|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through September 2, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
A Statement:
Archive through September 2, 1999
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 24 August 1999 - 08:29 am |        | Dear Jill
I fear I haven't explained myself clearly enough. My point is that the medical/anatomical knowledge of the killer (or lack of it) is not something we can be sure of. Some say he had some, some say he didn't. I'm not disregarding other peoples views, I'm merely saying that in the absence of any certainty about the subject we should disregard this aspect. Its like having witnesses to a bank robbery. One says the car was black, the other says it was bright green and the last says it was red. What colour do you accept as being right? Answer none of them because you simply do not know who is correct.
I quite agree with you about knowledge of a fishes insides not equipping you to remove human organs, thats the point I was trying to make. What I am saying is some people fix on certain suspects because they were a fish porter for instance, and that somehow this knowledge would be of use to them in disembowlling a body. What I am saying is that lots of people in those days knew how to clean rabbits and fish, and so using that as a criteria for picking a suspect is likewise futile.
As a matter of fact I (even with the benefits of a modern education) would have no idea where to find certain organs. Sure I know they're inside somewhere, but certainly wouldn't have the knowledge to go looking in the bottom right hand corner for the spleen or whatever.
Its always been my personal belief that JTR just plunged his hands in and slashed and cut anything he came across. For people who have problems accepting that look at the case of Richard Trenton Chase, he didn't have any medical training yet he mutilated his victims in a manner very similar to JTR.
Thank you for taking the interest to comment,
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Kevin
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 04:38 am | | Hello Bob
You are absolutely right that plenty of people probably could have had the level of skill necessary to be JTR. You say it could go either way regarding Jack's medical expertise but your opinion is that there was no medical expertise.
I am personally neutral to the issue, I think as you say it could go either way.
What I don't agree with is that we should give up analysis of the medical facts (this information is useful even if it being used to argue for or against medical expertise).
We should be looking for patterns of behavior. If we can determine whether organs were removed in a particular order or for a particular purpose with or without skillful incisions, etc., then we find out more about JTR, medical man or not. We know more about our suspect.
For example if we can determine that he was just opening the bodies and gutting them randomly this might tell us something about Jack (he was in a rage, he was in a hurry, he was drunk)- or not, but it is more information to consider. If, on the other hand, JTR was systematically gutting bodies we have a different frame of mind (methodical, maybe medical, person with self-control, etc.).
What I am trying to say is that there must be some psychological insight to be gained from this type of analysis. The more we piece together the closer we get to an image of Jack himself.
I have to believe that there is more analysis that can be done into the anatomical and medical side of the case and I think we need more doctors interested in the case.
For me the question is not whether he was a medical man or not or his degree of medical training. The key for me is the pattern (or the lack of a pattern), then we can move backwards from there, what did he need to prepare (or did he prepare), were there any special conditions necessary in the surroundings or in the victims themselves (or was it all totally random).
I don't think this is a futile direction.
Regards
Kevin |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 11:31 am | | Dear Kevin,
Absolutely, what I mean is not to give up on the medical facts, but to give up on trying to determine JTR's level of medical skill, its a question without an answer
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 12:13 pm | | Hi Bob,
I realise that your particular favourite suspect did not have medical experience and therefore you have an overview that necessarily precludes any such possibility.
But beyond these considerations, as a person with no pet suspect and no prejudice either way, I wonder how anyone can read the exchanges of the last few weeks and not accept that JTR's anatomical knowledge is pretty well the only firmly established fact about him.
It was attested to by the majority of contemporary experts consulted and seems borne out almost conclusively by everything said here.
No, it precisely isn't a matter of subjective opinion, like the colour of a car; it's a matter of establishable fact. The man removed inaccessible organs under conditions of incredible difficulty. Of course this can't prove he had medical training, but it does make it the first and likeliest probability.
It makes no sense to ignore this vital piece of evidence, particularly when evidence of any sort is so thin on the ground.
