Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[Abby Normal]

Some other thoughts on a few random topics, but I'll put them here nonetheless.

I believe it was Baxter who suggested a possible motive for the crimes, specifically that someone may be deliberately harvesting uteri. This was based upon some information that a doctor had been making inquiries as to obtaining samples to go with an article/book he had written, and he was willing to pay a fairly high price per specimen. Apparently, some of the medical schools had been approached but this was over a year prior to the murders, and the person making the inquiries had by then returned to the States and was considered beyond suspicion. However, Baxter believed that someone may have heard of this, and if of unsound mind in particular, might have seen this as an opportunity to make a lot of money.

This hypothesis frames the murders, and the attack upon the abdomen's, as serving a functional/practical purpose - in order to obtain the uterus from the victim. The uterus was taken from the scene for both Chapman and Eddowes, and if Charles Cross coming down Buck's Row resulted in the murderer leaving the scene prior to obtaining her uterus (similar explanation for Stride and the lack of any attack on the abdomen fits here too), then at first blush the hypothesis seems to hold.

However, that explanation does not account for why Eddowes' kidney was taken or why the murderer would engage in facial mutilations. None of these serve the purpose of obtaining the uterus, and simply increase the risk of getting caught (and we're now talking about someone who, to make this work, had to almost have been caught twice - or at least once if you discount Stride). Finally, there is no purpose to the extensive and prolonged mutilations performed upon Kelly, no purpose to the taking of her heart, and most importantly, her uterus wasn't taken from the scene.

Baxter's hypothesis, therefore, is disproven by the actions of the murderer as they repeatedly and increasingly engage in behaviors that are not consistent with this explanation, and indeed, end up not even taking the organ in question despite having the opportunity.

----------------------------------------------------

Money: No money was found with any of the victims. The polished farthing's at Annie Chapman's feet are not listed in the reports and only appear in later newspaper reports, or in memoirs of police not involved in the investigation at the time - they are a myth according to Sugden. If, as seems the case, JtR was posing as a client, then presumably money had exchanged hands prior to being led to the location to complete the transaction. Either JtR attacked the victims before giving them payment, or he recovered his money before he fled. It seems to me, if JtR recovered his money, which may explain the placement of personal belongs at some scenes (while searching for his coins), then JtR is most likely to be very poor and the few pence offered are of sufficient value to him that he takes the time to get them back (but I do not believe robbery is the primary motive).

----------------------------------------------------

The "From Hell" / Lusk Letter:

I realize the letters could all be hoaxes, but I think the Lusk letter is often argued as the most likely because it contained part of a kidney, which was thought to be human and from Eddowes.

JtR takes organs from the scenes, which is a form of trophy collecting that other serial killers have been known to engage in. These "trophies" are highly valued by such killers. It seems unlikely to me that JtR would give up a trophy in this way. Something about that doesn't seem right to me, and I can't think of another case where that's happened except for BTK, when Rader mailed in one of his victim's driver's licence but even then he sent a copy of it, not the original. The Zodiac did send in a piece, but not all, of Stein's shirt though. So, I could be wrong, and perhaps it is not as uncommon as I believe, but the very fact the kidney was included almost strikes me as indicating it wasn't from the trophy hunting killer. On the other hand, given the kidney portion was described as showing signs of Bright's disease, which apparently Eddowes also showed signs of, is a point in favour of it being genuine (and would certainly over-ride my hypothesizing above). It would be wonderful to find a slide containing a tissue sample, to determine if, at least, it was human and female. And if DNA could be extracted, to compare with descendants of Eddowes. I would be great to have a pony too, since I'm wishing.

- Jeff

Hi jeff
i doubt the ripper was “very poor”. From the witness descriptions, the times of the murders being on weekends and holidays indicating steady employment, and the apparent ease in which the ripper was still able to lure wary prostitutes at the height of the ripper scare, seem to indicate to me that he was actually probably more “lower middle/working class”. The taking back of money he gave them is probably more for psychological reasons.

[JeffHamm]

Hi jeff
i doubt the ripper was “very poor”. From the witness descriptions, the times of the murders being on weekends and holidays indicating steady employment, and the apparent ease in which the ripper was still able to lure wary prostitutes at the height of the ripper scare, seem to indicate to me that he was actually probably more “lower middle/working class”. The taking back of money he gave them is probably more for psychological reasons.

That's entirely possible, and I think there is a good argument to make along those lines as JtR does, if he's posing as a client, have to at least appear as if he's got the money to pay it. I guess very poor, given the context, was not a great choice. I think he had employment of some sort, so was not in the poorest of the poor, as the victims were, rather suspects like Barnett would qualify (employed enough to rent a flat, etc) but I'm thinking not someone like a medical doctor, who would be well off. Perhaps "working poor" might be a better description? And while you could be correct, and the retrieving of the money is a psychological thing, but it seems to me a practical thing, that he can't afford to abandon it. These are, of course, all hypothetical.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

First of all: I know the mechanisms behind trophy taking. I am very much aware that trophies are chosen items. However, what cases can you point to where numerous innards are neatly cut out of the body, but only one of them taken as a trophy? If he only wanted to have the heart as a trophy, why did he cut the rest out? Why the extra work, if he didn´t intend to take advantage of it, adding to his trophy collection? As I said, where are the examples of other trophy collectors doing this?
In my experience, those who choose innards as trophies - and they are extremely rare! - do not cut out all innards available, and then leave them all behind but for one piece.

The Torso killer went a lot further than dismembering for practical reasons. He cut out Jacksons heart and uterus, for example - how does that facilitate transport? What we must realize is that we are looking at another reason being at play - which is normally referred to as mental illness in the books, or putting it simpler: he had an urge to cut up a body, and THAT was what lay behind what he did.

