Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by j.r-ahde 27 minutes ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by jmenges 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by jmenges 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (83 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (21 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (12 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (5 posts)
General Discussion: IWEC members - (2 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:56 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Actually, John, I took great care not to say that they were. It applies that they may have come freely with the killer to his bolthole, and then they would not have been abducted at all. If we reason that Jack posed as a punter, then why would we not think that the torso killer may have done the same? "Hello, luvī, how about coming home with me and earning a shilling?"

Are most dismemberment victims abducted victims? I donīt think so. My guess is that there will be a fair amount of unpremeditated murders amongst them - spouses killing their viwes and realizing that they cannot carry them down the staircases on their shoulders, and so on.

I do see the logic of the suggestion and how you reason though, and yes, part of the dismemberment murders will be women who have been abducted/lured/persuaded to go with a killer to his bolthole, after which they have been subjected to sadism and ensuing murder and dismemberment.

I would not want to try and guess who the proportions are divided, though.

Do you agree that it seems that neither Jack nor the Torso killer will have been sadists?
Yes, I agree that it is very unlikely that either the Torso perpetrator or JtR were sadists.

In fact, you're probably aware that dismemberers are categorised as either offensive or defensive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3322222
I very much regard the Torso peepetrator as a defensive dismemberer/mutilator.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
You've made quite a number of assumptions there, Fish, not all of which we can be sure are true.
Yes, I have. And that is often so when I post - I follow an idea, and I ask for participation, suggestions ...

So far, the two serialists that have been brought forward are Dahmer and Gein. They both had ritualistic elements involved in their killing.

Do you have any examples of serialists who prioritised killing the victim quickly with the apparent idea of gaining access to the body afterwards, and who had no ritualistic aims involved?

Men like Sutcliffe are not what I am looking for - he was guided by his sexuality, but we donīt see any signs of that with the Ripper and/or the torso killer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:07 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Yes, I agree that it is very unlikely that either the Torso perpetrator or JtR were sadists.

In fact, you're probably aware that dismemberers are categorised as either offensive or defensive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3322222
I very much regard the Torso peepetrator as a defensive dismemberer/mutilator.
Why? Eviscerations are always tied to offensive dismemberment, and the torso victims were eviscerated.

So why? Defensive dismemberment is for facilitation of transport only. This man carved out the uterus of Jackson and packed it up in her own abdomonal wall, cut in two sections together with cord and placenta after having plucked her foetus out of the uterus. That is decisevely not defensive dismemberment. Itīs the exact opposite.

Last edited by Fisherman : 10-08-2017 at 08:09 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:19 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Why? Eviscerations are always tied to offensive dismemberment, and the torso victims were eviscerated.

So why? Defensive dismemberment is for facilitation of transport only. This man carved out the uterus of Jackson and packed it up in her own abdomonal wall, cut in two sections together with cord and placenta after having plucked her foetus out of the uterus. That is decisevely not defensive dismemberment. Itīs the exact opposite.
I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:40 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,405
Default

John G: I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

Iīm afraid that you cannot disagree. Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment, and there were eviscerations, quite possibly so in many of the cases and definitely in some. That puts things beyond dispute.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

Kellys uterus was left by Jack. If he targetted the uteri for trophies, why leave it behind, John? What the Ripper did with the organs he took away we cannot know. There is nothing at all that tells us it was trophies. Instead, there is a letter with half a kidney inmplicating he ate what he took away - which equals ritual.
You seem to be missing out on a large number of essential points, John? And still you tell me that I include the earlier torsos only to implicate Lechmere. Thatīs not nice of you. A face cut away from the skull with even the eyelashes intact sounds a lot like ritualistic behaviour in my world.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-08-2017, 09:14 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
John G: I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

Iīm afraid that you cannot disagree. Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment, and there were eviscerations, quite possibly so in many of the cases and definitely in some. That puts things beyond dispute.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