Karoline |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 01:59 pm | | I agree that the medical evidence is vital and that there are firm opinions on it. However, the opinions varied greatly...even Phillips can't seem to make up his mind.
On the Eddowes case, Phillips and Brown are reported by Swanson to have believed that the murderer showed "no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon..."
The report goes on to say the "the medical evidence showed that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student of surgery or a properly qualified surgeon."
That's Phillips' opinion on the extraction of the uterus and kidney under "conditions of incredible difficulty!"
Curiously, Swanson's report also includes a reference to the earlier cases as now showing the same lack of evidence ("On the other hand, as in the Metropolitan police cases..." Swanson continues with Phillips' and Brown's comparison of butchers et al to surgeons). Has Phillips changed his mind about any previous statements regarding medical/anatomical knowledge or skill?
Anyway...
1) Phillips agrees with Bond in the Eddowes case (arguably, the most difficult mutiliations performed)...no evidence of anatomical knowledge.
2) Phillips sees no distinction between the skills of a hunter, butcher, or slaughterman and medical students or even a qualified surgeon!
People using Phillips as an authority should realize that Phillips contradicts his own, earlier opinions and agrees with Bond on the "test" case for this issue. He offers a baffling comparison between the skills of butchers and surgeons.
Does that sound like a trustworthy medical opinion or a reliable forensic authority?
And if Bond is disqualified because he only saw one victim; how much more disqualified are people today who never saw a fraction of the notes, people, drawings, etc. etc. than Bond did? Sequeira and Saunders, two other physicians on the Eddowes case, also saw no evidence of an expert in medicine or anatomy, only "a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of a knife." Use of a knife is a long step away from being quailified to enroll in med school.
So, four doctors (five, counting Bond) all say no skill or knowledge was evidenced in the Eddowes case.
There is no easy answer to this issue of JtR's knowledge. We can't judge this issue too quickly. But I'm not ready to say no answer is possible. The first step is to recognize the difficulties that are in the way of our reaching an understanding or consensus.
Yaz
P.S., I hope this message gets through this time. |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 03:21 pm | | I think it might be helpful to distinguish between authorities making direct statements and authorities quoted second hand.
It is, after all an important distinction: the first is prima facie evidence, the second only hearsay. It's bad methodology to confuse the two.
What Phillips actually said is prima facie data, but Swanson's REPORT of what Phillips said is just hearsay, and must be treated with a great deal of caution.
I'm wondering - did Phillips, in his own words, claim Jack had medical knowledge?
And is the only evidence that he later 'changed his mind' contained in Swanson's second-hand reportage?
Is this same second-hand reportage the only source for the strange claim that Jack might have been either a butcher OR a surgeon?
If it is, then, unless you want to argue that
an unreliable secondary source can be used to rebut an entirely reliable primary source, we have to dismiss Swanson and go with Phillips' own words.
In other words we assume NOT that Phillips changed his mind,or made strange unprofessional claims, but that Swanson either misremembered or misquoted him for reasons of his own.
Perhaps, for example he had a pet suspect who wasn't a medical man.
But all 'expert' testimony aside, don't you think Diana's point remains a good one?
Unless it can be shown that, despite all apparent likelihood, a completely untrained man, with no medical knowledge could rip open a woman and find her uterus in five minutes in the dark - then we are forced to concede this man knew what he was doing.
After all - suppose you heard of a crime in which a car had been immobilised in total darkness, inside five minutes by the swift removal of some tiny component buried in the depths of the engine; what would you think?
Sure, you could devise scenarios where, by sheer chance, some ignorant layman managed to rummage about and accidentally rip out the crucial item.
But, woudn't we have to concede that the most likely explanation was that our man was a car mechanic?
Karoline |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 04:09 pm | | A fair question about Swanson -- same question could and should be raised about his summary of Schwartz's testimony. All I know is from Sugden and other second-hand sources that no other statement of Phillips and Brown on Eddowes' murder exists outside of Swanson's report. If someone has any additional knowledge, I'm ready to hear it.
