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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by rjpalmer 13 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Jon Guy 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (18 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (4 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (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
  #1211  
Old 10-27-2017, 03:00 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Sam Flynn: What about part of the skin of the buttock?That's what we get in the torso murders... well, just one of them, anyway.

No, no, no. The flaps included the subcutaneous tissue, so they were not skin only. The buttock reference only referred to a smallish part of the flap. And I have given you very clear rules to play by. Let´s say that the fictive buttock parts were all an inch thick. There!

Part of the abdominal wall being cut away does not mean the abdominal wall was cut away.

Who ever proposed it did? Not that it matters.

And a cut into the abdomen, no matter how long, does not mean that the abdominal wall was "cut away" at all. Eddowes' abdomen was cut open, but her abdominal wall was not cut away, ditto Nichols, ditto some of the torso victims.

Your point being? I am not commenting on these cases at all, since they only serve to muddle the picture. The fact that Nichols did not have any flaps cut away from the abdomen has no influence at all on the fact that the three mentioned victims did. It is of no consequence at all to that parameter.

Be more precise, and stop generalising.

Be less evasive and start answering.

Last edited by Fisherman : 10-27-2017 at 03:23 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 10-27-2017, 03:10 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Michael W Richards: I see you've even coined a new nickname for your expanded series, one that is essentially your argument here. Its important that you talk of apples and organs Fisherman, and as you stated above, the picture is muddled on quite a few of these cases. Only some victims fit your theory, the rest you seem content to draw into the same series because of what I assume is an assumption that the likelihood was that only 1 man was running amok at the time.

That is the overall likelihood in any two series like these ones, I´m afraid. But you are mistaken if you think that the ones who did not loose their abdominal walls, fully or in part, do not fit in with my theory. They do, all of them.

I wouldn't hesitate to accept a sound theory that explains why the differences are so vast in some cases, (Stride-Kelly), I suspect though that this has more to do with intentional mimicry, in tribute to, as an homage, as a means of confusing an investigation, than any single mad killer who, seemingly at will, alters what he is doing without any intervention or provocation.

No two cases will be exactly the same, Michael. The one thing that always differs is the will of those who comment on the cases to accept the existing differences as signs of multiple killers. In that respect, you belong to a small minority, who may or may not be correct. Just saying. I tend to think that it is a good thing that all views are represented out here, so we don´t go glip of any possibilities, regardless of how likely they are.

You can argue about how skillfully Annies killer went about his business, but its hard to dispute the fact that it appears as if the whole procedure was about obtaining what he obtained. Specificity. The fact that this goal, same area and same organ taken, is repeated in the Eddowes murder is one of the things that connects this loosely with Chapman, neither can be connected with any Torso murder.

No? Chapman lost her uterus, Jackson lost her uterus. No connection? How does that work?
And I am not disputing that it APPEARS that the killer came for the innards. It does appear like that. Just remember that appearances can be deceiving, Michael.


There is no evidence within the Torso murders that the abdomen was the focus.

Three abdomens cut open along the midline, one abdomen lost it´s walls, a uterus was taken out - and you conclude that there is no evidence that the abdomen was a focus area? You may need to rethink that...
However, if you ask me, I think that the abdomen was only one of many focuses, all of them equally useful to the killer. Face, limbs, abdomen..

Dismemberment was the focus. Something that is in none of the Canonicals...except perhaps that Marys right arm is almost separated from her body.

Yes, Michael, dismemberment was PART of the focus! Indeed! And in the normal dismemberment case, dismemberment is NOT the focus, but instead only something that is necessitated by the killing itself.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 10-27-2017, 03:11 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
What's amazing is your irritating habit of trying to make the evidence fit your preconceptions.

I've had enough of this.
Yes, you have had enough of it. You can take no more.

I know.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 10-27-2017, 03:52 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Chapman lost her uterus, Jackson lost her uterus. No connection?
Chapman was not pregnant. Jackson was.
Quote:
Three abdomens cut open along the midline
For what reason? To empty the body cavity to minimise stink? To make a torso lighter to transport? Or for the sheer "fun" of evisceration? There are several reasons why the abdomens may have been cut, and it's those which are important, not the mere fact that bellies were slit.
Quote:
However, if you ask me, I think that the abdomen was only one of many focuses, all of them equally useful to the killer. Face, limbs, abdomen..
That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 10-27-2017, 04:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Sam Flynn: Chapman was not pregnant. Jackson was.

First of all: I am glad to see that you did not walk away from the discussion.

Secondly, the fact that Jackson was pregnant may or may not have had something to do with how the uterus was removed. Regardless of that, the fact that both women had an amateur post-mortem hysterectomy performed on them IS a connection.

For what reason? To empty the body cavity to minimise stink? To make a torso lighter to transport? Or for the sheer "fun" of evisceration? There are several reasons why the abdomens may have been cut, and it's those which are important, not the mere fact that bellies were slit.

