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
  #561  
Old 10-13-2017, 04:46 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
The major issue with your suggestion I see is that there is no guarantee the parts disposed of in the River would be found.

The Whitehall Torso also appears to have been placed so that it may not have been found and it appears to have been fortuitous that it was FOUND so relatively quiÁkly.

The Part thrown over into the Shelly garden could easily have been missed for sometime depending on where the part landed.


Only Pinchin Street shows a desire to allow the Body part to be easily seen and found.

Given the dates, this may have been someone celebrating the anniversary of Chapman, or someone trying to suggest a link.

Sorry but I see your argument that disposing of the parts by river to expose them to "Londoners" to at present be weak.

I said before I consider it a plausible suggestion and I still do just; however there seems little to support the idea given at this moment, other than your belief that this was the objective of the killer.



Steve
Hi el
While I think that he did want the remains found or seen, I think there is more going on here.. like he wanted to distribute widely and or the places he left them had meaning him to him.

I mean why throw some of Jacksonís parts in the river but leave her body in the Park?

Why throw a thigh into the Shelley estate?

Go through the risk and trouble of carrying a torso in the basement of a currently constructed building?

Why take the risk and trouble of taking a torso halfway across town to then dump on the street?

Why not just dump everything in the river?

Why not attempt some kind of concealment for the parts left on land.

Like I said there is special meaning for the killer here, not just hoping they are found or seen.

And trying to argue he was just dumping to get rid of , or hide is IMHO one of the weakest arguments Iíve seen.
Itís getting to the point where Iím starting to think people are being purposefully obtuse for some reason on this particular matter.

You donít think ripper and torso man were the same? Fine. Iím not totally convinced either. Admitting torsoman had something more going on than just dumping bodies to get rid of isnít mutually exclusive of them being the same person. It doesnt really hurt the argument that they were different people.

I mean when someone as objective and respected as Debra even says that the thigh being thrown into the Shelly estate rather than tossed into the river with the rest shows it had special attention, well cmon .
__________________
"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
  #562  
Old 10-13-2017, 04:58 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
The major issue with your suggestion I see is that there is no guarantee the parts disposed of in the River would be found.

The Whitehall Torso also appears to have been placed so that it may not have been found and it appears to have been fortuitous that it was FOUND so relatively quiÁkly.

The Part thrown over into the Shelly garden could easily have been missed for sometime depending on where the part landed.


Steve
Couldn't agree more Steve. If it's being argued that the TK was going for the 'shock' effect by displaying in the same way as Jack then the arguement is surely a weak one. As you've rightly said, using the river as a method of disposal leaves far too much to chance. They might never have been found or they could have emerged years later after the killer had died thus robbing him of seeing and enjoying the effects of his work.
Jack left nothing to chance. He needed everyone to see his work. To know that it was him and no one else.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 10-13-2017, 05:13 AM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
like he wanted to distribute widely and or the places he left them had meaning him to him.
Like that time he had a wank on the Chelsea Embankment?
Quote:
I mean why throw some of Jacksonís parts in the river but leave her body in the Park?
to make it more difficult to put the pieces together

Quote:
Go through the risk and trouble of carrying a torso in the basement of a currently constructed building?
Trying to find somewhere to hide it or atleast stash it for a few days until he finds a place to dump. There is a desperation in this case and the pinchin torso, clearly he needed to get rid of the torso as it's started to smell. Torsos are the hardest part to dump because they are heavy and big and it can't be packaged and walk-dumped the way other parts can. This should show how difficult it is to dispose of a body and how little options there are while working against the clock. To me it seems killer lives in close enough quarters to worry about smell.

Quote:
Why take the risk and trouble of taking a torso halfway across town to then dump on the street?
You don't know where torso was before it was dumped......

Quote:
Why not just dump everything in the river?
To make it more difficult, confuse police, if one is found the rest aren't necessarily. More obvious and difficult to dump larger pieces like a torso in the river? People might have been more aware of suspicious dumping around the river

Quote:
Why not attempt some kind of concealment for the parts left on land.
Uh, what about the buried parts? Who were those for...the dog?

