? Was it a frenzy anyway? Or was the killer focused, silent and in control of what he did throughout?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer.
No, the carnage does not speak of frenzy to me, obsessive yes, determined certainly, even relaxed, that is to say no evidence of a hurried mutilation, the very fact it was so extensive tends to support this.

Why would any killer think he had all the time in the world?

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

A frenzy? It might have been, at some point. Throughout?

Obviously not.

There is no clear cut answer here.

Hi Sally

Presumably you're implying some form of non-connectional "post coitum omne animal triste est, sive gallus et mulier"...

If there was a frenzied outburst, I'm not sure his heart would be that fully into the continued and thorough mutilation that followed...it seems an odd contrast of moods compared to that propounded by Galen...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

How can we tell?

We see only the end result, not the mental processes which took place in the mind of the killer; so we cannot say yes, or no - at least not absolutely.

A frenzy? It might have been, at some point. Throughout?

Obviously not.

There is no clear cut answer here.

[sleekviper]

Hello Fisherman!
I would think that there should be a rather large amount of stabbing motion evidence, and not just at the remains, but also to the surrounding area. Someone out of control should miss a fair number of times in all directions. Lack of noise in either vocalization or movement would seem odd with that type carnage. Get that far into a frenzy, and remember to lock the door on the way out? Odd, guess the frenzy was over in a blink, and shock didn't sink in until much later. I would think just making sure that it was closed would be in doubt. Remember to lock the door and take the knife; guy really loves that knife, frenzy or not. If that room was a frenzy, somebody is extremely scary with what they can do when in control. I take that back, some are extremely scary with what they can do when they have control.

[lynn cates]

blown

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Could be, I guess - but it seems to have been a fire much out of the ordinary, and it will be a fair bet that the killer may have been the responsible party. No sure thing, though!"

Indeed. IF she were at some time in an intelligence network, and she subsequently recognised that her cover blown, she would need to destroy many things quickly.

"If I was pressed to vote for acquainted/not acquainted, I´d go for the latter. Earlier customer perhaps, but I would not bet money on it."

Earlier customer from when? Just after Barnett left?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Stranger things have happened

Yup...because in this particular case I agree with you Christer!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Agree with you -- not killed or dis-mantled in a frenzy."

Just so, I believe.

"As Lynn has already point out, we don't know who started or fed the fire. The police apparently thought the killer attempted to destroy some bloodstained items. However, why would it matter to the killer?"

Not sure - if it was parts of his own clothing, and recognizable as such, then he´d have a very good reason. But cloth does not burn very well, does it...?

"There is no appearance of frenzy here, so where does that leave us?"

That is an eminent question, Curious. It does not leave us with somebody who came to kill - for that was taken care of in a matter of seconds.
It MAY leave us with somebody with a personal distaste for Kelly - but would such a person cooly place the buttock-chunks on the table and make her a pillow of a breast and a uterus? I think not, though I cannot be sure. Would such a person go totally silently about his business? Same answer - I think not, but cannot be sure, of course.
Man with a mission/religious maniac? Some mission! I don´t invest much in it.

This killer spent five seconds cutting Kellys neck, and all the rest of the time - and that must have been a substantial amount, given the extent of the damage inflicted - cutting away at her flesh and organs, removing what he cut from the body. That´s where 99,9 per cent of the focus lay, apparently.

The cut nose of Eddowes. The piece of colon leisurely placed on the ground beside her. Is there a correlation in it, to what happened to Kelly? He WANTED to cut Edowes´nose off, by the looks of things - there were two cuts, the first striking bone and failing to do the job.

Cutting, carving and removing things from their original owners - uteruses, kidney, colon, buttocks, breasts, thigh flesh, nosetips. Dismantling. Was that the incentive?

"Hope you have a strong heart!"

Why? Because you agree with me to a large extent?

Stranger things have happened, Curious!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Well, what if she wished to destroy something?"

Could be, I guess - but it seems to have been a fire much out of the ordinary, and it will be a fair bet that the killer may have been the responsible party. No sure thing, though!

" Perhaps one with a personal stake in matters?"