They are potentially important factors, yes. But we are not going to find a definitive answer to the question you ask. So we are left with the mere anatomical fact that abdomens were slit from ribs to pubes in both series. And rational people that the police are, they will immediately latch onto how that is an almighty coincidence - or not. Unless they are provided with anything to prove the idea wrong, they will go with the notion that there is no coincidence involved at all. The damage is a very rare one, and most towns never suffer such damage done to it´s inhabitants. But now, all of a sudden, it was suggested that two of these extremely rare creatures were at large and cutting away simultaneously. The odds are stacked totally against that idea.

That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.

You are just being jealous here, Gareth... Actually, there are only a number of things that fit the bill in a way that is consistent with the scenario I am pondering. The cuts to Kellys overarm do not, but the defleshing of the thigh may do. The opening up of the abdomen absolutely does, as does the cutting of the face.
Of course, as long as I am not giving away what I have in mind, I cannot "make everything fit" both series. Therefore, I am only pointing to the established similarities - that are quite enough as it is.
The rest will come in due time.

Until then, you can ponder whether or not it is "fitting the evidence" to say that the flaps from Jacksons body were "narrow". Or whether it is "fitting the evidence" to say that none of the torso victims were eviscerated (!). Or to say that Jacksons opening in the abdomen was a mere slot. And so on.

In my world, that is fitting the evidence big time. So you may want to hold your horses somewhat.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 10-27-2017, 06:14 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
a. The torso killers may have evisceratED, that doesn't make them primarily evisceratORS
b. JTR didn't consistently remove the abdominal walls in of his victims in large flaps
c. When he did, he cut three flaps, and he cut them differently in either case
d. The three flaps taken from Annie Chapman were not described as large
e. The three flaps taken from Kelly were described as large, and laid the entire abdomen bare
f. In the one torso case where flaps were cut, they were described as strips ("slips") of flesh, which suggests that they were long and narrow, but not "large"
g. In the one torso case where the abdomen was cut in "slips", it was very possibly because the killer(s) did so in order to remove a foetus from the victim's uterus

We aren't dealing with two - or more - eviscerators, and they did not inflict the "same" cuts on their victims. Indeed, JTR didn't inflict the "same" cuts on his own victims.
Indeed. its a wonder you think that any of the ripper murders were by the same man.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 10-27-2017, 06:30 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Chapman was not pregnant. Jackson was.For what reason? To empty the body cavity to minimise stink? To make a torso lighter to transport? Or for the sheer "fun" of evisceration? There are several reasons why the abdomens may have been cut, and it's those which are important, not the mere fact that bellies were slit.
That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.
Hi Sam
since we don't know the reason the only thing left to go on is the evidence, the crime scene, the wounds to the vistim. Its what police do when trying to solve crimes and trying to determine if there is a serial killer and or if crimes are linked. You don't throw your hands up and say Oh well we don't know why lets just forget it.

IMHO you focus on "differences", however small, to the point on forgetting of the big picture, and all the other similarities.

and when cornered you revert to smaller and smaller differences.

size of the flaps, shape of the flaps etc etc. give me a break. The killer cut away flaps of skin to the abdoman. how freaken more similar can you get?!?

I don't see you minimizing the differences of the ripper victims like this Sam.
why is that?

Quote:
That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.
or unfit everything in your case.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline

Last edited by Abby Normal : 10-27-2017 at 06:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 10-27-2017, 06:54 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Indeed. its a wonder you think that any of the ripper murders were by the same man.
The removal of flesh in flaps is inconsequential, because there are only so many ways for a layman to gain access to the abdominal organs. What the JTR murders have in common are (a) that the murders, bar one, took place outdoors and in places with full public access; (b) they all happened in a small area of the East End; (c) all the victims were dispatched by means of savage cuts to the neck; (d) in all but one murder, the abdomen was subjected to deep, lascerating wounds and, in three cases, abdominal organs were cut out; (e) all the canonical - and all the evisceration - murders took place during a short period of three months.

There are more than enough similarities to be getting on with there, without getting all frothed up over red herrings like flaps, or strips, of flesh.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 10-27-2017, 06:59 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal
I don't see you minimizing the differences of the ripper victims like this Sam.
why is that?
See my post immediately above.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 10-27-2017, 07:07 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The removal of flesh in flaps is inconsequential, because there are only so many ways for a layman to gain access to the abdominal organs. What the JTR murders have in common are (a) that the murders, bar one, took place outdoors and in places with full public access; (b) they all happened in a small area of the East End; (c) all the victims were dispatched by means of savage cuts to the neck; (d) in all but one murder, the abdomen was subjected to deep, lascerating wounds and, in three cases, abdominal organs were cut out; (e) all the canonical - and all the evisceration - murders took place during a short period of three months.
Sam

Quote:
The removal of flesh in flaps is inconsequential
says you. that's all. pretty sure it was important to the killer.

Quote:
so many ways for a layman to gain access to the abdominal organs.
cutting the body in half
slitting down the middle
cutting a largeX
cutting a zigzag
cutting out one large flap
cutting from the back
cutting from the side

but the main similarity is right there in your own words-"gain access to the abdominal organs"

its coming out your own mouth and you still cant see it!

C5 Ripper victims:

Nichols-no organs removed
Chapman-uterus removed
stride-no abdominal mutilations
eddowes- kidney removed
Kelly-killed indoors, heart removed

must have been 5 different killers
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
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 09:37 AM.


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