That said, I think that there were cuts that were "urge cuts" as well as practical cutting in the Torso cases. He FIRST cut open the belly of Jackson, from ribs to pubes, and THEREAFTER he divided the trunk into three pieces. So he quite possibly went from urge to practicality: He did what he WANTED to do, and then he prepared for discarding the body. There was never any need to open the body up before dividing it, let alone to dig heart and uterus out - if it had been about facilitating transport, he would have emptied all of the stomach contents, right?
And yes, the Ripper tore the rings from Chapmans finger, and that may or not be an example of trophy taking - just as it may or may not be an example of trophy taking when the Torso killer tore Jacksons ring from HER finger.
I would suggest that this killer - the combined one - was a mutilator, an eviscerator, a ring-stealer, a cutter from sternum to pubes, preying on prostitutes, and cutting them up for the exact same reasons in all cases. An extremely rare creature, as it were, one that is not likely to crop up in pairs by any standards - let alone in the same town and at the same time. And I do not recognize trophy taking as any primary reason in this context, although it cannot be excluded that there was such an element involved too.

Hi Fisherman,

I'll have to read up on the Jackson case, and yes, from what you've said, the dismemberment doesn't sound "of the practical kind".

I think I'm not being very clear with regards to what I'm thinking with regards to JtR and trophy taking. I don't mean to suggest that prior to the attack JtR was thinking "I'll get a heart today", or any such thing - I don't think trophy taking was a motive at all. Rather, the trophy taking was something that happens after the primary purpose is fulfilled, which with JtR appears to be the mutilations themselves. Taking of a trophy is just the taking of something as a reminder of the event, or even an act of total possession of the victim. What is taken is entirely situational rather than by design - recognizing, as you say, taking of internal body parts as trophies is rare. I can think of some examples of body parts being taken, Ed Kemper and Ted Bundy, both of whom took victim's heads (making the doctor's evidence of signs of attempted decapitation of Chapman, at least, interesting), but I can't off the top of my head recall another example of someone who took organs (which goes to linkage of Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly given the rarity of that particular behaviour). I would not be surprised if JtR did take some small item, like Chapman's rings, from other crime scenes. However, given it would be something which might go entirely unnoticed as missing, there's no evidence that he actually did. Anyway, as I say, I don't think his primary goal was "get a trophy then stop", rather the train of thought might be more like "I'm finished and leaving now, I'll take this with me", and he takes something he can conceal. The fact that in Kelly's case in particular he had such a lot to choose from then if in that case he had taken the uterus then that might suggest that particular organ was of particular interest - but he didn't, leading me to think there was nothing in particular about the uterus other than JtR has a mindset to take a bit of the victim with him that he can conceal.

Other trophy collectors, for example, might take victim's underwear from their dresser. They don't take all of them, just one pair. Or they take a piece of jewelry, not all of it, etc. While these are objects and not body parts, it gets to the point that a trophy is a reminder of the main purpose, not the primary purpose itself and the specific item category might be informative (taking underwear vs jewelry vs body parts), the specific item taken is less important (i.e. JtR took body parts, but I don't think he had designs on uterus, kidney, or hearts in particular). I think those that would want "all of the body parts", tend to abduct the victim and get the body somewhere they can revisit (i.e. Dahmer, who kept the bodies in his flat, etc).

anyway, thanks for the info on the Jackson case. I'll have to look into that.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I'll have to read up on the Jackson case, and yes, from what you've said, the dismemberment doesn't sound "of the practical kind".

I think I'm not being very clear with regards to what I'm thinking with regards to JtR and trophy taking. I don't mean to suggest that prior to the attack JtR was thinking "I'll get a heart today", or any such thing - I don't think trophy taking was a motive at all. Rather, the trophy taking was something that happens after the primary purpose is fulfilled, which with JtR appears to be the mutilations themselves. Taking of a trophy is just the taking of something as a reminder of the event, or even an act of total possession of the victim. What is taken is entirely situational rather than by design - recognizing, as you say, taking of internal body parts as trophies is rare. I can think of some examples of body parts being taken, Ed Kemper and Ted Bundy, both of whom took victim's heads (making the doctor's evidence of signs of attempted decapitation of Chapman, at least, interesting), but I can't off the top of my head recall another example of someone who took organs (which goes to linkage of Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly given the rarity of that particular behaviour). I would not be surprised if JtR did take some small item, like Chapman's rings, from other crime scenes. However, given it would be something which might go entirely unnoticed as missing, there's no evidence that he actually did. Anyway, as I say, I don't think his primary goal was "get a trophy then stop", rather the train of thought might be more like "I'm finished and leaving now, I'll take this with me", and he takes something he can conceal. The fact that in Kelly's case in particular he had such a lot to choose from then if in that case he had taken the uterus then that might suggest that particular organ was of particular interest - but he didn't, leading me to think there was nothing in particular about the uterus other than JtR has a mindset to take a bit of the victim with him that he can conceal.

Other trophy collectors, for example, might take victim's underwear from their dresser. They don't take all of them, just one pair. Or they take a piece of jewelry, not all of it, etc. While these are objects and not body parts, it gets to the point that a trophy is a reminder of the main purpose, not the primary purpose itself and the specific item category might be informative (taking underwear vs jewelry vs body parts), the specific item taken is less important (i.e. JtR took body parts, but I don't think he had designs on uterus, kidney, or hearts in particular). I think those that would want "all of the body parts", tend to abduct the victim and get the body somewhere they can revisit (i.e. Dahmer, who kept the bodies in his flat, etc).

anyway, thanks for the info on the Jackson case. I'll have to look into that.