Kellys uterus was left by Jack. If he targetted the uteri for trophies, why leave it behind, John? What the Ripper did with the organs he took away we cannot know. There is nothing at all that tells us it was trophies. Instead, there is a letter with half a kidney inmplicating he ate what he took away - which equals ritual.
You seem to be missing out on a large number of essential points, John? And still you tell me that I include the earlier torsos only to implicate Lechmere. Thatīs not nice of you. A face cut away from the skull with even the eyelashes intact sounds a lot like ritualistic behaviour in my world.
Okay, you're probably aware that Debra has cited the forensic pathologist Guy Rutty in the past. So, these are his observations:

Defensive dismemberment is by far the most common-82% of cases in the UK. Aggressive dismemberment is the second most common, and this "can be referred to as overkill where the rage of the killer is manifest and is reflected in the the often haphazard nature of the dismemberment." (Rutty and Hainsworth, 2017.) This is obviously not the case with the Torso perpetrator, who exhibited a significant amount of skill (but certainly does apply to Kelly's murder.)

Offensive dismemberment is often motivated by sadistic pleasure, and often involves "mutilation of the sexual regions of the body, and it is rare." (Ibid)

This type of dismemberment is also not relevant to the Torso perpetrator.

You may also be interested in these observations: ""The body is commonly dismembered into six pieces...in addition to this, the chest and abdomen may be opened and eviscerated." Rutty and Hainsworth, 2017)

It therefore appears that evisceration in dismemberment cases isn't that rare.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-08-2017, 09:54 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

I will return to this thread when I have more time, but these are my initial observations.

The Torso perpetrator may well have abducted his victims, JtR didn't. The Torso perpetrator took extreme precautions to prevent his victim's from being identified-no head was ever recovered. JtR made no attempts to disguise the identity of his victims.

The Torso perpetrator used a storage site, and clearly liked spending time with the dead victims: The Whitehall Torso was stored for several weeks. JtR had a very different personality: He simply slaughtered women in the street and wasn't concerned with spending time with the victim.

The Torso perpetrator was a commuter killer,who must have had transport and a storage site: body parts were discovered all over London. JtR, on the other hand, was a marauder, who focused his activities within a remarkably small geographical area-around 1 square mile. In fact, even after a huge intense in the number of police officers dispatched to the Whitechapel area, he didn't extend his activities to a wider geographical area.

Overall this suggests that he only killed in an area where he was familiar, and that he didn't have transport or a storage facility.

Not a of the Torso victims were eviscerated. The Pinchin Street victim had a minor gash, however, at the inquest Dr Phillips opined that the "mutilation s were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

And this was the observations of Assistant Commissioner Monro in a Home Office Report:

"In the present case, so far as the medical evidence goes there is a) nothing to show that death was caused by the cutting of the throat-b) There is no mutilation as in previous cases, although there is dismemberment. C) there is no evisceration-d) there is no removal of any of the organs of generation or intestinal. e) ...Here, where there was as in the previous case of murder in a house [Kelly], plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate and skilful dismemberment with a view to removal."

He adds:

"But the body has been found in Whitechapel and there is a gash on the front part extending downwards to the organs of generation-and we have to account for these facts. I place little importance on the gash...The inner coating of the bowel is hardly touched, and the termination of the cut towards the vagina looks almost as if the knife had slipped, and as if the portion of the wound had been accidental. The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut preparatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, but then changed his mind. Had this been the work of the previous frenzied murderer [Kelly's killer] we may be tolerably sure that he would have continued with his hideous work in the way which he previously adopted. It may also be that the gash was inflicted to give rise to the impression that this case was the work of the Whitechapel murderer and direct attention away from the real assassin."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-08-2017, 10:42 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I will return to this thread when I have more time, but these are my initial observations.
If those are your initial observations, John, I look forward to reading more. At a high level, you've pretty much nailed it as far as I can see.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-08-2017, 11:11 AM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
The Torso perpetrator took extreme precautions to prevent his victim's from being identified-no head was ever recovered
Hi John,

Elizabeth Jackson was identified even after being cut up in pieces. It was the lack of "extreme precautions" that led to her identification. The killer left clothing attached that aided in her identification. Clothing was also used to try to identify the Whitehall victim. Material from her clothing was traced to a manufacturer in Bradford, IIRC.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-08-2017, 11:16 AM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
He simply slaughtered women in the street and wasn't concerned with spending time with the victim.
Do you think Mary Kelly was a JTR victim then?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.