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:
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by jerryd 18 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by John G 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (20 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (9 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (9 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Victorian Street Prostitutes - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Please allow me to introduce myself.... - (1 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 Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #381  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:03 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So you have no source stating that he removed the abdominal wall from his wife? You made it up?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? He removed all of his wife's internal organs. Some of these organs would have been contained beneath the abdominal wall. Ergo, he would have needed to remove the abdominal wall in order to access these organs!

Okay, another English lesson:

Remove (verb and noun) "take off or away from the place or position occupied". Source: OED.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:18 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse? He removed all of his wife's internal organs. Some of these organs would have been contained beneath the abdominal wall. Ergo, he would have needed to remove the abdominal wall in order to access these organs!

Okay, another English lesson:

Remove (verb and noun) "take off or away from the place or position occupied". Source: OED.
John, I would advice you not to try and lesson me. I am being perfectly frank and straightforward, and it seems to me that your hysteria is led on by having been exposed as misleading grossly.

I will spell it out to you. Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson had their abdominal walls removed in the sense that they had them cut away in large sections. In the Chapman case, three flaps were flung onto the body or the ground, and a fourth was taken by the killer. In the Kelly case, the flaps, three of them, were placed on the bedside table beside the body. In the Jackson case, the two flaps there were, were packed together with Jacksons reproductive organs and thrown in the Thames.

That is why these three cases are instrumental in tying the Ripper murders and the torso murders together - removing the abdominal wall in large sections, laying all the abdominal organs open to the naked eye, is more or less totally unheard of.

When I pointed this out to you, you answered that the abdominal wall HAS to be removed to take out the organs. I then posted how Ed Gingrich did it via a seven-inch cut to his wifes abdomen.

So when you said that Gingrich also removed the abdoinal wall, I was under the impression that you meant that he had cut the abdominal wall away from the body - which he of course never did at all. He took the organs out by reaching in and grabbing and tearing, and lifting them out through the hole in the abdomen. If you want to believe that the fact that the sides of the wound gave way equals that he removed the abdominal wall, I can only say that it is something totally different from what we were discussing.

This is where misleading, intentionally or out of ignorance, will inevitably lead you - to the hall of shame. If you want to discuss the matter further, be advised that Gingrich does NOT belong to it, other than in the capacity of showing that you do NOT need to remove the abdominal walls from a victim to be able to retrieve all of the organs inside.

And speaking about lessons, let this be one to you!

Goodnight.

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-19-2017 at 12:35 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:22 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,421
Default

Oh, and avoid to say that you never claimed that Gingrich cut the abdominal wall from his wife.

It would make your effort look even more pathetic. Take my word for it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 01-19-2017, 02:46 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Abby,

Okay, let's focus on victimology. Now I could say that only one of the Torso victims was identified, and we certainly do not know that all of the C5 were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

But let's say, for arguments sake, that they were. What does that prove? Serial killers, such as the Yorkshire Ripper and Jack the Stripper, commonly target street prostitutes. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you the reason why: they are vulnerable women, out alone at night, when it's dark, who will happily accompany a total stranger to a dark, lonely, venue.

Or course, these scumbags may subsequently try and justify their behaviour, say, claiming they were inflicting divine retribution after receiving instructions from God, as the Yorkshire Ripper did. But we know differently, right? I mean, how does this explain why the YR subsequently targeted none prostitutes, or why he attempted to murder a schoolgirl down a quiet country lane?
Hi johng
My point is simply that both torso man and the ripper targeted the same type of victims- prosttitutes. Not all serial killers do. It's just another similarity.

It don't know the stats but it would be interesting to know the percentage that do.
__________________
"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
  #385  
Old Yesterday, 01:20 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
John, I would advice you not to try and lesson me. I am being perfectly frank and straightforward, and it seems to me that your hysteria is led on by having been exposed as misleading grossly.

I will spell it out to you. Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson had their abdominal walls removed in the sense that they had them cut away in large sections. In the Chapman case, three flaps were flung onto the body or the ground, and a fourth was taken by the killer. In the Kelly case, the flaps, three of them, were placed on the bedside table beside the body. In the Jackson case, the two flaps there were, were packed together with Jacksons reproductive organs and thrown in the Thames.

That is why these three cases are instrumental in tying the Ripper murders and the torso murders together - removing the abdominal wall in large sections, laying all the abdominal organs open to the naked eye, is more or less totally unheard of.

When I pointed this out to you, you answered that the abdominal wall HAS to be removed to take out the organs. I then posted how Ed Gingrich did it via a seven-inch cut to his wifes abdomen.