- Jeff

My advice would be to think practical - if the killer did take out all organs from Kelly fon whatever reason NOT tied to trophy taking, only thereafter deciding to choose one item that he "could conceal", as you put it - why take the rather bulky heart? Surely the uterus, a kidney, even the spleen would be easier to conceal?
The Kelly scene is normally described as utter mayhem. Why is it then, that we do not read about half kidneys, a liver hacked to pieces and so on? Or about half organs left inside the body? Instead it seems the organs were neatly taken out intact and placed on the bed, some of them even tucked away under her head. Is that utter mayhem? Is cutting the eyebrows away mayhem or examples of dexterious, neat knife work? I´ll leave you to ponder those questions.

And yes, do look into the Jackson case - as well as the other torso cases, and begin in 1873. In the Jackson case, you will find that she resembles Kelly very closely on many points. A London prostitute killed half a year after Kelly, who had her abdomen cut open from ribcage to pubes just like Kelly, who had her heart cut out from her body, a heart that went lost just like Kellys heart did, who had her uterus cut out and discarded and found, just as in the Kelly case, who had her abdominal wall cut away in large flaps, just like Kelly had. Given how rare these creatures are, I´d say that the possibilities of two killers is miniscule.
I agree with what you said about the same kind of damage sometimes having different underlying reasons, but I strongly believe that it all hinges on the parameters involved. If we have two women killed by knife in the same city, then it may have had different reasons - it can be one robbery and one sexual assault that led it on, and that can be hard to tell after the events, depending on what happened. Of course, the larger the city is, the larger the chance of two perps.
But once the parameters involved become A/ more and more specific and B/ more and more odd and C/ more and more rare, the odds that we have two killers start to rise dramatically. As has been said before, there are no other examples of two simultaneously (more or less) acting eviscerator serialists in the same city, and that is not something that should surprise us - these people do not surface often. When they do, we can read about them in the papers and ask ourselves if ten or twenty years have passed since we last heard about these kinds of atrocities. Dahmer. Fish. Haarmann. Sort of. They come from differing times and differing venues, and they did things to their respective victims (of differing gender) that allows us to realize who killed which victim by looking at the damages inflicted.
But in THIS case we have the same time, the same city and the same damage to a very large extent. And we have extremely rare inclusions. We have the same organs targetted.

There is - the way I see it - virtually no chance at all of two killers. So of course I must encourage you to read about the Torso murders if you are interested in the Rippers deeds.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I am sure Jack would have looked silly carrying a load of organs down the street. If he did take the heart, and I think he did, that would probably suffice.

[JeffHamm]

My advice would be to think practical - if the killer did take out all organs from Kelly fon whatever reason NOT tied to trophy taking, only thereafter deciding to choose one item that he "could conceal", as you put it - why take the rather bulky heart? Surely the uterus, a kidney, even the spleen would be easier to conceal?
The Kelly scene is normally described as utter mayhem. Why is it then, that we do not read about half kidneys, a liver hacked to pieces and so on? Or about half organs left inside the body? Instead it seems the organs were neatly taken out intact and placed on the bed, some of them even tucked away under her head. Is that utter mayhem? Is cutting the eyebrows away mayhem or examples of dexterious, neat knife work? I´ll leave you to ponder those questions.

And yes, do look into the Jackson case - as well as the other torso cases, and begin in 1873. In the Jackson case, you will find that she resembles Kelly very closely on many points. A London prostitute killed half a year after Kelly, who had her abdomen cut open from ribcage to pubes just like Kelly, who had her heart cut out from her body, a heart that went lost just like Kellys heart did, who had her uterus cut out and discarded and found, just as in the Kelly case, who had her abdominal wall cut away in large flaps, just like Kelly had. Given how rare these creatures are, I´d say that the possibilities of two killers is miniscule.
I agree with what you said about the same kind of damage sometimes having different underlying reasons, but I strongly believe that it all hinges on the parameters involved. If we have two women killed by knife in the same city, then it may have had different reasons - it can be one robbery and one sexual assault that led it on, and that can be hard to tell after the events, depending on what happened. Of course, the larger the city is, the larger the chance of two perps.
But once the parameters involved become A/ more and more specific and B/ more and more odd and C/ more and more rare, the odds that we have two killers start to rise dramatically. As has been said before, there are no other examples of two simultaneously (more or less) acting eviscerator serialists in the same city, and that is not something that should surprise us - these people do not surface often. When they do, we can read about them in the papers and ask ourselves if ten or twenty years have passed since we last heard about these kinds of atrocities. Dahmer. Fish. Haarmann. Sort of. They come from differing times and differing venues, and they did things to their respective victims (of differing gender) that allows us to realize who killed which victim by looking at the damages inflicted.
But in THIS case we have the same time, the same city and the same damage to a very large extent. And we have extremely rare inclusions. We have the same organs targetted.

There is - the way I see it - virtually no chance at all of two killers. So of course I must encourage you to read about the Torso murders if you are interested in the Rippers deeds.

I will be looking into the Jackson case. Your description of it does make it sound very worth examining (for the reasons you outline). As to why take the heart and not a kidney, or a spleen, etc? I don't know, perhaps it was the one he placed closest at hand? Wouldn't take much to conceal it, wrapped in something, under his jacket, etc. Again, I think our difference of view as to the importance of the specific organ taken drives things. I think JtR could just have easily taken a spleen from Kelly, but he didn't. Given the variety of organs he took, it looks to me (and your opinion may differ) that he just took something. Now, I could see him deciding to take the heart in particular simply because I would think that must have been difficult to get, etc so I shouldn't really just say "randomly grabbed something", but I don't see anything to indicate that his primary motivation was to "get a particular item for his collection" type thing. For object trophies, like women's underwear, there are offenders where that is the primary goal, but these offenders usually break and enter and steal underwear - or take it off clothes lines, they don't murder people if their primary objective is to get a particular trophy item. While someone who murders people and takes an article of clothing is taking a souvenir of the crime itself, but again, your thoughts may differ.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I will be looking into the Jackson case. Your description of it does make it sound very worth examining (for the reasons you outline). As to why take the heart and not a kidney, or a spleen, etc? I don't know, perhaps it was the one he placed closest at hand? Wouldn't take much to conceal it, wrapped in something, under his jacket, etc. Again, I think our difference of view as to the importance of the specific organ taken drives things. I think JtR could just have easily taken a spleen from Kelly, but he didn't. Given the variety of organs he took, it looks to me (and your opinion may differ) that he just took something. Now, I could see him deciding to take the heart in particular simply because I would think that must have been difficult to get, etc so I shouldn't really just say "randomly grabbed something", but I don't see anything to indicate that his primary motivation was to "get a particular item for his collection" type thing. For object trophies, like women's underwear, there are offenders where that is the primary goal, but these offenders usually break and enter and steal underwear - or take it off clothes lines, they don't murder people if their primary objective is to get a particular trophy item. While someone who murders people and takes an article of clothing is taking a souvenir of the crime itself, but again, your thoughts may differ.