I cannot assume that Swanson was an unreliable reporter. What evidence is there that he was unreliable in his 1888-era official reports? Also, Phillips and Brown had ample time, and the police had ample opportunity, to clarify the medical opinions before the decision was made to bring in Bond. No one needed to rely solely on Swanson's report. We don't even know that Swanson's report played much of a role in Bond's entrance -- it just happens that it survived to today.
Swanson, as a police official, has a considerably higher status than a journalist or a layperson simply repeating what they think they heard in the street, for example. Swanson's job included writing these official reports.
If the charge is that he might be predisposed to a particluar opinion, where is the evidence that he, or any other police official, had any bias in this issue of medical expertise in 1888 -- or any other time? To me, it seems the police simply wanted an unambiguous answer in order to pursue the most appropriate leads.
I concede that Diana and Mike and Jill's points are valid. But I also concede that four attending 1888 physicians and later, Bond, all disagree with Jill, Mike, and Diana and specifically regarding this "test case" of Eddowes' mutilations. Ultimately, I have to assert that there is a conflict of opinion -- in the past and in the present -- on this issue.
Can it be resolved or are we forced, as Bob says, to throw up our hands? I think it possible to resolve it...but not by picking and choosing what we want from the surviving documentation.
What follows are a couple of ideas of a start toward reconciling the conflict.
One of the things I find curious in Swanson's report and the newspaper quote from Sequeira is that four doctors all seem to have the same or similar very strange opinions (to us late-20th century people): namely, that butchers' work and surgeons' work can in some way be indistinguishable in the mutilations seen on a murder victim.
Our modern minds revolt at mention of a butcher and a surgeon using the same criteria. But was it so odd for 1888, I wonder? This is an example where our modernity and our "common sense" might be preventing us from pursuing what may only seem to be a ludicrous proposition.
I think the opinion of medical historians (no, not modern doctors...they aren't familiar with standard practices and beliefs of the 1880s; we need medical historians) would be of most value regarding this question.
And while these medical historians are determining what the butcher/surgeon equivalence might mean in an 1888 context, they might also shed some light on what an 1888-era physician would mean by saying "no expertise, just skilled with a knife." Again, I feel uncomfortable with "common sense" answers to this question.
Yaz
P.S., The car analogy isn't a good one because non-mechanics experiment and tear apart cars all the time. Breaking your car in the process isn't against the law and doesn't (normally, unless you have an unsympathetic spouse) leave human corpses lying around. But I understand and accept the spirit of the analogy. Unfortunately, analogies don't help us out of this very specific bind of what qualified 1888 medical examiners said and what in the world could it all mean? |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 04:31 pm | | Hi Yaz
I’m afraid I must disagree with your statement that five doctors all say no skill or knowledge was evidenced in the Eddowes case. While others saw ‘no great skill’ in Eddowes case, the only doctor to see ‘no skill or knowledge’ in any of the canonical five was Bond, who stated: "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals." (MEPO 3/140 ff. 220-3) From this then it would appear that it was Bond who was out of step, and not the others.
Furthermore, in determining that Phillips couldn’t ‘seem to make up his mind’ you appear to be assuming that injuries to separate victims were all of the same character and inflicted by the same hand. A rather bold assumption, I think, given that, in summing-up Stride’s Inquest, Coroner Baxter - probably influenced by Phillips’ findings - stated: "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nicholls and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator." (Times 24 Oct)
Phillips seems to have had a very definite opinion as to the nature and object of Chapman’s injuries, and there is no evidence that this changed. He may have been wrong but, equally, differing medical opinion may have been the product of different murderers.
Cheers
alex |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 06:46 pm | | Hey Alex!
All valid points, especially the idea that not all of the murders were committed by one man -- though you must agree we haven't proven that point...yet. And part of the reasoning behind multiple, copy-cat killers rests on Phillips' evidence.
How credible a witness is Phillips? Does his opinion in the Eddowes case shed any light on that question? I think you can't avoid the fact that it does.