Quote:
And trying to argue he was just dumping to get rid of , or hide is IMHO one of the weakest arguments Iíve seen.

Last edited by RockySullivan : 10-13-2017 at 05:21 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 10-13-2017, 06:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi el
While I think that he did want the remains found or seen, I think there is more going on here.. like he wanted to distribute widely and or the places he left them had meaning him to him.

I mean why throw some of Jacksonís parts in the river but leave her body in the Park?

Why throw a thigh into the Shelley estate?

Go through the risk and trouble of carrying a torso in the basement of a currently constructed building?

Why take the risk and trouble of taking a torso halfway across town to then dump on the street?

Why not just dump everything in the river?

Why not attempt some kind of concealment for the parts left on land.

Like I said there is special meaning for the killer here, not just hoping they are found or seen.

And trying to argue he was just dumping to get rid of , or hide is IMHO one of the weakest arguments Iíve seen.
Itís getting to the point where Iím starting to think people are being purposefully obtuse for some reason on this particular matter.

You donít think ripper and torso man were the same? Fine. Iím not totally convinced either. Admitting torsoman had something more going on than just dumping bodies to get rid of isnít mutually exclusive of them being the same person. It doesnt really hurt the argument that they were different people.

I mean when someone as objective and respected as Debra even says that the thigh being thrown into the Shelly estate rather than tossed into the river with the rest shows it had special attention, well cmon .


Hi Abby
I for one hold Debra in very high regard. However that does not mean I always defer to her view, however as one of, if not the leading expert on the Torsos her view needs to be seriously considered.

To just say that the argument, that dumping was purely to get rid iS weak, is in itself weak.

The problem is that the sources are limited and much is down to personal interpretation.

Jerry Dunlop has a very interest thread over on JtR forums at present looking at a witness to the Whitehall case, whom lived on a route which is very interesting shall we say. Have you seen it?

And no it does not hurt the debate that they were different persons, however that is no reason to buy into Christer's idea of floating down the river to gain a large audience. To quote you, "c'mon" that didn't happen, as most were found probably close to the point of disposal.


All the best as always


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 10-13-2017, 06:37 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Abby
I for one hold Debra in very high regard. However that does not mean I always defer to her view, however as one of, if not the leading expert on the Torsos her view needs to be seriously considered.

To just say that the argument, that dumping was purely to get rid iS weak, is in itself weak.

The problem is that the sources are limited and much is down to personal interpretation.

Jerry Dunlop has a very interest thread over on JtR forums at present looking at a witness to the Whitehall case, whom lived on a route which is very interesting shall we say. Have you seen it?

And no it does not hurt the debate that they were different persons, however that is no reason to buy into Christer's idea of floating down the river to gain a large audience. To quote you, "c'mon" that didn't happen, as most were found probably close to the point of disposal.


All the best as always


Steve
thanks for pointing out Jerrys thread. I just checked it out-very interesting.
__________________
"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
  #566  
Old 10-13-2017, 08:37 AM
Sox Sox is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England.
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Well, well! Itīs been some time since I saw your name out here. I seem to remember that you pack rather a powerful punch argument wise, so itīs good to see that you that you seem to like the paths opened up by the suggestion of a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso man.
Thanks Oh and Abby, it's not black or white, it's red

I think the suggestion is a valid one Fish because it has merits. I think everyone would agree that serial murderers were a rarity back in the late eighteen hundreds yes? Surely that is one reason 'Jack' became so notorious. So to have two running around the same city, at the same time, raises a red flag.

Of course there are many differences between the Torso & Whitechapel killings, but one thing especially peaked my interest. It has often been said that perhaps Jack was attempting to decapitate, in the Torso killings the head, apart from one instance, is missing. Circumstances? In the street decapitation would, with a knife & the time constraints, have been very difficult indeed. The Killer comes very close with Mary Kelly, when he has more time, but still fails, perhaps due to the tools at hand, or he cannot get the down force he needs on a bed? Change the circumstances but not the killer, put him in a place where he feels comfortable, where he has the tools and the time, and perhaps, just perhaps, you are talking about one man.