- Jeff

I have no problems with the suggestion of our killer picking different kinds of innards as souvenirs - I just pointed out that since you spoke of how he would perhaps choose parts that were easy to conceal, a heart does not top that list. Otherwise, the fact that he did not only go for reproduction arts is something that could well be of massive importance. It was not only about the sexuality of the victim, apparently - but it could well be that all the innards (or parts of them, at least) represented something that touched on the killers sexuality.

In the overall scheme, I´d say that when we look at Millwood, the object of the thread, once we open up for the killer being responsible for both the Ripper and the Torso series, things will follow. For me, Millwood becomes less likely to belong - she has always been regarded as a test run of the Ripper, but if he killed the Torso victims too, as I believe, then he would not have needed any test run at the time of the Millwood attack. She could perhaps be a test run for attacks in the open, if you like, but otherwise not.

And of course, the geographical discussion must also be reevaluated. The problem is that we only know where parts were dumped in the torso series, not where the victims were picked up nor where they were killed. And when it comes to the parts found in the Thames, we can´t even tell where they were dumped with any certainty at all. Geographically, the Torso murders are an enigma.

[JeffHamm]

I have no problems with the suggestion of our killer picking different kinds of innards as souvenirs - I just pointed out that since you spoke of how he would perhaps choose parts that were easy to conceal, a heart does not top that list. Otherwise, the fact that he did not only go for reproduction arts is something that could well be of massive importance. It was not only about the sexuality of the victim, apparently - but it could well be that all the innards (or parts of them, at least) represented something that touched on the killers sexuality.

In the overall scheme, I´d say that when we look at Millwood, the object of the thread, once we open up for the killer being responsible for both the Ripper and the Torso series, things will follow. For me, Millwood becomes less likely to belong - she has always been regarded as a test run of the Ripper, but if he killed the Torso victims too, as I believe, then he would not have needed any test run at the time of the Millwood attack. She could perhaps be a test run for attacks in the open, if you like, but otherwise not.

And of course, the geographical discussion must also be reevaluated. The problem is that we only know where parts were dumped in the torso series, not where the victims were picked up nor where they were killed. And when it comes to the parts found in the Thames, we can´t even tell where they were dumped with any certainty at all. Geographically, the Torso murders are an enigma.

Yes, if the torso murders are included, their locations would be "dump sites" not the primary crime locations. Those seem (I have very little data on these) to result in a different set of equations, and the offenders anchor point (usually their residence) tends to be much more centrally located. At the moment, I've not worked in the ability to enter both primary locations and dump sites (which could be useful in this case if we wanted to add in the torso cases; I will eventually try and do that as I think it could be useful in general anyway.

Also, I think it's a fair point that if the torso murders are in, then Millwood's inclusion becomes much less likely. Tabram's attack could still be the first "on location" attack, with the idea that his first attack was inexperienced in that situation, but I think even that inclusion starts to become more difficult to defend.

As for concealing a heart, it's about the size of a large fist, and is smaller in women then men (on average). It wouldn't be particularly difficult to conceal in my opinion. But yes, I think it's possible that what he chose to take, even if not decided upon a priori, could be worth exploring. While we will probably never know if our musings are correct or not, these kind of thought explorations can lead to other insights that may be more testable. I'm certainly not convinced by suggestions are the only ones that could be valid, quite the contrary.

Anyway, I'll have to read up on the Jackson case. Thanks for that.

- Jeff

Oh, found an article on collecting with a bit on serial killers in it. A bit of a summary type piece, rather than a research article, but given the discussions it might be of interest to some here.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-and-addiction

[JeffHamm]

Oh, I should say, there are, of course, some serial killers who took particular clothing items as trophies, and their fetish for that item was very much tied into the murders as well (I forget his name at the moment, but there's one fellow who had a shoe fettish, and kept at least one woman's foot in his freezer, so he could put shoes from his victims on it, etc). In that case, the object trophy and the murders were very much inter-twined. In one of my previous posts, I think I uncautiously implied that serial killer's always just take something, and that the particular trophy item never enters into it. Rather, I should have said, usually the particular object taken isn't a primary aspect of the motive behind the murder, though exceptions do occur.

So, had JtR taken Kelly's uterus, which he had access to, even if he also took her heart, then I think there could be a strong reason to consider the possibility that JtR had a particular interest in the uterus, probably as a feitsh item (however, I find Baxter's more pragmatic suggestion, that he was going to sell them, less tenable because of all the other things JtR did over and above what was necessary to obtain the uterus in both Eddowes and, in particular, Kelly's case). However, because JtR left Kelly's uterus despite having removed it, I think that line of reasoning falls down, which gets me back to the idea that he just wanted a bit of the victim to take as a reminder of the event, so he could re-live it later.