But on the points about the four doctors' opinions, I have to disagree. I have seen no primary source material, I openly admit, but do you dispute the words I quoted from Swanson's report or the interview Sequeira gave to our beloved Star.
Sequeira was specifically asked by a reporter:
"By an expert, do you think?" (meaning, I take it, was Eddowes killed by a medically skilled murderer -- or is this an invalid assumption on my part?)
He answered: "No, not by an expert but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife."
I need a professional's opinion of exactly what Sequeria was trying to say there. Any number of people could interpret what he said about the "use of the knife" to mean whatever they want. It's not an opinion I would want to receive if I was a police officer. The same can be said for the butcher et al./surgeon comparison by Phillips and Brown.
My other points relating to Phillips and Brown are trying to show just how perilous it is to come to a decision on the killer's skill based on the Eddowes case...or at least citing Phillips as an authority. The doctors (specifically Phillips, but the other three stand in a similar position) were supposed to render a definitive verdict on the murderer's skill. If Swanson has accurately reflected Phillips' opinion, Phillips is in direct conflict with Diana, Mike, Jill and anyone else who uses Eddowes as their "test case" for medical/anatomical proficiency or training. Phillips can't seem to distinguish between a butcher and a surgeon.
Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of Swanson's report?
Is Phillips making a correlation that made more sense back in 1888 than it does now?
How do we explain Swanson's curious inclusion of the previous Metropolitan Police cases when he reports the finding about the hunter/butcher/surgeon conglomeration?
Is it Swanson's mistake or wilful manipulation of the medical opinions? Or have the doctors, especially Phillips, rendered different opinions to the police at different times -- whether or not these changes of mind were captured in Inquest testimony, newspaper reports, or other surviving records?
I dunno the answers at the moment. Not being particularly talented as a researcher or historian, I may be missing a lot of information others have. I'll consider any evidence anyone wants to present. But that's how I see the medical evidence we know of from 1888 -- as a very confusing puzzle.
Yaz |
Author: Kevin
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 11:24 pm | | Is it really possible that all these officials back in 1888 really left us such a mess by accident? Were they so terribly unorganized?
I know there are reasons for each individual "mess", whether it be the medical mess, the witness mess or the mess in the police records. But when we look at the case as a whole...
Doesn't it almost seem uncanny how messy the whole thing is?
I am not suggesting anything at all, just a thought from reading the messages on the boards. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 12:32 am | | Dear Karoline,
I'm afraid I'm having a bad week here I still don't seem able to make my point clearly.
Let us for one moment assume that JTR has the expertise alluded to in various statements at the time ie that of a medical man, a medical student, a butcher, a hunter a slaughterhouse worker. I'm quite happy to concede that. What I'm saying is how does that allow us to narrow the search?
How could we prove that any suspect had or had not gone hunting for instance ? Or worked in a slaughterhouse at some time? We can't. It is simply too large a net.
As for it being an establishable fact I disagree. If a file is discovered which contains written statements by ten of the most eminent surgeons of the day, five saying he did have medical knowledge and five saying he didn't how does that help us. Sure we could then start picking apart the relevant qualifications of the people making the statements, but at the end of the day we would be only guessing.
If Eddowes body was found neatly incised with organs neatly removed I would totally agree with you, but I don't think thats how she was found.
As for my suspect not having medical knowledge and therefore being eliminated, you are obviously not aware of the five months he spent as a mortuary assistant at the London Hospital.
On the available evidence I am not convinced JTR had any particular medical knowledge, that doesn't mean I'm saying he didn't simply that I don't know, and don't believe I ever will.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 12:44 am | | Hi All,
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.
In 1888, the top docs in London, like the top cops, were most likely conditioned to thinking they were the very best in the world. (There are many who feel exactly the same today, believe me :-))
If they were mostly of the opinion that our Jack was some low-life 'foreign' scum, they might also be reluctant to admit he had shown skill of any kind at all! One can imagine a rather pompous and self-important physician looking at the results of this fiend's actions and saying 'No, this could not be the work of one of 'us'.'