Disposal? what if, over all these years, WE have been giving far too much credence to this? It has always seemed to me that death was of no consequence at all to the Whitechapel murderer, it was simply a means to an end, and the same could be said of the torso killer. What if, after his work was done, the killer simply did not care anymore? Once 'Jack' was done perhaps he just got up and left, with no more thought to the ruin he was leaving behind than you or I give to an empty bag of chips? What if the torso killer was just 'putting out the rubbish'?

Was all this the work of one man? Probably not no. Is it possible that it was? without a doubt yes. There are enough red flags there I think.
__________________
protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?

Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:13 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 919
Default

Surely it's unlikely that Jack just 'got up and left' after the kill? Victims left in grotesque 'pornographic' poses (skirts up, legs apart etc)? This suggests that Jack was leaving a message, although we will probably never know exactly what it was. We can make guesses though and I suspect that we wouldn't be far wrong. This was almost an instant shock/horror effect unlike the Torso murders. A part of his ritual if you like. To me, no matter what the similarities (wounds/incisions etc) this is a significant difference. Disposal vs display. TK dumps in the river, over fences, underground, park areas and Pinching Street. Parts in the river for eg may never have been found. There's no pattern like the one that we see in the ripper killings.
It's still not working for me this Torso/Ripper thing.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 10-13-2017, 04:08 PM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sox View Post
Thanks Oh and Abby, it's not black or white, it's red

I think the suggestion is a valid one Fish because it has merits. I think everyone would agree that serial murderers were a rarity back in the late eighteen hundreds yes? Surely that is one reason 'Jack' became so notorious. So to have two running around the same city, at the same time, raises a red flag.

Of course there are many differences between the Torso & Whitechapel killings, but one thing especially peaked my interest. It has often been said that perhaps Jack was attempting to decapitate, in the Torso killings the head, apart from one instance, is missing. Circumstances? In the street decapitation would, with a knife & the time constraints, have been very difficult indeed. The Killer comes very close with Mary Kelly, when he has more time, but still fails, perhaps due to the tools at hand, or he cannot get the down force he needs on a bed? Change the circumstances but not the killer, put him in a place where he feels comfortable, where he has the tools and the time, and perhaps, just perhaps, you are talking about one man.

Disposal? what if, over all these years, WE have been giving far too much credence to this? It has always seemed to me that death was of no consequence at all to the Whitechapel murderer, it was simply a means to an end, and the same could be said of the torso killer. What if, after his work was done, the killer simply did not care anymore? Once 'Jack' was done perhaps he just got up and left, with no more thought to the ruin he was leaving behind than you or I give to an empty bag of chips? What if the torso killer was just 'putting out the rubbish'?

Was all this the work of one man? Probably not no. Is it possible that it was? without a doubt yes. There are enough red flags there I think.
It's an interesting theory that the Ripper was trying to take the heads. Someone mentioned upthread that he could have easily done so if he wanted? Is this true, knife and time wife? I imagine it would be impossible to carry the head away because there would be a trail of blood or could one quickly wrap decapitate wrap and throw the head in a bag or cart without the bag becoming soaked in blood?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 10-14-2017, 12:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Under a railway arch or in a vault on a building-site doesn't constitute a public place. And throwing a thigh over a hedge doesn't count as "leaving" a body part there either.Whose skinned face floated down the Thames?

Besides, how many people - if any - are going to even spot such a small object against the great bulk of the Thames? Same goes for any other body part, really. Who was the killer's intended audience? Did he have it in for the River Police?
Under a railway arch is certainly a public place, Gareth. It was there for anybody - that is to say the public - to see.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 10-14-2017, 12:37 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,405
Default

Elamarna: The major issue with your suggestion I see is that there is no guarantee the parts disposed of in the River would be found.

The major issue I have with this objection of yours is that ALL the parts of the 1887, but for the right foot, were found and written about and - most probably - the talk of the town. Therefore, then killer will with a fair amount of certainty have been aware of this.
Does it make him go for another way of disposal with the Rainham victim?
No.
Are the parts of the Rainham victim found?
Yes, but for the head, all of them are.