Also, on a different note, I should have mentioned for Stride a the third point against including her in the series is that the doctor's looked for, and found no signs of, strangulation in her case. That does make the assault appear to follow a different sequence than the assault on Nichol's, Chapman, and Eddowes. Kelly, however, apparently had defensive wounds, and so doesn't appear to have been strangled either, so the lack of strangulation isn't unique to Stride (effectively reducing the impact of that point of difference; strangulation may have been a situationally determined thing, while the mutilations are the primary (necessary) aspect in JtRs view. Still, it provides reason to be cautious about Stride's inclusion, but it isn't definitive in and of itself, and so needs to be added in and weighed with the similarities, which I still think tip the balance to warrant Stride's inclusion at the moment, but I'm entirely open to arguments for her exclusion as well).

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Oh, I should say, there are, of course, some serial killers who took particular clothing items as trophies, and their fetish for that item was very much tied into the murders as well (I forget his name at the moment, but there's one fellow who had a shoe fettish, and kept at least one woman's foot in his freezer, so he could put shoes from his victims on it, etc). In that case, the object trophy and the murders were very much inter-twined. In one of my previous posts, I think I uncautiously implied that serial killer's always just take something, and that the particular trophy item never enters into it. Rather, I should have said, usually the particular object taken isn't a primary aspect of the motive behind the murder, though exceptions do occur.

So, had JtR taken Kelly's uterus, which he had access to, even if he also took her heart, then I think there could be a strong reason to consider the possibility that JtR had a particular interest in the uterus, probably as a feitsh item (however, I find Baxter's more pragmatic suggestion, that he was going to sell them, less tenable because of all the other things JtR did over and above what was necessary to obtain the uterus in both Eddowes and, in particular, Kelly's case). However, because JtR left Kelly's uterus despite having removed it, I think that line of reasoning falls down, which gets me back to the idea that he just wanted a bit of the victim to take as a reminder of the event, so he could re-live it later.

Also, on a different note, I should have mentioned for Stride a the third point against including her in the series is that the doctor's looked for, and found no signs of, strangulation in her case. That does make the assault appear to follow a different sequence than the assault on Nichol's, Chapman, and Eddowes. Kelly, however, apparently had defensive wounds, and so doesn't appear to have been strangled either, so the lack of strangulation isn't unique to Stride (effectively reducing the impact of that point of difference; strangulation may have been a situationally determined thing, while the mutilations are the primary (necessary) aspect in JtRs view. Still, it provides reason to be cautious about Stride's inclusion, but it isn't definitive in and of itself, and so needs to be added in and weighed with the similarities, which I still think tip the balance to warrant Stride's inclusion at the moment, but I'm entirely open to arguments for her exclusion as well).

- Jeff

I would still want to know what other examples there are of killers who carefully cut out a large number of organs from a vctims body, and then decides for one of them as a trophy. I find that either you take out the innards and leave them at the spot (à la Ed Gingrich), or you cut out the part you decided for as a trophy (and that could be anything) leaving the rest inside the body.

It must be acknowledged that the primary object of this killer was to cut into bodies, not to take trophies. And that means that we need an explanation for what he did to the victims where he was afforded time, the way he was in the Kelly case. It very clearly was not about destroying and annihilation, since that would have included the hacking and destruction of the innards. Instead, we have them cut out and distributed on the bed, even tucked under her head, just as we have the abdominal flesh and flesh from the buttocks on the bedside table.

Why is it not all in a messy heap around her? Or on the floor? Why is it placed neatly on the bed or on the table, just as Eddowes´ colon section was neatly placed parallel to her body?

To me, this is infinitely more interesting than the question whether he brought along parts as trophies or not.

[JeffHamm]

I would still want to know what other examples there are of killers who carefully cut out a large number of organs from a vctims body, and then decides for one of them as a trophy. I find that either you take out the innards and leave them at the spot (à la Ed Gingrich), or you cut out the part you decided for as a trophy (and that could be anything) leaving the rest inside the body.

It must be acknowledged that the primary object of this killer was to cut into bodies, not to take trophies. And that means that we need an explanation for what he did to the victims where he was afforded time, the way he was in the Kelly case. It very clearly was not about destroying and annihilation, since that would have included the hacking and destruction of the innards. Instead, we have them cut out and distributed on the bed, even tucked under her head, just as we have the abdominal flesh and flesh from the buttocks on the bedside table.

Why is it not all in a messy heap around her? Or on the floor? Why is it placed neatly on the bed or on the table, just as Eddowes´ colon section was neatly placed parallel to her body?

To me, this is infinitely more interesting than the question whether he brought along parts as trophies or not.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I fully agree that the primary object / goal was the mutilations, which I've said a few times as well so I think we agree on that. I have tried to emphasize that I'm not saying that trophy taking was JtR's primary motive (my previous post was just clarifying that there are some cases where trophy taking is very much part of the motive, but that is in contrast to JtR in my view). Again, and perhaps I'm just not conveying this very well, but trophy taking is often done sort of as an afterthought, a "celebration" might be one way to describe it - where the offender takes something to remember their accomplishment by because they will re-live the experience again. Photos are common now, but wouldn't have been available to JtR. Taking of jewelry, or ID, or clothing (usually underwear when there is a sexual aspect to the crimes - meaning the offender finds the activities, however horrendous to us, sexually gratifying in some way, either directly or through the sense of power it gives them). Body parts are not that uncommon, heads are often taken. Internal organs are, I believe, far more rare (which is why the taking of organs from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly is, in my opinion, such a strong pointer to the same offender). I don't see any evidence, though, that the particular organ taken was very important to JtR, by which I mean I don't see anything to suggest he was "harvesting uteri" in particular. If he were (which I don't think), then yes, I would agree that just cutting out the uterus and leaving the rest is what would be expected. He's not doing that, which is why I don't think the specific bits he takes is all that important, but the fact he takes something is - and the fact that he takes part of the internal organs and not, say, bits of their clothes, points to the internal organs in general (rather than a specific one) being somehow important to JtR.

