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:
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by SuspectZero 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by GUT 6 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Wolf Vanderlinden 8 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by Mayerling 9 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - by barnflatwyngarde 9 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (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 Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1621  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:13 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
actually that's not the point
I'm afraid it is, because killers eviscerate for a number of reasons. To ask the question "were they eviscerators?" is to beg the question "is there such a thing as an eviscerator?"
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1622  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:14 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The point is that there is evisceration for purely practical reasons (e.g. clearing stuff out of the way to facilitate chopping the body up; minimising the risk of stink if the body is to be stored before disposal; making a body lighter and easier to transport), there may even be incidental reasons (i.e. yer man chopped this body up and all this gunk spilled out), then there is evisceration as an end in itself (e.g. specifically to remove out and/or possess one or more internal organs).
These men were nevertheless both eviscerators, Gareth, regardless of why they did so.

A point that needs to be made is that those who eviscerate for purely practical reasons are normally not serial killers - they are people who - whooops! - happen to kill their wife or a friend, often in a drunken stupour, whereupon they are faced with the problem of having a body lying around.

People who kill and kill again, serialists, as it were, are people who LIKE killing. They are quite unlikely to turn dismemberers unless they actually enjoy dismemberment.

The Thames torso killer MAY - there are so many mays that we can choose from in this rich world of hours, luckily! - have cut out the uterus so that he could easier dismember. But is it not a tad odd that he took the foetus out of the uterus? Once the uterus was out, the problem would have gone away, one would think.
Also, if he took the foetus out before taking the uterus out - and he reasonably did - then why not just shove the emptied uterus to the side? Why cut it out together with placenta and cord, material that he could reasonably have shoved aside?

And why did he take out the colon section? Why did he take out the lungs? why did he take out the heart? So that he could cut the body up and easier dispose of it?

Then why did he leave a leg on the 1874 body, if he was all for cutting things into easier to handle parcels?

The truth of the matter is the same as regards the strips you suggested - I could not conclusively disprove that and I cannot disprove that the Torso killer eviscerated as a means of praacticality. I can only look closer at what he did and draw what I find are the only tenable conclusions - that this man either enjoyed cutting, eviscerating and dismembering or felt compelled for whatever reason to do it.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-02-2017 at 10:20 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1623  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:15 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Thanks for that, Debs. Irritatingly, in the same book, the author refers several times to "slips of India rubber", when the context indicates clearly that he's talking about lengths/strips of rubber.
It is not as if a slip can not be a strip. Very clearly it can. Slip is a wider (!) definition than strip, simple as that.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-02-2017 at 10:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1624  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:18 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The police thought that they had one serial "freeway killer" on their hands in California during the early 1970s, but it transpired there were three independent killers with a similar taste in young boys, and similar MOs.
Bonin et al, yes, I know. And as I say, there are many examples of simultaneous serialists - but not of simultaneous eviscerating serialists, as far as I know.

And - once again, as it were - even if we DO find an example, it will only serve to further underline how rare it is.

I also happen to think that serial killers are much more common today than they were back in 1888, but that´s another matter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1625  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:29 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
These men were nevertheless both eviscerators, Gareth, regardless of why they did so.
I don't acknowledge the term "eviscerator" as a diagnostic category, Fish; we're dealing with psychology here, not physics - there are no absolutes.

Did they eviscerate? Now, that would be a legitimate question to ask. Gein eviscerated, Dahmer eviscerated, Chikatilo eviscerated, Vacher eviscerated, Nilsen eviscerated, Albert Fish eviscerated, etc etc. But the reasons why they did were rather different, as were their methods.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1626  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:37 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is not as if a slip can not be a strip. Very clearly it can. Slip is a wider (!) definition than strip, simple as that.
Not according to the OED. Anyhow, I'll leave it there.

Suffice to say whatever happened to Elizabeth Jackson's abdominal wall - and to NO other torso victim - was a degree of magnitude less extreme than what happened to Mary Kelly.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1627  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:39 AM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,650
Default

But the pinchin torso was mutilated in a way that did not aid in disposal or id prevention in any way
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1628  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:40 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockySullivan View Post
But the pinchin torso was mutilated in a way that did not aid in disposal or id prevention in any way
Indeed, Rocky (although it was lighter in the leg department), but neither was it dumped in Southwest London.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1629  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:43 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,796
Default

Sam Flynn: I don't acknowledge the term "eviscerator" as a diagnostic category, Fish; we're dealing with psychology here, not physics - there are no absolutes.

Good on you -because it IS no diagnostic category at all. And nobody is saying so.

Did they eviscerate? Now, that would be a legitimate question to ask. Gein eviscerated, Dahmer eviscerated, Chikatilo eviscerated, Vacher eviscerated, Nilsen eviscerated, Albert Fish eviscerated, etc etc. But the reasons why they did were rather different, as were their methods.

And the Ripper eviscerated and the Torso killer eviscerated. Whether they did so for wildly different reasons or for the exact same reason is another matter. But eviscerated they did.

What we need to do is to look at the fact that there were two serial killers on the loose simultaneously in victorian London.

Can you think of any other two cases of serial killers working simultaneously in the same town or region anywhere else in the 19:th century world?

Any? Just one such coincidence?

I can´t.

Now, don´t you think that is a very good reason to be VERY surprised that two such mens murderous carreers accidentally crossed paths in London back then? I mean, if it is the only example we have, then it must be regarded as quite rare.

Actually, it is so rare as to be completely unexpected. Therefore, the more logical explanation is that they were one and the same. The one thing that could dissolve such a notion would be if they differed totally.

But instead, they both EVISCERATE! A thing that is extremely rare.

It is fine to say "Let´s be cautious so we do not jump to conclusions" when such a thing happens - it would be good if somebody left the door ajar, because believe me, most people won´t.

And most people will stand by far the better chance to be correct.

So keep an open mind, Gareth, if that is what you want to do. But don´t claim that the series are actually more likely to have differing originators, because that is not a tenable idea.

We have been over this a hundred times by now, and it seems you have nothing at all going over the same ground again. But you will have to do it alone.

I have said what I have to say on the matter for now: there is virtually no chance at all that there were two killers. And I feel quite at ease to say that even before I add the matter I am keeping silent about so far. Once we add THAT...!

Goodnight, Gareth, and good luck with your quest. May the force be with you and may people not be too hard on you for making the wrong choice. And remember, you don´t want me to make so many and long posts anyway, so it´s for the best that I take my leave.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-02-2017 at 10:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1630  
Old 11-02-2017, 10:45 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I'm afraid it is, because killers eviscerate for a number of reasons. To ask the question "were they eviscerators?" is to beg the question "is there such a thing as an eviscerator?"
No its not. to answer the question:

Quote:
Has there ever been any example of a town or region where two eviscerating serial killers have worked simultaneously?
you have to first even establish if victims were eviscerated.

so lets just start with that. and if we can find an example of victims that were eviscerated and that there were two sets of eviscerated victims attributed to serial killers, then we can go on to address your further points.

lets just start with the basics first.

because as far as I know, or that anyone has shown, there are not two eviscerating serial killers (or sets of victims), for whatever reason, intentional or not, operating in the same area in the same time frame.
__________________
"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 : 11-02-2017 at 11:11 AM.
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 06:48 PM.


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