Was it a frenzy?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

I have a question of a general character that I would like to hear your thoughts on. I often read that the Kelly murder was the result of a total frenzy, but I think a number of questions must be raised on the issue.

Of course, what Bowyer saw, peering through that window, must have been completely harrowing and something that led the thoughts to a madman who had gone berserk. But let´s look at a few parameters that are seemingly contradictory to the frenzy suggestion.

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.
2. Would a frenzied killer take the time to light a fire and entertain it?
3. Placing chunks of meat on a table beside the bed in an almost neat and orderly fashion - is that what frenzied killers do?
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?
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?
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?
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

[DVV]

Hi Fish, agreed entirely. All valid points.

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

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

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Q & A

Hello Christer.

"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."

Agreed. Frenzy does not properly describe the assassin's condition.

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

Likely not. How do we know the killer lit the fire?

"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 think so.

"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?"

Again, not a frenzy. Mental disturbance? Quite.

"5. Prater said she could hear what went on in Kellys room - since when does a frenzied killer go absolutely quietly about his business?"

Ditto.

"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?"

Vide supra.

"7. Frenzied killers - do they arrive silently and unnoticed and leave just as silently and just as unnoticed?"

Probably not.

"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?"

No.

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

Well, not DURING a frenzy.

"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 latter surely. Looks like a removal to me--assassin mentally deranged.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"How do we know the killer lit the fire?"

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

"The latter surely."

Aha - okay, Lynn, then we´re agreed on this.

"Looks like a removal to me--assassin mentally deranged."

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

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In the case of Kelly I would say no frenzy, or act of diminished responsibility, was in evidence, and it would appear that the whole episode was carried out in a very sordid, and calculating manner.
We do not know that the fire was lit by the killer, but we know that items were burnt by him, and according to the police for a reason[ Bloodstained]
The only sighting of a man with blood on his person was in Mitre square at 1010am, who was in a frightful hurry, with a parcel under his arm..I have always felt that the location was of some importance, and the timing which could indicate a morning murder.
Regards Richard.

[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

[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

[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."

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

David:

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

Rrroaaarrrrr!!!!

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]

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]

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