So when you said that Gingrich also removed the abdoinal wall, I was under the impression that you meant that he had cut the abdominal wall away from the body - which he of course never did at all. He took the organs out by reaching in and grabbing and tearing, and lifting them out through the hole in the abdomen. If you want to believe that the fact that the sides of the wound gave way equals that he removed the abdominal wall, I can only say that it is something totally different from what we were discussing.

This is where misleading, intentionally or out of ignorance, will inevitably lead you - to the hall of shame. If you want to discuss the matter further, be advised that Gingrich does NOT belong to it, other than in the capacity of showing that you do NOT need to remove the abdominal walls from a victim to be able to retrieve all of the organs inside.

And speaking about lessons, let this be one to you!

Goodnight.
I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely. I said he removed it in order to access the pelvic organs. And a synonym of remove is separate! I mean, it's hardly my fault if you're only semi-literate.

In the case of Jackson and Chapman I've argued that the perpetrators cut out the abdominal wall piecemeal in order to get better access to the abdominal cavity, i.e for practical considerations, and therefore nothing to do with some bizzare ritual. In the case of Kelly, her abdomen may have been cut up piecemeal, and pieces simply hacked out, by a perpetrator employing a totally disorganized approach.

An important point here is that in only three victims is there any evidence of the abdominal wall being cut out. On that simple basis you may as well argue that those victims were linked and the other victims were killed by someone else!

And if the removal of the abdominal wall had any meaningful, ritual significance, then this behaviour should have been repeated in other cases. But it wasn't. In fact, even with Eddowes, the eviscerated victim between Chapman and Kelly, the behaviour wasn't repeated!

I know, perhaps now your going to argue that Professor Lechmere Moriarty, master criminal for the ages, knifesman extraordinaire, was suffering from some sort of dissociative identity disorder!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old Yesterday, 01:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,421
Default

John G: I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely.

You DID it! I just told you not to! There is no information telling us that Gingrich cut away the wall in any sense at all. He is thereofre not relevant to your reasoning. And he is decidedly not a comparison to the Ripper/torso murders and the cutting of the abdominal wall in those cases.

You are making a complete spectacle of yourself, Iīm afraid.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old Yesterday, 08:56 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
..... What we can say is that both originators (or just the one originator, responsible for both series) preyed on prostitutes - whether consciously or not.
No, what we can say is that in both series women were the targets, there is only evidence that in 2 of 5 Canonical cases that the women WERE soliciting. When an Unfortunate isn't soliciting, she is simply a woman without visible means of support and therefore it can be presumed a potential part-time prostitute.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old Today, 04:35 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
No, what we can say is that in both series women were the targets, there is only evidence that in 2 of 5 Canonical cases that the women WERE soliciting. When an Unfortunate isn't soliciting, she is simply a woman without visible means of support and therefore it can be presumed a potential part-time prostitute.
Sorry, Michael, but I am correct on this. I am not speaking of all cases, necessarily, but I AM saying that we KNOW that some of the Ripper victims prostituted themselves regularly or on occasion, and we KNOW that Elizabeth Jackson did too.

After that, it is immaterial whether they did so as they were picked up by the killer/s, or whether all victims did so - what I am saying is that we know for a fact that the killer/s preyed - consciously or not - on prostitutes in both series.

It is less dramatic than you seem to think, but it is nevertheless an absolute fact. And it must be awarded a significance until we can dispell that it was a conscious decision on the killerīs behalf/s.
Thatīs how a discerning investigation works - find the common factors.

Last edited by Fisherman : Today at 04:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old Today, 12:13 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
John G: I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely.

You DID it! I just told you not to! There is no information telling us that Gingrich cut away the wall in any sense at all. He is thereofre not relevant to your reasoning. And he is decidedly not a comparison to the Ripper/torso murders and the cutting of the abdominal wall in those cases.

You are making a complete spectacle of yourself, Iīm afraid.
I didn't say that he cut away the abdominal wall from the body. I said he removed it, which is what he must have done, i.e. displaced from the position previously occupied.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old Today, 12:44 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I didn't say that he cut away the abdominal wall from the body. I said he removed it, which is what he must have done, i.e. displaced from the position previously occupied.
Which makes him useless in the issue at hand. The only interesting ones are the ones who DID cut the abdominal wall from their victims, and they are not around.

Can you remember what you wrote about Gingrichs deed? "Ed Gingrich removed the abdominal wall. Does it ring any bell?"

No, John, it rings absolutely no bell, but a warning bell when it comes to your arguments. They are obviously false and misleading. I can only hope it is not intentional, but instead a result of ignorance.

Not that itīs much better, but itīs at least not malicious.

Last edited by Fisherman : Today at 12:49 PM.
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 02:22 PM.


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