What I'm getting at is that, along with the differing medical opinions of each 'expert' we also have to contend with each of their inbuilt prejudices and their subjectivity. In exactly the same way as we have been judging the detectives in the case.
Trouble is, it leaves us with huge problems over whose testimony we rely on most and, as some have pointed out, those with pet suspects can have their problems compounded!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 01:31 am | | Caz, I totally agree with this consideration. That's what I meant by "impressions" in my post of August 24. I think it's dangerous in this case to rely on them. We have other material where we can try to determine if there was any medical background or not.
Why does one expect that medical background automatically means surgeon? Since so little operations were done, because of the casualty risk, there were not many. But autopsy experience would be very likely.
If we are discussing JTR's medical background, people suddenly expect it to be the same handling as in the operation room. Certainly the student autopsies weren't that neat, they didn't need to be. Sexual serial murder is about power, anger, frustration not showing off what a careful surgeon you are. I really can not comprehend that someone without ANY educational anatomical knowledge (like at least the high school knowledge of this century) could find a kidney or uterus, in the dark, in some minutes time.
Cheers all,
Jill |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 05:11 am | | Hey Caz, Jill, Everybody!
All I'm asking is that we consider the medical opinions of 1888 and try to determine what they meant by what they said. It appears that four (later, five) doctors had the same or similar impressions or verdicts in Eddowes case of a lack of medical knowledge shown. The state of medical or forensic medicine knowledge may be extremely bad...but that's just an assumption on our part because we may not like this or that opinion.
We need a qualified medical historian to interpret the state of knowledge in forensic medicine in 1888.
For instance: why does it seem that no one found it odd that Phillips and others would equate a butcher and a surgeon? They seemed to have been frustrated that he wouldn't choose between the two, not that the juxtaposition is (to us!) ludicrous. Was it just professional courtesy not to criticize fellow doctors in public? Did the entire medical community view qualified surgeons as little more than butchers (and I refuse to believe that until I'm shown evidence)? Or were butchers just extraordinarily skilled (another assumption I refuse to believe without evidence).
This is a frustrating topic. I think we need very specialized help (medical history -- not modern medical interpretations).
We have to first admit we did this help though.
Yaz |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 06:15 am | | Hi All,
Yes Yaz, we could do with a few medical historians here! As Bob has suggested, how much can we really guess about Jack's profession by looking at any of the conclusions drawn by even the most eminent pathologists of the period? Not only do we need to know what they meant by what they said. They might also have had good reason not to say publicly what they really believed privately, which makes our task even harder! What I mean is that these prominent medical men were thrust into the limelight big time by the Autumn of Terror, at a time when the masses were just beginning to be able to read and enjoy the newspapers. What a way to have one's reputation tested, the most sensational murders to have happened in living memory, and right in the heart of this famous capital city, with the eyes and ears of the world upon the experts, hoping they will come up trumps and find the killer before he can strike again.
It's not really surprising if these few medical men decided to err on the side of caution with their opinions, but would not allow themselves to be honest and say 'We simply don't know'.
'Jack did not SHOW any great surgical skill' is a mile away from 'Jack did not POSSESS any great surgical skill'. Far less compromising, but it tells us virtually nothing. And the lumping together of his possible professions from the lowest slaughterman to the best of surgeons indicates, as you have suggested, either that these skills were seen as more similar in those days, or else that Phillips was encompassing all possibilities to avoid coming to any definite conclusion which might come back to haunt him!
If this was waffling, it would have served as a terrific security measure in the event of Jack's capture. Can you imagine if even one of these men had said quite categorically, 'The killer MUST have had medical training', then lo and behold the police catch Joe Bloggs, the lowly cut-throat (or Joe Barnett, the ex-fish porter) with his hands up to the elbows in his next victim? Bang goes the doc's credibility, his job, his new-found celeb status in the media and his knighthood! Imagine Punch having a field day with the 'buffoon' of a doctor who was convinced that Jack the Ripper was his professional equal!
One can't really blame these men IF they played things safe for the sake of their reputations.