And yes, I think the placement of the internal organs in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's is not just a tossing of them about, and fully agree with you that there's some deliberate placement going on. I also agree that's an important point to consider, which I have overlooked, so thanks for that. The careful placement of the organs, as you mention, also points to JtR having some sort of fixation on the internals themselves. He's exploring the insides and not just hacking them to pieces. And I think that again makes his taking of an organ as a trophy entirely consistent with what he might want to relive - the experience of rummaging about the insides of the victim. What I have not been saying is that his primary focus was to "take all of them", anymore than an offender who takes a victim's driver's licence isn't doing anything unusual by not taking the entire wallet, or all of the ID found it in - why not take the student card as well? Because they got "something" that, for whatever reason, they found to be sufficient. They don't need all of it to have an item to relive through - that's what taken as a trophy means, a representative token to act as a reminder of the event itself.

But, as I've been trying to say, and which you seem to agree with, is that the primary motivation is the mutilations. Trophy taking is just a behaviour that is not all that uncommon, although I agree with you, specifically taking internal organs as trophies is rare as far as I can tell, but taking of body parts in general has been done by more than a few.

Other than heads (Kemper & Bundy), and the foot I mentioned above, there are cases where a breast has been removed and taken (why not take both you might ask? I don't know, I guess one was enough. Why didn't JtR take Kelly's breast? I don't know, I guess the heart was enough. I think that "it was probably enough" because he only ever took one or two bits and there is no evidence that he wanted or needed to take more. I see absolutely nothing problematic with the idea that he's removed as much of the internals as he could, while only taking one or two bits with him because, again, the primary goal of JtR was the mutilations, the bits he takes are just reminders for him and he doesn't need all of it to have that token, or trophy, as his reminder - one or two bits is enough for JtR. The careful arrangement of the internal organs points to some sort of fascination with internal organs as well, so it's not inconsistent that he might take something from them to use as a reminder, to enhance his reliving of the entire experience.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I fully agree that the primary object / goal was the mutilations, which I've said a few times as well so I think we agree on that. I have tried to emphasize that I'm not saying that trophy taking was JtR's primary motive (my previous post was just clarifying that there are some cases where trophy taking is very much part of the motive, but that is in contrast to JtR in my view). Again, and perhaps I'm just not conveying this very well, but trophy taking is often done sort of as an afterthought, a "celebration" might be one way to describe it - where the offender takes something to remember their accomplishment by because they will re-live the experience again. Photos are common now, but wouldn't have been available to JtR. Taking of jewelry, or ID, or clothing (usually underwear when there is a sexual aspect to the crimes - meaning the offender finds the activities, however horrendous to us, sexually gratifying in some way, either directly or through the sense of power it gives them). Body parts are not that uncommon, heads are often taken. Internal organs are, I believe, far more rare (which is why the taking of organs from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly is, in my opinion, such a strong pointer to the same offender). I don't see any evidence, though, that the particular organ taken was very important to JtR, by which I mean I don't see anything to suggest he was "harvesting uteri" in particular. If he were (which I don't think), then yes, I would agree that just cutting out the uterus and leaving the rest is what would be expected. He's not doing that, which is why I don't think the specific bits he takes is all that important, but the fact he takes something is - and the fact that he takes part of the internal organs and not, say, bits of their clothes, points to the internal organs in general (rather than a specific one) being somehow important to JtR.

And yes, I think the placement of the internal organs in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's is not just a tossing of them about, and fully agree with you that there's some deliberate placement going on. I also agree that's an important point to consider, which I have overlooked, so thanks for that. The careful placement of the organs, as you mention, also points to JtR having some sort of fixation on the internals themselves. He's exploring the insides and not just hacking them to pieces. And I think that again makes his taking of an organ as a trophy entirely consistent with what he might want to relive - the experience of rummaging about the insides of the victim. What I have not been saying is that his primary focus was to "take all of them", anymore than an offender who takes a victim's driver's licence isn't doing anything unusual by not taking the entire wallet, or all of the ID found it in - why not take the student card as well? Because they got "something" that, for whatever reason, they found to be sufficient. They don't need all of it to have an item to relive through - that's what taken as a trophy means, a representative token to act as a reminder of the event itself.

But, as I've been trying to say, and which you seem to agree with, is that the primary motivation is the mutilations. Trophy taking is just a behaviour that is not all that uncommon, although I agree with you, specifically taking internal organs as trophies is rare as far as I can tell, but taking of body parts in general has been done by more than a few.

Other than heads (Kemper & Bundy), and the foot I mentioned above, there are cases where a breast has been removed and taken (why not take both you might ask? I don't know, I guess one was enough. Why didn't JtR take Kelly's breast? I don't know, I guess the heart was enough. I think that "it was probably enough" because he only ever took one or two bits and there is no evidence that he wanted or needed to take more. I see absolutely nothing problematic with the idea that he's removed as much of the internals as he could, while only taking one or two bits with him because, again, the primary goal of JtR was the mutilations, the bits he takes are just reminders for him and he doesn't need all of it to have that token, or trophy, as his reminder - one or two bits is enough for JtR. The careful arrangement of the internal organs points to some sort of fascination with internal organs as well, so it's not inconsistent that he might take something from them to use as a reminder, to enhance his reliving of the entire experience.