Many think so. But I am not sure myself. If I was pressed to vote for aquainted/not aquainted I´d go for the latter. Earlier customer perhaps, but I would not bet money on it.

"Given the situation, I'd say fairly well in control."

Agreed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I do not see the Kelly murder as frenzied."

U-huh - seems to be a consensus around! Thanks for chipping in!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"The lion and the lamb will soon sleep together, it seems"

Rrroaaarrrrr!!!!

Fisherman

[curious]

Sit down, Fisherman,

Don't want you falling over on this:

1. A frenzy is something that is led on by a bloodred haze, something that goes down quickly in most cases. Yet it seems that Kelly´s killer spent some considerable time in No 13, cutting away. The "normal" frenzy wears off quickly - a flurry of stabs, twenty swift chops with a meat-cleaver, a set of blows to somebodys head with a piece of pipe until the perpetrator draws lactic acid upon him and winds down, realizing what he has done ... those sorts of things. But in Kellys case, so many areas were so extensively attacked under so long a time, including that cut to the neck, the breasts being removed with circular incisions, all inner organs being taken out etcetera. If it was a frenzy, it went on for ages and the killer did all sorts of things during it.

Agree with you -- not killed or dis-mantled in a frenzy.

2. Would a frenzied killer take the time to light a fire and entertain it?

As Lynn has already point out, we don't know who started or fed the fire. The police apparently thought the killer attempted to destroy some bloodstained items. However, why would it matter to the killer?

3. Placing chunks of meat on a table beside the bed in an almost neat and orderly fashion - is that what frenzied killers do?

Don't personally know any, but I would think not.

4. The organs that were taken out were placed between the victim´s feet, under her head etcetera. Weird? Yes. Mad? Possibly. Frenzied? Not really, is it?

Nope not frenzied. As pointed out I have no personal knowledge of frenzied killers, but I would expect organs to have been flung helter-skelter on the bed and floor.

5. Prater said she could hear what went on in Kellys room - since when does a frenzied killer go absolutely quietly about his business?
6. Would a frenzied killer cut the throat of his victim in one corner of the bed, and then meticulously turn her over in order to gain better access to her body and facilitate his work?
7. Frenzied killers - do they arrive silently and unnoticed and leave just as silently and just as unnoticed?

Nope to all.

8. If the carnage was the result of a frenzy, then the killer would have been soaked in Kellys blood. No sighting of such a man was made on the streets, making it probable that he took precautions, either before or after the cutting, to be tolerably presentable as he left the room. Do frenzied killers do such things?

Richard has pointed out an example of a man covered with blood and the relevance of the timing.

It has occurred to me that the reason for trying to burn the velvet coat and hat with bloodstains was because the killer had worn them and someone that they would fit might someway identify the killer. Say as to size. But it appears that about half of Whitechapel was 5 foot 7, so what of value could the police possibly have learned if they thought the killer had worn the coat and hat to protect against blood splatters? What would it have actually told the police?

9. Apparently, the killer placed Kellys left arm over her abdomen before leaving the room. Would a frenzied killer do this?

What are your thoughts on this? Was it a frenzy anyway? Or was the killer focused, silent and in control of what he did throughout?

The best,
Fisherman

There is no appearance of frenzy here, so where does that leave us?

Fisherman,
Hope you have a strong heart!

curious

[lynn cates]

immer weiter

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"We don´t - but we know about the blaze, something that Kelly herself reasonably would not cause."

Well, what if she wished to destroy something?

"Assassin out of the ordinary anyways."

Quite. Perhaps one with a personal stake in matters?

"'Mentally deranged' has an unfortunate ring of "out of control" to my ears. And I would not say that."

Nor yet I. Given the situation, I'd say fairly well in control.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I do not see the Kelly murder as frenzied.

If anything, the removed organs remind me of the conveyor belt in "The Generation Game" and I was half-expecting Bruce Forsyth to pop up with "Didn't he do well."

[DVV]

Hi David!

This has all the makings of an interesting thread - we agree ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

The lion and the lamb will soon sleep together, it seems

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"it would appear that the whole episode was carried out in a very sordid, and calculating manner."

My take too - thanks for chiming in and giving your view, Richard!

The best,
Fisherman