So, rather than looking too deeply for clues in the publicly-stated opinions of these men, I'd like to see the combined forces of medical historian and modern pathologist looking again at the actual facts we have about the mutilations and removal of body parts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 08:37 am | | Hi, all:
We can endlessly debate the particular merits of the different opinions of the medical experts of the day on the surgical skill or lack thereof of our boy Jack but the point is that this bloke removed a uterus and a kidney in Mitre Square in poor or no light in minutes flat. That is an objective fact and requires no debate. The man knew what he was doing, knew what he was looking for, and moreover succeeded in getting it.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 09:57 am | | Hi Chris, very true mate. So which suspects should we be eliminating on that basis without further ado? :-)
IMHO Eddowes was most likely Jack's cleverest and most daring achievement, at least from his own point of view. He either managed to pull off this feat at the second attempt that night, or he proved superior to another killer who looked like he was trying to muscle in on Jack's little games.
Jack also found the time to perform quite a definite pattern of facial mutilations on Eddowes, not easy for anyone working in darkness, and managed to cut or tear a piece of her apron for 'scrubbing up' post-mutilation and possibly clue-leaving purposes. It does sound like he had a plan of action which he carried out to the letter.
He must have been super-confident that he could stop at any point and run if he heard the sound of approaching footsteps. He was certainly pushing his luck to the point of recklessness if he really did have a close call earlier with Stride.
So are we talking surgically-skilled, clever, daring, deliberate, a local man with knowledge of the bobbies' beat times, with the ability to put a victim at her ease, and excellent night vision in the absence of another light source?
We're probably staring him in the face but I can't for the moment think of a single suspect to whom all the above qualities apply. I'd better sleep on this one!
See y'all soon.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 28 August 1999 - 02:00 am | | MESSAGE FOR JILL
I sent you about a page and a half on Richard Trenton Chase but got it all back today. I think you have a problem computer wise.
Where's the quill!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 01 September 1999 - 04:11 pm | | | Aside from the issue of expertise, I also percieve a progression of expertise (learning process) When he did Nichols (and Tabram if he did her) he sort of aimlessly hacked around. By the time he did Chapman he could find a uterus, but couldn't get it out without taking half the bladder with it. When he got to Eddowes he was able to do a uterus and a kidney. When he got to Kelly he was able to extract those organs and the heart. The leap in skill between Nichols and Chapman is too big to be explained by anything he learned doing Nichols. He must have had some lessons in that week between. Here I start speaking as a professional. I am by trade a teacher. I smell a learning process. It would be interesting to find out when the fall semester started at the local medical schools. When exactly did the medical students start cutting up bodies? It had never occurred to me before, but the first murder coincided with the time that the fall semester of school starts (at least in the U.S.) |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 02 September 1999 - 01:53 am | | Hi Diana,
You make an interesting observation here. But couldn't the escalation in mutilations and organ removal be as much to do with the killer gaining in self-confidence and the time available to him on each occasion?
If Jack did kill Martha Tabram, he may have felt afterwards that 39 random stab wounds did not really satisfy his particular urges and need to commit a spectacular murder. So with Nicholls, then Chapman, he puts the time he has to better and better use to step up the world's awareness of a 'special' presence in Whitechapel. With dawn fast approaching he may have had to work more quickly with Annie. Then Eddowes provides him with the opportunity to show his increasing confidence. Things become too hot for comfort during October, so our Jack exhibits enough self-control to wait and plan for his next adventure, wallowing in the attention heaped upon him, growing in confidence and a feeling of omnipotence. He will kill indoors next, allowing himself the luxury of extra time and security to indulge his every whim. He even manages, by accident or design, to upstage the Lord Mayor on the very day of his show.
I can see that every serial killer must go through his own kind of learning process during the course of his series, and this could give us the appearance of skills being acquired in between the murders. But I think he had all the potential there from much earlier times, and probably started with the old classic of experimenting on animals in childhood. He was already building up to whatever he saw as the way to his greatest fulfilment.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