So much as it sounds like eminently clever reasoning to say that he would have banked on Old Father Thames to help him conceal what he was doing, the practical reality of the matter is another one altogether. The overwhelming probablility is that if he did not realize it beforehand, he got to know that parts floated down the Thames wrapped up in cloth WILL be found.
He could have moved the dumping site to the east of London with the Rainham victim and reduced that risk, but he did not. Instead he thew the legs in Regents Canal, where they would decisively NOT be flushed out to sea.

Yo cannot prove that he wanted to hide what he did. I cannot prove that he wanted to show off what he did, or at least did not care if the parts were found.

But I can make a very good case, superior to my mind, to the contrary suggestion.

The Whitehall Torso also appears to have been placed so that it may not have been found and it appears to have been fortuitous that it was FOUND so relatively quiÁkly.

The Part thrown over into the Shelly garden could easily have been missed for sometime depending on where the part landed.

It could perhaps even be devoured by rats and never recognized for what it was. That was always a possibility, like it was that parts thrown in the river would go lost to an extent. Probably happened to some of them.
The sum of it all, however, would be more than enough to tell the Londoners about his deeds, that is beyond doubt. The Whitehall torso WOULD be found, most of the parts in the Thames WERE found, he could check that on his list, the Pinchin Street torso WOULD be found, the parts in Battersea Park WOULD be found and so on. The combined message would work perfectly, even if there were links missing in the chain.
It was never a set of crimes that stood even a miniscule chance of not being discovered.


Only Pinchin Street shows a desire to allow the Body part to be easily seen and found.

Easily? Yes. But why would he prioritize an easy find? Why not enjoy them as ticking bombs? Or perhaps he felt sure that for example the Whitehall torso would be find on day one - the vault was full of tools, and somebody used those tools.
It is not possible to determine the mindset of the killer. But it is always possible to say "Maybe there is nothing there", Steve. You will be able to do that throughout, in the Torso case as well as the Ripper case.

Given the dates, this may have been someone celebrating the anniversary of Chapman, or someone trying to suggest a link.

Who do you find the most likely man on earth to make such a celebration or try to create such a link? I know who I root for.

Sorry but I see your argument that disposing of the parts by river to expose them to "Londoners" to at present be weak.

As I said, one can always say "Probably nothing there". You sometimes excel at it, and I find it as improducitve as I find it necessary - it HAS to be said. But I would prefer a more open mindset in the discussion, a will to travel some place you seem never to have been and have a look.
Gareth tells me that the suggestion is whacky, and thatīs so Gareth - far from reasoning "probably nothing there", he continually opts for "almost certainly nothing there".
I think that limits our thinking when that happens.

In all probability, Gareth will not have any problems admitting that the dumping of the torso in the New Scotland Yard may well have involved taunting the police. It is impossible to deny the possibility, even if we do not endorse it.

And if we acknowledge the possibility that the killer dumped the torso in the New Scotland Yard to taunt the police, then how can it be whacky to suggest that he may have dumped the parts with the intent to float them past said police house, the parliament and the whole of that eraīs ruling centre?

The fact is that it is not a whacky thing to suggest at all. It is suggesting that the killer was whacky. We need to be able to see that distinction, and recognize it as a possible thing. Once we do, we can see the outlines of a warped mind at work, and we may be looking at the reality. Not being able to prove it comes with the territory, but as long as these little details all form part of a cohesive and logical overall picture, the suggestions must be made and looked at.

The bad thing about that is that you must spend so much time saying "at present, I find it weak, there is probably nothing to it".

The good thing about it is that you donīt have to make the suggestions yourself. You can sit back, enjoy the ride and work from the presumption that every time you say "there is no evidence for that", you will be perfectly correct.

I said before I consider it a plausible suggestion and I still do just; however there seems little to support the idea given at this moment, other than your belief that this was the objective of the killer.

Like I said, ...
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.