- Jeff

It would seem we are basically in agreement; I am not opposed to the idea that he took trophies, although I remain unconvinced that he actually did. If I am on the money, then what we are looking at is something that borders on a ritualistic behavior. And in that context, I don't think that the mutilations were the aim, but more of a means to an end. It is much like painting a house, if you like - what the person doing the job is looking for is not a chance to hold a brush, to feel the paint going up or anything like that - what he or she wants is the finished product. Accordingly, I don´t think the killer took out organs because he liked taking out organs, but instead because the finished product he aimed for was a woman with her organs taken out.
I think we are looking at a much less passionate act than most people imagine. I don't think he revelled in cutting, it was just the equivalent of the housepainting. I think the blood was a messy nuisance to him, and that was why he bled his victims - to facilitate the job he did. The 1873 torso victim was drained completely of blood - she had been hung up and emptied of all blood. There was not a milliliter of it, as per the medicos who really looked for it. And still, some medicos said that she could have been cut up while alive, basing their suggestion on how there was very far-reaching muscle contraction. The muscles in a dead body will contract if it is cut up close in time to death.

So! Imagine how this killer worked with great speed - he whacks her twice over the temple, quite probably killing her, he gets a length of rope and ties her up and hangs her upside down, opening up her arteries in the neck by the looks of things. He then allows the blood to drain out (it is a matter of few minutes only), and then he moves on to take her down again and lay her out in order to divide her body into thirteen parts. Thirteen! And one of those parts is the face and scalp, cut away with precision from the cranium. He cuts at the back of the skull, and proceeds to pull the flesh forward with his one hand, working the sticking parts free from the face with the other hand and the knife as he goes along. He ends up with a cut away face with even the eyelashes intact, that's how carefully and meticulously he did his work.
It makes you think that the face was some sort of trophy, going by how much work he put into removing it, doesn't it?
But he threw it in the Thames when he had cut it away.
Why?
Because it was, I would suggest, the paint and the brush.
The finished product was what was left behind, at least for some little time; what the killer really was after. And the head was, as usual, never found. That head would perhaps have had trophy quality to him...

That is how I see it. And I am totally convinced that whoever killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 torso victim.

[JeffHamm]

It would seem we are basically in agreement; I am not opposed to the idea that he took trophies, although I remain unconvinced that he actually did. If I am on the money, then what we are looking at is something that borders on a ritualistic behavior. And in that context, I don't think that the mutilations were the aim, but more of a means to an end. It is much like painting a house, if you like - what the person doing the job is looking for is not a chance to hold a brush, to feel the paint going up or anything like that - what he or she wants is the finished product. Accordingly, I don´t think the killer took out organs because he liked taking out organs, but instead because the finished product he aimed for was a woman with her organs taken out.
I think we are looking at a much less passionate act than most people imagine. I don't think he revelled in cutting, it was just the equivalent of the housepainting. I think the blood was a messy nuisance to him, and that was why he bled his victims - to facilitate the job he did. The 1873 torso victim was drained completely of blood - she had been hung up and emptied of all blood. There was not a milliliter of it, as per the medicos who really looked for it. And still, some medicos said that she could have been cut up while alive, basing their suggestion on how there was very far-reaching muscle contraction. The muscles in a dead body will contract if it is cut up close in time to death.

So! Imagine how this killer worked with great speed - he whacks her twice over the temple, quite probably killing her, he gets a length of rope and ties her up and hangs her upside down, opening up her arteries in the neck by the looks of things. He then allows the blood to drain out (it is a matter of few minutes only), and then he moves on to take her down again and lay her out in order to divide her body into thirteen parts. Thirteen! And one of those parts is the face and scalp, cut away with precision from the cranium. He cuts at the back of the skull, and proceeds to pull the flesh forward with his one hand, working the sticking parts free from the face with the other hand and the knife as he goes along. He ends up with a cut away face with even the eyelashes intact, that's how carefully and meticulously he did his work.
It makes you think that the face was some sort of trophy, going by how much work he put into removing it, doesn't it?
But he threw it in the Thames when he had cut it away.
Why?
Because it was, I would suggest, the paint and the brush.
The finished product was what was left behind, at least for some little time; what the killer really was after. And the head was, as usual, never found. That head would perhaps have had trophy quality to him...

That is how I see it. And I am totally convinced that whoever killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 torso victim.

That's an interesting take, but if, when he had the time, he could carefully remove the scalp and face, that sounds very different from the hacking of Eddowes and Kelly's faces. Also, removing the face as you describe, while yes, had it not been found would certainly look like trophy taking, it also looks like trying to avoid victim identification. Today, with modern techniques for identification, when victims are missing all their fingers or hands, or teeth (particularly when the body too was hidden), or heads, etc, it can be a functional behaviour, hinder identification of the victim and you hinder the investigation. DNA doesn't require those, of course, so cremation is resorted to quite often (but is not always successful).

Someone who has hung a victim to drain them of blood, then has cut the body up into 13 pieces, and has removed the skin, etc, sounds very much like someone who works with slaughtering animals. And in that process the removal of the organs would be part of that. It also sounds very different from the JtR attacks, and more similar to the Jackson case you mentioned (where the throat appeared to be cut right at the shoulders, though with the head missing, we don't know if there were cuts further up the neck as was the location of the throat wounds in the JtR cannonical cases). The dis-articulation at the shoulders and hips (in the Jackson case), were described as clean, and sound like they were performed by someone who knew what they were doing, whereas the doctor's mentioned specifically the failed attempt to remove Chapman's head, and given the time available with Kelly, no attempt to remove limbs was attempted based upon any of the reports. Also, the removal of large bits of flesh from Kelly's legs doesn't look like the more organized sectioning of a body into 13 chunks, which again, sounds very much like functional (one can transport smaller chunks for disposal.

The torso cases (and I've now read a bit on Jackson, but just material contained here on Casebook) are not as familiar to me as the JtR canonicals and common possible "additionals", so it appears you are drawing inferences from a different source.

My initial reaction would be that what little I do know has not jumped out at me as linking them. But, I also recognize what little I do know is insufficient to present that as a conclusion (and, also, I recognize that it often comes from sources who have drawn their conclusions as well, which always colours the presentation).

Based upon the C5, in particular Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, those crime scenes do not look like someone concerned about getting their hands bloody, or someone who is removing organs as one would from an animal carcass (he's cutting individual bits out, one at a time, not removing, for example, the entire set of intestines as one whole package), and the cuts to the face on both Eddowes and Kelly are hacking and slashing, not a careful process of skinning, etc.

I could see JtR being delusional in his thinking, and he's looking for "snakes in the body" type thing, but I don't think that's the only inference one could draw, and I don't mean to imply that he's a drooling lunatic either.

Anyway, I think now I get the difference. I do tend to lean towards thinking that the removal of the face you describe above, and then tossing it in the Thames, combined with the cutting up of the body into smaller "parcels" (and then scattering those) sounds very much like trying to prevent identification and discovery. I can't see the taking of uteri, kidneys, and hearts as serving any other purpose (note, cannibalism of them would still make them trophies) then to serve as an item through which to relive the experience (so trophy), while the behaviours involved in the torso murders sound much more practical at first blush. I want to say again, though, I'm not open to changing my mind on that, just indicating my initial reaction.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I'll have to put some time into researching the various torso cases.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Ok, after a bit more searching about, and posting here, I have corrected an error I made. I had located Hutchinson at the Peabody House (up near Annie Chapman's murder site), but apparently the Victoria House was not the Peabody House, and it was at the SW corner of Wentworth and Commercial Street. Since Hutchinson is a person of interest (he claims to have seen Kelly shortly before her murder) and is a favorite suspect of some, I thought I would update the output from the geographical profile (and the maps). I've put Klowoski (Chapman) back on, and makred the Peabody estate (just because I had located it, and it was built to provide cheap housing, so is it worth searching? etc).

I've re-run the analysis based upon the C5 only, and the C5 + Tabram and Millwood. I've ordered the suspects based upon the C5 "zone" output (lower zones numbers are more interesting POIs, but once real evidence rules them out, ignore the zone number).

So, using the settings I’ve chosen, in a test sample of 8 solved series of murders, the average zone for the offender’s residence is 7.75, with 4/8 in zone 1 or 2, then a 7, 12, 17 and 20. The 20 was Albert Desalvo (Boston Strangler) and his pattern is a bit unusual (he’s by definition a marauder, but once you know the solution, he looks like a “multi-directional commuter” – not making excuses, just describing the output – JtR could also be “unusual”, and if so, an analysis based upon prior series (particularly prior solved series) may not generalize to him if he is very unlike the group from which the analysis is based. Given the difference in time, that is entirely possible. Moreover, the routines I’m using are not tested anywhere near enough, and the above test cases, while they look promising, are no where near the number of test cases required to decide how accurate they are. This is just for your interest, use with caution.

And, think of zones this way. I work out an area (I won't go into how), that one would have to search randomly to find the offender’s location. Each zone is 5% of that area. If you followed the search pattern based upon the output, then how much of that random search space would you have to search? Well, zone 1 means 5% (well, to be pedantic, on average you would probably only have to search ½ of the zone indicated, so really 2.5%). In zone 2, then 10% (or pedantically 7.5% - all of zone 1 plus half of zone 2). And so forth.

So, if we pretend the above is sufficient (and no, it isn’t, we’re playing pretendses here), then we would expect a 50% chance of JtR falling in zones 1-2, 25% chance between 3 and 15 inclusive, and 25% between 16 and 20, inclusive (well, we could give a 1% as well to "more than 20"). And this, of course, is provided he’s not a commuter, someone who travels a distance to the crime zone, about 20% of offender’s are, so 20%, we’re wrong right off the bat, but let’s ignore that.


Geographical profile outputs:
Suspect …………Zone (C5 / C5 + Tabram & Millwood)

Ok, these are the POIs that have a 50% chance of being in the zone that JtRis in (so these are good suspects, listed in order ):

PC Sagar’s Suspect ..( 1 / 4) - And the police were actually watching someone here!

These POIs are in the 75% range (which means, since we’re excluding zones 1-2 now as “already searched”, that’s 25% chance):
Levy ........................ ( 4 / 2) - I know nothing of this suspect other than I spotted a post on them
Donston/Hospital ... ( 6 / 15) – This also fits the “mad doctor/medical student” ideas
Druitt / Ludwig ....... ( 7 / 15) Druitt is suggested to have had access to Dr. Thyne's surgery, and
given his cricket schedule, seems almost ruled out; Ludwig
was ruled out as he was in custody on the double event
Bachert .................. ( 7 / 12) – Another suspect I know nothing about, other than he was on the
vigilant committees and was a bit of a nuisance to the police at the
time.
Gouston Str. Graffiti ( 8 / 1) – this isn’t a suspect, but we know JtR was here at some point – was he
near home?
Barnet .................... ( 9 / 5)
Tumblety ................ (15 / 31) There is some question as to whether he was here in 1888 or not

And if JtR doesn’t live in zones 1-15 (which is about 25% of the time), then we would figure he’s here:
David Cohen .......... (17 / 17)
Peabody House ……. (19/ 8) (there’s no suspect here; I mislocated Hutchinson here before)
Hutchinson ............. (19 / 8)

These POIs fall in zones that would be considered pretty much “excluded”:
Pizer ....................... (32 / 38) - Pizer was cleared (although officially identified as Leather Apron)
Klowoski ................. (34 / 21) – Chapman, some have questioned if he was here in Autumn of 1888
Kosminski ............... (35 / 44)
Kaminsky ................ (40 / 53)

And, here's the updated version of the map I have with crime locations, suspects, and "points of interest" marked on them. Please do let me know if I've got anything wrong. I'm including on the map suspects who were cleared, or locations that might be "not there a the time" until such time as it is proven they were not there. I can't evaluate suspects who live outside the map area, sorry.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Good stuff, but again, Klosowski wasn't living at the White Hart in 1888.